I've said in the past that it's good to see a variety of groups trying to crack the science crowdfunding issue - it's tough, and differs from the more popular branches of crowdfunding in very important ways.[1]<p>The future of medicine, however, rests upon success; there's a lot of medical research that just doesn't get funded because the regulatory situation for commercial applications of research is terrible beyond all belief [2], [3]. The incentives there percolate back up the research chain to ensure that few people work on genuinely groundbreaking things, or on things that are intended to do something other than treat late-stage conditions in marginal ways.<p>Yet this is an era of plummeting costs and soaring capabilities in biotech - so much can be done now with a grad student and a few tens of thousands of dollars that 20 years back would have taken tens of millions and a whole lab, if it could be done at all. In recent years I've been privileged to watch the Longecity community work through the process of crowdfunding small research projects like microglia transplants in mice to evaluate prospects for neurodegenerative treatments [4], to pick one example. That is exactly the sort of thing we'd like to see better frameworks and a broader audience for.<p>In other words, work taking place in niche fields that are important but underfunded and underappreciated, but nonetheless have strong communities with a willingness to step up and help out.<p>But as I've said, it's really, really hard. You can't just kickstart a science project in the same way as for games, tools, etc. It doesn't work that way. So I'm hoping that one of these present ventures finds the key.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/you-cant-just-kickstart-a-science-project---it-isnt-that-easy.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/you-cant-just-kic...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/the-fda-is-a-destructive-force.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/the-fda-is-a-dest...</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/05/envisaging-a-world-without-the-fda.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/05/envisaging-a-worl...</a><p>[4] <a href="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/05/updates-on-the-longecity-crowdfunded-microglia-study.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/05/updates-on-the-lo...</a>
Given the furore that occurs whenever a Kickstarter doesn't actually produce the product that people had backed (and mistakenly read as "pre-ordered"), I can't imagine the fuss that will come from funding academic research.<p>My own research has often diverged down a path that I thought more interesting, dead-ended quickly from what I thought I should do, or turned out to either be trivial if done 80% of the way, or impossible taken 100% of the way, so I couldn't publish it.<p>I'm sure if I had a crowd behind me, it would have turned into a rabble very quickly. I would not have liked it.
As an investigator myself I see huge promise for this type of program. However, I have a major and immediate concern for this funding mechanism. There is tremendous potential for unethical research to be performed here. Some of the projects currently receiving funding and presented on the web-site are already in potential violation of public safety and patient/animal rights violations. Asking people on the internet to participate in these research efforts is not only unwise, but unethical and at worst, potentially illegal.<p>For example, the project titled, "Viral Causes of Lung Cancer" featured on the homepage proposes to analyze, "...blood from a nine-year study of over 9,000 men.". As indicated in the background material, "People living with AIDS and transplant patients are at higher risk for lung cancer." Therefore, I am to assume that some of these blood samples may contain infectious HIV. At this point, this is only an assumption, but how am I to know that the research is being processed under required biosafety conditions? Equally as important, how am I to know that the patient data has been protected and adequately de-identified? I can make these assumptions, but when dealing with disease control and patient rights assumptions are not a place where I want to dedicate my money.<p>What happens if the investigator accidentally inoculates himself with patient blood via a contaminated needle? The entire proposal is predicated with the idea that the samples are laden with virus, so unless the investigator is wrong, there are at least some infectious samples. Similarly, what controls are in place to prevent the association of patient data with viral load and cancer status amongst other things?<p>How is Microryza going to prevent the investor from law suits in the case of a biosafety incident or patient/animal rights violation?<p>Regulatory committees are a blessing and a curse to all researchers. They are a curse in that it means a lot of paperwork, boring courses and regulatory meetings. But they are there for a reason, specifically to protect the individuals working on the research, the patients from which samples are obtained (when applicable) and the funding agencies supporting the work. Many regulatory requirement are put into place only following an accident or tragedy. I hope that Microryza is able to respond to this proactively instead of retroactively after someone has been harmed.<p>Perhaps this has all been thought out by the founders, but I was unable to find any information on the web-site about any of these issues. My general assumption is that when funding is provided to an investigator at a University that it will all be handled under the universities regulations. However, all funding agencies have a set of rules that must be complied to in order to protect themselves from these exact scenarios. And I can't even begin to imagine a mechanism to properly monitor 'citizen science' projects. These will largely not involve patient data, but may involve topics such as environmental monitoring of plants and animals. These also have their own issues of regulatory concern for the welfare of the environment and animals under study.
