Some scientists are too old to change, and too proud to believe the results of their younger counterparts. It's stupid and it sucks, but it's crazy to think Mic

Some scientists are too old to change, and too proud to believe the results of their younger counterparts. It's stupid and it sucks, but it's crazy to think Microryza will fix this in any substantial way. Crowdfunding science encourages projects that are "sexy" but don't build toward real advances, and so are of questionable scientific value (two examples off the top of my head: http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121115/srep00834/full/srep00834.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121115/srep00834/full/srep00... and https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/science/new-research-suggests-two-rat-brains-can-be-linked.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/science/new-research-sugg...). Moreover, projects that the average person can't understand are at a great disadvantage, and your success rate is tied to the ability to sell yourself, rather than the merit of your research or your abilities as a scientist, which the average person not in your field will be unable to assess. For all of the problems with the present grant funding system, I find it very difficult to believe that crowdfunding could allocate resources more efficiently.