▸ Recording & sharing policy
▸ Pre-sessions & alternate slots¶
(4–5pm UK · 5–6pm CET) Informal pre-session: Casual discussion for all participants — particularly for those with limited availability on May 8. Introductions, a walkthrough of the beliefs form (video →) and cost model (video →), and open Q&A. No preparation needed. Recording will be enabled unless participants prefer otherwise — not shared publicly without everyone's agreement. Input carried forward into the main workshop. [who is this for?]Particularly for: Maria Gomes Fernandes (New Harvest EU, only available May 6); Mirjam Capuder (U Maribor, very limited May 8 window); Tom Bry-Chevalier (U de Lorraine, available from May 6); anyone who wants an informal orientation before the main workshop. Open to all registered participants.
Zoom: join here →
(3:55pm UK · 4:55pm CET) Informal warm-up: Join a few minutes early for brief self-introductions in the Zoom chat — name, affiliation, one sentence on your angle on CM costs. No pressure; the formal session starts at 11:00 on the dot. Brief intros also happen during the breaks for anyone who joins mid-session.
(2–3pm UK · 3–4pm CET) European morning drop-in: Informal session for EU/UK participants who cannot stay for the full afternoon. Expect a small group; introductions and early framing questions. Recording will be enabled unless participants prefer otherwise. Input carried forward. [likely attendees]EU/CET participants likely available (15:00–16:00 CET) — inferred from timezone/affiliation and form-indicated availability, not explicit drop-in RSVPs:
Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB, Graz) — presenting in S1; likely joining early
Jordi Morales-Dalmau (Cultimate Foods, Berlin) — CET; flexible availability
Mirjam Capuder (Univ Maribor) — indicated 15:00 CET availability on May 8
Tom Bry-Chevalier (Univ de Lorraine) — CET; indicated May 8 available
Jakub Kozlowski (Zurich) — available 14:00–22:00 CET
Also likely: Bruno Cell (Italy), S2AQUAcoLAB (Portugal), Oana Kubinyecz (Atova / Cell Ag UK)
Main workshop · Fri May 8
17:00–18:10 CET · 4–5:10pm UK S1 · Technical Foundations¶ Public · RecordedThis session is recorded (video + transcript) and will be shared publicly on the Unjournal site. If you'd like a specific contribution kept off-record, just say so during the session and we'll pause. Slides from presentations will be shared with participant permission.
Media costs, bioreactors, and cell line technology: the three main technical cost drivers. PQ, workshop, & model overview, then Oana KubinyeczRegulatory Scientist, Atova Regulatory Consulting. Will give a brief cross-cutting overview of gene editing in CM. on gene editing in CM; then a mini-presentation by Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB) on hydrolysates as full basal medium substitution. [pre-session note]David Manheim (Technion/ALTER) and Mirjam Capuder (U Maribor) participated in an informal pre-session on May 6. We will be sharing some of their questions and perspectives with the group during today's discussions.
Presentation and discussion topics
~11:00–11:15 ET (17:00–17:15 CET): Introduction to The Unjournal's Pivotal Questions initiative and this workshop; overview of the modeling framework. Intro slides → · Video (~18 min) → [note]A video recording of this introduction (~18 min) is available for pre-workshop viewing — recommended before attending. The live slot focuses on Q&A and what emerges from discussion.
~11:15–11:30 ET (17:15–17:30 CET): Oana KubinyeczRegulatory Scientist, Atova Regulatory Consulting. Expertise in cell line development for CM including gene editing; works on CM regulatory dossiers in US, EU and UK. — gene editing in CM: cross-cutting implications for cost. (~10 min)
~11:30–12:10 ET (17:30–18:10 CET): Structured open discussion (~40 min). Click a topic to expand.
Annotate this page to leave questions or comments — we'll try to monitor the sidebar and surface key ones during the session. [more]You can reply to or +1 existing annotations; use @ to flag a specific person. Tip: change sort to 'Newest' (dropdown at top of sidebar) to see the latest comments first. Note: this page is public and all Hypothes.is annotations are visible to anyone. Contact us if you'd prefer a private group.
