The science field can be broadly defined by its processes and a wide array of activities. In general, it covers any system of scientific knowledge concerning physical phenomena, including impartial observation and experimental techniques. To sum it up, science can be defined as a pursuit of knowledge covering the functioning of fundamental laws and general truths.
Traditional science, also known as TradSci, has been the only cornerstone of scientific research, discovery, and data distribution we have ever known. The conventional system typically includes structured methodologies, a hierarchical system of funding scientific research, constrained access to data storage, and peer-reviewed scientific publications.
An institutional framework characterises the traditional system since it functions within universities, corporate labs, and research institutions. Access to research is usually constrained by paywalls, along with recognition which depends on publication records and citations within scientific journals.
The main products of any scientific research are scientific progress, intellectual property (IP), and publications. Modern science is crucial for human health and overall progress, but it has some flaws.
Simply put, there have been several issues in the field of conventional science that have been slowing down scientific development instead of speeding it up. Let’s take a look.
The main problem with a field so important for the development of humanity is its unprofitability. The passing of time didn’t manage to commercialise science enough to secure a substantial degree of financing.
A limited supply of capital, typically sponsored by universities, the government, or venture capital, means that scientific research funding is still an undeveloped area. In many ways, traditional science has been subject to centralised control. Once you dive into the world of scientific research, you can notice that funding is challenging at any research stage.
Aside from doing work that is directly linked to human well-being, obtaining financing is frequently a pain point for scientists. The traditional system is too bureaucratic, slow, and complex; such a hardship often deters researchers from focusing on specific research if they cannot secure funding.
Additionally, young scientists and researchers from undeveloped countries may be in a bad position since funding is usually oriented toward their older and more experienced colleagues.
Another funding-based issue is connected to the conventional rewards system within the scientific community. In other words, success in securing financing can be linked to parameters that quantify the impact of a publication such as the h-index.
Such pressure means that scientists choose to research a topic that can attract headlines rather than scientific research that may be critical for society, but not entertaining enough to read. Many potentially significant scientific projects die in their early days due to a lack of funding within the conventional and highly centralised system.
Access to information is a vital issue. Even though the scientific ecosystem is the backbone of global public goods, knowledge, and information are typically hidden within private research databases and paywalls in scientific publications and journals.
Although science is a collaborative process where researchers rely on each other to deliver accurate knowledge, many research groups tend to hide their findings in the race to take final credit. Hiding vital resources and data means that the pace of development is limited.
Traditional science is plagued with a broad misalignment between those conducting the research, those financing it, and end-users. If scientists were incentivized to share data, innovations could happen at a faster pace.
Transparency is one of the main perks of blockchain technology. To learn more, check out this article: 'What is a Blockchain?'.
The above-mentioned misalignment creates another problem that plagues modern science – the inability to reproduce and replicate results. At the heart of quality scientific discovery lies the concept of reproducibility and replicability.
To reach a scientific discovery, teams need to test, validate and retest; the scientific process is hard and slow, but it is needed to obtain a glimpse of scientific truth.
However, this doesn’t happen frequently because funding is more oriented toward new information instead of confirming older findings.
Even though replication studies are important for the development of science, they lack novelty. Therefore, most scientific journals are more interested in publishing new and groundbreaking results.
Somehow research has always been a monopolistic area which is controlled by several publishing journals that are incentivised to sell more journal subscriptions. Along with the ‘pay-to-publish' model, it can be said that the development of science is limited.
The process of peer review concerning research papers is complex. Generally, they are conducted by academic publishing houses. The above-mentioned ‘pay-to-publish' model makes it even harder for scientists. They need to pay journals to publish their research, and peer reviews are not rewarded for their work.
The current state of the peer review system is exploitative. Scholars and editors usually carry the peer review process for free while publishers gain massive profits. This adds up to the potential publishing of poor-quality scientific knowledge as well.
Intellectual Property (IP) is another issue that plagues modern science. The umbrella term that provides legal rights and protection to investors and creators comes along with two main problems.
