Aeon in Motion
- Our path to launch heavily rests on three lines of effort: fundraising readiness, legal formation, and having the right people/talent at the ready (day-to-day contributors, advisors, Board members, etc.—what we broadly call "the circle").
- Legal formation is generally on track. We've narrowed the list of advisors down to two and will make a determination soon.
- We've interviewed one fundraising advisor who we think will help broaden our reach to potential financial supporters and are looking to interview two others (if you know someone, shout!).
- We've launched our expand the circle program, focused on getting more people involved with Project Aeon. There are at least four tactical ways to get/stay involved:
(i) Attend the bi-weekly Roundtable, where we discuss important strategic topics related to Aeon's future.
(ii) Take ownership of a missing puzzle piece: an identified risk, obstacle, or opportunity that requires attention.
(iii) Activate your network by reaching out and connecting with scientists, philanthropists, university administrators/TTO (tech transfer) professionals, or connectors.
(iv) Connect with another Aeon contributor and ideate/discuss/solve.
From the Roundtable
This week we discussed the table read "Securing Economics into Scientific Inquiry"—i.e., how Aeon should think about creating a pathway to internalize the value it creates from scientific discoveries (so that it can invest in more science, creating a perpetual flywheel). Some highlights of the conversation included:
- We all agreed that the initial draft of the SIPA (Scientific Innovation Participation Agreement) isn't workable, not least due to the individual tax liability created by it. More work needs to be done, in conjunction with TTOs, to design a better initial investment structure.
- More emphasis needs to be placed on non-legal measures that improve Aeon's position to secure value from discoveries (e.g., very strong relationships with scientists and universities).
- Considerably more attention needs to be paid to thinking through the navigation of actual pathways from basic research to a commercializable technology—especially given feedback we've received that scientists are likely to want to take an idea to a published paper, and then stop. Without a better path, the baton effectively drops (something Team USA is familiar with...).
- There may be opportunities to work with creative-minded Provosts to create a new, customized type of symbiotic relationship (a route that both Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the MacArthur Fellows have taken in the past). But a question remains whether this juice would be worth the squeeze.
The Idea Garden
Dario Amodei — Machines of Loving Grace
Dario Amodei's "Machines of Loving Grace" and Thomas Wolf's The Einstein AI Model. Dario argues that, if one allows for a bit of optimism, a super-intelligent AI (he dislikes the term AGI) has the potential to compress the next 100 years of human-led scientific advancement into a 5 - 10 year timeframe. Thomas disagrees, mainly citing (as have others) the current focus of AI architecture on answering the known-and-knowable, to the detriment of being able to ask creative questions (such as those that have resulted in the historic paradigm shifts of the past—e.g., special relativity). (For those interested in AI, here's two more - a Paul Krugman interview on the economics of AI and another from Epoch AI on where AI is most likely to create value).
How long does it take to go from science to technology?
Matt takes a look at a number of different approaches that have implications for the answer to the headline question and finds the evidence compelling that, even in this day and age, the answer lies somewhere between 15 and 20 years.
Abundance | Book by Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster
Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, argues that both liberals and conservatives in the United States have failed to effectuate an "Abundance" movement within the U.S. government—and mainly critique the methods of the Democratic Party, of which they are members. As others have, they highlight the story of Katalin Karikó, who, despite her inquiries into the paradigm-shifting potential of mRNA in the 1990s, was essentially fired for being too radical. They tie this anecdote to the failure of both parties to truly support innovation's potential to bring about abundance. Importantly, the release of the book undoubtedly adds to the strike while the iron is hot discussions within Aeon, as it will introduce ideas we've been discussing (as well as others, but in niche forums) for many moons to a new, broader audience.
The Structure of Innovation | W. Brian Arthur
The Structure of Invention, by W. Brian Arthur, which helps to provide clarity to how science becomes technology. TL;DR, Arthur reiterates that "necessity is the mother of invention," and that basic science never translates into technology unless someone sees how a discovery can be useful for a human purpose. This builds on ideas we've gathered from Ben Reinhardt, who strongly believes that the hard part of activating new technologies actually rests with what you might call engineering, not science (such as in this new piece).
Against Optimization - by Brian Klaas
Brian Klass's Against Optimization critiques the modern tendency to treat every problem—organizational, personal, or societal—as something to be relentlessly optimized. He argues that this mindset, while seductive and ubiquitous, often erodes complexity, creativity, and meaning, and calls instead for embracing ambiguity and emergence. This piece is a useful counterpoint to the tech-centric lens many of us operate in—and a reminder that not all progress comes from efficiency. From a Project Aeon lens, this piece highlights the fragility of existing systems that have been incorrectly optimized (perhaps for financial efficiency over efficacy) creating the space for something new.
Thanks for reading.
For all people, all species, and our planet,
Project Aeon
PS: What is Project Aeon? Project Aeon advances critical scientific missions by funding paradigm-shifting research overlooked by today’s short-term, risk-averse system. We exist to restore the freedom and patience that once fueled discoveries by Darwin, Curie, and Planck. Instead of rewarding only what's fast and familiar, we back bold, long-horizon inquiry with deep belief. We marry capital stewardship, equitable talent discovery, and community-building to unlock breakthroughs that benefit all people, all species, and the planet.