SENTINEL BIO

Institutional Archetype

THE POOLED FUND WITH A SEAT AT THE TABLE — Sentinel Bio is a two-year-old biosecurity fund that pools money from individuals, donor-advised funds and a few foundations and spends it on policy research, screening infrastructure and AI-biology risk work. In the AI evaluator layer it appears in one sentence: SecureBio, the biology grader that OpenAI, Meta and others cite, says it is “primarily funded by Coefficient Giving, the Survival and Flourishing Fund, and Sentinel Bio” (SecureBio; see SecureBio). Its board is two officers of the philanthropic advisor Ergo Impact and its own chief executive; two other small charities, Halcyon Futures and Ergo Impact, list it as a related organization on their returns, and it answers “No” to that question on its own. This profile scores the position, not the founders, the directors or the grantees.

The finding is a convergence, not a volume. Sentinel’s public grant list is $11.8 million over two years; Good Ventures paid $306.7 million in grants in one tax year. What Sentinel adds to the funding map is a fifth door into the same evaluator and the same think tank: the money that reaches SecureBio comes from Good Ventures directly, from Coefficient Giving, from the Survival and Flourishing Fund, with Dustin Moskovitz named as the funder of most of its 2026 line, and from Sentinel. RAND and Epoch AI sit on Sentinel’s list and on Coefficient Giving’s.

Mandate & Origin

Self-description. The home page: “We launched Sentinel Bio to make pandemics history within our lifetimes,” and “In the near term, we are relentlessly focusing on a narrow set of urgent priorities around creating guardrails to safely unleash powerful biotechnologies.” The mission pages name three areas, “Understanding the drivers and mitigants of catastrophic pandemics,” “Strengthening safeguards on advanced biotechnologies” and “Bolstering global pandemic preparedness,” and two current goals: “that synthetic nucleic acids – the building blocks of engineered biology – are subject to rigorous ‘Know-Your-Order’ and ‘Know-Your-Customer’ governance” and “that frontier AI models are released with mechanisms that restrict capabilities to create extremely harmful biological agents.” It calls itself a set of “catalysts, market shapers, and lamp lighters” (Sentinel Bio; Sentinel Bio, Mission and Strategy). The Form 990 mission line: “Sentinel Bio is a new nonprofit organization focused on eliminating pandemics within our lifetimes” (ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990).

Origin. “Sentinel Bio Inc. was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2024 (EIN 99-3068480),” with headquarters at 1100 15th St NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC; ProPublica’s record shows an IRS ruling date of June 2024 and a first return for the tax period 16 May to 31 December 2024, signed by Claire Qureshi as Chief Executive Officer (Sentinel Bio, Organization; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio Inc). The CEO’s own account, in the 2025 annual letter: “After Covid-19, I committed my life to making pandemics history,” and she moved “from global health to biosecurity” after working to scale vaccine manufacturing at Novavax (Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter).

Who runs it. The people page lists Claire Qureshi, CEO (“leads Sentinel Bio as our CEO, co-founder, and member of the Board of Directors”), Joshua Monrad, Managing Director and co-founder (“Previously, Joshua advised the OpenAI Foundation’s bioresilience efforts during its early stages. Before that, he led the biosecurity efforts at a major philanthropic advisor”), Janika Schmitt (Senior Program Officer), Toby Webster (Program Director, AI and engineering biology; formerly RAND Europe), Emily Ge (Chief of Staff) and Gianluca Bangara (Operations Lead). Its Advisory Council lists Zhilin Xiao, Prof. Leo Yee-Sin (“a Senior Consultant to the Singapore Ministry of Health”), Dr. Sandeep Patel (“the former Director of BARDA DRIVe”) and Dr. Mark Dybul. Its Board of Directors lists three people: Dr. Kellie Liket (“the President at the philanthropic advisor Ergo Impact”), Max Henderson (“the CEO at Ergo Impact”) and Claire Qureshi (Sentinel Bio, People).

Governance on the return. The FY2024 Form 990 reports three voting members of the governing body, two independent, no family or business relationship among officers and directors, and no employees on its own payroll (Schedule O: it “leases employees through the professional employer organization, Deel US, LLC”). It lists Claire Qureshi as Chief Executive Officer (40 hours a week; $100,000 reportable compensation, $1,410 other), Max Henderson as Treasurer and Dr. Kellie Liket as Secretary (five hours a week each, $0), a written conflict-of-interest policy with an annual confirmation, and CEO compensation set by an independent consultant and approved by the board. Part IV answers “No” to political campaign activity, to lobbying, and to the question whether the organization was related to any tax-exempt or taxable entity (ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990; ProPublica, Schedule O).

