public negative

Candidate themes from the notes

Stanford Law Review, are edited by law students

Legal scholar lead Candidate curation Law and AI partner Animal welfare law Pilot papers Paid labeling Evaluator pool Workshop route

How should the model differ between US law reviews and European peer-reviewed legal scholarship?

useful to legal audiences.

the project should restart only if it has legal-scholarship ownership and a narrow pilot.

Not a generic policy-commentary outlet; the focus should be assessable legal scholarship.

Not a replacement for law reviews or journals.

Identify public legal research with unusually high expected value for evaluation.

Choose a narrow pilot

how quickly alternatives to animal-source foods must diffuse for the food system to make a meaningful contribution to climate targets. That is directly relevant to public R&D, procurement, regulation, investment, and philanthropic choices being made by organizations working on climate mitigation, food systems, and animal welfare.

Default σ (no CI)

PQ3C — P(HLI abandons WELLBY within 3 years)

Respondent H

PQ1A: What is your probability that linear WELLBY comparisons are reliable enough for comparing interventions in LMICs? Respondents gave a central estimate (0–100%) and a 90% credible interval.

Subquestions Timeline

CM Workshop ·

Germany consumer survey · late 2024 Free GFI Europe consumer survey (late 2024, published 2025): 25% of German adults and 23% of UK adults reported consuming plant-based meat in the last month. 47% of German adults and 41% of UK adults reported already reducing their meat intake or following a meatless diet. 60% in Germany and 56% in the UK reported at least monthly consumption of some plant-based product category (broader than meat). Since only ~5% of German consumers exclusively consume alternative proteins (see src-35), the large majority of the 25% monthly PBM consumers are omnivores. Survey-reported personal consumption is more direct evidence of self-eating than purchase-panel data, which tracks household-level transactions without identifying wh

Together: PBM is roughly 0.1–0.15% of conventional by volume, or 0.16–0.4% by illustrative retail valu

~$7–9/lb vs ~$5–7/lb

Workshop

In brief

Readings & Resources

Background note: a first-pass Claude summary of evidence on PBA penetration and taste-comparability is available for sharing. It is exploratory rather than a vetted literature review.

takes a broader view than PBA alone

If a 10% price reduction in Impossible Burgers leads many people to eat fewer chickens, that suggests a case

PBA buyers were already eating less meat

plant-based burgers are mostly substituting away from beef (not chicken),

welfare

Connect to decisions: Given current evidence, is PBA funding plausibly competitive with corporate campaigns?

Quantify uncertainty: What's a reasonable range for the cross-price elasticity between PBAs and chicken, given what we know and don't know?

Broaden the scope:

and

s — p

nd can we conclude anything at all with current methods?

can we actually conclude about substitution effect

agricultural economists

brings together

funders

animal welfare researchers

, but stated choices may not reflect real purchasing behavior.

identification strategies vary considerably in rigor.

raising questions about which to trust.

Different specifications can yield very different elasticity estimates.

IV and experimental estimates often diverge in opposite directions from naive OLS.

especially in the earlier years when these products were emerging.

they anticipate lower demand,

Why this is hard to measure

everal key challenges complicate this:

that's a

the strongest causal evidence.

though

These measurement challenges mean we should interpret existing estimates cautiously, while still extracting what information we can. The workshop will discuss which methods are most trustworthy and what further research could help.

likely

One concrete finding worth engaging: The evidence suggests that the vast majority of PBA purchasers are omnivores, not vegetarians or vegans — one study finds that only around 1% of high-spending plant-based meat alternative households are actually vegetarian. This challenges the intuition that "PBA just captures existing vegans" and raises the stakes for substitution estimation: the counterfactual meat consumption displaced may be much larger than assumed.

have serious limitations that are worth confronting directly.

