Origin of Life is the hardest question in science. No one knows how the first cell came about. But there’s a simpler, more fundamental question: Where did the information come from? An answer will trigger a quantum leap in Artificial Intelligence. This may be as big as the transistor or the discovery of DNA itself. A new $10 million prize seeks a definitive answer.
"Evolution 2.0 is a sign of a shifting emphasis in biology from regarding
life primarily as a chemical system, to looking at the flow of information."
-Financial Times Science Editor Clive Cookson
George Church, Harvard & MIT
Denis Noble, FRS, CBE, Oxford University
Michael Ruse, Florida State University
George Church is a geneticist, molecular engineer, and chemist. He is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT, and was a founding member of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard. Developed methods for the first genome sequence. Director, BRAIN Project & PersonalGenomes.org. He is co-author of 509 papers, 143 patent publications & the book "Regenesis". He was also one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in 2017.
We have Oxford Professor Denis Noble on board as prize judge and technical advisor. He’s one of the top 100 scientists in the UK. Denis was the first person to build a computer model of an organ. It was the heart. He did this in 1960 using punch cards. His discoveries made pacemakers possible. He is a fellow of the Royal Society. He is editor of the society's journal Interface Focus and he holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth. He organized the Royal Society’s 2016 conference “New Trends in Biological Evolution” in conjunction with the British Academy. He is president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Denis is an accomplished musician and pioneer of the field of Systems Biology. He is author of The Music of Life and Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity.
Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science who specializes in the philosophy of biology. He is director of the Program in the Philosophy of the History of Science at Florida State University and author of numerous books including "Darwinism and Design,” “Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know” and “Science, Evolution and Religion.” He is well known for his work on the relationship between science and religion, the creation–evolution controversy, and the demarcation problem within science. He is a Fellow of both the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and holds honorary doctorates from the University of Bergen, McMaster University, the University of New Brunswick and University College London.
Is $10 Million Enough Money for a Discovery of this Magnitude?
Denis Noble, Perry Marshall and Kevin Ham at the Royal Society
Every cell reproduces itself from digital instructions, stored in DNA. DNA has the same features as modern digital devices: Layers of digital encoding, decoding and data storage; error detection, error correction and repair. Plus an ability to adapt that beggars the imagination.
How do living things repair and heal themselves, adapt to any situation you can imagine, and make choices? The genetic engineering capabilities of cells, which are discussed in the book Evolution 2.0, are not known to most people. But an answer suggests staggering implications for medicine, technology and the environment.
Cells re-engineer themselves, in real time, in hours... even minutes. The reason you have to finish your antibiotics is, germs can hyper-mutate at terrifying speed - then kill you with a vengeance.
How do cells “know” how to evolve? No human software does that. Give software millions of chances and billions of years and all it will do is crash. But life adapts relentlessly. How does it do this? What do cells know that we don’t?
And what about consciousness? In the human realm, only conscious beings create and modify code. Where does consciousness come from? Are cells self aware?
The Evolution 2.0 Prize focuses these issues down to one central question:
How do you get from chemicals to code? How do you get a code without designing one?
Perry Marshall and private equity investment group Natural Code LLC have issued a technology prize to find a person who can solve this.
What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.)
You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully.
So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done.
Does life harness undiscovered laws of physics? Are there unknown emergent properties in nature?
With CRISPR gene editing technology and exponentially accelerating AI, these are questions of burning importance.
If we can unearth the underlying forces that create and propel life, we stand to reap enormous benefits in Artificial Intelligence, engineering, computer science, nutrition, aging, health, cancer research, disease treatment and prevention.
Natural Code LLC is a Private Equity Investment group formed to identify a naturally occurring code. Our mission is to discover, develop and commercialize core principles of nature which give rise to information, consciousness and intelligence.
Natural Code LLC will pay the researcher $100,000 for the initial discovery of such a code. If the newly discovered process is defensibly patentable, we will secure the patent(s). Once patents are granted, we will pay the full prize amount to the discoverer in exchange for the rights. Our investment group will locate or develop commercial applications for the technology.
The discoverer will retain a percentage of ongoing ownership of the technology, sharing in future profits of the company, while benefitting from the extensive finance, marketing and technology experience of our investment group. Prize amount as of May 31, 2019 is $10 million.
Code is absolutely necessary for replication and for life. Code is needed for cells to have instructions to build themselves; code is required for reproduction. Code that has the ability to re-write itself is essential for any kind of evolution to occur.
We define code as a symbolic information passed between an encoder and a decoder (Claude Shannon 1948).
So… where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Currently, no one knows the answer.
A solution to this problem will become one of the most pivotal scientific and technical discoveries of the 21st century. The winner will receive substantial recognition.
The Challenge Breakthrough
To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing novel, naturally forming information systems, thus opening new channels of scientific discovery.
Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. This would provide a solution to the most perplexing transition currently faced by the Origin Of Life field, namely the origin of coded information.
How could the genetic code (or any coding system) come into being? This would represent a landmark discovery in the history of science and alter our fundamental understanding of the universe.
What You Can Do To Trigger A Breakthrough
Click "Follow" above to be notified of any status updates to the challenge.
Click "Accept Challenge" above to register for the challenge. You will be notified of any status updates and be able to create an entry to the challenge when it opens.
Click on the "Share" button or social media icons above to share this challenge with your friends, your family, or anyone you know who has a passion for discovery.
Leave a comment in our Comments Thread to join the conversation, ask questions or connect with other innovators.
Who can participate
The Challenge is open to all individuals and organizations who are legally allowed to participate, and who comply with all the terms of the Challenge as defined in the Challenge-Specific Agreement.
Selection of Winner
Based on the winning criteria, one prize will be awarded for a total of $100,000. If the discovery is defensibly patentable, the full amount of the prize will be awarded for a total of $10 million. In case of a tie, the winner will be selected at the discretion of the Judging Panel.
Registration and Submissions
All submissions must be received online, via the Challenge website, and all uploads can be in PDF format only. Submission reporting requirements are detailed in Judging.
Challenge Guidelines are subject to change. Registered competitors will receive notification when changes are made, however, we highly encourage you to visit the Challenge Site often to review updates.
Duration of Challenge
The Evolution 2.0 Prize will be open through November 17, 2026. Natural Code LLC reserves the right to end, extend or modify the contest at that time at its sole discretion.
Further details about the prize are available at https://herox.com/evolution2.0/guidelines
**IMPORTANT NOTE** General essays presenting a ‘Theory Of Everything' and metaphysical constructions about the history of life, unfortunately, cannot be considered. Please do not submit materials of this kind. We are looking for entries that offer quantifiable technological progress.
Perry Marshall is endorsed in FORBES and INC Magazine and is one of the most expensive business consultants in the world. His Evolution 2.0 Challenge, announced at the Royal Society in London, is the world’s largest science research prize. His book Evolution 2.0 harness a communication engineer’s outsider’s perspective to reveal a century of unrecognized discoveries.
His reinvention of the Pareto Principle is published in Harvard Business Review, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs uses his 80/20 Curve as a productivity tool. He wrote the world’s best-selling book on digital advertising, Ultimate Guide to Google AdWords and has consulted in over 300 industries. He has a degree in Electrical Engineering and lives with his family in Chicago.
**IMPORTANT NOTE** General essays presenting a ‘Theory Of Everything' and metaphysical constructions about the history of life, unfortunately, cannot be considered. Please do not submit materials of this kind. We are looking for entries that offer quantifiable technological progress. ALSO, physical experiments that achieve the objectives of this challenge could potentially be dangerous. Our judge, George Church, has cautioned us that such experiments must be carried out under highly controlled conditions. Public safety is of paramount importance to Evolution 2.0.
Maximum length of proposal is 20 pages. (If you have much more data than that then submit a summary and we can review your full data at a later step.)
Challenge and Winning Criteria Defined
1. The Evolution 2.0 Challenge (the “Challenge”) is sponsored by Natural Code LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, also sometimes referred to in these Challenge Guidelines as “Sponsor.” Each entrant to this Challenge who submits a solution to the Challenge is referred to in these Guidelines as an “Innovator.”
2. The Evolution 2.0 Challenge is to discover a purely chemical process that will generate, transmit and receive a simple code--a process by which chemicals self-organize into a code without benefit of designer.
3. To be clear, what the Sponsor is looking for is a process where some chemicals, at some particular concentration of compounds, at the right temperature and pressure, etc. generate, transmit and receive a simple code, without any intelligent being or other life-form creating, transmitting or receiving the code.
4. A successful solution to this Challenge would mean that chemicals alone, without the benefit of minds or brains belonging to humans or the assistance of other living things, have built a simple communication system from scratch. In effect, the jar of chemicals on its own would be assigning meaning to symbols. The configuration of chemicals and not the human inventor would be making creative linguistic choices and creating a coded communication system. Basically, the Sponsor is looking for a formula or transformation process that turns matter into information—directly, with no intelligent being or other life-form making it happen.
5. The coded communication system submitted as a solution to this Challenge must be digital, not analog. So, for example, a system that merely transmits vibrations from one place to another or from one form of energy to another is not acceptable for this Challenge.
6. The system submitted as a solution to this Challenge must have the three integral components of communication, i.e., encoder, code, and decoder, functioning together.
Essential Components of a Communication System (after Claude Shannon, 1948):
All communication systems have an encoder, which produces a message, which is processed by a decoder. DNA transcription and translation matches the pattern in the above diagram. The Sponsor of this Challenge is seeking discovery and proof of a naturally occurring code, which also matches this pattern.
