I have seen nothing to suggest that this is anything other than philanthropy. One probably doesnt see this sort of large scale philanthropy in the British Isles as much as in the US so it might seem a bit unusual but I have seen nothing to suggest anything untoward and I think it would be a pity if other possible philanthropists might be put off (or this family put off giving more money) if this line of questioning was followed too much. I cant find the quote at the moment but what I believe they mean by venture philanthropy is that the money will lead on to larger funders, either larger foundations or government bodies, spending more money following the findings that the money (say $10m) they invest will not just bring $10m to research, but a larger sum because of more money being brought to the field. In the same way, the CAA points out that by funding pilot studies, their money has led to researchers getting bigger grants e.g. $1m grant for the Lights recently. It is a pity if somebody can't accept that somebody could donate for altruistic reasons. Cynicism can damage good will in society I think. When Bill Gates gives money to find vaccines for malaria or whatever the Gates Foundation does these days, I think the purpose is to find a cure for malaria. Lots of other examples could be given. I think the way they are spending money wouldn't be a great way to earn money. And of course, not that I'm convinced it is to do with pharmaceutical companies but even if it did lead to drugs that could be offered, this is what I'd like rather than the situation at the moment where a lot of countries only offer non-pharmacological approaches as part of the system of care for the illness. Having been severely affected for 17 years, I don't think non-pharmacological approaches, esp. the rehab ones, are going to cure me.