Scanner dat

And we're asking a prior question

(chicken vs. beef vs. pork),

Germany PB meat substitute production volume, 2025 (Destatis)¹⁸

US plant-based beef price premium vs conventional beef, category average

burgers

Penetration

Breaded centre-plate

Butcher) and the Nordic countries, where per-capita consumption of plant-based foods is high — probably sit above Germany, whic

Claude) prompts;

David Manheim (Technion/ALTER) and Mirjam Capuder (University of Maribor) participated. The session was recorded — all attendees joined knowing this. It covered introductions, a walkthrough of the interactive cost model dashboard, and early framing questions about key modeling uncertainties. Full recording pending participant review before public release.

ene-edited cell lines are the most under-modeled factor in published TEAs.

technology and reaching different conclusions based on different priors about scale-up timelines and capital availability.

1. The $1–$100/kg spread is real disagreement, not just uncertainty. Named domain experts — Swartz ($25/kg) and Lattanzi ($100/kg) — are 4× apart with tight confidence intervals. This isn't a calibration problem; they're looking at the same technology and reaching different conclusions based on different priors about scale-up timelines and capital availability.

European Morning Drop-in Fri May 8, 2026 · 9:00–10:00am ET (3–4pm UK · 4–5pm CET) · Zoom Informal drop-in for EU/UK participants who could not stay for the full afternoon session. Primarily attended by European/UK participants (CET timezone). The session was a recorded Zoom — all attendees joined knowing this. It covered introductions and a preview of the hydrolysates and gene editing framing that would open S1. Full recording pending participant review before public release.

he session was recorded — all attendees joined knowing this

while Believer Meats — the company behind the optimistic Pasitka TEA — closed in December 2025.

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)92For 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]93David 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 centerElliot Swartz (GFI) — has systematically mapped CM research gaps; knows what evidence would most shift the cost pictureJakub Kozlowski (model developer) — knows where the model's input uncertainties are largest; can specify what data would most tighten them

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 parity63Parity 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 positioning64Consumer 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.isPaths to commercial viability — discussion spaceUse #question to flag something for verbal discussion during the session.Requirements for viability by 2036 [?]65What needs to be true — technically, financially, or politically — for CM to reach viability by 2036?Hybrid/niche paths [?]66Are hybrid products or niche markets a more realistic near-term path than full cost parity with conventional meat?Lessons from company challenges [?]67What 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 aboveQuestions for discussants — annotate here to surface your question during the session[how this works]68Annotate this page via the Hypothes.is sidebar to leave a question or comment. Add #question to flag it for verbal discussion; #zoom for immediate Zoom chat attention. Reply to or +1 existing annotations; use @ to flag a specific person (who already commented on the page). Key uncertainties and research gaps [note]69These 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 thinnestElliot Swartz (GFI) — wants to discuss modeling_hack + tea_review; GFI systematically identifies high-value research gaps

CDMO cost reality [?]59

S1 claims: push-back from practice [?]54Which S1 technical claims do you push back on from production experience; how cost-relevant is the gap?

Cell line choic

Growth factors: the most uncertain cost driver

The solution is cell immortalization

Cultivated meat — also called cell-based or cultured meat — is produced by growing animal cells in a controlled environment rather than raising and slaughtering animals. The basic idea is simple: take a small sample of cells from an animal, give them the right conditions to grow, and you end up with genuine animal muscle tissue, produced without the animal. That’s the concept. The reality involves some sophisticated biology and engineering, and understanding it is essential for anyone thinking seriously about whether this technology can become commercially viable. This overview walks through the main steps of the production process and flags where costs enter the picture at each stage.