Cell lines — sources, immortalisation, and gene editing [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Oana Kubinyecz (Atova Regulatory Consulting) — cell line development for CM including gene editing; opening framing on how cell line choice affects the whole cost picture
Ellie Contreras (Tufts/Kaplan Lab) — chicken satellite cell biology; adherent-to-suspension reprogramming for scale-up production
Cell line choice sets the cost floor: immortalisation strategy and gene editing determine proliferation ratesHow fast cells divide — measured in doublings per day. Faster proliferation means more biomass in less time, reducing bioreactor volume needed per kg of output., achievable density, media requirements, and growth factor dependence.
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Cell lines & gene editing — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Immortalisation strategies [?]Which immortalisation strategies (spontaneous, genetic, iPSC-based) look closest to commercial-scale production — and on what timeline?
- GF-independent cell lines [?]Gene editing for GF independence: how close are autocrine or GF-independent cell lines technically — and what are the main remaining hurdles?
- Regulatory constraints on gene editing [?]What regulatory uncertainty surrounds gene-edited cell lines in CM; and how does that constrain commercial adoption timelines?
- Cell line → cost cascade [?]How does cell line choice cascade into media cost, achievable density, and process mode; what is the most cost-relevant decision?
- Other (Cell lines) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Cell culture media — basal formulation and hydrolysates [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB) — mini-presentation (~10 min): hydrolysates as full basal medium substitution + circular cell culture; FEASTS slides (PDF) →
Elliot Swartz (GFI) — GFI amino acid supply chain analysis; how supplier quotes compare to Humbird's assumptions
Joana T. Rosa (S2AQUAcoLAB) — 2025 preprint on cost-effective media formulations for cellular agriculture
Mini-presentation: Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB) — hydrolysates as full basal medium substitution; circular cell culture. Slides (PDF) → (~10 min)
Open discussion: cost trajectory for cell culture media by 2036; hydrolysate viability at scale (CM_12, CM_14); what supplier quotes tell us about Humbird's amino acid assumptions. Key reference: GFI 2025 amino acid supply chain report →
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Cell culture media & hydrolysates — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Hydrolysates at scale [?]Does hydrolysate substitution work at scale; or does batch variability create QC and consistency problems?
- Supplier quotes vs. Humbird [?]What do real supplier quotes tell us about whether and how Humbird's amino acid cost assumptions compare to current data?
- Realistic media cost scenarios [?]What $/kg biomass costs are realistic for serum-free, food-grade media; optimistic, central, and pessimistic scenarios?
- Other (Media) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Growth factor cost trajectories [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Elliot Swartz (GFI) — GFI published on growth factor cost reduction pathways and achievable volumes
Which growth factor cost reduction pathways [?]Growth factors (e.g., FGF, IGF, insulin) signal cells to grow. Currently the most expensive media component at research scale. Five reduction pathways: precision fermentation, plant molecular farming, autocrine cell lines, small molecule substitutes, thermostable variants. are scientifically plausible by 2036; and which looks most tractable?
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Growth factor cost trajectories — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Most tractable GF reduction pathway [?]Which of the five approaches (precision fermentation, plant molecular farming, autocrine lines, small molecules, thermostable variants) looks most tractable on a 10-year horizon; and why?
- GF price target for viability [?]What GF price target is needed for CM to approach cost-competitiveness; and which pathways could realistically hit it by 2036?
- Autocrine lines: commercial feasibility [?]Are autocrine cell lines (cells self-producing GFs) technically feasible at commercial scale by 2036, or still a research aspiration?
- Other (Growth factors) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Cell densities and bioreactor scale [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies) — industry ground-truth on what densities are currently achieved
Andrew Stout (Tufts/Kaplan Lab) — Beefy-R TEA co-author; unable to attend live, engaging async
Achievable densities in a 20kL bioreactor20,000L used as reference scale for industrial production in most TEAs. Smaller facilities are R&D-scale. by 2036 (CM_16); binding constraints; and trade-offs in custom-built vs. off-the-shelf bioreactor designOff-the-shelf: pharma-grade bioreactors, expensive but proven. Custom-built: fabricated to reduce capex (some claim under $1M for 20kL). The choice significantly affects capex in TEAs. Learn: bioreactor types →.
