I do not see any conflict here. These fundraising paradigms are complimentary. There needs to be a crowd funding effort for longevity research and I do not see how it can possibly impede other lobbying efforts.
But it needs to be done right. And there are several points to consider when evaluating the potential of LabCures
2. Intrinsic conflict of interest with a specific research institution
In my opinion scientists would feel much more comfortable dealing with a non-profit and independent crowd funding agency.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Elliot Bergman wrote:
Natalie: Your point, that crowd funding will help popularize aging research, is a valid & good one. However, I suggest that our aging research community should estimate how much money , realistically, could be raised from each of the 5 sources
Then, unemotionally, we can place our very precious fund raising resources to work strategically, based on the priorities( based on revenue raising potential) we assign. The 5 sources (with major responsibilities leading the efforts in parenthesis) are:
1. Government (Alliance for Aging Research, Longevity Dividend Initiative Consortium & all of its 501(c)(3) non-profit members); GHF, SENS-F, Methuselah Foundation etc. ( smaller fund raising resource contributions)
2. High Net Worth Individuals ( all of the organizations under Item 1)