7. The message passed between the encoder and decoder components must be in a sequence of symbols forming characters of a finite alphabet. For this purpose, a “symbol” is a group of k bits considered as a unit. (A more complete definition of “symbol” in the context of this Challenge is set forth on page 340, numbered paragraph 8, of the book, Evolution 2.0). A “character” is a group of n symbols considered as a unit. (For a more complete definition of “character” in the context of this Challenge, see numbered paragraph 9 on page 340 of the book, Evolution 2.0). In the system, n+k must be equal to 5 or more, such that it is a 2-layer system which can represent at least 16 digital states.
8. The submitted solution must contain encoding and decoding tables filled out with their values arising from the submitted system or process.
9. It must be possible to determine objectively whether encoding and decoding have been carried out correctly. For any given system, a procedure should exist for determining whether input correctly corresponds to output. One analogy that demonstrates what the Sponsor means by this is the cause and effect relationship of a keyboard and a computer screen. Pressing an “A” on a computer keyboard should result in the letter “A” appearing on the screen; there is an observable correspondence between the two. The keyboard and screen analogy violates rule #10 below. However, a successful entry will receive a set of (32 or more as in rule #7) digital states on the input end (for example, a defined set of chemical concentrations, temperatures, pressures and light), convert them to an intermediate alphabet (or set of physical-chemical states) in its communication channel, then produce a corresponding set of states in its output. Said entry will not violate rule #10.
10. Human beings may design the experiment that demonstrates the process, employing all manner of state-of-the-art laboratory equipment, creating ideal conditions, etc. However, the actual system submitted for demonstration of the solution to this Challenge may not be preprogrammed with any form of code whatsoever. Any system found to have preprogrammed code in it in any form will be disqualified from the competition.
11. The system submitted for demonstration of the solution to this Challenge may not be directly from any living organism, virus or similar entities. So, for example, phenomena such as bee waggles, dog barks, RNA strands derived from cells, mating calls of birds, etc. are not acceptable elements of a winning solution to this Challenge. RNA that forms spontaneously from simple sets of non-living chemicals (like glycolaldehyde) would be acceptable. Entrant must be prepared to show that their results are not contaminated by previously existing biological material. The submitted material will be examined for containing any pre-existing living entity, or derivatives of previously living entities, with exacting standards. Detection of such materials is an automatic disqualification.
12. The origin of the system submitted for solution to this Challenge must be documented to show that its process of origin can be observed in nature and/or duplicated in a real-world laboratory according to the scientific method.
Partial Solutions to the Problem
Winning of the prize is only assured for the first solver who meets all points of the specification. The specification here outlines the simplest known configuration that constitutes a proper communication system, based on Claude Shannon’s seminal paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” (Shannon, 1948). All living organisms rely on this system, which is both a communication system and a Turing machine (Yockey, 2005).
If you have a solution which meets a significant fraction of this specification, the judges and backers of Evolution 2.0 consider such discoveries potentially valuable.
The backers of this prize have extensive business, finance, marketing, distribution, technology and product development expertise, as well as access to capital. Any solution indicating commercial potential is subject to discussion and we are interested in exploring commercial applications of your work. If your solution constitutes significant progress towards the Origin Of Information problem, you should submit your solution. Efforts that do not solve significant portions of the problem will be rejected.
The ultimate winner will need to:
-Provide data showing they have met all portions of the specification -Conduct a live demonstration of the operation of said system -Have their work verified by at least three independent judges appointed by Evolution 2.0
Term and Time Limit
13. The initial term for this Challenge ends on November 17, 2026. However, the Sponsor reserves the right to extend the term of the Challenge in the event that no prizes have been awarded by that date.
Proposal and Data Requirements
14. The merit of Innovator’s submission will be assessed based first on the content of the write up that Innovator submits. The write-up of the proposed solution should be thorough, specific, clear, and easy to read. The Judges will evaluate the content of the write-ups and will invite various Innovators to demonstrate their solutions under laboratory conditions in the presence of the Judges.
15. The write-up should include descriptions of processes, tools, and techniques utilized in the solution. Be sure to go into sufficient detail, especially in areas there your approach may deviate from conventional or traditional methods.
16. Proposals must be uploaded as a single unlocked PDF document, 20 MB maximum. Embedded hyperlinks to external content, such as videos or animations (maximum two minutes duration recommended) or anything else that might help the Judges come to a decision on a winning idea or concept, are allowed. However, there is no guarantee that the Judges will view that external content, so the proposal document itself must stand on its own.
