21 replies to this topic

[Mind]

This just popped into my head the other day, creating a raffle-type fundraising effort for Imminst research funds. To make it fun and interesting, I thought the raffle could revolve around Nason's laser research. He proposes a lifespan study on c. elegans to determine if the laser ablation of lipofuscin increases lifespan in a model organism. I propose a system where people would buy a "ticket" based on how much they think the lifespan of the worms would increase or decrease after the laser treatment. Tickets for a small increase (or decrease) in average lifespan, such as 1 or 2% would be expensive (maybe $20). Tickets for a large increase in average lifespan, such as 100 or 200% would be cheap (maybe $1). A linear scale would be easiest. The difference in lifespan (percentage) would be the average lifespan of the treatment group minus the average lifespan of the control group. The difference would be rounded to the nearest whole integer percentage. Nason is tentatively supportive of this idea.

People who bought winning tickets would split 50% of the money collected while the other 50% went into a dedicated Imminst research fund.

Complications:

1. The IRS allows "gaming" as a method for fundraising but I sure there are some stipulations that need to be followed.

2. At least one person I ran this by thought it might be frowned upon because it kind-of mixes science and gambling. SENSF might reject the idea on this basis.

Benefits:

1. It would be a unique new way of generating funds/donations. I think it has a significant chance of going viral and getting media coverage.

2. It keeps people up to date on Nason's work and "draws them in" to the science of regenerative medicine.

3. It would be fun and interesting.

Technical considerations:

1. Data management. We would need a new webpage to display and manage the ticket selling. My first thought was to create a graph-like presentation with all the possible choices. All positive choices (an increase in average lifespan) would link to a specific paypal or google checkout account. All the negative choices would link to a different account. We could tell what tickets people were buying by the dollar value of the purchase. When it came time to pay the winnings, we would just look for all the purchases (dollar value) that corresponded to the percentage change in lifespan.

[Aegist]

My initial reaction was quite negative when Mind asked me about this, but after a couple of days ruminating on it now, I am actually in strong support of the idea. Particularly the idea of making it more of a "Raffle Ticket" style.

I was concerned about the possible perception of "Cheapening Science" - but I think the benefits of this; the possible Buzz, the chance of media coverage, the chance to "draw people in" to the research, I think those benefits far outweigh the risk of making it look cheap. Besides, if it was a choice between keeping science in its well respected ivory tower where no one cares, or cheapening it and having everyone interested in it - I'd go for the 'cheapened' option any day. Scientific results are found all the same regardless of public opinion.


Shane

[Anthony]

My initial reaction was quite negative when Mind asked me about this, but after a couple of days ruminating on it now, I am actually in strong support of the idea. Particularly the idea of making it more of a "Raffle Ticket" style.

I was concerned about the possible perception of "Cheapening Science" - but I think the benefits of this; the possible Buzz, the chance of media coverage, the chance to "draw people in" to the research, I think those benefits far outweigh the risk of making it look cheap. Besides, if it was a choice between keeping science in its well respected ivory tower where no one cares, or cheapening it and having everyone interested in it - I'd go for the 'cheapened' option any day. Scientific results are found all the same regardless of public opinion.


Shane

Why not just have a "normal raffle" with 50% of the money going to SENS and 50% going to the winner of the raffle? You could pay the winner via PayPal or some other method. You could even divide the 50% into a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd type of drawing. That would probably alleviate some of the concerns that people would have about "cheapening science" and at the same time would give IMMINST/SENS Foundation more flexibility in allocating the funding.

BTW, I like the idea of having a raffle.

Anthony

Edited by Anthony, 20 September 2009 - 12:46 AM.

[Gerald W. Gaston]

Why not just have a "normal raffle" with 50% of the money going to SENS and 50% going to the winner of the raffle? You could pay the winner via PayPal or some other method. You could even divide the 50% into a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd type of drawing. That would probably alleviate some of the concerns that people would have about "cheapening science" and at the same time would give IMMINST/SENS Foundation more flexibility in allocating the funding.