Funding & Backers

Money in, first return. The FY2024 return (16 May to 31 December 2024; submitted 6 October 2025) reports revenue of $10,595,173: contributions and grants $10,582,992 (99.9 percent), investment income $11,856 and other revenue $325. Expenses were $1,534,257, of which grants and similar amounts paid $1,105,558, salaries and benefits $188,179 and other expenses $240,520; year-end assets were $9,078,428, liabilities $17,512 and net assets $9,060,916. Gross receipts $10,595,173 match ProPublica’s summary for the filing (ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio Inc). The organization page says: “We have raised more than US$50M in discretionary capital and are on track to raise and deploy US$100M by 2027,” and “We have built a lean organization focused on directing up to 90% of our capital raise into the ecosystem we support.” The 2025 letter adds “we estimate we’ll need to raise and deploy $75M+ over the next 3-5 years, starting with $15-20M in 2026” (Sentinel Bio, Organization; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter). The return covers seven and a half months; the 2025 return is not among the filings ProPublica lists for the organization.

Who the donors are. The organization page names them: “Our current supporters include Adam Winkel, the AI Safety Tactical Opportunities Fund, Alpha Epsilon, Brian Chen, the Bushnell-Kessel Charitable Fund, the Casey & Family Foundation, Craig Falls, Cullen O’Keefe, the Kwan family, the Larch Fund, Max Henderson, Nicole Piccinini Pesco, the Pandemic Defense Fund, R Tharu, Rishi Gupta, Ruthie Byers, SAIFbio, Sam Bowman, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, as well as anonymous contributors representing about a fifth of our current support. No donor makes up over 25% of our funding.” It also says “Currently, all of our funding is unrestricted, and our funders have no direct influence on our research or the grants we make,” and the 2025 letter says “Today, more than 20 funders support Sentinel.” The public copy of Schedule B carries no contributor names. Neither Coefficient Giving nor Good Ventures is named on the list, and the Survival and Flourishing Fund’s recommendation tables for 2024 to 2026 carry no line for Sentinel Bio (Sentinel Bio, Organization; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter; ProPublica, Schedule B; SFF-2026). Two names on the list recur elsewhere on the map: Craig Falls is on AVERI’s funder list, and the AI Safety Tactical Opportunities Fund is one of the funders Coefficient Giving names in its October 2025 post (“the AI Safety Tactical Opportunities Fund (AISTOF)”) (AVERI, about; Coefficient Giving, Oct 2 2025). Max Henderson is both a named supporter and the organization’s Treasurer.

The gift policy. Sentinel’s Gift Acceptance Policy: “As a general guideline, Sentinel Bio will seek to ensure that no single donor accounts for more than 25% of Sentinel Bio’s total cumulative funding,” “No donor will be allowed to exercise control or influence over Sentinel’s use of a Gift,” and among its screening factors “Relationships with Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Biology, or other Pharmaceutical Companies,” under which it asks whether a donor has employment, advisory or equity ties to a company whose business includes AI, synthetic biology or pharmaceuticals (Sentinel Bio, Gift Acceptance Policy).

Money out, FY2024. Schedule I, Part II, lists six domestic organizations, and Part III one individual:

The seven lines sum to the $1,105,558 on Part I. The program statement groups the year into “AI-enabled biology,” “NA governance” and “general programs,” and describes the first as “research into responsible biomolecular design, leading to a set of public commitments toward safe use of AI in protein design by scientists and researchers,” a public database of biomolecular design tools and convenings on data oversight (ProPublica, Schedule I; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990).