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Cell densities & bioreactor scale — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Achievable densities and binding constraints [?]What cell densities are realistically achievable at 20kL+ scale by 2036; is the binding constraint O₂ transfer, shear stress, or nutrient depletion?
- Custom bioreactors and capex [?]Can custom-built bioreactors reduce capex enough to materially change the overall cost picture?
- TEA projections vs. practice [?]How do density projections in current TEAs compare to what you observe in practice; how cost-relevant is the gap?
- Density–media cost trade-off [?]At high cell densities, does the need for richer (more expensive) media to sustain growth partially offset the volumetric efficiency gains — and does this dependency vary by process mode (fed-batch vs. perfusion)?
- Other (Bioreactors / density) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Process choice (fed-batchFed-batch: nutrients added incrementally during the run; cells accumulate and are harvested at the end. Conventional approach — simpler to operate but lower volumetric productivity than perfusion. vs. perfusionPerfusion: continuous media exchange with cell retention (e.g., via a filter); cells harvested at the end of the run. Higher cell densities but also higher media throughput and operational complexity. vs. continuousContinuous (chemostat-style) culture: cells grow at a steady state with constant feed in and product out; maintains consistent conditions but requires precise control. Less commonly modeled in CM TEAs than fed-batch or perfusion, but used in some FEASTS-type approaches.) [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB) — FEASTS involves continuous media cycling; direct experimental basis
Which process mode is most likely at commercial scale; and what drives that trajectory: engineering, economics, or regulation? [scope note]This topic focuses on science and engineering. Commercial implications — what CDMOs actually use and why, and cost differentials — carry forward into S2.
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Process choice (fed-batch / perfusion / continuous) — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Dominant process mode by 2036 [?]Which process mode do you expect to dominate at commercial scale by 2036; what is the key driver: engineering progress, economics, or regulatory constraints?
- Process mode → media cost [?]What does process choice imply for media cost per kg of output at realistic cell densities?
- Continuous culture: commercial vs. research [?]Is continuous/FEASTS-type culture being seriously considered by commercial operators, or still a research-phase option?
- Other (Process) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Technology readiness & regulatory pathways [S2 note]This topic continues in S2 from an industry-practitioner perspective — what regulatory barriers look like on the ground, and what they imply for near-term production decisions and timelines. [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Oana Kubinyecz (Atova Regulatory Consulting) — Regulatory Scientist working on CM dossiers in US, EU and UK; will offer will contribute regulatory perspective: red flags that directly impact process development and cost
Stefano Lattanzi (Bruno Cell) — Italy's 2023 CM production ban directly affected his company; operator perspective on how regulatory risk shapes production choices
Nike Schiavo (Bruno Cell) — operational/technical perspective on how regulatory constraints shape production decisions in practice
Current technology readiness; main barriers (regulatory, technical, commercial) to commercial-scale production by 2036; and how they interact with cost projections. Oana KubinyeczRegulatory Scientist, Atova Regulatory Consulting. Will discuss regulatory red flags that directly impact process development and cost. will contribute regulatory perspective on this topic. [S2 note]Industry practitioners (Tarka Abraham, Stefano Lattanzi, Nike Schiavo) will add their perspective in S2, where the off-record format allows more candour.
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Technology readiness & regulatory pathways — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Probability of large-scale CM by 2036 [?]What probability do you assign to commercially viable CM production at large scale by 2036; what is your key crux?
- Binding regulatory barriers [?]Which regulatory barriers (gene editing approval, novel food dossier, production approval) are most binding; on what realistic timeline?
- US vs. EU vs. UK regulatory [?]How do US, EU, and UK regulatory postures differ; which jurisdiction is most likely to see first commercial production?
- Other (Regulatory) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Other participant-led technical questions are welcome. [note]The broader viability question — what probability of commercially viable CM production by 2036, and what are the main barriers? — is better addressed in S3 after all the technical evidence is in.
The confirmed participant group includes TEA researchers, bioprocess engineers, and GFI scientists with direct bearing on S1 topics. See the confirmed participant list →
Overall session start/end times are fixed so participants can join the sessions most relevant to them; within-session timings are as shown — small adjustments may still occur but we're aiming to stick closely to these.