The registration process of IP is an archaic procedure, especially when it comes to early stages of development. IP can be hard to assess in terms of its value or remains unused by academic institutions and research centres.
Academic institutions are in a specific position when it comes to patents. Even though there is a contradiction that knowledge is a public good, the IP belongs to an individual. However, there are some hard questions that need to be answered – for example, if the researcher uses a university laboratory for research, does the IP belong to the university? As you can see, joint ownership issues arise.
In most cases, researchers are required to assign their rights to the institution; the benefactor retains IP rights generated from the research. This is especially the case for government-funded research grants.
Another problem is about scientific replication; the interplay between science and IP was described in a 2013 issue of the Economist. One of the cornerstones of science and the principle of objective truth is that the same experiments always get the same results. If replication doesn’t lead to the same outcome, then either the original research is flawed or the replications are flawed. In other words, IP laws don’t always go hand in hand with science.
When it comes to replication, the main issue is linked to access to the methods and data of the original data. As mentioned above in the article, not many researchers are willing to share their research and raw data for replication.
However, IP laws constitute a multifaceted subject that requires careful consideration and should not be approached lightly. It is impractical to fully cover this topic within the scope of this article since it demands a thorough explanation.
Our intention was simply to highlight that traditional science encounters IP challenges, leading to situations where researchers may not receive due credit for their contributions or face problems with replicating former studies. At the moment, Intellectual Property (IP) ownership is a thorny issue in traditional science.
Decentralised science (DeSci) refers to a Web3 movement with a primary objective to upgrade traditional science and provide a public infrastructure for scientific research, publication, research funding, sharing research data and intellectual property rights using blockchain technology, decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), smart contracts and tokens.
The main idea behind DeSci is to improve science and create an environment where researchers can easily share scientific data and their work, along with easily accessing the research of other members of the scientific community. Decentralised science focuses on changing the traditional system of funding by providing diverse funding sources.
When the British mathematician Clive Humby stated in 2006 that data is the new oil, he meant that data like oil isn't valuable in its raw state; it needs to be refined and processed to reach its true potential.
Even though the decentralised science movement is still in its early days, it has been gaining momentum. The DeSci movement is powered by the idea of empowering researchers in a Web3 and crypto setting and delivering new models of sharing scientific data and funding research. DeSci improves science by rewriting the rules and bringing to the table inclusiveness and fairness.
DeSci projects aim to provide more freedom to the scientific community just as decentralised finance (DeFi) is trying to embrace financial freedom and inclusivity. If you're interested in finding out more, why not read this article: 'Can I achieve financial freedom with DeFi?'.
The emergence of blockchain technology in 2008 provided a stimulant for the idea of decentralised science. DeSci’s roots can be traced back to early 2010 when the potential of blockchain technology concerning scientific research was first examined.
It was acknowledged that the main perks of blockchain technology such as transparency, decentralisation and immutability are significant when it comes to scientific knowledge. A few crypto projects dealing with decentralised peer review systems were launched as well.
In 2015, the movement gained further momentum. As soon as smart contracts, decentralised storage systems and programmable protocols came to the scene, it was evident that they could be used for research data sharing and collaboration.
In the last few years, many projects have emerged that are in line with DeSci’s main features. Their main goal is to lay down a decentralised setting and scientific tools by using smart contracts and similar technologies to ensure open access, data integrity and incentivized peer review systems.
DeSci projects provide scientific communities with several benefits concerning research funding, open access to research data, enhanced collaboration, and better protection of intellectual property rights.
We have discussed issues that plague modern science and slow down development. Decentralised science aims to move this system forward by pooling resources together and providing a suitable infrastructure for such a paradigm shift.
Let’s take a look at how DeSci can improve the traditional system and speed up progress.
We have already discussed how current funding mechanisms are highly centralised, and susceptible to biases and self-interests of funding organisations. The traditional model of research funding required the involvement of a panel of trusted individuals, and the whole process has been very bureaucratic.
