path: root/transcripts/open-science-summit-2010/microfinancing-questions.mdwn

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)