The public grant list. Sentinel’s Research & Projects page lists 50 grants from June 2024 to August 2026, with amounts on 48 of them, totalling $11,758,918, of which $1,826,000 is marked “Funding provided by external partner at recommendation of Sentinel Bio” (Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, $1,076,000, November 2024; Asia Centre for Health Security, $750,000, January 2025). Each line carries a focus label: 20 are marked “Biosecurity and AI,” 34 “Nucleic acid governance” (eight carry both) and five “Building the ecosystem.” The 2025 letter says: “In 2025, we made 36 grants totaling $7.2M (64% Sentinel, 36% advised)”; the list’s 2025-dated lines sum to $5,009,233. The largest recipients by listed amount:

(Sentinel Bio, Research & Projects; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter). The detail pages give the purposes. SecureBio: “We provided SecureBio with $600,000 to a) expand its AI×Bio risk evaluation capabilities from LLMs into Biological Design Tools, and b) develop its policy capacity to bridge the gap between technical findings and real-world safety improvements” (Sentinel Bio, SecureBio). Epoch AI, August 2024: “We provided Epoch AI with $80,000 to systematically track the proliferation of bio-relevant frontier models and the adoption of biosecurity safeguards in these models over time” (Sentinel Bio, Epoch AI). RAND, May 2026: “We provided RAND with a gift of $756,000 to be spent at the discretion of RAND president and CEO Jason Matheny,” for the RAND Center on AI, Security, and Technology and work on nucleic acid synthesis screening; the November 2025 detail page gives $445,000 where the list shows $435,000 (Sentinel Bio, RAND; Sentinel Bio, RAND (2025)). BioTrust, May 2026: “We have committed an initial $750,000 to incubate and launch a third-party trust infrastructure for managed access to bio-capable AI models,” led by two Entrepreneurs-in-Residence at Sentinel Bio (Sentinel Bio, BioTrust).

The related charities. Halcyon Futures Inc’s FY2024 Schedule R, Part II, lists Sentinel Bio Inc (1100 15th St NW Suite 400, Washington, DC; EIN 99-3068480; primary activity “Charitable programs”; Delaware, 501(c)(3)); Ergo Impact Inc’s TY2025 Schedule R lists Fathom AI, Halcyon Futures, Sentinel Bio (“Biotechnology safety and awareness”) and Seismic Catalyst Foundation. Both Part V sections report no gifts, grants, loans or other transactions with the listed organizations. Sentinel’s own return, and Fathom’s, answer “No” to Part IV line 34 on related organizations. The four returns list Max Henderson and Kellie Liket as officers or directors: Halcyon as Secretary and Director, Fathom as board members, Ergo Impact as Chief Executive Officer and President, Sentinel Bio as Treasurer and Secretary (ProPublica, Halcyon Schedule R; ProPublica, Ergo Impact Schedule R; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990). Halcyon’s about page says of its Venture Partner: “Max serves on several boards across AI safety and biosecurity” (Halcyon Futures, about). See Halcyon Futures and Fathom.

Institutional Voice & Intent

Sentinel’s public register is the strategy note and the annual letter: first-person, number-heavy, self-critical in tone, and addressed to donors and partners.

• On the scale of the problem and of the field: “We’re one of just two philanthropic organizations deploying at least $10M per year in the biotech governance space,” and “Sentinel provided more than 70% of the philanthropic funding to this field in 2025” (the second sentence refers to DNA security) (Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter).
• On its role: “We see ourselves as ‘humanity’s directly responsible individuals’ for the orphan issue of DNA security,” and “Sentinel doesn’t exist to make grants to ’the field’; we’re here to solve the problem” (same letter).
• On the models: “only 3% of biological design tools had any safety measures in place as of early 2025,” and “AI capabilities are advancing faster than our ability to safeguard them” (Sentinel Bio, Why We’re Betting on AI-Bio Security and Governance; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter).
• On its evidence: “SecureBio’s Virology Capabilities Test, which Sentinel funded, shows how frontier LLMs can now outperform expert virologists,” and “we commissioned Epoch to document that only 3% of over 300 models had any safeguards as of early 2025” (same letter).

Stated intent: Make pandemics history within the founders’ lifetimes by funding safeguards on AI-bio models and mandatory screening of synthetic DNA, with funders who “have no influence over our research or grantmaking.”

Observed intent: A thesis-driven grant-maker that finds the partner, often manages the project and, in at least one case, incubates the organization: its letter says “28 (~80%) were thesis-driven,” and the BioTrust page says the two founders work “as Entrepreneurs-in-Residence at Sentinel Bio.”

