Maybe it's just me, but looking at molecular accumulation in this way doesn't seem that promising. However, there are other problems here...<p>In order to get this kind of research funded in a traditional way, the author would need a much more detailed explanation of the work: specifically, a compelling and well-referenced account of why drug accumulation in mouse brain sections will be helpful in understanding the mechanism of stimulant function. I would also like to see more detailed methodology and an account of how the researcher will responsibly conduct the research (in terms of accounting for hazardous materials and maintaining researcher safety). These are essential components that any PI would need to provide in order to get research funded, because they are necessary to ensure that the researcher can actually conduct the research (has the knowledge and resources), and get it published (missing some of these features would prevent publication in an academic journal).<p>It seems to me that other kinds of analysis, such as molecular state-space based approaches (transcriptomics, metabolomics, etc.) would be much more useful than cellular and sub-cellular accumulation, especially since we have very little knowledge of how spatial tissue, cellular, and sub-cellular neurobiology relate to brain function.<p>Please let me know if I just missed these essential details...
I made a $100 contribution (which gets the "talk science over a round of beer" reward) earlier this month. The researcher, Ethan Perlstein, is actually in the Bay Area at the moment... he reached out to me and we're having beers in Palo Alto this afternoon. If you've contributed to the project and are in Palo Alto feel free to join us for a chat / beers in the Science Exchange office (459 Hamilton Ave).
I'm going to kick in. I'm willing to spend some money just to help prove that croudfunded science can work. I understand why some are asking if this is the exactly correct study to do, but I'm not worried. A) I'm willing to trust the guy for $50, and B) once the market is established, competition will drive up study quality.
Thanks to everyone for all the thoughtful discussions!<p>And thanks to Bilal for starting this thread.<p>If anyone would like to discuss our project in greater detail, please email me: eperlste@princeton.edu.<p>P.S. traffic from here to RocketHub resulted in 999 project video plays, which is 40-times the previous day's total, and 3-times greater than the previous daily high.<p>-Ethan
Really like the potential in crowdfunding of science as a way to get more people interested in science. Would be interesting to see rewards tailored for aspiring scientists. This research-topic is probably too controversial to directly associate with high school and younger students but letting them sponsor research projects in exchange for a lab tour / tutorial would be an interesting way to get young people more interested in research.
I don't get it. All of these people on the project would typically have amounts of money for research on whatever they want to do. Why do they need more money? I guess I am missing the point. I've heard of a bunch professors from friends that have huge research funds. They can even give portions of their research grants to students.
Why? There is already a pretty thorough understanding of how amphetamines work (as compared to other psychoactive substances) because they've been used by militaries around the world forever. Oh and baseball teams.
For more information on the researcher's discipline, you can check out this neat video on 'Evolutionary Pharmacology': <a href="http://vimeo.com/44687770" rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/44687770</a>