beck piscopo
I’ll admit; I’m a romantic. To me, Science in its purest form is an act of discovery—a process rooted in curiosity, skepticism, and rigor. It thrives on the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, fueled by the desire to unravel the mysteries of the universe. But for all its virtues, the practice of science today is tarnished by bureaucracy, profit-driven motives, and gatekeeping, where funding and publication often hinge on marketability and institutional interests rather than the advancement of knowledge. These constraints are reinforced by universities, publishing giants, and private industry, all of which are vested in maintaining control over the flow of research, intellectual property, and the profits they generate. This well-funded and firmly established system, we’ll call it Traditional Science (TradSci), may seem impossible to reform, let alone supplant.
And yet, history has shown that entrenched systems—once thought unshakable—can and have been disrupted by innovation and the collective will for change. Just as the open-source software movement redefined the tech industry and democratized access to tools once guarded by a few, Decentralized Science (DeSci) has the potential to do the same for research. With the right momentum, DeSci could break through these barriers, creating a new era of open, collaborative, and transparent science that prioritizes discovery over profit.
What follows isn’t a manifesto; it’s a case for optimism on how DeSci might shift the future of scientific inquiry. Keep an eye out for the manifesto at a later date.
As it stands, universities profit significantly from research, often taking 30-50% of net royalties on inventions in their labs, leaving the remainder to be split between the researcher and their department or lab [source]. In 2018 alone, U.S. academic institutions reported over $3 billion in licensing revenue from royalties on patents, licensing agreements, and commercialization deals [source], [source]. Universities then funnel this research through the paywall-heavy and lucrative academic publishing system.
The academic publishing market generates billions annually, with companies like Elsevier pulling in $1.3 billion in profits in 2019 [source]. These profits are built on a paywall-driven business model with no incentive to embrace open access. Consequently, a staggering 75% of scientific papers remain inaccessible to the broader public unless they are willing to pay exorbitant fees [source]. Yes, this hinders the public’s access to scientific knowledge. But it also hampers scientific progress by prohibiting smaller institutions and developing countries from accessing new research, delays healthcare providers from applying life-saving new treatments, and, for researchers trying to create open access to their work, increases the risk of predatory publishing through the exorbitant fees in open access journals, many of which lack a rigorous peer review process.
While lucrative for universities, this profit-sharing system can act as a disincentive for researchers to pursue innovative or high-risk projects. With universities taking a significant cut of royalties, researchers often find themselves with a smaller share of the financial rewards despite being the primary drivers of discovery. This can lead to frustration, particularly when the university’s financial interests overshadow scientific exploration. Additionally, the emphasis on patentable discoveries and licensing revenue steers research toward commercially viable projects, often at the expense of more speculative or groundbreaking ideas that may not have immediate market value.
For decades, funding in TradSci has been reduced to a metric-driven struggle—a quest for survival through grants. It’s estimated that U.S. researchers spend around 42% of their time applying for grants rather than conducting research [source]. In a field where time and mental resources are finite, this is very costly. Worse still, the success rate for receiving such funding is dismal; the National Institutes of Health (NIH) approves only about 20% of applicants [source].
This desperate scramble for funding forces researchers into a system that stymies innovation. High-risk, high-reward research—especially in underfunded areas like aging, rare diseases, women’s health, or the environment—receives minimal backing. The system favors safe bets over bold ideas, perpetuating incremental progress over paradigm-shifting discoveries.
Amidst TradSci's inefficient funding model, DeSci emerges as a potential solution that not only democratizes funding but also drastically accelerates the process. By bypassing traditional grant systems, decentralized platforms can connect researchers directly with communities willing to support their work. VitaDAO, for example, has raised over $5 million in decentralized funding to support longevity research, an area traditionally underfunded by institutional channels [source].
DeSci could redefine who decides what kind of research should be prioritized, empowering communities who believe in the potential of their work. The impact of this—having a passionate community— cannot be overstated. Yes, a dedicated community provides financial backing. It also drives visibility, collaboration, and sustained support, fueling momentum and pushing groundbreaking research forward in ways that traditional funding structures often fail to achieve.
Not only does DeSci democratize funding, but the funding process is dramatically more efficient. While NIH grant applications can take up to a year to process [source], decentralized funding can be raised in weeks. This agility makes DeSci more adept at solving emerging challenges or seizing opportunities, providing a faster response to scientific needs.
