Research history

Current published edition

The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

As recorded by . This is a dated public record of drafts, changes, sources and review declarations. A page, checksum or merged pull request does not establish a scientific result or independent review.

Edition
edition:2026-10-27-initial
Edition checksum
63af9ab52aa86652f81ea1fac0b7c40aaad46cd8623865918d41ec347f9b2cd3
Projection checksum
08a373e3b85d7ed44d36bc472444b5773f7cbd1dde11f60e0053b3ba4884b65c
Period
inclusive to exclusive.
Starting baseline
Unknown before the recorded capture. Present states are not backdated to January.

JSON retains the complete pinned edition. CSV covers every recorded event in this edition; view filters do not change either download.

Recorded activity and qualification

  • 43Stable records
  • 45Subject versions
  • 43Recorded events
  • 0Review declarations
  • 0Subjects with qualifying source review
  • 0Peer-reviewed manuscripts
  • 0Qualifying research results
  • 1Editorial correction artifacts
  • 2Changed claim subjects
  • 23Open problems
  • 0Partially resolved problems
  • 0Solved problems
  • 0Problems under review
  • 0Unresolved challenges

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself. Editorial corrections, proposed methods and software checks are separate from qualifying research results.

Coverage and limits

40 source entries are covered by this edition. Claim-level records cover only their selected wording and context; they do not qualify a whole manuscript. Source-derived case labels describe the published summaries, not Charitology fieldwork or charity ratings.

Entry links open the present site. The separate pinned source text retains this edition’s exact archived bytes.

The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge · Source-derived case · version 1
Source review: draft

case:ice-bucket-challenge

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself.

Versions and exact subjects

Version entries 1–1

Version 1: The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

Current subject in this edition

Subject checksum
820b323d149fa9a22f34cb549c344707e350fa7218826babbac8ffa747df0fcd
Version checksum
8358d3d19c1d135b1704683b95d309f750646105aeaffb9a427b4feac7ca5ae1
Authorship declaration
unknown; completeness unknown.
conditions
[
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "story-bias"
  },
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "measurement-gap"
  }
]
depth
1
era
2014–2024
kind
mixed
lessons
[
  "Attention can raise a fortune in a single summer, but it chooses causes by what spreads, not by the size or neglect of the need.",
  "A windfall does the most good when it is turned into things that keep working, such as research teams, clinics and trained people.",
  "Self-reported impact needs independent checks. The 10-year evaluation leaned on a grantee survey that only about a quarter of grantees answered.",
  "A campaign total can’t say whether the money was new giving or giving moved from other causes. That counterfactual is the question that matters most and is the hardest to answer."
]
place
United States and online worldwide
summary
In the summer of 2014 a viral video challenge raised $115 million for the ALS Association, which turned the money into research grants, clinics and advocacy. It is a case of attention-driven giving that funded lasting work, and a reminder that attention picks causes by what spreads, not by need.
Exact archived Markdown body

Inert source text, including its original formatting. It is not executed as page markup.

## What happened

In the summer of 2014, people around the world filmed themselves dumping buckets of ice water over their heads and challenged their friends to do the same and give to the fight against amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also called Lou Gehrig’s disease. The ALS Association credits Anthony Senerchia, Pete Frates and Pat Quinn with launching the movement. It says 17 million people took part and the challenge raised $115 million for the association.

A 10-year evaluation by RTI International, published by the association in 2024, describes where the money went. From 2013 to 2024 the association awarded $154.7 million in 560 research grants. Grantees reported new genes, biomarkers and treatment targets, and close to 80 percent of those who answered a survey said the funding let them expand their ALS research. The association says the number of multidisciplinary ALS clinics has more than doubled since 2014, from 100 to more than 220. Federal research money grew too: NIH funding for ALS research nearly tripled between 2011–2013 and 2021–2023, adjusted for inflation, while the NIH budget as a whole grew about 21 percent. The evaluators say that attributing this growth specifically to the association is beyond the scope of their study.

## Why it’s mixed

The money was real and so was the research. But the way it arrived is not a model for how giving should choose causes. ALS got a viral moment that most diseases never get, and nothing in the challenge compared ALS with other needs. The windfall came once. RTI calls it a “once-in-a-generation phenomenon.”

