Like It? Pay for It with Conventional Sources of Money Drying Up, Some Scientists Are Turning to Crowd-Funding

Like it? Pay for it With conventional sources of money drying up, some scientists are turning to crowd-funding.

n October 2010, Cesar Harada found BY JIM GILES the Open Source Science Project (OSSP). himself in New Orleans with little At a time when universities and research money and a big idea. Harada, an engi- heard about his idea; they pitched in several funding agencies are facing budget cuts, the neer, had been working on oil-spill thousand dollars each. Word reached people strategy is attracting attention — as are other Imitigation at the Massachusetts Institute of he had never met, and they contributed too. ways to raise philanthropic support (see page 2&3 ILLUSTRATION Technology in Cambridge. But he quit the lab When Harada’s funding appeal closed in April 254). “It’s timely because of what’s happening in frustration at what he saw as a slow pace of 2011, he had raised almost $34,000 — enough with traditional funding sources,” says Daniel work and a focus on expensive solutions. He to assemble a team of engineers and build a Gutierrez, co-founder of FundaGeek, a crowd- travelled south to join the clean-up operation prototype of the clean-up robot. funding platform for technology projects that for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf launched last month and is based in Yucca of Mexico. Once there, his mind turned to a PUBLIC INTEREST Valley, California. futuristic solution: a low-cost clean-up robot If Harada’s experience sounds like a one- For crowd-funding to make a real difference, that local people could build and deploy them- off, think again. Crowd-funding — raising advocates will have to prove that the process — selves. Yet his two criteria for the project — a money for research directly from the public which sometimes sidesteps conventional peer quick build and open-source intellectual prop- — looks set to become increasingly common. review — channels money to good projects, not erty — all but ruled out academic or industrial Established platforms such as Kickstarter are just marketable ones. But if they succeed, there funding. wooing scientists. And similar websites ded- may be an unexpected bonus: it might help to Harada turned to Kickstarter, a website used icated to connecting scientists with poten- forge a direct connection between researchers by authors, film-makers and artists in search of tial funders are being built, or have already and lay people, boosting public engagement project funding. He uploaded a pitch, set a goal launched. The public seems to be responding. with science. “This is one of the most appeal- of raising US$27,500 and listed a series of small Last year, for example, a group of scientists ing aspects of crowd-funding,” says Jennifer rewards for donors. Then he started to net- wanting to map water quality along the Mis- Calkins, an ecologist at Evergreen State Col- work furiously. Money came in from friends sissippi River raised $64,000 in a trial project lege in Olympia, Washington, who has raised and engineering colleagues. A few companies on an online crowd-funding platform called money for fieldwork on Kickstarter. “We can