The TradSci system has fostered an obsession with metrics—citation counts, impact factors, and the sheer volume of publications. This ‘publish or perish’ culture often pushes researchers to prioritize quantity over quality, creating conditions that can incentivize data manipulation or shortcuts in methodology, as researchers strive to meet these demanding benchmarks.
DeSci proposes a new incentive structure that shifts the focus from sheer volume to the quality and impact of research. In this model, researchers are rewarded for publishing and sharing data and adhering to rigorous standards of transparency and reproducibility. With decentralized platforms like Molecule, research contributions are tokenized, enabling scientists to benefit directly from decentralized funding and IP rights. By emphasizing open data and collaborative validation, DeSci encourages accuracy, thoroughness, and ethical conduct, fostering a system where the integrity of the research is as valuable as the discovery itself.
By maintaining control over their IP, researchers are encouraged to explore groundbreaking ideas and novel approaches that may not align with immediate commercial interests but hold the potential for significant breakthroughs. It’s time that scientists—the true drivers of innovation—earn money directly from their discoveries rather than having profits funneled through universities or corporations. This autonomy allows for more speculative research, fostering an environment where curiosity and bold ideas can thrive, driving scientific progress in ways the traditional model has historically stifled. Through decentralized platforms, researchers can directly engage with communities who value their work, creating an ecosystem where impactful science is encouraged and financially rewarded.
This incentive realignment also enhances the integrity of science. With smart contracts, researchers can receive funding only when they meet predetermined milestones. This system introduces accountability at every stage of the research process. Rather than waiting for peer-reviewed publication as the final checkpoint, DeSci enforces checkpoints throughout, ensuring that research is conducted with transparency and rigor from start to finish.
Moreover, DeSci can tokenize intellectual property (IP) rights, allowing research to remain open while rewarding researchers [source]. In doing so, DeSci dismantles the financial and legal barriers that have kept scientific innovation in the hands of a select few.
TradSci’s peer review process is opaque, prone to bias, and vulnerable to conflicts of interest. The current process reinforces power imbalances, where established researchers’ work may receive more leniency, while newer academics face greater scrutiny, in part because anonymity in peer review is often compromised. Journals and reviewers act as gatekeepers, and good research can be delayed or rejected due to overly conservative or risk-averse reviews.
Adding to these issues, inconsistencies in review quality are common, with some reviewers offering constructive feedback while others provide cursory or vague comments. Publication bias further skews the scientific record by favoring positive or groundbreaking results over null or negative findings.
The replication crisis, where studies cannot be reproduced under independent testing, has plagued scientific research in every field, with psychology and medicine being the most discussed due to several high-profile replication failures in recent years (e.g., Stanford Prison Experiment, Power Posing, Heart Disease and Vitamin E). Estimates suggest that as many as 50% of published biomedical research cannot be replicated [source].
In contrast, transparency is an essential part of DeSci’s approach. DeSci platforms operate on blockchain technology, ensuring that research data, methods, and results are publicly available from the start. The immutable nature of blockchain records prevents data manipulation or suppression, creating a robust, transparent record of scientific inquiry.
DeSci could address the replication crisis, as well. By ensuring real-time access to data and enabling decentralized verification, the chances of catching errors, fraud, or oversights increase dramatically. This transparency could restore public trust in science, an invaluable asset in an era of rampant misinformation.
With transparency embedded at its core, DeSci opens up access to a wider range of contributors, encouraging collaboration across borders and bringing more diverse voices into the scientific conversation. However, the current scientific landscape remains both geographically and financially divided. According to OECD, more than 90% of global research and development funding comes from high-income countries, creating a significant imbalance [source]. This disparity restricts scientists' access to resources in developing regions, leaving entire populations underrepresented in the global scientific dialogue and limiting the breadth of discoveries.
DeSci can close this gap. By leveraging decentralized platforms, scientists from any country can submit proposals, collaborate on projects, and access funding from a global pool. This eliminates the traditional gatekeepers—those who have historically decided which projects get funded or published—allowing a far more diverse range of voices to contribute to the scientific conversation. DeSci removes geographical, institutional, and financial barriers, enabling anyone with the curiosity and drive to be a part of the scientific process.
Imagine the progress we could make if more people were “brought into the lab.” Historically, major scientific breakthroughs have often come from unexpected places—think of Gregor Mendel, whose foundational work in genetics was done in a monastery, not an academic lab. If Mendel had been hamstrung by lack of institutional access, we might not have unlocked the mysteries of heredity until much later. Similarly, the open-source software movement has proven that extraordinary advancements happen when communities collaborate across borders. Linux, developed by thousands of contributors worldwide, now powers most of the internet infrastructure.
