3 ms·

I am not thrilled about this development. It's not that I think this scientist isn't being clever or useful. The real problem is that not all science is sexy en

by mjt0229 14y ago

I am not thrilled about this development. It's not that I think this scientist isn't being clever or useful. The real problem is that not all science is sexy enough to draw funding this way. More specifically, a lot of really important science does not make for a great elevator pitch. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying by seeing the pot of potential science funding as inherently limited. However, I fear that if we give the public the idea that science should be funded this way, then we deemphasize basic science, making it even harder for groundbreaking work to get funded.

Matti 14y ago
"A common myth regarding science crowdfunding is that only charismatic projects are funded. The topic of the research, however, is less important to the project’s success than the crowd a project engages. Almost any topic in science can be made interesting to audiences. For example, as part of the #SciFund Challenge (a science-specific crowdfunding initiative) many esoteric projects have been successfully funded. From a project researching the dormant stages of Daphnia to another investigating pure ecological statistics, projects that appear to have limited public appeal have been successful, due to the tremendous outreach campaigns by the scientists behind them." -- Wheat et al. 2013. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534712002984 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534712...
- mjt0229 14y ago
  Unfortunately, the authors do not provide a citation for that statement. It appears that they simply browsed the SciFund website and made a subjective evaluation based on the list of projects there. That hardly qualifies as a thorough analysis.
Radim 14y ago
I hear this argument often; is there any verifiable backing of this claim? What are the important sciences that are unlikely to get funding that way? In my experience, people fund the weirdest, most mundane things that you'd never consider yourself. That's the beauty of it. I can think of it in terms of an analogy: in ZOOs, yes, the elephants and lions do indeed get loads of voluntary donations. But I'm always amazed when I see the plaques filled with donors next to completely random birds, rodents and insects (apologies to the respective enthusiasts -- I'm sure these are fascinating in their own right!).
- mjt0229 14y ago
  Well, even in the current scientific funding system, translational research (ie, research that produces drugs or other direct human health benefits) tends to crowd out basic science (ie, science that's focused on explaining how things work, regardless of its application). However, translational science depends on basic science for many discoveries and techniques. A classical example of important basic science was the discovery of green fluorescent protein (GFP). The researchers who worked on it were just curious why jellyfish glowed. However, the result of their discovery led to the widespread use of GFP as a way to tag proteins of interest, making them directly observable and easily quantifiable. It has had a huge impact on the biological sciences, gets used in all sorts of research - both translational and basic. The folks who figured it all out won a Nobel. Unfortunately, none of these impacts could really have been forecasted by the researchers doing the work, and it wouldn't have been in the "elevator pitch". Instead, the best they probably could have done was to explain that they were trying to see what made jellyfish glow.
  - Radim 14y ago
    I see your point, but I think you're underestimating the crowd statistics there. Studying why jellyfish glow could make an excellent pitch -- even I can imagine donating to that! And that's even though my pet hobby is geology, which I presume most would count among the more boring disciplines. Of course, I'd gladly donate there, given a credible pitch/project proposal/person. EDIT: in fact, come to think of it, I'd be more inclined to fund a project where the person show genuine passion and curiosity about how a mundane and seemingly irrelevant thing works. Interesting. Food for thought.
  - sungx105 14y ago
    Furthermore, the GFP example is easy to relate to - people have seen jellyfish before. But now imagine that same scenario but with something that people do not have familiarity with. Say I study the bonds between metal atoms and carbon atoms. Understanding the strength of interaction can potentially lead to understanding the reactions and dynamics of chemicals used on a daily basis - but not directly. Completing such work would not immediately lead to a deeper understanding of chemistry, but would just be a small step that could one day lead to major technological or scientific advancement. How could something like this be sold?
Vivtek 14y ago
Grantmanship is grantsmanship. At least this way the research will be public from the get-go. I think it's a fantastic development.

by mjt0229 14y ago

Matti 14y ago

"A common myth regarding science crowdfunding is that only charismatic projects are funded. The topic of the research, however, is less important to the project’s success than the crowd a project engages. Almost any topic in science can be made interesting to audiences. For example, as part of the #SciFund Challenge (a science-specific crowdfunding initiative) many esoteric projects have been successfully funded. From a project researching the dormant stages of Daphnia to another investigating pure ecological statistics, projects that appear to have limited public appeal have been successful, due to the tremendous outreach campaigns by the scientists behind them." -- Wheat et al. 2013. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534712002984 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534712...

mjt0229 14y ago
Unfortunately, the authors do not provide a citation for that statement. It appears that they simply browsed the SciFund website and made a subjective evaluation based on the list of projects there. That hardly qualifies as a thorough analysis.

Radim 14y ago

I hear this argument often; is there any verifiable backing of this claim? What are the important sciences that are unlikely to get funding that way? In my experience, people fund the weirdest, most mundane things that you'd never consider yourself. That's the beauty of it. I can think of it in terms of an analogy: in ZOOs, yes, the elephants and lions do indeed get loads of voluntary donations. But I'm always amazed when I see the plaques filled with donors next to completely random birds, rodents and insects (apologies to the respective enthusiasts -- I'm sure these are fascinating in their own right!).

mjt0229 14y ago
Well, even in the current scientific funding system, translational research (ie, research that produces drugs or other direct human health benefits) tends to crowd out basic science (ie, science that's focused on explaining how things work, regardless of its application). However, translational science depends on basic science for many discoveries and techniques. A classical example of important basic science was the discovery of green fluorescent protein (GFP). The researchers who worked on it were just curious why jellyfish glowed. However, the result of their discovery led to the widespread use of GFP as a way to tag proteins of interest, making them directly observable and easily quantifiable. It has had a huge impact on the biological sciences, gets used in all sorts of research - both translational and basic. The folks who figured it all out won a Nobel. Unfortunately, none of these impacts could really have been forecasted by the researchers doing the work, and it wouldn't have been in the "elevator pitch". Instead, the best they probably could have done was to explain that they were trying to see what made jellyfish glow.
- Radim 14y ago
  I see your point, but I think you're underestimating the crowd statistics there. Studying why jellyfish glow could make an excellent pitch -- even I can imagine donating to that! And that's even though my pet hobby is geology, which I presume most would count among the more boring disciplines. Of course, I'd gladly donate there, given a credible pitch/project proposal/person. EDIT: in fact, come to think of it, I'd be more inclined to fund a project where the person show genuine passion and curiosity about how a mundane and seemingly irrelevant thing works. Interesting. Food for thought.
- sungx105 14y ago
  Furthermore, the GFP example is easy to relate to - people have seen jellyfish before. But now imagine that same scenario but with something that people do not have familiarity with. Say I study the bonds between metal atoms and carbon atoms. Understanding the strength of interaction can potentially lead to understanding the reactions and dynamics of chemicals used on a daily basis - but not directly. Completing such work would not immediately lead to a deeper understanding of chemistry, but would just be a small step that could one day lead to major technological or scientific advancement. How could something like this be sold?

Vivtek 14y ago

Grantmanship is grantsmanship. At least this way the research will be public from the get-go. I think it's a fantastic development.