Prizes to be Awarded
Prize to be Awarded
Sponsor awards initial prize to Winning Innovator (chosen by Judges)
Winning Innovator who has assigned patent rights in the Technology to Sponsor obtains a Viable Patent on the Technology from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
$10 million USD (as provided in Challenge Guidelines) and an equity interest in Sponsor
17. The first person to submit and successfully demonstrate such a process to the satisfaction of the Challenge Judges will receive from the Sponsor a cash prize of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) USD. Only one $100,000 Prize will be awarded, and that to the first Innovator in this challenge who successfully demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Judges of this Challenge that Innovator has found a solution to this Challenge that meets all the criteria specified in these Challenge Guidelines. The demonstration of the process must be made at a location in the continental United States of America. All costs associated with this demonstration, except for travel expenses and fees for the Challenge Judges, must be borne by Innovator.
18. If the prize-winning process is also patentable, the “Winning Innovator” (the Innovator who has won the $100,000 Prize) is also eligible to receive the balance of the Prize Fund, provided the Winning Innovator complies with all of the rules and guidelines detailed below and the Innovator’s chemical process proves to be “Viably Patentable” (as that term is defined in these Guidelines). When the patent has been granted, Sponsor’s investors are legally bound to fund a Prize Fund of at least $10 million USD. Sponsor anticipates that it will take a minimum of one year, perhaps longer, to obtain this patent, from the time that the initial $100,000 Prize is awarded. If a Viable Patent is granted on the winning process by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the Winning Innovator has complied with all the Guidelines detailed below, the Winning Innovator will receive the balance of the Prize Fund, net of the $100,000 prize money already awarded to the Winning Innovator, the balance to be paid when the patent is granted on the winning process.
19. If Innovator intends to qualify ultimately for the award of the entire Prize Fund and not just the basic $100,000 Prize, Innovator’s initial submission to the Challenge must be made in a confidential manner and meet the disclosure criteria of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Violation of those criteria voids any agreement made between Innovator and Sponsor.
20. Definition of “Viably Patentable”: The invention is valuable enough and sufficiently protectable by a patent (granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office) for an investment in the development of this invention to pay for itself before the patent expires. Such a patent granted which appears to be commercially viable in Sponsor’s sole opinion is referred to in these Rules as a “Viable Patent.” If the patent yields $10 million dollars in aggregate, via sales, licensing or contractual deals to any set of people involved in the patent or licensing by the time of the award, then that will be considered unambiguous, and not require an opinion as to whether it meets the definition of a “Viable Patent” in these Rules.
21. The decision of whether the invention is Viably Patentable is in the sole discretion of Sponsor (except as specified in Rule 20). Innovator agrees to make every effort to work with Sponsor and identify a Viably Patentable configuration, if Innovator wins the $100,000 Prize and chooses also to pursue the award of the balance of the Prize Fund.
22. By submitting an entry to this Challenge, every Innovator gives Natural Code LLC the right of first refusal to buy the patent rights to the technology, process and system (the “Technology”) which forms the Innovator’s solution to this Challenge, regardless of Innovator’s pursuit of the balance of the Prize Fund beyond the award of the $100,000 Prize. This right of first refusal provision will be part of the Non-disclosure Agreement that Innovator must sign and will take the form of an option granted to Sponsor by Innovator to purchase the patent rights to the Technology at the same price and terms offered in writing to Innovator by a bona fide purchaser unrelated to Innovator. If Natural Code LLC declines to exercise its right to purchase the patent rights to the Technology, the Innovator is released to pursue other buyers.
23. Natural Code LLC agrees to cover all patent fees if the Winning Innovator agrees to sign over all patent rights in the Invention to Natural Code LLC and a Viable Patent is obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
24. If the Winning Innovator signs over all patent rights in the Invention to Natural Code LLC and a Viable Patent is granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the process the Winning Innovator submits to solve the Challenge, the Winning Innovator will get the balance of the Prize Fund, net of the $100,000 Prize already paid to the Winning Innovator and will also receive an equity interest in Natural Code LLC or in the business entity created by Natural Code LLC to hold the patent rights on the Technology, as that term is defined in these Guidelines.
25. Both the Winning Innovator and Sponsor will agree in writing to work together, believing in good faith that the discovery of this invention is scientifically, technologically and commercially very valuable. A Non-disparagement clause will be included in the document conveying Winning Innovator’s patent rights to Sponsor.
26. The investing members of Natural Code LLC are legally bound to fund a Prize Fund of at least $10 million USD.
27. The Innovators’ submissions of solutions to this Challenge will be screened initially as for viability by certain officers or members of Sponsor. As potentially winning solutions are received, Sponsor will engage a minimum of three (3) judges (“Judges”) with appropriate scientific background and credentials to evaluate further the submissions to this Challenge which passed the initial screening. These judges will evaluate those submissions and will determine whether any of these Innovators should be invited to demonstrate their solution in the presence of the Judges under laboratory conditions.
28. The Judges’ decisions, including as to whether any particular solution merits the $100,000 Prize, are final and binding. Sponsor reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify at any time any entry that it determines does not comply with the criteria stated on this webpage or with these official Challenge Guidelines generally.