What would happen if the same openness were applied to science? With more eyes on the data, more scrutiny of methodologies, and broader perspectives, DeSci could democratize scientific discovery, allowing researchers in any part of the world to contribute to breakthroughs. This expanded access could prevent errors, speed up the replication of experiments, and foster interdisciplinary innovation by drawing on diverse perspectives. A decentralized approach could also bring in citizen scientists, hobbyists, and innovators from outside academia, as was the case with historical figures like Michael Faraday, who transformed our understanding of electromagnetism despite lacking formal scientific training.
If we open science to the world, we unleash a new wave of innovation and discovery. Science would no longer be constrained by a handful of well-funded institutions but fueled by the collective intelligence of a global community. In this decentralized world, breakthroughs could come from unexpected places, and those discoveries would benefit not just a few, but everyone.
As decentralized platforms foster global collaboration, they also provide the perfect environment for AI to thrive, enabling more comprehensive and diverse datasets that drive groundbreaking discoveries. DeSci could create an open, decentralized ecosystem where AI can thrive on transparent, real-time data. Traditional scientific models often hinder AI’s potential due to siloed datasets, paywalls, and slow dissemination processes, but DeSci removes these barriers by making data universally accessible from the moment it’s generated. This infrastructure allows AI to continuously analyze vast, diverse datasets, identify patterns, and generate insights at unprecedented speeds.
Additionally, DeSci’s use of blockchain ensures data integrity and allows AI to operate on reliable, verified information, while decentralized platforms enable seamless cross-disciplinary collaboration. By integrating smart contracts, DeSci automates key processes like funding allocation and data sharing, allowing AI to function more autonomously and efficiently, driving innovation without institutional bottlenecks.
DeSci signifies a paradigm shift in how science could be conducted, funded, and shared. It reimagines the process of scientific inquiry by breaking down the traditional barriers that have historically restricted access and innovation. Through decentralizing funding, DeSci empowers researchers to pursue bold, high-risk projects that may have been sidelined in traditional models.
Moreover, DeSci’s commitment to transparency has the power to rebuild public trust in science. By making data, methods, and peer review openly accessible, DeSci ensures that science becomes a collective, global endeavor, accelerates the pace of discovery, and engages the public in a way that has never before been possible.
Lastly—and what I think might be the most powerful case for DeSci—it also creates the scientific infrastructure most useful to AI-driven discovery, an internet-native science. By providing a decentralized, open-access platform where AI can continuously learn, adapt, and collaborate with human researchers, DeSci doesn’t just reshape science as we know it; it has the potential to redefine the boundaries of what AI and human ingenuity can achieve together. Could this merging of decentralized science and AI mark the beginning of a new scientific revolution where discovery accelerates beyond our current imagination?
The open-source movement revolutionized the tech industry. Similarly, DeSci has the potential to democratize and transform science on a global scale. By democratizing science and embracing transparency, DeSci holds the potential to return us to science’s highest purpose: the pure and unencumbered pursuit of knowledge. Time will tell if it has the potential to catalyze the next great leap in human (and AI) discovery, an endeavor shared by all who have the passion and curiosity to contribute.
Sources:
MIT Technology Licensing Office. (n.d.). Royalties and Income Distribution. https://urop.mit.edu/guidelines/intellectual-property/#:~:text=TLO%20will%20initially%20cover%20the,your%20own%20cost%20and%20control., https://policy.wisc.edu/library/SMPH-3010,
https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/royalties-and-income-distribution
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). (2018). AUTM Licensing Activity Survey. https://autm.net/AUTM/media/SurveyReportsPDF/AUTM_FY2018_US_Licensing_Survey.pdf
Elsevier. (2019). Annual Reports. https://www.elsevier.com/about/reports/annual-reports, https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2019-annual-report.pdf
Piwowar, H. et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
Alberts, B. et al. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5773-5777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418761112
National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2023). Research Grant Success Rates. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2024/03/25/how-grant-success-rates-do-or-do-not-track-with-the-nih-budget-a-model-of-funding-dynamics/
VitaDAO. (n.d.). Funding Longevity Research. https://www.vitadao.com/
Molecule. (n.d.). Decentralized Science and Tokenization of Research. https://www.molecule.to/
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Ioannidis, J. (2015). How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine, 12(10), e1001821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001821
OECD (2021). Gross domestic spending on R&D https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.html
