We are usually one step removed from the science that we fund. As taxpayers, we delegate to government bodies the decision about where and how much cash is allocated. Even if we give to specific charities, we can’t control which specific scientists or projects will end up benefiting. On the whole, this is probably sensible: most people don’t have the time, expertise or desire to review all of the thousands of great projects out there and make these agonizing decisions.
But in the brave new age of social media, some scientists are making direct appeals for your personal financial support via dedicated fundraising websites. This idea of boutique science funding was new to me until my good friend Bill Hanage told me about his own activities. Bill is currently an associate professor at Harvard, and is in possession of formal grant funding for his main endeavors. But meanwhile, out back in his sandbox, something very interesting is brewing: a fascinating microbial genomics project he’s running with his intrepid collaborator, Siouxsie Wiles of the University of Auckland, that needs your cash.
Here’s how Bill described the project (which is fueled by the SciFund Challenge on RocketHub) in a piece he recently wrote for LabLit:
We are attempting to track how infectious agents adapt to a new environment, using state-of-the-art imaging and genomics. Siouxsie does the hard graft in her lab, and then sends the DNA to me for the sequencing bit. The costs of genome sequencing are now such that a contribution from one person really can make a difference. And one of the exciting things about this way of doing science is that even if the only thing people reading this do is update Facebook with a link, or tweets it, they are helping to spread the word about the research, and maybe find people who want to get more involved. Thank you. The more genomes we can get, the more power we will have when it comes to the sharp end of the analysis.
It’s a cool project, and you can read more about it here. Whatever the results, we should learn something important, and that will make it a lot easier to apply for more money from conventional funding sources. Serious money. Given the appalling numbers of people who suffer and die from infectious diseases, understanding how they adapt is an essential enterprise.
Bill and Siouxsie have already raised $3960 — with two more days to go. Do consider spreading the word – or even chipping in.
What a fascinating way to get support. It reminds me of how composers such as Handel funded his works – by selling subscriptions to it.
Many years ago when the world was young (OK, it was 1993) I was on assignment to California and in the course of my peregrinations I visited Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where scientists use immensely powerful equipment to do crazy things, such as using gigantic lasers to recreate the conditions at the hearts of stars, or strip almost all the electrons off a Uranium atom to produce ions such as U90+ – all of which costs $$$. But what about small start-up projects that are even barmier than usual? The lab has (or had then) a discretionary fund for small-scale blue-skies research. Perhaps the drying up of funds for such speculative ventures means that scientists are having to go private (though James Lovelock’s been doing it for about 50 years.)
Interesting, Henry. I must say I’ve never heard of an institute having a discretionary fund for playing around, which is a wonderful idea. Most grants give you a small section of the budget for that, but you still can’t go off-piste from what you promised to do in the first place. What Bill and Siouxsie are doing has really made me think. Because of our limited funds, there are experiments that I simply cannot do now – but those sorts of preliminary data could make the difference in a grant application. It’s definitely an approach I’m going to think about doing.
A vaguely related project is the Ronin Institute, which is a collection of independent scholars who still want to do research. Actually, atz least one of the Wilkins might be of some help for Bill.
I’m looking into this area at the moment for an article and have found several crowd-funding projects like SciFund. See Fundageek, Petridish, Rare Genomics, etc.
My question is: since these projects are more often than not US based, could we expect the same level of adoption in the UK? Or are our notions of philanthropy different?
Also: whose job at various universities is it to think of these unconventional sources: the researchers themselves or someone else?
Bob – very interesting and not something I’d heard of. Thanks.
Adam, I don’t think you need to be a citizen of the country who hosts the initiative to benefit from social media-fueled crowd-sourcing. In the present example, Siouxsie is the main driver and she’s based in New Zealand – I gather the people donating funds are doing so from all over, facilitated by global networks of like-minded people.