DeSci and Web3 aim to improve this situation by reducing reliance on institutional funding by setting out funding mechanisms where the allocation and distribution of funds will be required to be determined by the public. The solution involves the use of blockchain-powered quadratic and retroactive public goods funding procedures, along with the use of DAOs.
The DeSci movement brings to the table fast grant’ options that provide efficient financing for scientific research and to reward researchers. This speeds up development since it reduces the time scientists spend writing and waiting for funding.
Blockchain technology also delivers crowdfunding options. We have already witnessed how funds have been raised for crypto projects through the use of DAOs and NFTs. The same logic can be applied to the scientific community.
For example, there are blockchain-based grant marketplaces that enable users to crowdfund drug development. The blockchain protocol directly connects biotech companies, scientists, investors and patients. The whole system empowers the concept of open marketplaces for scientific research.
A decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) refers to a new type of legal entity governed by code. You can think of decentralised autonomous organisations as tokenized companies that enable anyone to participate by investing in tokens. The organisation is made of a community of token holders who oversee its functioning.
If you are a frequent reader, you probably remember that we discussed funding research by DAOs a while ago in our 'DAOs helping scientists: Underfunding solved by decentralisation'.
A key feature of any DAO is a common purpose. If you take a look at DeSci DAOs, token holders replace funding from institutions. The initial process is similar to a grant application procedure, including a more understandable interpretation of the main scientific hypothesis for non-academic token holders to comprehend it.
DAOs are a significant component of decentralised science; they present a source of funding for non-conventional research and long-term funding models. The focus shifts from a select few controlling funding decisions to a collective and transparent effort.
For example, decentralised funding for clinical research projects brings more users into the funding process; it can raise awareness around study recruitment as well as encourage new groups to support the scientific field.
DAOs are also useful when it comes to improving peer reviews and reputation systems, providing the opportunity for authors and peer reviewers to work independently of scientific journals.
Decentralised science (DeSci) introduces novel peer review mechanisms to improve the credibility and transparency of research. By utilising main perks of blockchain technology, such peer review systems provide a tamper-proof record of the whole process. The review history is publicly accessible on the blockchain.
Every time a scientist successfully publishes or peer-reviews a research paper, smart contracts will automatically update the metrics on the blockchain and increase credibility within the whole scientific community. This is especially important when it comes to medical data, where transparent sharing of groundbreaking discoveries can have significant implications for the well-being of the society.
DeSci projects provide an alternative to data silos under the centralised control of institutional entities which hindered transparent sharing and cooperation. Hosting data on the blockchain provides transparency; through a blockchain-based platform, researchers can access and store a database of relevant research at any time leading to more accurate scientific knowledge. Since blockchain records are immutable, the data is tamper-proof and censorship resistant.
Even though the IP legal system was created a long time ago, it still presents a problem within the scientific communities; from being hard to value to being stuck in universities and research centres.
DeSci removes the problem of IP being dominated by a central authority by enabling various components of science, such as research papers, peer reviews, and reputation systems to be governed by decentralised communities.
DeSci uses NFTs to preserve IP rights within its ecosystems. For example, intellectual property NFTs, also known as IP-NFTs, can be created to ensure the authenticity of tokenized assets or data such as research findings, scientific knowledge, and articles.
IP-NFTs have already been in use; for example, MoleculeDAO recently introduced the next generation called IP-NFT V2. The second version builds on the established components of the first version and adds new features and functionalities.
Unsupported content, you can view it in the full version of the site
VisitThe main goal of the second generation of IP-NFTs is to enable biotechnology DAOs to mint IP-NFTs using a new minting method, along with allowing DeSci developers to use IP-NFTs within their infrastructure for specific use cases.
When it comes to peer review, blockchain technology brings to the table the ability to transparently recognise reviewers’ contributions. Each contribution can be linked to a unique identifier on the blockchain, establishing an authentic record of authorship.
