Aeon in Motion
- Legal Formation: Work continues apace to decide on a legal advisor to set up Aeon's legal entities. Given our choice to pursue a hybrid organizational form (a non-profit entity working closely with a for-profit), this is a more complex-than-usual effort. It requires significant foresight and expertise to avoid making subtle mistakes today that might have an outsized deleterious impact in the future.
- Unique Abilities and Gaps: To date, many potential contributors to Project Aeon have hesitated due to our failure to convey our precise immediate- and near-term needs. To address this, we're developing a robust framework that asks potential (and existing) contributors to tell us what work brings them joy, energy and fulfillment, and provides a way to map that to the tangible needs of the organization. If you know someone who you think would be interesting in contributing to Aeon, please shout.
- Patron Search and Fundraising Advisory: We're at the precipice of beginning to speak to funders. While most of the preparatory work is complete, we'll require additional support in getting in touch with the right people in the right way (i.e., warm or semi-warm introductions) to be successful. If you know someone we should speak to (who could advise us in a formal or informal capacity, or someone who is a 'super-connector' interested in advancing science) please let us know.
From the Roundtable
This week, we used the Roundtable time to once again discuss the Community of Practice initiative—primarily what a short-term instantiation of such a Community would look like. As discussed in the CoP Table Read, a first-order goal is to bolster Project Aeon's stature and credibility at the intersection of scientific freedom, impact-focused science, and alternative funding sources. Some takeaways from the conversation included:
- A general consensus that there is a need to assemble a group of 30 - 40 individuals who are willing to lend their 'weight' behind Project Aeon's ideas (and the initiative at large).
- At this stage, we should not demand or require members of the CoP to engage frequently; instead, an opportunistic approach should be undertaken with respect to engagement, and a device should be implemented to keep CoP members periodically informed.
- While the ultimate CoP body of membership ought to be diverse, in the short-term we should target a relatively narrow breadth of archetypes: scientists, university administrators, philanthropists (& adjacent), policy advisors, and media / thought leaders.
The Idea Garden
The Elements of Marie Curie | Grove Atlantic
There is a never-ending debate concerning whether human progress advances mostly based on 'star' individuals, or via teams (with 'stars' being an adverse side effect created by social dynamics and marketing). Two interesting reads, The Elements of Marie Curie and The MANIAC, provide some defense to the former argument. Even among constellations of exceptional scientists, Marie Curie and John von Neumann stood out for advancing science in leaps and bounds.
Opinion | Dave Eggers: NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab works to discover life in space - Washington Post
This read about the NASA JPL is highly entertaining and illuminating. Most notably, the numerous references to humility, science for the sake of discovery and inspiration, and the organizational principles underlying the JPL are analogous in ways to what we are building. We also loved the references to many team members at JPL still contributing into their later years—surely a mark of a special place. Finally, it's interesting to read this alongside our first mention, which begs the question: is humility a leading indicator of a great scientist? (Noting that the Curies almost turned down the Nobel prize due to a feeling that it would diminish the intrinsic value of science!).
Who Wins Nobel Prizes? - by Brian Potter
And on the matter of Nobel Prizes, this piece (Who wins Nobel prizes?) highlights the source of Nobels and that they overwhelmingly come from top-tier institutions. But is that an inevitable output of the scientific enterprise, or does it reflect an input? Further, the piece revisits a topic we discuss often at Aeon—that scientific breakthroughs are slowing down, and that younger scientists are perhaps becoming increasingly overlooked.
Majority of scientists weighing leaving US: Poll
Due to the sad state of affairs in the scientific ecosystem in the United States, many scientists are choosing to pursue opportunities elsewhere, as this piece makes clear. It's obvious why this matters, but it's also interesting to think about relative to the last article—which highlights how the US was not really a powerhouse in breakthrough science until after WWII. But why might that be?—Likely in part because the USA benefitted from an unprecedented volume of immigration of elite scientists!
The Quantum Apocalypse Is Coming. Be Very Afraid | WIRED
Finally, we've been having a side conversation at Aeon (mostly out of intellectual curiosity) about what the future will look like when all of the digital security apparatuses currently in place will be rendered obsolete by quantum code-breaking capabilities. It's surprisingly easy to imagine doom scenarios... and this article from Wired adds more fuel to fire.
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.