BTW, I like the idea of having a raffle.

Anthony

I think the laws on this are likely a little different per state in US. CA requires 90% of funds to go to CA charity IIRC. At any rate, I would consult a lawyer. :-) You don't see too many raffles these days. But then again there are outfits like http://www.raffleamerica.com ... not sure how legit they are though.

[Mind]

From 990 EZ instructions for line 6 (source)

Gaming includes (but is not limited to): bingo, pull tabs, instant bingo raffles, scratch-offs, charitable gaming tickets, break-opens, hard cards, banded tickets, jar tickets, pickle cards, Lucky Seven cards, Nevada Club tickets, casino nights, Las Vegas nights, and coin-operated gambling devices. Coin-operated gambling devices include slot machines, electronic video slot or line games, video poker, video blackjack, video keno, video bingo, video pull tab games, etc. Many games of chance are taxable. Income from bingo games is generally not subject to the tax on unrelated business income if the games meet the legal definition of bingo. For a game to meet the legal definition of bingo, wagers must be placed, winners must be determined, and prizes or other property must be distributed in the presence of all persons placing wagers in that game. See Pub. 598, Tax on Unrelated Business Income of Exempt Organizations and Form 990-T.

Clearly the IRS allows and contemplates all sorts of gaming and even gambling. What was described in the first post is a "weighted raffle". Why I like the weighted idea is that it adds a little extra thought - makes it more interesting. A straight-up raffle would not have much chance of bringing any extra attention/promotion to Imminst, SENSF, or the meme in general.

[Gerald W. Gaston]

I would imagine the distinction of 'online' would complicate it. I just did a 5 second google of 'online raffle laws' and it didn't appear to be that easy. But I'm sure you guys will make sure it is legal.

Here are a few links (none are authoritative):
http://forums.monste....php/t2371.html
http://www.sitepoint...ad.php?t=452084
http://rafflefaq.com...tickets-online/
http://www.idealware...each-state.html

Edited by frankbuzin, 20 September 2009 - 01:58 PM.

[Mind]

Thanks for the links frankbuzin. The resources will help a great deal in possibly moving this forward.

[brokenportal]

The first thing I thought when I saw this is that you meant have things to buy tickets to win in a raffle.

Raising awareness and buzz for the research like you mean though like this could be huge. From what I can see it seems good. Im wondering how a bet might be placed in a variety of scenerios. Like, what kind of possibility might there may be that the results may be inconclusive. What if the progress starts to eek in to the .0043, .0098, .05, .051, .076 percent ranges for the bulk of the time. Do we round them then? Do we bet on those then? Im a little un clear on how we might try to make any sort of any where near accurate estimated informed guess. A system you all set up may naturally address those things. If you can make it work then it sounds good.

[Mind]

Aubrey said he has nothing against this proposal.

[Wandering Jew]

I like to gamble. It's a win-win case, with potential to win money for me or donate to good cause. game on. If the raffles fit my budget well, I will buy, or donate a small amount anyway, if doesn't pan out

[Mind]

What if the progress starts to eek in to the .0043, .0098, .05, .051, .076 percent ranges for the bulk of the time. Do we round them then?

Yes rounding will likely be used. If the percent change in lifespan was 0.65%, then it would be rounded to 1% and everyone who purchased a ticket for 1% would win.

[Mind]

Here is a very rough mock-up of what I envision the raffle page to look like. The green bars represent positive life extension. The red bars indicate a reduction in lifespan (negative outcome). Each bar would be an individual hotspot/hyperlink. Whenever someone clicked on a green bar, they would be directed to a dedicated paypal or google account labeled "positiveoutcome@paypal" or something to that effect. The opposite for the red bars. Again, this is just a small mock-up, the actual one would have percentages and corresponding dollar values that went all the way down to $1. The $1 ticket would be something like 300% lifespan extension or "functionally immortal".