What these numbers represent: Simulated manufacturing cost per kg of cultured chicken cell biomass (wet weight, at harvest ⓘ) in 2036, based on 30,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Wet-weight hydration assumed ~80% (range ~75

--- ## Interactive Model ```{ojs} //| echo: false // ============================================================ // SEEDED RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR // ============================================================ // Simple mulberry32 PRNG (fast, good quality for Monte Carlo) function mulberry32(seed) { return function() { let t = seed += 0x6D2B79F5; t = Math.imul(t ^ t >>> 15, t | 1); t ^= t + Math.imul(t ^ t >>> 7, t | 61); return ((t ^ t >>> 14) >>> 0) / 4294967296; }

Growth factors (GFs) signal cells to proliferate — at current research-grade prices, they can dominate media costs. The slider below sets P(at least one scalable production route — e.g., autocrine cell lines, plant-based farming, or precision fermentation — reaches commercial scale by the projection year), switching between “expensive” and “cheap” GF price regimes. Code viewof p_recfactors = Inputs.range([0.1, 0.9], { value: urlNum("p_recfactors", 0.5), step: 0.05, label: html`P(Scalable <abbr style="cursor:help;text-decoration:underline dotted;" title="Growth Factor — signaling proteins like FGF-2, IGF-1, TGF-β that tell cells to proliferate. Currently the most expensive media component.">Growth Factor (GF)</abbr> technology)` })

Parameters where source grounding is weakest (review priority):

Sources cited for context but NOT directly integrated into parameter values:

Sources that directly informed model structure and parameter ranges:

::: {.callout-note collapse=“true”} ## Model change log — basal micronutrients folded into media (April 2026) Earlier versions of this model carried a separate food-grade micronutrient cost line (vitamins, minerals, trace elements) with its own adoption toggle, usage range (0.1–10 g/kg), and price range ($0.02–20/g). External review flagged two problems:

d production cost per kilogram of pure cultured chicken cells

See Vose (2008), Risk Analysis for a textbook treatment of correlated sampling in cost models, and Morgan & Henrion (1990), Uncertainty for foundational discussion of dependent uncertainties.

copula-based correlation

uptime

❌ Hydrolysates don’t help

Hydrolysates

completely

P(Scalable GF technology)

Code viewof reset_adoption = Inputs.button("Reset adoption defaults", { reduce: () => { // Set viewof values back to defaults viewof p_hydro.value = 0.75; viewof p_hydro.dispatchEvent(new Event("input", {bubbles: true})); viewof p_foodgrade.value = 0.65; viewof p_foodgrade.dispatchEvent(new Event("input", {bubbles: true})); viewof p_recfactors.value = 0.5; viewof p_recfactors.dispatchEvent(new Event("input", {bubbles: true})); viewof gf_progress.value = 50; viewof gf_progress.dispatchEvent(new Event("input", {bubbles: true})); } }) Reset adoption defaultsreset_adoption = 0 Code viewof p_hydro = Inputs.range([0.3, 0.95], { value: 0.75, step: 0.05, label: "P(Hydrolysates for basal media)" })

Comparing LLM and human reviews of social science research using data from Unjournal.org CodeShow All CodeHide All CodeView Source

Table A.3 repeats the same structure using each model’s own maximum matched sample.

Table

ious Methods) ch

Table 3.4: Human-human vs Human-LLM agreement by criterion (Krippendorff’s α)

Table 3.3: Inter-rater agreement: Krippendorff’s alpha by criterion

Pre-booking evaluator time before paper selection (Pacchiardi); paying more for flexibility.

Strong consensus against technical AI safety expansion.

reviewable documents (model cards, technical reports)."

Habermacher pushes for "politically grounded ('realpolitik' type)" regulatory frameworks.

gaps in "regulatory interventions,

estimates of risk parameters

middle-power strategies and China cooperation lessons from arms control

NBER-track pipelines)

ugh Tagat warns "there is already a lot of ongoing work related to labor market impacts," suggesting the Unjournal should differentiate (e.g., evaluating funder-commissioned work, NBER-track pipelines).

AI × economics/labor markets

This requires interoperability standards across institutions, which is harder but achievable.

Mandate open access for AI training. Require that all UKRI-funded research outputs be deposited in formats that can be used for AI training, and that this right cannot be contracted away to publishers. This does not require buying anything and it closes the loophole that allows compliance with open access mandates without genuine openness.