Beliefs elicitation — how it works · Video walkthrough →
The beliefs form is at uj-cm-workshop.netlify.app/beliefs. The pre-workshop version went out May 5th/6th. During the workshop, we'll ask for a live response on CM_01CM_01: What will be the average production cost (per edible kg) of cultured chicken meat in 2036, across all large-scale plants in the world? This is the focal cost question — all of today's S1 and S2 discussions ultimately feed into calibrating this estimate. (the focal cost question). [and subquestions?]We may also ask for live responses on one or two subquestions — depending on time and how the discussions develop.
Please estimate independently of the cost model — don't look up what the model currently assumes and enter that as your answer. Your own knowledge and calibrated intuition is what's most informative. If you do use the model, note it in your reasoning. [why this matters]The model reflects our own starting assumptions — if participants base estimates on its defaults, we'd be recycling our own priors rather than gathering independent expert evidence. Your independent assessment is what allows us to update and calibrate the model.
Why ask everyone to estimate independently? [Why group elicitation outperforms any single expert]Anca Hanea (U Melbourne, expert elicitation; IDEA protocol) explains: groups systematically outperform even the best-regarded individual expert. Four properties drive this:
Diversity: different experts hold different models and draw on different evidence
Independence: forming estimates before seeing others' keeps initial judgements unanchored
Decentralisation: each person draws on local knowledge that others lack
Aggregation: combining independent estimates is almost always more accurate and better calibrated than any single judgement — especially when done mathematically
This is why the diversity in this room is a feature, not a problem to overcome — and why we ask everyone to estimate before seeing the group's responses.
A post-workshop beliefs update will go out after the workshop — exact format and timing still being finalized. You'll see your pre-workshop responses and can update them; the shift (or lack of shift) is itself informative.
Sharing policy: Response content (your estimates and reasoning) will be shared within the participant group and published publicly. You can choose whether to keep your individual responses confidential (anonymous — not attributed to you by name) or allow others to see your name alongside your response. Leave the name field blank or use a pseudonym to remain anonymous. A pseudonym lets us link your pre- and post-workshop responses without identifying you publicly.
18:25–19:35 CET · 5:25–6:35pm UK S2 · Scale-up & Industry Realities¶ Internal · Off-recordNo recording. Nothing from S2 will be shared outside the participant group unless you explicitly ask us to share something you contributed. If you'd like your slides, a key point, or your own recorded version shared more widely, just let us know — opt-in sharing is welcome.
The gap between TEA models and what operators actually see. CDMOContract Development and Manufacturing Organization — a company that manufactures biotech products on behalf of other firms. Many CM companies are likely to produce via CDMOs before building own plants, making CDMO cost structures an important near-term benchmark. economics, real cost benchmarks, and lessons from recent industry developments. This session is off-record to reduce barriers to frank exchange — no formal NDA, but we hope the format encourages more open conversation.
Note for industry participants: You don't need to share what you know — but it's particularly helpful if you can flag "this does not agree with what we see in practice", even without specifics. To raise something without attribution: DM David Reinstein or Anthony Rowett on Zoom and we'll surface it for the group. For written comments via Hypothes.is: a free account is required, but any username works — no real name needed.
Discussion structure and key questions
S2's goal is to ground-truth the technical picture from S1 with operator experience, and to gather real cost data that TEA models assume but practitioners know. This session doesn't aim to settle debates — it aims to sharpen the right questions and calibrate our priors before S3.
Annotate this page to leave questions or comments — we'll try to monitor the sidebar and surface key ones during the session. [more]You can reply to or +1 existing annotations; use @ to flag a specific person. Tip: change sort to 'Newest' (dropdown at top of sidebar) to see the latest comments first. Note: this page is public and all Hypothes.is annotations are visible to anyone. Contact us if you'd prefer a private group.
S1 validation: which technical claims hold up in practice? [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies) — wants to discuss cm_background; industry view on which S1 technical assumptions match production reality
Natalie Rubio (Tufts/Deco Labs) — wants to discuss cm_background; straddles academic research and industry via Deco Labs co-founding
Which S1 claims hold up in practice; and which discrepancies are most cost-relevant — i.e. do they significantly change the cost picture?