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Aegist]

Here is a very rough mock-up of what I envision the raffle page to look like. The green bars represent positive life extension. The red bars indicate a reduction in lifespan (negative outcome). Each bar would be an individual hotspot/hyperlink. Whenever someone clicked on a green bar, they would be directed to a dedicated paypal or google account labeled "positiveoutcome@paypal" or something to that effect. The opposite for the red bars. Again, this is just a small mock-up, the actual one would have percentages and corresponding dollar values that went all the way down to $1. The $1 ticket would be something like 300% lifespan extension or "functionally immortal".

You would also need to have a ticket to cover "No result" or some such outcome. If something goes wrong and there ends up being no way of measuring the change, or no way of assessing the outcome or something which we cannot envision at this point in time, there needs to be an outcome ticket for it, otherwise if it does happen, then we would be obliged to pay back all of the bets since no one won. Which is unfavourable for all involved.

[caliban]

Apart from the legal difficulties I don't quite understand the outline.
How can we be sure that ImmInst doesn't loose with this setup?

[Mind]

50% of the proceeds go into a dedicated research fund (as discussed last week and here) and 50% goes toward prizes for people who purchase raffle tickets.

Scenario 1:

100 people purchase raffle tickets (raising $1,346) and three people correctly purchase/pick a lifespan extension of 11%. Those three people would split 50% of the proceeds, which is $673. Each person would win $224.33. The other half of the proceeds ($673) would go into the dedicated Imminst research fund.

Scenario 2:

10 people purchase raffle tickets (raising $249) and no one picks the correct percentage of lifespan extension. Imminst retains all proceeds in the dedicated research fund.

Scenario 3:

Null result. I haven't come up with a definitive solution for this. Nason plans to select a suitable laser treatment and environmental set-up in order to complete a lifespan test, thus I consider it unlikely that there would be a null result. Perhaps something goes wrong (an accident in the lab), then maybe we just shift the raffle to the next lifespan test.

I realize there would be some extra accounting and legal hoops to jump through. However, what I like about it is that fact that it keeps people engaged in the research and it is something new and thus has a little more potential to go viral. You never know what is going to catch fire in the wider public.

[lunarsolarpower]

Scenario 3:

Null result. I haven't come up with a definitive solution for this. Nason plans to select a suitable laser treatment and environmental set-up in order to complete a lifespan test, thus I consider it unlikely that there would be a null result. Perhaps something goes wrong (an accident in the lab), then maybe we just shift the raffle to the next lifespan test.

Aegist had the right idea. Any number of events could happen. Nason could decide to switch organisms or go to cell culture. I think a deadline should be included after which the null tickets would win if no one else had won yet.

[Mind]

Here is a site that seems to be conducting a similar raffle: http://www.charityra...s.org/index.php and here are the terms/legalese of the online raffle: http://www.charityra...s.org/terms.php and more about this funding technique (PDF) http://www.freewebs......e RAFFLES.pdf

Wisconsin (the location of Imminst's business office) allows raffles for non-profit fundraising, look here. In fact, they encourage it. Raffle license costs $25.

It appears that raffles for non-profit fundraising are legal in most counties of Alabama (from various news reports about fundraising events in the state), but I haven't yet been able to find the applicable code for Jefferson county.

[Mind]

Haven't gotten clearance from the State of Alabama yet, and since Nason will be starting lifespan tests within a week or two, I am not optimistic we can get this set up in time.

If we can't get a fundraiser raffle going, then at least a poll where people can pick how long they think the worms will live.

[John Schloendorn]

That's 1-2 weeks + at least 3 more weeks (the worm life-span). Also, there will almost certainly be several life-span tests under different conditions. We can pick any one of them later. Or, we can keep the result secret until the raffle is ready ;-)

[Mind]

Thanks John, you have kept my hope alive!

[Shepard]

Mind mentioned that the state has issues with this type of raffle. Moving to the Dewar for the moment until we get definitive word.

[Landene]

Something goes wrong and there ends up being no way of measuring the change, or no way of assessing the outcome.

Regards

Landene
Surendettement