Do you think that.. somehow.. working directly with the scientists and not the project. Absolutely, and frankly, what any of us are are a technology support system for the scientists. A large part of the donations are coming in within their own networks- their family, advisors, and it sort of grows out from there, there's a very personal connection that inspires people. We've had our applicants create a video where the individual explains their project, and there's a video, and it explains it in such, .. I think that that kind of personal touch, by the donor is key to pushing this forward. We have a profile of.. scientist.. who and the question, like, what's on your night stand? We are trying to personalize it to any degree that we possibly can. Building that relationship. Twenty years ago, it was popular in ecology to have people paid to go work with ecologist, and participate- not that they always helped- to participate in the ifeld projects, are there discussions of that, where people are engaging and not just donating money? One of the things that we are trying to do it, for our project, it's based on the concept on the prjoectp age, and provide a forum where people discuss the project as it's going on. Part of the agreement with the researchers- people are required to participate. and that's okay. Once in a while, someone can provide a great suggestion that drives the project forward, and I am all for that.

We're trying our hardest to do kickstarter for science. In kickstarter, you get something back for funding a project. What you can get back in this case is the research you produce, and often your funders wouldn't be able to read their research. Are you going to require research that you do fund that is publicly available so that the funders can get access to it? We worked with an IP law firm to craft an agreement for the funding such that they are required to publish all of their research and part of that is not just success but also failures and we hope that people will produce content of the processes that they're using and you know, demonstrated, I did this and it failed, and I'd love to see an aggregation of all the failures, because to tell the truth you're spending a lot of time trying to see if people.. and they have to do it. We hope we're going to keep it very open. Dr. Beach.. his project, because we don't know what causes riptides, and it's a relatively simple idea, but it's a hard solution because more people die from sudden riptides than hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes. I think that to some degree it's not going to be something that's so proprietary that .. results. And then there are some scientists that are worried about.. well, frankly, if you're not that open, we don't want to be involved with you. I would be remissed to be on campus without giving a shoutout to .. both of who are on our Scientific Advisor Board. By virtue of Mike's involvement and PLOS and state of reportiong on scientific studies, that's pretty cnosistent, absolutely.

What I was thinking about was mostly to help.. I was wondering if there's.. trying to create links from the website to the .. information about the.. or where there's new websites that are underdevelopment right now.. where.. recommendations for.. um, and it seems like those users want more information than currently exists, so the user base is motivated to support science, and if someone went to that weithout any thought, and what can i do to better support this condition I have? It would be a great opportunity to link this to the research group, so, has there been any thought about that.

Be careful, um. This space is coming under a ton of scrutiny, there are tons of people who the FDA about lab-developed tests. The challenge that we and any scientists that looks into medically-relevant database, or any studies that kind of bridge that line of interpretation, defining clinical validity is a sticky topic, there's no publishing rubric for the minimum number of samples, or whatever, or algorithms, not just clinical utility. I don't know what to do about this with administering health care. We're just providing a platform, if the scientist wants to provide links to previous research and so on- but we're not advocating any interpretive databases to continue that conversation, it's way too early to put the necks out. Is it that because you're showing preference to a particular database that may or may not be valid? So if you create somewhere where something might be crap, but it provides people the ability to dig deeper, I have to tell you that when I research things on the web, I kind of go in very deep and wide uncertain information, filter it out ourselves, but I think it's reasonable to give people the tools to pointthem in particular directions. You talk to physicians that are in the genetic whole genome space, and there are patients spending 2mo on something, and they are moer experts in some disease or something, it's not an easy problem, but because we're a repository or clearinghouse where we're providing first access to research, and if we're recommending a certain database or something about phenotypes and so on, even fi legally we just say that we're not vouching for the database, it's a risk that people are going to take us at the wrod for that, so I would rather just let people do what you're doing. So we would leave that to the researchers for those recommendations. We have a lot of links, we're happy to put links on a seriously good robust resource center, so that's something we might do. Are those links to those prjoects on your website? They are not related to the projects, they are just might be in the science field, or um, nutritional areas, but the people could use. IF there are a way to very.. research.. that these are not approaccies.. because they need to.. cost.. it seems like. that's enough information.. proven.. but .. that you don't know.. this would be a highly motivated group of people that.. it seems like in the future that would be .. we're just doing cleantech right now.

I have been combining ideas from the last session and thsi one. I am not a big fan of distributing money by peer review. What I think is a broad solution here that might work.. and the legal issues are many.. but the idea is that you basically treat the donors now, the small donors, as individual investors, but you set aside public money at some point in the future, so that if particular scientist comes out of the obscurity and gets a huge h-index, then suddenly all of those people get money frmo that- they only get the money in the end, and only to the people in the end who initially decided to back this obscure researcher. So, as you mentioned, there's a lot of legal issues, like with the IRS but we have thought about it, where there's a for-rpofit and non- profit. Donors that have investors.. donated to a particular project.. if it's successful, creating a for-profit for that project, where the people that came in and donated, have first dibs on investing in the for-profit. And lawyers would handle that. Fundign stuff that isn't completely open.. not immediately commercially-applicable. Itj usth elps others do their job, that should be something worthwhile.

So thsi is sort of the exact opposite of the last question. I would be coming at it from a libertarian point. The libertarians like me don't want to be supporting things that are funded at the point of the gun at taking money from others.. but the second is more broadly interesting. Do you, for example, one of you had in pittbsbruhg but another one had NSF, but not any sort of funding source, whether you have funding frmo the government, or whether people who fund you have smoney from the government? The more general question is do you... Currently all of our funding comes from individuals, and we discussed potentially hybrid models, like matching funds, sponsorship, particular projectst o bring themselves, and .. we're .. our mission is to fund.. these early stages. So if that means taking someone.. other sources that will help fund.. part of the problem that some of you.. is that .. big checks.. and so .. ... ... individual donations. So, we've been able to secure some worker donations, our partnership with the.. is that.. partnership there.. they have a mandate to use.. resources to support science and we're facilitating that through our funding mechanisms and give grants and .. time .. and they developed so.. we don't, we don't have ___ funding.. we welcome .. support.. it exists, right, so ... um, and I don't think.. .. um .. it's much more.. because of.. nobody can .. compete.. we don't thinkt hat's going to be our we don't.. agree with the fact.. matched the.. that's .. much more libertary.. can we put you on the spot, do you like what we're doing. I like what all three of you sound what you're doing.. oh but maybe that's no different than being government funded one stepped remove. The first part about donors. The people receiving, just about your model, but not anything in contracts, that you give money to, do you imagine that you are going to be the main or sole sourceo f funding, or you are one of their suorces of funding for that particular project? Sole source.

Hi. My name is. . K.... and I am a scientist, and in different areas of research I have noticed a number.. different projects bein done, culture of science, non-profit. But .. first time.. how science operates, part of it is that .. I believe that scientists put themselves a pedastal ... primary researhcccch andd they didddn't get a whhole loot.. they weere veested in the research and believed in what they were doing. The open science movement is trying to create a mechanism not where scientists are talking to the public, but I know it sounds like a big hug and kumbayah but iit's importttant.

(missed some stuff) having some trouble hearing anything (lots of background noise)