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
S1 claim validation — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- S1 claims: push-back from practice [?]Which S1 technical claims do you push back on from production experience; how cost-relevant is the gap?
- TEA model accuracy [?]Where do current TEA models most over- or under-estimate difficulty; what would correcting those assumptions do to the cost picture?
- Most cost-critical optimistic assumption [?]If optimistic assumptions don't materialise — on cell density, base media cost, growth factor cost, or process mode — which gap has the largest effect on the cost floor?
- Other (S1 validation) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Real-world cost benchmarks [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies) — UK CM practitioner; near-term production experience
Stefano Lattanzi (Bruno Cell) — CEO; direct knowledge of real production costs
Nike Schiavo (Bruno Cell) — operational/production side
What do real CDMOContract Development and Manufacturing Organization: a company that provides manufacturing services to CM companies on a contract basis. production costs look like; where do TEA assumptions diverge most from what operators actually pay; and what would the transition to a dedicated plant require?
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Real-world cost benchmarks — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- CDMO cost reality [?]What do CDMO production costs actually look like; rough order of magnitude per bioreactor run or per kg output?
- Key TEA vs. operator divergences [?]Where do TEA assumptions diverge most from operator experience: base media costs, growth factor costs, downstream processing, cost of capital, or other operating costs?
- CDMO → dedicated plant transition [?]What does the transition from CDMO to a dedicated plant require: technically, commercially, and in terms of capital investment?
- Other (Cost benchmarks) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Paths to commercial viability [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Tom Bry-Chevalier (Univ de Lorraine) — sent apologies (unable to attend today)
Jordi Morales-Dalmau (Cultimate Foods) — (suggested) industry R&D and scale-up; skeptical view on viability; has raised real benchmark data (Meatly media costs)
Claire Bomkamp (GFI) — industry analyst; more optimistic counterpoint on timelines and near-term routes to viability
Natalie Rubio (Tufts/Deco Labs) — straddles academic research and industry via Deco Labs co-founding; realistic perspective on what viability requires in practice
What would commercially viable CM production actually require; on what horizon; and what does industry experience suggest about the factors beyond production cost that determine whether a CM business can sustain itself? Price parityParity could be with conventional meat, a hybrid product (cells + plant-based inputs), or a niche premium product. The relevant cost target differs significantly between these cases. is not the only route; hybrid products, niche markets, or differentiated positioningConsumer acceptance, regulatory pathways, and market positioning are important questions that may be covered in other workshops or projects. But these routes to viability are relevant context for understanding what cost targets need to be reached. are also paths.
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Paths to commercial viability — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Requirements for viability by 2036 [?]What needs to be true — technically, financially, or politically — for CM to reach viability by 2036?
- Hybrid/niche paths [?]Are hybrid products or niche markets a more realistic near-term path than full cost parity with conventional meat?
- Lessons from company challenges [?]What do recent company difficulties teach us about what viability requires beyond production cost; including return on R&D investment?
- Other (S2 viability) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Key uncertainties and research gaps [note]These questions connect to S3: how should today's ground-truth from S2 shift our priors on CM's cost trajectory and AW funding value? [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Matt McNulty (Tufts CCA) — strategy & operations at academic CM center; systematic view of where evidence is thinnest
Elliot Swartz (GFI) — wants to discuss modeling_hack + tea_review; GFI systematically identifies high-value research gaps
What data or research would most change cost projections — and what has today's industry ground-truth changed about research priorities? [note]The formal research prioritisation question (which specific papers should The Unjournal evaluate?) is in S3. This slot focuses on what we've learned today about where the evidence is thinnest.
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
Key uncertainties & research gaps — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Highest VOI research & data? [?]What data or research, if it existed, would most reduce uncertainty in cost projections or funding decisions?
- Ground-truth → revised research agenda? [?]Where has today's industry ground-truth most changed your sense of what should be researched next?
- Needed but missing studies? [?]Are there high-value research designs (industry surveys, novel TEAs, field experiments) that should exist but don't?