Gap: The record is open on the grant list and the supporter list and thin on three things a reader of the evaluator map would ask. First, the amounts: the supporters are named and no amounts are given, and the public copy of Schedule B carries no contributor names, so the “no donor over 25 percent” line cannot be checked. Second, the totals: the letter’s $7.2 million for 2025 and the list’s $5.0 million for 2025-dated lines are both public and unreconciled. Third, the related-organization listing: two charities list Sentinel as related and Sentinel says it has no related organization. SecureBio’s funding statement, and Sentinel’s own page crediting its funding of the Virology Capabilities Test, are the two public statements that a Sentinel dollar reached a Forum evaluator’s biology benchmark; the list shows one $600,000 grant to SecureBio, and the benchmark’s funding is not itemized. The gap is structural: a standard for evaluator funding exists, and the funders of a Forum evaluator are a short list that includes a fund whose board overlaps with two other charities’ boards.

Interest: Sentinel argues two policy positions in its own pages. What adoption of each would pay, from its list, its return and its own words:

• Mandatory screening of synthetic DNA, enacted in law. Position, in its words: “Executive action needs to be complemented by legislation to ensure enforceable screening across the private sector.” The letter sets a goal of “at least 80% of companies conduct high-quality screening” by 2030 and says it will pilot “functions that governments should eventually perform, such as auditing and data aggregation to track suspicious patterns across the industry,” and that “These initiatives are highly operational, and we expect to spend significant time recruiting founders to spearhead new programs and organizations.” What it pays: the screening field Sentinel funds, which its letter says it supplied with more than 70 percent of the philanthropic money in 2025: the Engineering Biology Research Consortium ($555,000 across two grants on screening systems), SecureDNA ($60,000), the International Gene Synthesis Consortium ($164,000), the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security ($1,043,384 across three nucleic-acid-governance lines) and MITRE ($188,421); and the auditing and data-aggregation organizations it says it will recruit founders to start. Best case, Sentinel’s: “achieving our win condition of >80% global screening coverage would meaningfully reduce the risk of engineered pandemics by raising significant barriers to non-state actors.” Who else gains: the letter’s own list, “a broad coalition of stakeholders” including the DNA synthesis industry and frontier AI companies, and the governments that would receive an audited screening system (Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter; Sentinel Bio, Research & Projects).
• Frontier AI models released with biology safeguards, tested and credentialed by third parties. Position, in its words: “that frontier AI models are released with mechanisms that restrict capabilities to create extremely harmful biological agents” (Sentinel Bio, Mission and Strategy). What it pays: demand for outside biology evaluation and for managed-access infrastructure, in the same list: $600,000 to SecureBio for AI-bio risk evaluation, $180,000 to Epoch AI for tracking bio-capable models, $1,191,000 to RAND, and $750,000 to BioTrust, a third-party credentialing system that two Sentinel entrepreneurs-in-residence are building (the page: “A shared credentialing system lets a researcher prove their credentials once and carry that verification across the platforms and providers they work with”). Best case, Sentinel’s: “AI capabilities are advancing faster than our ability to safeguard them.” Who else gains: the Forum evaluators and other bio-capability testers, and any lab that wants a shared standard for who may use a bio-capable model (Sentinel Bio, BioTrust; Sentinel Bio, SecureBio).

Interest is a documented fact about each position, not a claim about motive, and not a verdict that the argument is wrong. Each best case is stated at the strength its author states it.

