Removing the barriers for Participation in Decentralized Science from Traditional Academia

Academic research and development is in constant need of funding to support new ideas and projects, while the digital asset industry, worth nearly a trillion dollars, seeks both impact and legitimacy. Bringing these two groups together through the decentralized science (DeSci) movement, which utilizes decentralized technologies like blockchain to create a more transparent and inclusive system for funding and publishing research, can be mutually beneficial. However, there are also several barriers to participation in DeSci that need to be addressed in order for this potential to be fulfilled. Our perspective is that of academics involved in DeSci. In this letter, we map out some of the barriers we have observed or experienced ourselves, and propose ways to circumvent them. The infographic in Figure 1. summarizes the ideas developed in this letter.

Traditionally, research funding has been controlled by a few centralized organizations, such as government agencies and large philanthropic foundations. The agendas and priorities of these organizations can often shape the types of research that is funded and the way it is conducted. Moreover, this process can be opaque [1], geographically restrictive [2], and prone to bias [3,4] and bureaucratic inefficiencies [5].

In contrast, the decentralized science (DeSci) movement [6] seeks to utilize decentralized computing technologies, such as blockchain, to establish a more transparent and equitable system for funding research. Through DeSci, researchers can submit their proposals directly to communities organized in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), where they can be transparently evaluated, funded and attested by a distributed network of domain experts and organizations. The DeSci movement offers numerous potential benefits for the research community, including greater transparency, inclusivity, and more responsiveness to emerging problems and research questions. As an example, during India's Covid-19 peak, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin donated $1 billion in digital assets for relief and research support. Meanwhile, Juan Benet, creator of the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) and Filecoin, estimated that funding for DeSci has the potential to equal or surpass the $12 billion annually awarded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to research funding. Moreover, DeSci prioritizes funding and swift publication on so-called "moonshot" projects and research for underfunded, marginalized communities, such as those with rare diseases.

Nevertheless, DeSci remains under-considered by institutional researchers seeking funding. One of the emerging technical challenges for academic participation in DeSci is the limited ability and infrastructure of university administrations and principal investigators to incorporate funding in digital assets, which can include stablecoins [7] such as USDC. Many universities have policies that set aside a percentage of research funding for management and administrative costs, but these administrators may not be equipped to handle digital asset payments. To overcome this barrier, universities and grant providers could meet halfway. On the one hand, the former could implement pilot programs for the use of multi-signature wallets and vaults, which allow for secure and transparent handling of these funds. Implementing these solutions may require training and technical support for university administrators to ensure they are able to effectively manage these funds. Concurrently, and when feasible, DeSci grant providers could perform the digital asset-to-fiat conversion themselves, before transferring funds.

A second barrier to DeSci is the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding digital assets, which varies widely across jurisdictions. This can create difficulties for researchers who are collaborating internationally and seeking to secure funding through DeSci, as there may be discrepancies in the legal status of digital assets in different countries [8]. For example, two co-investigators in different countries with different policies regarding digital assets could encounter barriers if one country allows for the conversion of digital assets to fiat currency while the other (e.g. the People's Republic of China, as of the time of writing) bans such transactions outright. This highlights the importance of universities to pioneer adoption of this technology in their jurisdictions, in order to facilitate greater participation in DeSci and other forms of decentralized collaboration, and reap the potential benefits that come along with it.

DeSci represents a promising new approach to research funding that has the potential to drive progress and discovery in a range of fields. While there are certainly barriers to participation in DeSci, particularly in the technical and legal realms, these could potentially be overcome through careful planning and the development of appropriate tools and frameworks. Receiving funding becomes more streamlined, as financial intermediaries are eliminated, allowing researchers to more quickly execute their research. Additionally, publishing directly on the blockchain allows for researchers to expeditiously disseminate scientific information and establish intellectual property on a public, timestamped, and immutable ledger. Ultimately, DeSci may even serve as a catalyst for the unification of digital asset regulation around the world, enabling greater collaboration and progress in science and research.

References

[1] Robinson, L., Ritchie, E., Kenny, C. (2019) UK Research Aid: Tied, Opaque, and Off-Topic? Center for Global Development, Policy Paper 152. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/uk-research-aid-tied-opaque-and-topic.pdf (accessed on 01-02-2023)
[2] Wahls, W. P. (2016) Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research. PeerJ, 4:e1917. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1917
[3] Guglielmi, G. (2018) Gender bias tilts success of grant applications. Nature, 554: 14–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01212-0
[4] Tamblyn, R., Girard, N., Qian, C.J., Hanley, J. (2018) Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190 (16):489-499. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170901
[5] Tickell, A. et al. (2021) Review of research bureaucracy. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and UK Research and Innovation, Independent report. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-research-bureaucracy (accessed on 01-02-2023)
[6] Hamburg, S. (2021) Call to join the decentralized science movement. Nature, 600, 221. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03642-9
[7] Fiedler, I., Ante, L. (2023), Stablecoins, Baker, H.K., Benedetti, H., Nikbakht, E. and Smith, S.S. (Ed.) The Emerald Handbook on Cryptoassets: Investment Opportunities and Challenges, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-320-620221007
[8] Riley, J. (2021) The Current Status of Cryptocurrency Regulation in China and Its Effect around the World. China & WTO Review, 2021:1; 135-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/cwr.2021.7.1.06

Preprint

Preprint

Removing the barriers for Participation in Decentralized Science from Traditional Academia