252 | NATURE | VOL 481 | 19 JANUARY 2012 © 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved FEATURE NEWS involve society in the creative journey that we projects have “a creative purpose” — as defined Some sites are trying to enhance this informal make as scientists.” by the site’s owners. Projects in the #SciFund review process. FundaGeek has a discussion Online crowd-funding has already proved its Challenge did not undergo formal peer review: forum, the ‘Geek Lounge’, where potential worth in other fields. Kiva, a website through Ranganathan and co-founder Jarrett Byrnes, a donors are encouraged to debate the merits of which individuals loan small amounts to entre- fellow UCSB ecologist, checked only for obvi- a proposal. Last August, the equivalent forum preneurs in the developing world, is one nota- ous fraud. “I don’t care if people have badly on Kickstarter helped to halt one questionable ble success: more than 600,000 lenders have thought-out projects,” says Ranganathan. project. The proposal, for a product called the channelled almost $275 million through the site That may sound like a recipe for shoddy Tech-Sync Power System, aimed to develop a since 2005. US President Barack Obama’s 2008 science, but crowd-funding advocates say that smartphone app that controls home lighting. election campaign raised a record-breaking the process has an inbuilt peer-review system, It attracted more than $27,000 in pledges, but $780 million, much of it from small online driven by the donors. Most donors will hear of Kickstarter users with electronics knowledge donations. And donors have pledged more a project through their social networks. They started to question the viability of the system. than $100 million to 13,000 Kickstarter pro- might be former colleagues of the project owner, The project owner, who could not be reached jects. By drastically simplifying the process of or members of the public interested in an eco- for comment, eventually deleted his proposal connecting donor with cause, the Internet has logical study site. So project owners put their as the criticism mounted, and none of the unleashed a new enthusiasm for giving. reputation among their peers and supporters on donors lost their money. Scientists have come a little late to the the line every time they post a proposal. crowd-funding party, because they have con- “There’s a strong incentive to be honest,” THE HARD SELL ventionally had other funding streams. Jai says Kickstarter co-founder Yancey Strickler. Another objection to crowd-funding may be Ranganathan, an ecologist at the University “Social forces carry a lot of weight.” The sys- harder to shake. To sell a project, researchers of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), is one of need an attention-grabbing story (see ‘How several researchers trying to make up for lost to woo the crowd’). That is easy to construct time. Last November, he helped to launch the MASS APPEAL if your subject of study is, say, saving pandas #SciFund Challenge, an exercise in which close or curing cancer. It is less so for researchers to 50 research groups had six weeks to raise How to woo the crowd working on polymers. So will crowd-funding money through proposals on a crowd-funding prove profitable only for ‘sexy’ science? platform called RocketHub, which mostly The owners of crowd-funding sites give Fries concedes that crowd-funding inherently serves artists and entrepreneurs. The challenge their tips on pitching winning scientific favours certain types of project, particularly raised a total of $76,000. Brian Meece, Rocket proposals. those in applied research. He is an optimist, say- Hub’s chief executive, based in New York, says ●●Create a compelling story about your ing that if the approach takes off, conventional that research projects are a “new and exciting” research. Who will it benefit? And how? funding agencies will simply have to compen- use for his platform, and that he will retain the Then tell that story to camera — many sate by upping their support for basic science. science section now that the challenge is over. sites allow project owners to upload Ranganathan, an enthusiastic communica- short videos as part of the pitch. tor who runs his own podcast, bristles at the CASH FOR QUESTIONS ●●Devise clever rewards for donors. Think suggestion that crowd-funding will create a Other crowd-funding enthusiasts are devel- about giving away T-shirts decorated two-tier system. “It’s all about telling a compel- oping donor sites dedicated exclusively to with project logos or, for big donors, ling story about the research,” he says. “Panda research projects. Sixteen projects are currently a chance to visit your lab. Most sites researchers start ahead, but I 100% believe vying for funds on SciFlies, a site launched last require project owners to offer some anyone can do it.” A polymer chemist might, November by David Fries, a marine engineer reward, but bear in mind the time for example, focus on new materials that could at the University of South Florida in St Peters- and expense required to produce and come out of his or her work. burg. This year, the OSSP hopes to follow up distribute whatever you offer. The pressure to communicate the potential on its success with the Mississippi study by ●●Use your social network, online and fruits of a research project should not be seen launching a fund-raising appeal for around ten offline. Tell friends about the project, and as a burden, adds Ranganathan. Most crowd- research proposals, says Priyan Weerappuli, a ask them to tell their friends. Tweet it, funding sites expect project leaders to offer neuroscientist at the University of Michigan blog it, publicize it on Facebook. donors something in exchange for their con- in Ann Arbor and the founder of the project. ●●Study previous successful pitches. Talk tribution, such as regular updates on the pro- Each site operates in a slightly different way, to the researchers behind them. Learn gress of the research. For those who make larger but there are common themes. Researchers what works and incorporate it into your donations there might be visits to a lab or field start by describing and pricing a project, which pitch. J.G. site. In the case of the Mississippi water-quality they submit to the site for approval. If accepted, study, donors in the region were encouraged the pitch is placed online and donors have a to help with collecting water samples from the few weeks or months to read the proposal tem also puts a premium on inventive, well- river. This process should help to forge stronger and make a donation. Some sites operate on thought-out proposals. A poorly conceived bonds between researchers and the public. a non-profit basis and channel all proceeds to pitch that attracts no funds will do nothing Whether all this works in wider practice researchers; others are commercial concerns for a scientist’s career; nor will one that never remains to be seen, but many welcome the and take a cut of the money raised. delivers on its promises. “It may not be formal experiment. “Science thrives on diversity,” says But although cash-starved scientists are peer review, but crowd-funding has valida- Jack Stilgoe, who studies science and society at lining up to list their projects, some are also tion based on common trust,” says Meece. the University of Exeter, UK. “We shouldn’t be expressing concerns. Take the issue of peer “It’s a pretty heavy filter.” Even Sally Rockey, afraid of innovations in how it is funded. We review. SciFlies and deputy director for extramural research at the should be more afraid when research money is NATURE.COM the OSSP post projects US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, all getting spent in the same way on the same Tell us your crowd- only after passing them Maryland, sees benefits in an alternative evalu- sorts of things.” ■ SEE EDITORIAL P.238 AND COMMENT P.260 funding tips by through an expert review ation system if it helps organizations to achieve commenting at: process, but Kickstarter’s their research goals. Peer review “is not the Jim Giles is a freelance writer based in San go.nature.com/a3bi7o only requirement is that only model”, she says. Francisco, California.