Position in the Apparatus

• The one sentence that puts it on the evaluator map. SecureBio, an AI Evaluator Forum member: “SecureBio AI is not funded by OpenAI, its employees, or its competitors (beyond OpenAI providing payment for the assessment at cost, as noted above). We are primarily funded by Coefficient Giving, the Survival and Flourishing Fund, and Sentinel Bio” (SecureBio, GPT-6 Astra assessment).
• Five doors into SecureBio. Good Ventures paid SecureBio Inc $1,400,000 for general support and $230,000 for a public health early warning system in the tax year to 30 June 2025, with $2,600,000 more approved; Coefficient Giving’s records list grants to SecureBio from $1,420,937 (March 2023) to $4,000,000 over three years (April 2025); the Survival and Flourishing Fund’s 2026 table lists SecureBio at $927,000, of which Dustin Moskovitz is the funder of $896,000; Sentinel lists $600,000 (June 2025); and the OpenAI Foundation granted $17.2M to SecureBio’s Detection arm (ProPublica, Good Ventures FY2024 Form 990-PF; Coefficient Giving; SFF-2026; Sentinel Bio, SecureBio; SecureBio). Sentinel’s Managing Director “advised the OpenAI Foundation’s bioresilience efforts during its early stages” (Sentinel Bio, People). See OpenAI Foundation.
• Two more Coefficient grantees. Epoch AI lists Sentinel Bio as a donor (“Tracking developments in biological AI models,” $85,000 September 2025 and $80,000 September 2024) beside Coefficient Giving’s lines; RAND, a Forum member, is a Sentinel grantee ($445,000 or $435,000 in November 2025, $756,000 in May 2026), a Coefficient Giving grantee (“a gift of $2.5 million to RAND Corporation, to be spent at the discretion of RAND president and CEO Jason Matheny”), and a Good Ventures grantee ($5,166,667) (Epoch AI; Coefficient Giving, RAND).
• The seats. Henderson is a Sentinel director and Treasurer, Ergo Impact’s chief executive, a Halcyon Venture Partner, and an AVERI board member; Liket is a Sentinel director and Secretary, Ergo Impact’s President, a Halcyon director and a Fathom board member (Sentinel Bio, People; AVERI, team; ProPublica, Fathom AI Inc; each organization’s return). See Mike McCormick for Halcyon’s chief executive and Bri Treece for Fathom.
• Beside the larger checkbooks. Sentinel’s list is $11.8 million over two years against the Survival and Flourishing Fund’s $63.13MM round and Good Ventures’ $306.7 million in one tax year; its own letter says it is one of two philanthropic organizations spending $10 million a year or more on biotech governance. See Survival and Flourishing Fund, Open Philanthropy (Coefficient Giving) and Halcyon Futures; the evaluator-by-evaluator overlap is set out in Evaluator Alliances.

Actions & Leadership Choices

CONDUCT: STRUCTURAL — POOLED PHILANTHROPY FOR BIOTECH GOVERNANCE, FUNDING A BIO EVALUATOR, WITH BOARD OVERLAP WITH THE HALCYON AND ERGO CHARITIES. No wrongdoing is alleged. The structural point is that a young fund, spending $5 million to $7 million a year on a field it says is under 100 full-time people, is both a named primary funder of a Forum evaluator and a grantee-maker for the policy bodies that would use the evaluator’s findings, and that its two non-executive directors also sit on two other small charities’ boards. The fund’s own best case is that it says all of this: it names its supporters, prints its grants, publishes its donor policy and states a ceiling on any one donor.

It builds as well as grants. The 2025 letter says Sentinel is “recruiting founders to spearhead new programs and organizations,” and the BioTrust page says it committed “an initial $750,000 to incubate and launch” a trust infrastructure led by its own Entrepreneurs-in-Residence. A funder that incubates the organization it then funds is a structure the evaluator map has seen at Halcyon Futures, whose CEO sits on two Forum evaluators’ boards; the Sentinel record shows no Forum board seat.

The totals do not meet. Sentinel says it “raised more than US$50M” and made $7.2 million of grants in 2025; its first return shows $10.6 million of contributions in seven and a half months of 2024 and $1.1 million of grants; its list shows $5.0 million of 2025-dated grants. Each statement is its own. The 2025 return will settle the first and third.

A related-organization question answered two ways. Halcyon’s and Ergo’s returns list Sentinel Bio as related; Sentinel’s and Fathom’s say no related organization. The filings do not state the basis, the Part V transaction questions are answered “No” on the two returns that list it, and the four returns share two officers by name.

Alliance Map

These run at the same time. One fund, two years old, is a primary funder of a Forum evaluator; counts among its donors a person who is also its Treasurer and the chief executive of the philanthropic advisor whose president is its Secretary; is listed as related by two charities whose officers include those two people; shares grantees (RAND, Epoch AI, SecureBio) with the largest checkbook on the map; and says in its own letter that it supplies most of the philanthropic money in the field its grantees work in. Sentinel, SecureBio, Epoch, Halcyon and Ergo disclose the individual ties themselves. The overlap is the finding.

Reach Assessment

Institutional: First return: $10,595,173 in revenue, $9,078,428 in assets, $1,105,558 in grants. Public list: 50 grants, $11,758,918, June 2024 to August 2026. Named as a primary funder by one Forum evaluator and a donor to another Forum member’s AI work (RAND) and to Epoch AI; a stated 70 percent share of philanthropic funding for DNA-synthesis security in 2025. Memetic: Its posts and annual letter go to funders and partners; its pages link no social account, and no X handle is linked from sentinelbio.org (Sentinel Bio).