The evidence on impact is also thinner than the totals suggest. The grantee survey had a 27 percent response rate, a limitation the report itself flags. And most care for people living with ALS is still palliative, the evaluators note.

## Where it sits in the system

The money worked at several depths. Clinic care is relief, research aims at treatments, which on the [depth scale](/method/#depth) is **repair** (level 1), and advocacy for federal funding works on structure. The way the money was raised is a clear case of [Story Bias](/diagnosis/story-bias/): a fun, social, shareable act, attached to one cause. The way its impact is reported shows the [Measurement Gap](/diagnosis/measurement-gap/), where outputs such as grants, papers and clinics are counted, while the outcome that matters most, years of life for people with ALS, is much harder to measure.

## What carries over

When attention brings a windfall, put it into capacity that lasts and commission evaluation that doesn’t rely on the people funded. And ask the question no campaign total answers: did this money add to the world’s giving or move it from somewhere else? That is [Open Problem 4, the Counterfactual Problem](/open-problems/the-counterfactual-problem/).
Cited evidence
Pinned source capture
Exact version fields and declaration references
{
  "adapterVersion": "research-content-v1",
  "authorship": {
    "actorIds": [],
    "complete": false,
    "refs": [],
    "state": "unknown"
  },
  "hash": "8358d3d19c1d135b1704683b95d309f750646105aeaffb9a427b4feac7ca5ae1",
  "id": "version:case-ice-bucket-challenge-v1",
  "previousId": null,
  "recordId": "case:ice-bucket-challenge",
  "sources": [
    {
      "selector": {
        "kind": "entry"
      },
      "sourceId": "source:current-cases-ice-bucket-challenge"
    }
  ],
  "subject": {
    "body": "\n## What happened\n\nIn the summer of 2014, people around the world filmed themselves dumping buckets of ice water over their heads and challenged their friends to do the same and give to the fight against amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also called Lou Gehrig’s disease. The ALS Association credits Anthony Senerchia, Pete Frates and Pat Quinn with launching the movement. It says 17 million people took part and the challenge raised $115 million for the association.\n\nA 10-year evaluation by RTI International, published by the association in 2024, describes where the money went. From 2013 to 2024 the association awarded $154.7 million in 560 research grants. Grantees reported new genes, biomarkers and treatment targets, and close to 80 percent of those who answered a survey said the funding let them expand their ALS research. The association says the number of multidisciplinary ALS clinics has more than doubled since 2014, from 100 to more than 220. Federal research money grew too: NIH funding for ALS research nearly tripled between 2011–2013 and 2021–2023, adjusted for inflation, while the NIH budget as a whole grew about 21 percent. The evaluators say that attributing this growth specifically to the association is beyond the scope of their study.\n\n## Why it’s mixed\n\nThe money was real and so was the research. But the way it arrived is not a model for how giving should choose causes. ALS got a viral moment that most diseases never get, and nothing in the challenge compared ALS with other needs. The windfall came once. RTI calls it a “once-in-a-generation phenomenon.”\n\nThe evidence on impact is also thinner than the totals suggest. The grantee survey had a 27 percent response rate, a limitation the report itself flags. And most care for people living with ALS is still palliative, the evaluators note.\n\n## Where it sits in the system\n\nThe money worked at several depths. Clinic care is relief, research aims at treatments, which on the [depth scale](/method/#depth) is **repair** (level 1), and advocacy for federal funding works on structure. The way the money was raised is a clear case of [Story Bias](/diagnosis/story-bias/): a fun, social, shareable act, attached to one cause. The way its impact is reported shows the [Measurement Gap](/diagnosis/measurement-gap/), where outputs such as grants, papers and clinics are counted, while the outcome that matters most, years of life for people with ALS, is much harder to measure.\n\n## What carries over\n\nWhen attention brings a windfall, put it into capacity that lasts and commission evaluation that doesn’t rely on the people funded. And ask the question no campaign total answers: did this money add to the world’s giving or move it from somewhere else? That is [Open Problem 4, the Counterfactual Problem](/open-problems/the-counterfactual-problem/).\n",
    "collection": "cases",
    "frontmatter": {
      "conditions": [
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "story-bias"
        },
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "measurement-gap"
        }
      ],
      "depth": 1,
      "era": "2014–2024",
      "kind": "mixed",
      "lessons": [
        "Attention can raise a fortune in a single summer, but it chooses causes by what spreads, not by the size or neglect of the need.",
        "A windfall does the most good when it is turned into things that keep working, such as research teams, clinics and trained people.",
        "Self-reported impact needs independent checks. The 10-year evaluation leaned on a grantee survey that only about a quarter of grantees answered.",
        "A campaign total can’t say whether the money was new giving or giving moved from other causes. That counterfactual is the question that matters most and is the hardest to answer."
      ],
      "place": "United States and online worldwide",
      "sources": [
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "The ALS Association",
          "title": "The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge",
          "url": "https://www.als.org/ibc",
          "year": null
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Joshua Schnell and colleagues, RTI International",
          "title": "ALS Association Ice Bucket Challenge Impact Evaluation Report",
          "url": "https://www.als.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/ALS_IBC10_Impact_Report.pdf",
          "year": 2024
        }
      ],
      "summary": "In the summer of 2014 a viral video challenge raised $115 million for the ALS Association, which turned the money into research grants, clinics and advocacy. It is a case of attention-driven giving that funded lasting work, and a reminder that attention picks causes by what spreads, not by need.",
      "title": "The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge"
    },
    "type": "entry"
  },
  "subjectHash": "820b323d149fa9a22f34cb549c344707e350fa7218826babbac8ffa747df0fcd",
  "version": 1
}

