4 ms·
Bah, I've written before about why "crowdfunding" research is cute but entirely ineffective. I should just save the response and paste it every time an article
by polyfractal 15y ago
Bah, I've written before about why "crowdfunding" research is cute but entirely ineffective. I should just save the response and paste it every time an article like this comes up.
Basically, this can only work for tiny projects. Any life sciences related project can't be funded at all. Consider a single vial of antibody (50uL of liquid) costs roughly $300. Reagents are expensive...there is a reason the NIH hands out grants which are $100k to $1m.
Hell, just paying for a technician to perform the experiment is about $25-30k/year (which is dirt cheap compared to basically any other field of skilled labor), ignoring benefits.
Science is expensive.
- cglace 15y agoThis could become the new type of charity. Instead of giving money to an organization that wants to "fight cancer" you could give your money directly to the research project of your choice.
- refurb 15y agoTypical charities like the Michael J Fox foundation fund the most promising programs and researchers they can find (they spend a LOT of time doing this). Is there really any benefit to giving your money to some guy who wants to do research in his garage? I mean, if he was so good, why wouldn't he be working at an academic institution?
- possibilistic 15y agoEquipment procurement, funding for one or two assays, HPLC columns... In exchange, the researchers tell a story... It can most definitely work. Never did we mention replacing federal grants, either. edit: There's so much more too! Fund creation of a plasmid, disarmed strain, knockout, protein fusion... This can _so_ work. You can even focus on the things that will help multiple labs out. You don't even have to fund labs--you could fund biotech startups in creating new tech if they promise to donate X amount to public institutions.