Eligibility is a bit unclear; is it in transition? On one page [1] it says "We ask that a researcher to be tied to a university or research institution in order to help us ensure the safety of a project's funds." But on another one [2] it says, "we love to see proposals from people outside of research institutions".<p>[1] <a href="https://www.microryza.com/institutions" rel="nofollow">https://www.microryza.com/institutions</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.microryza.com/faq" rel="nofollow">https://www.microryza.com/faq</a>
From their profiles (<a href="https://www.microryza.com/about" rel="nofollow">https://www.microryza.com/about</a>), few of the founders present experience in real research, I doubt a team with little domain expertise aiming to change the game. They did not see the real problem with scientific funding system: to figure out how to spend the money effectively. It seems they were science undergraduate with experience in iGEM (science competition but not real research). Founders with real research experience should be like Quartzy’s (<a href="http://www.quartzy.com/about-us/team/" rel="nofollow">http://www.quartzy.com/about-us/team/</a>).<p>I really admire watsi.org, which is non-profit and makes it transparent to transfer all the money raised to the lives in need. It is unnecessary to have a layer between donor and researchers. For social good, it is better to have a non-profit “Microryza” rather than the current for-profit one, because: if Microryza perfroms really well in financing high quality research and generating breakthrough of social good as watsi, which in turn makes them a perfect non-profit to be supported by various foundations (it is likely for research facilities with great contribution for scientific advancement to be funded by billionaires), they grow; if not, they die. And being for-profit decreases research budget and “sometimes caused messy disputes in the unsuccessful ones” (<a href="http://ycombinator.com/ycvc.html" rel="nofollow">http://ycombinator.com/ycvc.html</a>). Also as they explained, “As long as you are building something that people love, then a corporation status doesn’t change how likely you are to succeed” (<a href="http://blog.microryza.com/why-is-microryza-for-profit/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.microryza.com/why-is-microryza-for-profit/</a>). So, why not stop thinking about making money but funding good science?<p>In conclusion, I am afraid using microfinance to feed non-filtered research proposals may not necessarily make Kickstarter for research.
There is a great need for greater amounts of private funding in scientific research, but I'm worried that this format could contribute to sensationalism and rushed/biased results.
I think they'll need a re-branding if they want to be successful. Kickstarter is a very easy word to say, spell, and understand. It can also be used as a verb ("Did you kickstart that project?"). Microryza has none of those things. That said, hopefully they can do better than petridish, which seems to have floundered.
I really don't understand differentiating a crowdfunding platform based on specific industry.<p>This would imply that the platform can create a community of people who are willing to donate over and over again to several relatively similar campaigns. Kickstarter does not work this way.<p>Kickstarter has been successful not because of their "community of investors/doners" but because they provide people who have an idea with a tool that they can use to reach out to their already existing followers and friends.<p>The doners of kickstarter campaigns come from the campaigns existing connections.. not from kickstarter itself.
I worry a little about this idea because I think it's a little limited in scope. The kind of scientific ventures that the founder described she had trouble getting funding for (summer undergraduate research) aren't exactly the best examples of the financial needs of most scientific research. Even relatively minor projects can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (and often take longer to get results!). We don't see that sort of money on the already-popular Kickstarter very often, and it's an uphill battle to woo people as much much as one can on Kickstarter.<p>For very small, 3-month projects? Sure. Maybe. For projects at the same level of academic research? Not now, and it's gonna be tough for it to happen in the future.
If you just took Europe and the US together, you'd have 700 million people. Convince half of them to donate an average of $100 a year for "science", then we could help accelerate scientific progress. The hard part is figuring out how to spend the money effectively.
I'm a little unclear on the concept here, because this doesn't sound at all like Kickstarter.<p>Microryza sound like nothing more than middlefolk between my research and funding sources. They "vet"? And their domain knowledge in my field is...?<p>Am I missing the idea? Why do I want another layer between me and a funding source?