Civilizational: For scale, its CEO writes that its field is “a pittance compared to the estimated $9-15B in climate philanthropy in 2024 alone” and that “fewer than 100 people worldwide work full-time on directly tackling the challenge of preventing advanced biotechnology misuse,” and the Survival and Flourishing Fund organized about $216MM since 2019 and Coefficient Giving says its technical AI safety commitments were $351 million in 2025 (Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter; Survival and Flourishing Fund; Coefficient Giving, Emily Oehlsen, Sep 9 2026). Sentinel is a small allocator in a field it calls small, with one grantee that the labs’ system cards cite.

Score note. Attack 5, defense 6 and hp 3 on first-hand receipts: the grant list and detail pages, the 2025 letter, the organization page’s supporter list and 25 percent line, the FY2024 return’s revenue, grants and balance sheet, and the Schedule R listings. Peers: Halcyon Futures (5/4/3, hazard 40) is the nearest, with the same reach and entrenchment and two points less insulation because no page names its donors; Fathom (7/7/6, hazard 66.7) has a chaptered statute behind it, so Sentinel is two points lower on reach, one on insulation and three on entrenchment; the Survival and Flourishing Fund (6/8/6, hazard 67) moves a $63.13MM round with its funders printed, so Sentinel is one point lower on reach, two on insulation and three on entrenchment. At the evaluator level, SecureBio (7/7/7, hazard 72) holds the biology grader’s seat that Sentinel funds. Hazard 46.7 sits above Halcyon (40) on insulation alone and below Fathom and SFF.

Score basis. Atk 5 is reach: Sentinel’s list shows 50 grants and $11,758,918 from June 2024 to August 2026, including $600,000 to SecureBio, $1,191,000 to RAND and $180,000 to Epoch AI, and its letter says it “provided more than 70% of the philanthropic funding” to DNA-synthesis security in 2025; it is 5 and not 6 because the first return shows $1.1 million of grants, no statute or procurement rule obliges anyone to use a grantee’s output, and the evaluator grants are one program among several (Sentinel Bio, Research & Projects; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990). Def 6 is funding insulation: the page names about twenty supporters, says all funding is unrestricted and that “No donor makes up over 25% of our funding,” and names no lab; it is 6 and not 8 because a fifth of support is anonymous, a named supporter is its Treasurer and the 25 percent line is a stated guideline whose measurement is not shown (Sentinel Bio, Organization; Sentinel Bio, Gift Acceptance Policy). Hp 3 is entrenchment: incorporated 2024, one return, $9,078,428 in assets, no payroll employees of its own and grants made one at a time; the durable parts are its stated plan to “raise and deploy” $75M or more over three to five years and its board’s overlap with two other charities, and no statute or contract holds it in place (ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter). Peers on the same values: Halcyon Futures at 5/4/3 holds reach and entrenchment and sits two points lower on insulation, which is the 6.7-point hazard gap.

Sources: Sentinel Bio; Sentinel Bio, Mission and Strategy; Sentinel Bio, People; Sentinel Bio, Organization; Sentinel Bio, Research & Projects; Sentinel Bio, Gift Acceptance Policy; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter; Sentinel Bio, Why We’re Betting on AI-Bio Security and Governance; Sentinel Bio, SecureBio grant; Sentinel Bio, Epoch AI grant; Sentinel Bio, RAND grant (May 2026); Sentinel Bio, RAND grant (Nov 2025); Sentinel Bio, BioTrust grant; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio Inc; ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990; ProPublica, Schedule B; ProPublica, Schedule I; ProPublica, Schedule O; ProPublica, Halcyon Schedule R; ProPublica, Ergo Impact Schedule R; ProPublica, Good Ventures FY2024 Form 990-PF; SecureBio, GPT-6 Astra assessment; Epoch AI, Transparency; AVERI, about; Halcyon Futures, about; Coefficient Giving, SecureBio grants; Coefficient Giving, RAND grants; Coefficient Giving, Oct 2 2025; Coefficient Giving, Emily Oehlsen (Sep 9 2026); SFF-2026; Survival and Flourishing Fund; AVERI, team; ProPublica, Fathom AI Inc