Comment Crowdfunding science is very different! (Score 1) 153
As I joined the #SciFund Challenge late, I just posted up the project I had just talked about most recently with local teachers (STEMulate Learning) without prior experience in crowdfunding efforts. I focused my descriptions and even the project video (YouTube Video) on the technical aspects of the project and the simple long-term goal of encouraging students to focus on science, technology, engineering and math studies. I also aimed the proposal at full funding for a complete lab installation, as I would for any traditional grant request.
I have received a great deal of feedback from would-be supporters and followers of my #SciFund topic curation magazine (#SciFund at Scoop.It) that crowdfunded research needs to illustrate more obvious value and intermediate goals. Instead of identifying long-term goals for full funding, I should have focused on the immediate supercomputing support for childhood disease cures, researching cancer, finding clean water and discovering clean energy that would start immediately once a minimal $3,800 was raised for the intitial setup.
Short-term and understandable goals are far more effective in research crowdfunding efforts like the wonderful Roman DNA project that Kristina has already fully funded plus half again (Ancient Roman DNA), while those will immediate appeal like the magnificent Zombie Fish project Kelly has also fully funded with excess (Support Zombie Research!). These projects capture the interest of the public and have already been funded, while most of the remaining 47 projects are working more slowly towards their goals.
Traditional grantmaking supports research that is too costly for individual investors to expect to make a difference, too esoteric or exotic for layfolk to understand its value, or research that may be performed in order to disprove an existing established idea that might provide truly "groundbreaking" innovations at the cost of revising established human understanding. Crowdfunding research best supports smaller projects, including those that are either seen as "fun" or immediate in their results. The combination of these is a magnificent opportunity for synergistic top-down and bottom-up scientific inquiry.
If the founders decide to run a second round of the #SciFund Challenge (#SciFund at RocketHub), many of us will benefit from this initial "testing the waters" so it has been joyous to take part. For my own project, I would focus on the fun aspects of doing immediate global good starting with a small amount of initial funding, which is possible now but not obvious in the project aimed more towards traditional grantmaking venues. I believe many other researchers will use the experiences from pioneers of crowdfunded science to better design their own studies for the future. It is a glorious idea for the future of scientific endeavour, which will synergize with traditional grant-based research marvelously.
I have received a great deal of feedback from would-be supporters and followers of my #SciFund topic curation magazine (#SciFund at Scoop.It) that crowdfunded research needs to illustrate more obvious value and intermediate goals. Instead of identifying long-term goals for full funding, I should have focused on the immediate supercomputing support for childhood disease cures, researching cancer, finding clean water and discovering clean energy that would start immediately once a minimal $3,800 was raised for the intitial setup.
Short-term and understandable goals are far more effective in research crowdfunding efforts like the wonderful Roman DNA project that Kristina has already fully funded plus half again (Ancient Roman DNA), while those will immediate appeal like the magnificent Zombie Fish project Kelly has also fully funded with excess (Support Zombie Research!). These projects capture the interest of the public and have already been funded, while most of the remaining 47 projects are working more slowly towards their goals.
Traditional grantmaking supports research that is too costly for individual investors to expect to make a difference, too esoteric or exotic for layfolk to understand its value, or research that may be performed in order to disprove an existing established idea that might provide truly "groundbreaking" innovations at the cost of revising established human understanding. Crowdfunding research best supports smaller projects, including those that are either seen as "fun" or immediate in their results. The combination of these is a magnificent opportunity for synergistic top-down and bottom-up scientific inquiry.
If the founders decide to run a second round of the #SciFund Challenge (#SciFund at RocketHub), many of us will benefit from this initial "testing the waters" so it has been joyous to take part. For my own project, I would focus on the fun aspects of doing immediate global good starting with a small amount of initial funding, which is possible now but not obvious in the project aimed more towards traditional grantmaking venues. I believe many other researchers will use the experiences from pioneers of crowdfunded science to better design their own studies for the future. It is a glorious idea for the future of scientific endeavour, which will synergize with traditional grant-based research marvelously.