For quick inline notes on specific text or a parameter, use Hypothesis (click the < tab on the right edge). For anything beyond a brief highlight, prefer GitHub Discussions so the conversation stays organized and discoverable.

David van der Linden - Model validation Jacob Kozlowski - Financial modeling

grade CAPEX 5–25/kgcapacity|Basecapitalcostat20kTA|CAPEX_{}$ in scaling equation

echnical Reference

Media Cost=(1000density)⏟L per kg wet cells×turnover⏟media changes×price⏟$/L Variable definitions: Cell density (g/L): Final concentration of cells at harvest. Higher density = less media needed per kg. The 1000 converts g/L to L/kg (since 1 kg = 1000 g). Media turnover: How many times the media volume is replaced during a production run. Batch systems (turnover = 1) use one fill; perfusion systems (turnover = 3–10) continuously flow fresh media through. Price ($/L): Cost per liter of basal media (amino acids, glucose, vitamins, minerals — excludes growth factors, which are modeled as a separate cost component). Some literature sources report “complete medium” costs that include growth factors; our model separates these to allow independent uncertainty analysis.

Session prep, agenda, follow-ups, and broader workshop-level discussion tied to the April 2026 Cultivated Meat PQ Workshop.

Media cost ($/L)

Goodwin et al. 2024 (Nature

Does gene editing regulation affect growth factor costs?

1. Global Decision-Relevance (most important)

wo-track assessment Criteria weights depend on whether the work is prominent or not:

5. Methodological Potential

Animal w

Field-appropriate standards (don’t penalize fields where RCTs aren’t possible): Development/health: RCTs, DiD, regression discontinuity, IV Environmental/climate: Integrated assessment models, panel data, natural experiments AI governance: Mixed methods, surveys, formal models Animal welfare: Stated preference, DCEs, welfare calculations Political science: Quasi-experimental, panel data, surveys Macro/trade: DSGE, gravity equations, synthetic control

NBER working paper,

Show detailed scoring rubrics & methodology

Key Claims to Evaluate

In an economy with manual labor, cognitive labor, physical capital, and AI, optimal tax policy can include taxing AI.

What’s the chance that production costs fall below key price points

To explore these costs interactively, see our

optimistic

Cells grow on scaffolds, media flows through

2024: PMC meta-analysis (Garrison et al.),

Source

all

Research Price Production Target Source

Cell densities have improved dramatically:

The diagram compares these two operating modes side-by-side. Batch mode (left) harvests everything at once; perfusion (right) continuously adds fresh media and removes spent media while retaining cells.

Batch vs. Perfusion: Two Operating Modes

underscores why most cultured meat companies currently use pharma-grade equipment despite the cost premium.

The opportunity: If cultured meat can use simplified food-grade designs (similar to beer brewing at $5-15/L), costs could drop by 10×.

Relative cost

2021

$10-15/kg, with some leading-edge companies achieving costs below $10/kg”

grade

of cells matters enormously for cost:

Step 1: Cell Banking

: <1% of total production cost at scale

Seed Train

Today, optimistic projections suggest ~$63/kg (Garrison et al. 2022), with leading companies achieving <$10/kg cell mass.

Product

🔬 Workshop: Cultured Meat Cost Trajectories (Late April / Early May 2026)

key levers

Typical Cost Breakdown ($/kg chicken)

growth factors

How Cultured Chicken is Made Code

This reasoning underlies our model’s binary switch approach —

insulin and transferrin

albumin

Solutions Being Developed

Market data

Current Price Target Price

Most companies scaling up have already adopted hydrolysate-based media.

most companies

Key Growth Factors for Cultured Meat

Cost ($/L)

Hydrolysates: The Big Win for Amino Acids

Optimistic TEA ($6/lb) — useful comparison but model does not replicate their specific assumptions

Limitations

0 = nascent, 1 = mature

These are like Squiggle/Guesstimate visualizations - they show the full range of possible values, not just a point estimate.