29. Natural Code LLC will post non-qualifying submissions of all entrants who grant permission to do so. Several non-qualifying submissions have been posted and can be viewed at www.evo2.org/submissions.
30. English is the official language for submissions, proposals, presentations, and all communications.
31. Applicants may be contacted for follow-up information by Sponsor; telephone or Skype interviews may be requested.
Eligibility – Who May Submit Entries
32. The Challenge is open to all individuals or groups of individuals who are over the age of majority in their province, state, territory or country of residence. It excludes employees representatives, relatives, dealers and agents of Natural Code LLC and/or HeroX (and their respective affiliates).
33. You do not need to be an engineer or scientist to enter this Challenge. Anyone from any academic field or discipline may enter the Challenge.
34. Any individual, business entity or other organization may submit their own solutions to the Challenge. However, any solution so submitted must be the original discovery of the Innovator and not a mere reporting of someone else’s discovery.
35. Sponsor reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to disqualify any Innovator who is (i) found to be tampering with the entry process or with the operation and administration of the Challenge; (ii) acting in an unsportsmanlike or disruptive manner, or with the intent to disrupt or undermine the legitimate operation of the Challenge; (iii) or in violation of the Challenge Guidelines at any point.
36. Automated entries or votes sent via bots will be disqualified. Automated and/or repetitive electronic submissions (including but not limited to entries made using any script, macro, bot or contest service) will be automatically disqualified and transmissions from these or related accounts may be blocked. Sponsor reserves the right to seek damages and other remedies from any such Innovator to the fullest extent permitted by law, including but not limited to criminal prosecution.
37. Innovators must comply with these Challenge Guidelines. Innovators will be deemed to have received, understood and agreed to these Challenge Guidelines through their participation in this Challenge, as evidenced by their submitting a solution to the Challenge.
38. No purchase or payment of any kind is necessary to enter or win the competition.
39. Each Innovator must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Sponsor before that Innovator’s initial submission is accepted for review by the Judges.
40. Innovator is responsible for all state, Federal and local income and other taxes, etc. which may be levied against Innovator as a result of winning any of the prizes offered in this Challenge.
41. Innovator is responsible for all expenses related to the initial development of the invention into a demonstrable solution to this Challenge. In other words, all of the costs associated with developing, preparing, demonstrating and submitting a solution to this Challenge will be borne by the Innovator, including Innovator’s transportation and travel expenses if asked by the Judges to demonstrate Innovator’s solution.
42. The Challenge is subject to applicable Federal, state and municipal laws and regulations and is void where prohibited by law. All issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, interpretation and enforceability of these Challenge Guidelines or the rights and obligations as between the Innovator and Sponsor in connection with the Challenge shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois and the laws of the United States of America as applicable, including procedural provisions, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions that would cause the application of any other jurisdiction’s laws.
43. The decisions of Sponsor and the Judges of this Challenge with respect to all aspects of the Challenge are final and binding.
Licensing and Copyright
44. Any submission made in connection with this Challenge must be an original work created by the Innovator or the Innovator team members, and the Innovators must have all necessary rights in and to the submission.
45. The submission must not infringe upon or violate any laws or any third party rights, including, but not limited to, copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, privacy, publicity or confidentiality rights or other proprietary or contractual rights and must not include material that is libelous, defamatory, or tortious.
46. Innovators must obtain, and make available to Natural Code LLC upon its request, all necessary permissions, licenses, releases, waivers of moral rights and other approvals from third parties necessary for Natural Code LLC to use and exploit the submission, in whole or in part, including without limitation, to reproduce, make derivatives, edit, modify, translate, distribute, transmit, publish, license and broadcast the submission and the results of Innovator’s demonstration worldwide, by any means.
47. To participate in the Challenge, Innovators must agree to these terms, as amended from time to time during the time period of the Challenge.
48. Applications and submissions will be retained by Sponsor; information and data will be accessed only by Sponsor and its competition partners and not sold or shared.
49. The specifications posted at http://www.naturalcode.org regarding the competition to provide the winning invention or solution to this Challenge, as well as similar text published in the book Evolution 2.0 (by Perry Marshall), have been expanded and clarified by these Challenge Guidelines. Therefore if there are any contradictions among these sets of published rules and guidelines, the provisions in these Guidelines, as may be later amended, shall govern.
50. These Challenge Guidelines are subject to change. Registered Innovators will receive notification when changes are made. However, Innovators are encouraged to visit the Challenge Site often to review updates.