- Questions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session
Why this session is off the record — and what will be shared
Several industry participants have indicated they are only comfortable contributing candidly if the session is not recorded or shared externally. To ensure we get the most honest and useful input — rather than polished, attribution-conscious answers — S2 is fully internal. Please respect these rules and do not share S2 content outside this participant group.
What will be shared: an internal-only notes summary will be circulated to all registered participants (including those who couldn't attend live) within a few days. Nothing from S2 will be shared beyond the participant group unless a contributor explicitly asks us to (see opt-in below).
Opt-in sharing: if you'd like something you contributed shared more widely — your slides, a key finding, or your own recorded version of your remarks — just let us know and we'll make it happen. Opt-in covers your own contributions only; if your remarks reference other participants' comments, those individuals would also need to approve before anything is shared. You can also record your own presentation separately (just you, no other participants' audio) and share it on our channel; ask us if you'd like guidance on this.
19:50–21:00 CET · 6:50–8pm UK S3 · Synthesis · AW Funding · Next Steps¶ Off-record then publicS3 is split: the first part (13:50–14:35) follows the same rules as S2 — off-record, nothing shared externally without contributor approval. The second part (14:35–15:00) follows the same rules as S1 — recorded, shared publicly, opt-out available on request. Full recording policy ↑
Space for candid exchange. Open the discussion space below for suggested topics.
- What didn't get fully aired in S1 and S2? [examples]Things that are harder to say on the record: what cell densities are actually being achieved vs. what TEAs assume; which media substitution strategies (hydrolysates, serum-free formulations) really work at scale; how realistic the growth factor cost reduction pathways are in practice; what process mode (fed-batch vs. perfusion vs. continuous) operators are actually betting on; honest bioreactor economics and what custom-built really delivers; internal projections that differ from public positions.
- Business and financial environment [examples]Sources of investment, subsidy, and government support; required return rates and investor expectations; return on R&D (not currently modelled); what's keeping companies funded; what has determined which companies have survived or not; how the investment climate has shifted.
- Regulatory and commercial specifics [examples]Candid assessment of what approval actually requires in practice: novel food dossier requirements (US, EU, UK); where gene-edited cell line regulations stand — FDA/USDA posture on gene editing in CM, EU Novel Foods + gene editing overlap, UK post-Brexit flexibility; realistic regulatory timelines vs. public statements; which decisions would most help or hurt the sector; what companies tell regulators vs. what they share publicly.
- What would actually need to be true — technically, financially, or politically — for CM to reach viability? [examples]Are there scenarios not being discussed publicly? What is the most plausible path, if one exists? What would have to go right — and what currently looks most likely to go wrong?
Discussion space — unfold & annotate via Hypothes.is
S3 off-record: paths to viability — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Most plausible path to viability [?]What is the most plausible path to viability; what would need to go right?
- Main risks and AW funding strategy [?]What currently looks most likely to go wrong; and what would that mean for AW funding strategy?
- Unspoken scenarios [?]Are there scenarios for CM success or failure that aren't being discussed publicly?
- Cost issues [?]Your candid take on the cost picture: key drivers, where TEAs miss, what would need to change.
- Production issues [?]Manufacturing and scale-up challenges: what the sector hasn't solved yet.
- Business issues [?]Investment climate, return on R&D, what's keeping companies funded or not.
- Regulatory issues [?]Approval pathways, gene editing constraints, realistic regulatory timelines.
- Other (S3 off-record) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Annotate here to leave a question or reaction for the group
No formal NDA. Same rules as S2.
Holistic synthesis for the public record; three topics:
Annotate this page to leave questions or comments — we'll try to monitor the sidebar and surface key ones during the session. You can reply to or +1 existing annotations. Tip: change sort to 'Newest' (dropdown at top of sidebar) to see the latest comments first.
