Slashdot Mirror
Microryza Brings Crowd-Funding To Scientific Research
Zothecula writes "Crowd-funding sites like Kickstarter have proven popular for groups and individuals looking to get a consumer product, movie, music or video game project off the ground. Now a group of researchers and scientists is adopting a similar crowd-funding model to raise money for scientific research projects. The Microryza website, which launched this week, lets the public get behind research they care about and maybe help it get out of the lab."
We need to get away from this mindset that it's OK to let rich people have more of a say in charity (which includes academic research) than poor - it simply doesn't work.
There's a reason China's winning while the West's in the shitter: long term, high investment projects such as academia, infrastructure and industry are lifted up and celebtrated by Chinese government, while America and the UK have little interest in helping anyone but the banker. You tax and then you assign the money to projects which will help the country.
(and those who do not want to live in society, are welcome to reject *all* its advances and protections)
What's the point of linking to the useless "Gizmag" article when the Slashdot summary contains basically the exact same content? Furthermore, why the hell does the "Gizmag" article even exist, when at the bottom of it, it in turn links to an article at some "Ubergizmo" site that also says essentially the same thing?
Worst of all, the Slashdot summary doesn't even fucking link to the Microryza website!
Cutting out these useless middlemen blog articles and linking directly to the site being discussed is a lot more efficient, you know.
I was actively excited when I read TFS. Looking at TFA, though, there's something that I don't like the sound of at all:
Importantly, the researchers retain 100 percent ownership of their project and its results and get to choose how much material they disclose. While backers will generally like to keep apprised of project developments and findings, researchers aren’t obliged to provide updates.
They want money from crowdsourcing, but they want to keep their findings to themselves? I'm not on board with that at all. If science is funded by the kindness of 1000 enthusiasts, it isn't acceptable to claim that the results are strictly yours to do with what you want. If you want money from the public, you have to accepts that the results belong to the public. Or at least you should do, in my opinion.
Usually we let groups get away with claiming "ownership" over information on the basis that they need rewarding for their risky investment. If you take away that element, and they're not investing themselves, what right do they have to keep the information to themselves? To keep it away from "competitors"?
I wouldn't give a penny to a project without at least some show of faith that they're doing the research for the good of the world, and not for themselves.
This is because of a new law that passed in the last week or so.
Good news: crowd-sourcing of entrepreneurial dollars for small startups may really help some good companies, particularly where angel investing and venture capital financing are as hard to find as they are right now.
Bad news: there were huge concerns about due diligence/accounting/accountability/regulatory structure/people using this for scams (plus, of course, how many just plain *bad* business ideas there are out there). I don't know what they wound up doing to address these, or to what extent it will work. When doing angel investing or VC, the lender has lots of personal contact and the investment is for enough money that there is generally some significant amount of due diligence work done. ("So... does your company actually sell anything?")
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I want a pathogen named after me, dammit!
Cue all the nutters who believe (insert everyday technology) will cause (insert favourite ailment of choice), and will want to fund a project to prove their point.
from his Contrary Brin blog:
"... how about crowd sourcing to help fund science research: Choose your own projects through Petridish: a crowdfunding site, where scientists can showcase their research to the public. In exchange, you will receive updates, acknowledgement and/or various rewards (photographs, DVD, field samples, journal acknowledgment, or invitations to talks/dinner), plus the satisfaction of assisting scientists trying to understand our world. (Donations are not currently tax deductible.) Way cool."
And this is why: regular people aren't qualified to evaluate good research. They also aren't qualified to evaluate research progress. I don't think you can produce a sustainable system for funding without review from your peers. You need experts to look at a carefully designed research project and decide whether it's feasible, worth the investment and whether the researchers are qualified to do the work. A system built without peer review may be successful at first, but ultimately, it will lead to disappointment and wasted money. (That said, it would be better if there were a mechanism to donate your money directly to the NSF and NIH extramural research funding agencies with targets for, say, AIDS research or superconductors.)