Just to clarify, I followed up "you can have people who are bad at science but are good at fundraising in public," with "and you can have people with very good science who are bad at fundraising," and I think you probably have a lot more of the latter than the former, which I perceive as the larger injustice. I didn't mean to come across as a downer on the project. I was clear to point out that I know very little about the team behind the Immunity Project and definitely wasn't in a position to evaluate the quality of their science; I was speaking very generally. Even if these projects are unsuccessful, anything that gets the public excited about science is probably a good thing, as long as high-profile failures (which are inevitable; welcome to biology) don't lead to a backlash and general burnout.