- Consensus, disagreements, and key findings — Where, and along what lines, do participants agree and disagree? Does the academic/research vs. industry divide map onto specific parts of the cost picture? What are the most important remaining uncertainties, and what findings from today seem most important to share beyond this group? [pre-session note]David Manheim (participated in May 6 pre-session) suggested framing the uncertainty discussion around: (1) what if tech progress continues as expected — most upside risk is cost-reducing; (2) most surprises are more likely to be upside than downside on the technical dimension; (3) regulatory, investment, market, and economic risks are the main downside risks but those are not primarily "tech" risks; (4) if chicken isn't viable, premium products (salmon, veal) may be the first to reach commercial scale. [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Tom Bry-Chevalier (Univ de Lorraine) — former CM startup (Gourmey), now academic skeptic; natural foil for surfacing where researchers and industry diverge
Elliot Swartz (GFI) — optimistic industry analyst; natural contrast for the disagreement framing
Jakub Kozlowski (model developer) — model perspective on what findings are most communicable - Research and evaluation priorities — Which specific papers, issues, or research questions should The Unjournal prioritize for expert evaluation as part of the CM cost viability Pivotal Question? What new research (e.g., TEA reviews, production cost benchmarks, expert elicitation)For context on what's already been identified: see the workshop reading list → and the UJ CM research scoping on Coda → or data would most reduce remaining uncertainty? [pre-session note]David Manheim (Technion/ALTER, participated in May 6 pre-session) suggested we also consider: AI-powered and robotics-driven advances in manufacturing and bioengineering that may spill over from other fields, and scenarios where non-chicken species (salmon, veal) become the viable CM product first. [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Matt McNulty (Tufts CCA) — strategic view of research priorities from an academic CM center
Elliot Swartz (GFI) — has systematically mapped CM research gaps; knows what evidence would most shift the cost picture
Jakub Kozlowski (model developer) — knows where the model's input uncertainties are largest; can specify what data would most tighten them - AW funding implications — Given what we've heard, should CM receive more or less funding relative to "proven" interventions like corporate AW campaignsCorporate animal welfare campaigns — e.g., securing cage-free or broiler welfare commitments from food companies — are widely seen as among the most cost-effective AW interventions. Whether "proven" is the right framing is itself worth interrogating.? What would change your mind? [Suggested discussants]Suggested discussants:
Hannah McKay (Rethink Priorities) — AW researcher; RP has published on AW funding allocation across interventions
Discuss & annotate S3 topics
S3 synthesis & AW funding — discussion space
Use #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.
- Research vs. industry divergences [?]Where, and along what lines, did academic/research and industry views converge or diverge most today; which gap surprised you?
- Key findings to share [?]What findings from today are most important to share beyond this group, and in what form?
- AW funding implications [?]Given what we've heard, should CM receive more or less AW funding relative to proven interventions — and what would change your mind?
- Other (S3 synthesis) — annotate here to add a point not covered above
- Questions for discussants · Suggestions for The Unjournal — annotate here
We'll also note the CM_01 beliefs updateA post-workshop beliefs form goes out after May 8 — participants will see their pre-workshop responses and can update them. The shift (or absence of shift) is itself informative. Responses shared within the group and published publicly. process — a post-workshop form goes out after the session.
Agenda still being finalized — the three-session structure is confirmed, and overall session start/end times are fixed so participants can join the sessions most relevant to them. Within-session timings are approximate and will shift as the programme takes shape; we'll firm up the internal timeline closer to the date. Session content, presentations, and discussion framing are still coming together. Check back for updates.
Each bullet in the agenda above carries a [Suggested discussants] marker (hover or click for names). The full cross-session table is below: Suggested discussants by topic →
▸ Suggested discussants by topic — topics across S1–S3 · click to expand table ¶
Based on form-indicated discussion interests and participant expertise. Two suggested leads per topic, chosen for different backgrounds or viewpoints. The [Suggested discussants] marker on each bullet shows the same information inline on hover.
