Quick: what do a Ukrainian electronica artist, a Nashville t-shirt designer, and a Malaysian infographics company all have in common?
Answer: they’re all seeking funding through crowdfunding, a method that seeks small contributions from a large crowd, flipping the conventional venture-capital model.
If it can succeed in fields like independent music, artists, and entrepreneurs, could it be effective for scientific inquiry?
When Matt Salzberg contemplated this possibility, he concluded that it was viable. While working as a venture capitalist focused on internet businesses, his passion for science led him to explore a different avenue. “We had seen the model where the internet pools the collective action of many people,” he recalls, “but no one had applied this to science.”
The outcome of Salzberg’s realization is Petridish.org, a platform dedicated solely to projects put forth by researchers in the scientific community. Launched recently, the site showcases nine projects while others continue through a vetting process.
To be fair, attempts at science-focused crowdfunding have occurred previously, albeit with mixed outcomes. A notable effort was the SciFund Challenge, a 45-day collaboration with a broader crowdfunding platform, RocketHub, which highlighted numerous research initiatives. The campaign raised $76,230, though future efforts are anticipated, Salzberg notes its short timeframe was due to researchers’ reluctance to present their studies alongside unrelated projects, like an independent film about a dog. Other ventures into scientific crowdfunding include Sciflies.org and Cancer Research UK’s MyProjects site.
Crowdfunding has notably transformed philanthropy, through platforms like Kiva.org and DonorsChoose. Elements that contribute to the success of charitable crowdfunding – such as personalization and fostering a sense of involvement in a complex and often opaque process – could also prove advantageous in scientific fields. “There’s a substantial public interest in science,” Salzberg explains, “but often people lack insight into the laboratory process. We’re trying to cultivate a community of science enthusiasts and engage them.”
To facilitate this, Petridish motivates featured scientists to provide tokens of gratitude to their backers (similar to a pledge drive approach). A $50 contribution may earn you a framed photograph or a mineral sample from the research site; $100 could get you recognition in a published work; and a $1,000 donation might secure a lab tour or a species named in your honor.
A significant aspect of this approach is the financial security embedded in the all-or-nothing funding model. Conducting scientific research piecemeal is challenging – researchers require assurance of full funding before they can proceed with data collection. To safeguard funders from financial loss and ensure scientists are not locked into unattractive projects, Petridish only processes transactions when the entire fund target is met.
But what implications does crowdfunding have for science? How much do innovative and socially relevant scientific endeavors align with public appeal? Is it feasible to convince the public that research on the “Cooperation of p300 and PCAF in the Control of MicroRNA 200c/141 Transcription and Epithelial Characteristic”, for instance, has value?