We tend to think of institutions of science as static entities and of the way academia works as simply normal. This is not so.The NIH’s budget in 1940 was less than $1 million and it was only after the WW2, that the US government turned it into a major funding body (Vannevar Bush being the key "institutional designer" here).70 years later, the NIH has effectively abdicated its responsibility to the next generation of scientists, allocating 7 (!) times more funding to scientists >65 years old (who would’ve been in mandatory retirement had they been serving in the military) than to those <=35 years old.We believe there's nothing wrong with scientists >65 years old getting the funding they deserve per se.But when scientists <=35 years old only get 2%, age starts to signify the deeper structural problems facing institutions--namely, inability to innovate and to empower scientists properly. We know that the future lies with scientists who are yet to make their biggest discoveries, not with those who made them decades ago.The NIH is a gigantic, mature, and very rigid government organization. It would not be capable of reform even under incredibly strong external pressure, meaning that the 21st century institutions of basic science will have to be built anew.This is what New Science is working on.In several years, We will start funding entire labs outside of academia and then will be creating an entire network of scientific organizations, while supporting the broader scientific ecosystem that will constitute the 21st century institutions of basic science.New Science is advised by Tessa Alexanian, George Church, Tyler Cowen, Andrew Gelman, Channabasavaiah Gurumurthy, Konrad Kording, Tony Kulesa, Raymond Tonsing, and Elizabeth Yin.