51. Sponsor is not responsible or liable for late, lost, incomplete, illegible, misdirected, stolen, delayed, damaged or destroyed entries, notifications, or replies; nor for lost, interrupted, inaccessible or unavailable networks, servers, Internet Service Providers, websites or other connection, related to the Challenge; nor for errors of any kind, including but not limited to human, electronic, mechanical and/or technical in nature; nor for failure or technical malfunction of any telephone network or lines, computer and online systems, servers, computer equipment, software, e-mail, players, or browsers on account of technical problems or traffic congestion on the Internet, any websites related to the Challenge, including without limitation the Challenge Webpage, or any combination thereof or otherwise; nor for any injury or damage to Innovator, Innovator’s computer, or any other person’s computer related to or resulting from participating in or downloading material in connection with the Challenge; nor for incorrect or inaccurate information; nor for weather conditions, event cancellations, delay or rescheduling or other factors beyond the Sponsor’s control.
52. CAUTION: ANY ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMATE OPERATION OF THIS CHALLENGE MAY BE A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS AND SHOULD AN ATTEMPT BE MADE, NATURAL CODE LLC RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK DAMAGES OR OTHER REMEDIES FROM ANY SUCH PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
I’m declaring tomorrow, October 14, as D-Day in the war on cancer.
Just like June 6, 1944, the war will not be over tomorrow on D-Day. But the troops will have established a beachhead, and the tide of the war on cancer will have shifted. Cancer’s days are numbered.
Why do I believe TOMORROW is Cancer D-DAY?
Well, as you know, I’m an engineer by training. I was taught to use rigorous, exacting calculations to come with solid solutions to problems.
So when I see a solution or system that is shoddy, not working, poorly designed or even killing the people it is meant to help…it drives me crazy with righteous indignation.
Years ago, I saw that the marketing systems used by most small businesses were shoddy. And it drove me to the verifiable, results-based methods of direct marketing and Google AdWords.
When I discovered that modern evolutionary theory was seriously flawed, and promoted at least a nihilistic view of human life and, at most, a genocidal and murderous view…well, I set out to fix the problem.
Now, I’ve set my sights on cancer.
Why cancer? Because the “solutions” for cancer are seriously flawed.
And they are killing people.
You could say that zero progress has been made on late-stage cancer in the last 40 years.
Catch it early and we do a much better job than 40 years ago?
But catch it too late? You’re just as doomed to a slow painful demise as you were in 1980.
Billions and billions of research dollars…and scant, if any, results to show for it.
All because of a flawed view of cancer “evolution.”
And I’m going to fix that.
Yes, I know that’s big talk. But I don’t fight small battles.
And it’s not just talk.
I’ve teamed up with a group of world class scientists to organize the first conference in history to specifically focus on high-speed mechanisms of biological evolution as they relate to cancer biology and therapies.
Scientists from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Columbia and MD Anderson.
It starts tomorrow, October 14.
Our goal is nothing short of winning the war on cancer.
And tomorrow is D-Day.
The Zoom conference takes place October 14-16. Not only will we provide 3 half-days of intensive discussion and discovery, many of the speakers will be hosting live Q&A sessions in subsequent weeks.
When I was a junior in high school, my dad had cancer - twice. The second time, he got accepted into a special treatment program in Bethesda, Maryland. So off my parents went to live in an apartment and my brother and I stayed with friends for three weeks.
When he went for his next checkup, things were worse not better. It was getting to be the end of the school year and I vividly remember how depressed I was.
There were all kinds of well-meaning people who would say “Well Perry if you ever want to talk about it, I’m always here.”
I would think “That’s really nice of you and all… but do you really think I wanna call you up and say Hey I feel like coming over to your house and crying over your shoulder for awhile, would you mind?”
There was one girl I sort-of had a crush on. Actually, I wasn’t sure what my feelings were … I just knew I had a lot of them. I called her up one night and said “My dad’s last report came back and it’s not good.” She said, “My parents don’t allow me to talk to boys” and she hung up.
Two months later, my dad got a positive report. His numbers were improving. I specifically remember that day; I was in super good spirits. I was very social and talkative.
That turns out to be the day I met a certain young woman named Laura. This woman now happens to be my wife :^>
That summer, we went on a “last hurrah” vacation. A bunch of members of our church had put literally ten thousand dollars in an envelope and said “Bob and Betty, go take that vacation you’ve always dreamed of” and they did.
It was a fantastic trip. We lived in Nebraska, and none of us had been further than Utah. We hit every state west of Colorado including Alaska and Hawaii.
During the trip, my dad’s health deteriorated markedly. He started dropping weight. He was always taking prescription Tylenol and every time he went to bed, he would cough for about a half hour before he finally got to sleep.
About a month after the trip, his voice started getting hoarse. A month after that, he was gone.
Declaring war on cancer is a lot like declaring war on gangs… or drugs… or Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam.
There’s the big “shock and awe” and it’s really impressive and everyone celebrates since you apparently wiped out 95% of the problem.
Tumors shrink. Numbers improve. The patient perks up.