Basic Parameters Code viewof plant_capacity = Inputs.range([5, 100], { value: 20, step: 5, label: "Plant Capacity (kTA/yr)" })

Individual distributions for each cost driver: Code function formatCost(val) { if (val >= 30) return Math.round(val).toString(); if (val >= 1) return val.toFixed(1); if (val >= 0.1) return val.toFixed(2); return val.toFixed(3); } { const allComponents = [ {name: "Media", data: results.cost_media, color: "#27ae60"}, {name: "Micronutrients", data: results.cost_comm_micros, color: "#3498db"}, {name: "Growth Factors", data: results.cost_recf, color: "#9b59b6"}, {name: "Other VOC", data: results.cost_other_var, color: "#7f8c8d"}, {name: "CAPEX (annualized)", data: results.cost_capex, color: "#e74c3c"}, {name: "Fixed OPEX", data: results.cost_fixed, color: "#f39c12"}, {name: "Downstream", data: results.cost_downstream, color: "#1abc9c"} ]; // Filter out components with all zeros (e.g., downstream when not included) const components = allComponents.filter(c => mean(c.data) > 0.001); const plotData = components.map(comp => { const p5 = quantile(comp.data, 0.05); const p50 = quantile(comp.data, 0.50); const p95 = quantile(comp.data, 0.95); const clipVal = Math.max(quantile(comp.data, 0.98), 0.1); const clipped = comp.data.filter(x => x <= clipVal && x >= 0); const plot = Plot.plot({ width: 420, height: 180, marginLeft: 45, marginBottom: 35, marginTop: 10, x: { label: "$/kg", domain: [0, clipVal * 1.1] }, y: { label: null, ticks: [] }, marks: [ Plot.rectY(clipped, Plot.binX({y: "count"}, {x: d => d, fill: comp.color, fillOpacity: 0.7})), Plot.ruleX([p5], {stroke: "black", strokeWidth: 1.5, strokeDasharray: "3,3"}), Plot.ruleX([p50], {stroke: "black", strokeWidth: 2}), Plot.ruleX([p95], {stroke: "black", strokeWidth: 1.5, strokeDasharray: "3,3"}) ] }); const label = `${comp.name}: $${formatCost(p50)} (90% CI: ${formatCost(p5)} – ${formatCost(p95)})`; return {plot, label}; }); return html`<div style="display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(2, 1fr); gap: 1rem; margin: 1rem 0;"> ${plotData.map(d => html`<div style="font-size: 0.9em;"> <div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.3rem; color: #333;">${d.label}</div> ${d.plot} </div>`)} </div>`; } formatCost = ƒ(val)

Sources

The model reveals several important patterns:

WACC Low (%)

Cost Breakdown by Component (Total: $122.51/kg):where(.plot-d6a7b5) { --plot-background: white; display: block; height: auto; height: intrinsic; max-width: 100%; } :where(.plot-d6a7b5 text), :where(.plot-d6a7b5 tspan) { white-space: pre; }

Price-competitive with conventional chicken

Plant Capacity (kTA/yr)

edian Cost (p50)

Why it matters: If production costs reach ~$10/kg (comparable to conventional chicken), cultured meat could compete at scale. If costs remain >$50/kg, the technology may remain niche

Include capital costs (CAPEX)

Bounded ranges

Probabilities, fractions

NoteWe Want Your Feedback!

This model helps evaluators and forecasters:

1. Total Unit Cost

New to this topic? How Cultured Chicken is Made | 🎧 Audio Review (22 min MP3)

🔬 Workshop: Cultured Meat Cost Trajectories (Late April / Early May 2026) This model feeds into The Unjournal’s upcoming expert workshop on CM production costs. Workshop details & signup →

If the price of high-quality plant-based hamburgers fell by 10% everywhere, how would global chicken consumption change?

PBA_01 · Focal Question · Substitution Effect

comment

Decision RelevanceUnderstanding the nuances of poverty traps and 'trappedness' can inform development policies and interventions aimed at poverty alleviation. This paper could provide insights into where resources and policy changes would be most effective globally.