Timeline in recorded order

Public occurrence time and ledger recording time are different. A coverage baseline records what was present at capture; it does not invent an earlier history.

Events 1–1

Coverage baseline

Recorded order
6; sequence 1 for this record.
Public occurrence
Undated / no earlier occurrence asserted · undated
Recorded in ledger

Initial capture of current source wording; no earlier independent review or historical event time is asserted.

Observed baseline: version 1.

Exact event fields
{
  "actorIds": [],
  "hash": "d66d1b7fb097e20547fdecb5e7f244f2d1eda993f995ccf577b464b14ece6ee4",
  "id": "event:case-ice-bucket-challenge-1",
  "initialProblemState": null,
  "observationIds": [],
  "occurredAt": null,
  "ordinal": 6,
  "previousHash": null,
  "previousId": null,
  "reason": "Initial capture of current source wording; no earlier independent review or historical event time is asserted.",
  "recordId": "case:ice-bucket-challenge",
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-27T08:31:31.000Z",
  "refs": [],
  "sequence": 1,
  "timeBasis": "undated",
  "type": "baseline",
  "version": {
    "recordId": "case:ice-bucket-challenge",
    "subjectHash": "820b323d149fa9a22f34cb549c344707e350fa7218826babbac8ffa747df0fcd",
    "version": 1
  }
}

Review declarations

No public review declaration is recorded for this subject in this edition.

Dated public metadata observations

These observations record only the displayed metadata at inspection. A merge, closed issue or empty review list does not establish research or independent review.

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "975bbbbbd198d4b3c4e1777013d0410588a838b3",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "3653d41717a86db2933b02664d7026a329350a66",
  "mergeCommit": "8df2d0ddbc6d91b9841c6bbb94dbde1fc7c00137",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-27T08:10:57.000Z",
  "number": 15,
  "state": "closed"
}

be39e645f9291ea3931584665b011df77bfa8340e4d32f36562eb526f8e62396

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "905bdd27bb5f16027c3b3ad3c0f5ee3fc18e3e45",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "510320528e89f45caa9c42eb5a6eda3d6ad1bede",
  "mergeCommit": "3a57d24acc6efd4eb3ae60c59da36ea17c023fb9",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-26T05:24:43.000Z",
  "number": 3,
  "state": "closed"
}

1ec26b57bd6ef466311b11958d47e9d144ec150ea5689838ae8036eb363aacbf

github-review-list · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "prNumber": 3,
  "reviewIds": []
}

3b7b719dbdd25b9937ba6c640f7234921611db30818b5675db41b9fa3534d926

github-issue · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "commentCount": 0,
  "number": 1,
  "state": "open"
}

b411d756f95b7434bc8a2a73dd5599f751afe621b2ab673c0e2e7b056d37bb14

Corrections stay public

This ledger reads checked-in public evidence. It does not read private browser registers, publish a local result, assign reviewers or rate charities. New evidence and corrections enter through the repository’s public contribution process.

How to contribute or challenge a claim