But it’s like one of those movies where they win a big victory but you notice there’s 1 hour 38 minutes left and, apparently, this isn’t over yet.
So yeah, you killed 95% or 98% or 99% of the cancer cells.
But the 1% that are left pull out their evolutionary Swiss Army Knife. That thing’s got all KINDS of stuff: M16s, Anti-aircraft guns, torpedos, molotov cocktails, nunchucks, hand grenades, chemical weapons, knives, spears… anything they can think of.
And now it’s not Tae Kwon Do anymore, it’s Mixed Martial Arts. With no rules or regulations. Tumor evolution kicks in at lightning speed and now you’re fighting 1000 species of tumor cells instead of just one.
I’m not a professional scientist, but I think solving cancer requires a whole lot more than surgery and chemo. It demands expert psychology.
The entire cancer industry has woefully underestimated the cancer Swiss Army Knife. Some of them still don’t even acknowledge its existence.
This is precisely why I’ve teamed up with some of the best oncologists and evolutionary biologists in the world to organize the Cancer & Evolution Symposium, 14-16 October 2020.
The event presumes familiarity with medical and biological terms and concepts. If you’re comfortable traversing that territory, this is a watershed event:
Last November I held a seminar in Sydney, Australia. Afterwards, I rented a bicycle and blew off some steam on Down Under’s bike trails.
I’m tooling along in a spacious, sumptuous park in Sydney and receive a text from my friend, Bill Middleton. Bill is a long-time friend, client and confidant. His wife, Laura, is a fitness instructor, wellness coach and massage therapist. Not long ago, she did a splendid job organizing Bill’s 60th birthday party.
Bill’s group text included several other friends:
Hey guys, Laura’s got pancreatic cancer.
I stopped pedaling. Sat down under a tree. Called Bill. I’m thinking this is not good. My friend, Tom Hoobyar, died of pancreatic cancer a few years ago. It was harrowing and fast.
Your pancreas is a vital organ. When it goes bad, things get ugly quickly.
Then, in December, back home, I’m riding once again near Loyola Medical Center and I knew Laura Middleton had checked in. So I went to the hospital and hunted them down.
Laura was just starting treatment. Bill was trying to be strong. Christmas was drawing near. He tells me, “We're starting radiation and hopefully this will work.”
Most of us have ridden the cancer roaster coaster. My first ride was when my dad got cancer when I was fourteen. He died at 44. Cancer is a monstrous energy and money suck.
But we humans seem hardwired to climb on that coaster anyway. We can't help ourselves. Even if there’s just a “12% chance,” we lunge at it like a winning lotto ticket.
It's a “bleeding neck” which is why any business person can well understand why patients are so willing to throw stacks of money at a problem so formidable.
Back to Laura… she quickly went downhill. By February, they were discussing final arrangements.
On a Sunday morning in April, friends adorned in COVID masks held a social distancing prayer vigil for Laura on their front lawn. She passed away a week later.
Where we're at with cancer: If you catch it really early, three-fourths of the time you can knock it out. But if it gets to stage three or stage four? Your chances of survival are no better today than they were in 1930.
In fact, if I went to the doctor tomorrow and they said, “Perry, you’ve got stage three cancer,” I might try nutrition and holistic approaches. I would ask my friends to pray extra hard. But I’m not sure I would touch chemo or any of the conventional stuff with a ten-foot pole. Near as I can tell, they just make you miserable and extend your life by maybe… three weeks.
This is why we need a Cancer & Evolution Symposium. And you know what’s funny... when we started inviting speakers, nearly every one we asked climbed on board.
People like George Church at Harvard, one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential in 2017 - he might be the most famous geneticist in the world. And people like Robert Weinberg at MIT and Paul Davies from the Beyond Center at ASU.
It “shouldn’t” be easy to get people from Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Johns Hopkins and MD Anderson. But I think one of the reasons this came together so readily was they all know we might really be on to something big here.
Cancer is the #2 cause of death. And since cancer is “Evolution Run Amok” we needed to match the smartest cancer people with the smartest evolution scientists so we can get this problem knocked out.
Denis Noble is the guy who figured out the cardiac rhythm which made pacemakers possible. He was the first person to model a human organ on a computer - in 1960.
He did it on borrowed computer time at University College London at 2am using punch cards, after pedaling his bicycle through the dark streets of the city.
If you have a friend or relative with a pacemaker, they owe their life to Denis. He received a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth. He’s a Fellow of the Royal Society and has a list of honors as long as your arm. He is surely one of the 100 most respected scientists in the UK.
Based purely on heart research, he concluded evolutionary biology had major, fundamental, foundational problems. (Picture building a 4-story house on swampland that floods twice a year).
This is because when Denis “knocked out” genes that regulate heart rhythms, what happened was entirely different than what “selfish gene” evolutionary theories predicted would happen.