| Session | Discussion topic | Suggested discussants |
|---|---|---|
| S1 Discussion topics |
Overview: gene editing in CM (Oana: ~11:15–11:30 — cross-cutting framing) | Oana Kubinyecz (Atova Regulatory Consulting) — brief overview of how gene editing bears on immortalisation, proliferationRate of cell division (doublings per day) — affects how much bioreactor time and volume is needed per kg of output., cell densities, growth factor dependence, and media components |
| Cell lines — sources, immortalisation, and gene editing | Oana Kubinyecz (Atova Regulatory Consulting) — cell line development for CM; gene editing strategy implications Ellie Contreras (Tufts/Kaplan Lab) — chicken satellite cell biology; adherent-to-suspension reprogramming for scale-up |
|
| Cell culture media — basal formulation and hydrolysates (CM_12, CM_14) (opens with Fuchs mini-presentation) | Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB) — mini-presentation on full basal medium substitution with hydrolysates (slides →) Elliot Swartz (GFI) — GFI amino acid supply chain analysis; real supplier quotes vs. Humbird Joana T. Rosa (S2AQUAcoLAB) — 2025 preprint on cost-effective media formulations |
|
| Growth factor cost trajectories | Elliot Swartz (GFI) — GFI published on GF cost reduction pathways | |
| Cell densities and bioreactor scale (CM_16) | Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies) — industry ground-truth on achieved densities Andrew Stout (Tufts/Kaplan Lab) — Beefy-R TEA; unable to attend live, engaging async |
|
| Process choice (fed-batch vs. perfusion vs. continuous) | Aleksandra Fuchs (ACIB) — FEASTS uses continuous media cycling | |
| Technology readiness & regulatory pathways | Oana Kubinyecz (Atova Regulatory Consulting) — Regulatory Scientist, multi-jurisdictional CM dossier experience (US, EU, UK); regulatory red flags and their implications for process development and cost Stefano Lattanzi (Bruno Cell) — Italy's 2023 CM ban affected his company directly Nike Schiavo (Bruno Cell) — operational/technical perspective |
|
| + Other: commercial viability probability; participant-led topics | Claire Bomkamp (GFI) — industry analyst; more optimistic view on viability trajectory | |
| S2 Industry realities |
Real-world cost benchmarks (CDMO, downstream, 100kL fermentation) | Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies) — UK CM practitioner; near-term production experience Stefano Lattanzi (Bruno Cell) — CEO; direct knowledge of real production costs Nike Schiavo (Bruno Cell) — operational/production side |
| Validating S1 — which technical claims hold up in practice? | Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies) — industry view on S1 technical assumptions vs. production reality Natalie Rubio (Tufts/Deco Labs) — straddles academic and industry via Deco Labs co-founding |
|
| The TEA-to-viability gap — what models miss | Tom Bry-Chevalier (Univ de Lorraine) — apologies Jordi Morales-Dalmau (Cultimate Foods) — (suggested) industry scale-up; skeptical on viability timeline Claire Bomkamp (GFI) — more optimistic view Natalie Rubio (Tufts/Deco Labs) — academic-industry perspective |
|
| Research gaps and implications for S3 AW funding question | Matt McNulty (Tufts CCA) — systematic research pipeline view; where evidence is thinnest Elliot Swartz (GFI) — GFI identifies high-value open research questions |
|
| S3 Off-record 13:50–14:35 |
Open: science, engineering, and business specifics not fully aired in S1/S2 | Participant-led — no fixed discussants |
| Business/financial environment — investment, returns, government support, company trajectories | Tarka Abraham (Ivy Farm Technologies); Stefano Lattanzi (Bruno Cell); Nike Schiavo (Bruno Cell); Jordi Morales-Dalmau (Cultimate Foods) (suggested) — operator/near-industry perspectives [Tom Bry-Chevalier — apologies] | |
| S3 Public 14:35–15:00 |
Consensus, disagreements, and key findings — where do academic and industry views converge or diverge? | Tom Bry-Chevalier (Univ de Lorraine) — apologies Jordi Morales-Dalmau (Cultimate Foods) — (suggested) industry skeptic voice Elliot Swartz (GFI) — optimistic analyst; natural contrast Jakub Kozlowski (model developer) — communicability perspective |
| Research and evaluation priorities — what should The Unjournal prioritize for the CM cost viability PQ? What new data would most help? | Matt McNulty (Tufts CCA) — strategic research priorities view Elliot Swartz (GFI) — systematic mapping of CM research gaps Jakub Kozlowski (model developer) — knows where input uncertainties are largest |
|
| AW funding implications — more or less relative to proven interventions? What would change your mind? | Hannah McKay (Rethink Priorities) — AW funding allocation research |