Through Web3-powered tools, DeSci projects open new avenues for collaboration and universal access to data. This marks a significant step towards a more inclusive research process and open use of knowledge at a global scale.
Since DeSci embraces the concept of open access and unconstrained sharing of findings, blockchain platforms allow researchers to publish their work openly without paywalls or fees. The principle of open access is especially important within the sphere of life sciences because it enables scientists to access critical data.
Additionally, through the integration of Web3 tools, DeSci facilitates the transparent sharing of laboratory services and resources, making the entire process more accessible and flexible. Scientific progress is linked to collaboration - DeSci aims to bring minds together to push the boundaries of knowledge.
Therefore, decentralised science fuels open science, embraces citizen science, and creates incentives for both the scientific community and the general public.
Despite its extraordinary innovations and real-world value, DeSci encompasses several potential limitations that might slow down its mainstream adoption, and make it look like a risky venture.
DeSci has been criticised for lower scientific quality. In other words, inclusivity and availability have been compared to obstacles to the accuracy of scientific outcomes and research data. Experts stated that the quality of scientific research could suffer if the community welcomes everyone without checking out whether that person is an amateur, a self-proclaimed expert or a true professional.
The other problem is linked to an inadequate comprehension of Web3's underlying tools. Decentralised science is filled with new and high-level technologies that require a higher level of technical knowledge. The scientific community needs to change its customary practices and embrace something unknown and complex.
Even though DeSci delivers a new model of obtaining funding, applications, and technological solutions can be costly to implement. DeSci needs a particular degree of capital to efficiently bring to life the entire ecosystem and create products that could make a difference for modern science and human life.
Although DeSci is still under development, it has already demonstrated real-world utility. The new approach comes along with immense potential, especially in the spheres of cancer and rare diseases’ research, where data integrity and fast results are crucial.
DeSci embraces a patient-centric research model based on transparency and open access. The movement ensures that patients are directly involved in the process to stay in line with real-world necessities and foster a sense of community.
Most importantly, DeSci has the potential to speed up the research process by allowing rapid data sharing and peer review. When it comes to cancer and rare diseases, this is a vital feature.
Moreover, DeSci provides the opportunity of real-time data sharing. The underlying infrastructure of the DeSci ecosystem has the potential to allow rapid data dissemination among researchers worldwide. This could be helpful in scenarios such as disease outbreaks.
Remember the Covid-19 pandemic? If DeSci was up and running back then, it could have been a pivotal tool to fight the virus.
Since DeSci implements real-time sharing of research findings and data using the transparent and immutable blockchain technology, it has a potential to help during outbreaks. For example, a rapid exchange of information is significant for a fast identification of the disease and the comprehension of its transmission dynamics.
As mentioned in the first use case, collaboration is one of DeSci’s key features. Bringing many experts together becomes pivotal in studying patterns, mutations and efficient strategies to fight the outbreak.
Data stored on blockchains is transparent, auditable and tamper-proof. Such data integrity is significant when it comes to obtaining and maintaining public trust and preventing misinformation that might lead to collective panic.
By providing verifiable and transparent scientific processes, there is no room for fake news or ambiguous claims. DeSci has the potential to play a vital role in ensuring that the public is well-informed of the decision-making process during major health crises.
So far DeSci has been successful in setting out longevity research. Longevity research and therapeutics are considered as the last frontiers of medicine. If scientists could make it possible to slow down the genetic ageing process, they could also slow down a wide array of age-related diseases.
Longevity therapeutics haven’t been frequently under the radar of big pharma since ageing isn’t a disease technically. The classical pharmaceutical development pipeline includes the step of being classified as a disease either by the European Medicine Agency or the Food and Drug Administration in the United States.
Unsupported content, you can view it in the full version of the site
VisitHowever, there is a broad research community for such research. For example, several DeSci DAOs aim to finance them democratically and transparently with the purpose of extending human life and health span.
Unsupported content, you can view it in the full version of the site
Visit