As chemist Steve Benner likes to say, “If the airplane crashes, your theory is wrong.”
Denis concluded that the Modern Synthesis had literally gotten cause and effect backwards. By ignoring major aspects of systems biology, evolutionary biologists had shot themselves in the foot two ways:
First, they had exposed the field to relentless criticisms from people who doubt evolution itself.
Second, medical and disease implications of evolutionary theory were being misunderstood and mis-categorized. This has been a very expensive mistake. Not just financially but in terms of lives.
Denis is former president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. At their international congress in 2013, he de-constructed the Modern Synthesis and proposed a path for re-inventing evolution.
Denis will be laying fresh foundations for evolutionary biology - and therefore cancer as well - during this remarkable 3-day online Cancer & Evolution Symposium:
How many of your favorite people on Earth have you lost to cancer?
My list is long and growing. My dad died at age 44. Cancer took out my grandpa, numerous aunts and uncles, and my dear friend Tom Hoobyar, the closest person I had to a dad in my adult life. I’ve got two childhood friends who are my age battling it right now.
In my book Evolution 2.0, I said: "Cancer is evolution run amok, and until we get evolution right we’re never gonna beat cancer."
A friend put me in touch with a scientist named Henry Heng because of my book. Henry is a cancer researcher in Detroit.
Long before I wrote anything about cancer, Henry had reached the conclusion, simply based on his own cancer research, that the conventional theory of evolution was unworkable.
He saw that cancer evolves at breathtaking speed – especially once you start trying as hard as you can to kill it.
This is why chemotherapy is so often a death sentence.
Standard evolutionary theory couldn’t account for any of this. It explained “survival of the fittest” but not “arrival of the fittest” – which, if you think about it, is THE question.
The old model did a poor job of explaining the Cambrian explosion, the proliferation of species that happened 540 million years ago. Ken Pienta calls tumor metastasis “The Cancer Cambrian” because the two behave exactly the same way.
Henry felt we should be doing a much better job of answering these questions. He insisted that, if we found answers… we would also beat cancer.
And maybe our loved ones would stop dying early.
Major evolutionary systems like epigenetics – from the “Swiss Army Knife” I describe in my book – were either ignored or simply “tacked on” to the old theory. Like someone slapped giant race car tires on the rear axle of a rusty 1991 Ford Escort and called it a race car.
Evolutionary theory had to be stripped down to the engine blocks and rebuilt from the ground up. Because so far as Henry could tell, these systems were the very engine of high-speed cancer evolution.
Henry offered a superior model. He wrote a book in 2011. His manuscript was well on its way to getting published by a major academic publisher.
But one of their traditional peer reviewers threw a fit.
Henry’s book got canned.
Fast forward to 2019 and his book gets rehashed, rewritten, re-released under the title Genome Chaos. It explores the overlooked details of how cancer cells evolve.
Then Henry got in touch with James Shapiro, a well-known geneticist from the University of Chicago. Shapiro had published a book with a similar perspective on evolutionary change in 2011 with the title Evolution: A View from the 21st Century.
Shapiro had come to nearly identical conclusions as Henry, before Henry did, but from a completely different vantage point. As Shapiro began comparing notes with Henry, he realized:
“Most people think of evolutionary biology as (hopefully) providing lessons to cancer biologists. But cancer may well have more to teach us about evolution than traditional evolutionary studies!”
The lessons may also arrive much faster. Because a handful of cancer cells can explode into 1000+ species in a matter of weeks. Cancer is “time compression” for an evolutionary biologist.
Evolution is the key to cancer… and cancer is the key to evolution.
This is why I’ve teamed up with a group of world class scientists including Henry Heng, James Shapiro, Denis Noble, Azra Raza and Bruker CEO, Frank Laukien. We are bringing the best cancer renegades together with the best “new school” evolution researchers.
We’re organizing the first conference in history to specifically focus on high-speed mechanisms of biological evolution as they relate to cancer biology and therapies.
This is an interdisciplinary conference bringing together scientists from a dozen fields, from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Columbia and MD Anderson. We are re-thinking cancer biology at a high level.
The Zoom conference takes place October 14-16. Not only will we provide 3 half-days of intensive discussion and discovery, many of the speakers will be hosting live Q&A sessions in subsequent weeks.
We partnered with HeroX for a joint bid to respond to a government request for proposal. Our experience with the HeroX team was extremely positive.
There were times where flexibility was critical, their team took the approach of a true partnership. Working against tight timelines, collaborating virtually, operating in different time zones; any one of these points could have created challenges, not for this team. HeroX went the extra mile, which is a rarity for us in our past experiences in collaborating with other partners. The responsive, professionalism and level of expertise was noted and appreciated.
Other than their capabilities, we were impressed by their overall team in the way they conducted themselves. There was true core values alignment. We would absolutely invite the opportunity to work with their team again.