Duncan Julian Davis

There are serious problems with the current process for funding scientific research. Crowdfunding is a new popular method for raising money, but is it suited to scientific research and would it solve any of the existing problems?

Crowdfunding is a method of funding projects by attracting lots of small contributions over the internet. Often, the money is returned if the fundraising target isn’t met by a pre-defined time. This helps to alleviate risks of starting projects. Another common feature is rewards for contributions. These often include small items like t-shirts and badges; invitations to exclusive events; and (for digital and physical goods) promises of getting a version of the completed project.

It’s an increasingly popular technique and has raised lots of money. The platform “Kickstarter” has paid out over a billion dollars to over 70,000 projects¹.  However, the projects are rarely scientific research. Kickstarter and Indiegogo categorise projects but “science” isn’t a category^2,3, so such projects are uncommon or non-existent. The closest category is “technology”, where projects tend to be about the development of products. It is, therefore, taking a role of research and development rather than science.

Just because crowdfunding isn’t used for science doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. There are significant problems with the current science funding system. When applying for grants, scientists increasingly have to justify research in terms of its economic benefits⁴. This is problematic and counterproductive. Many scientific breakthroughs, including lasers, anti-biotics and transistors, were unexpected outcomes of curiosity-based research⁵. Along with these restrictions is the overall underfunding of science – the UK spends less than 0.6% of its GDP on publicly funded science research⁶.

It seems unlikely, however, that crowdfunding can make up for these shortfalls. One issue is the huge amount that would have to be raised. The annual amount needed to replace existing public funding far exceeds the amount Kickstarter has raised in its entire history. A quick calculation⁷ suggests all UK citizens would need to give around £150 per year. This may not seem much but they would all have to take the time to look at various projects and actively choose to give to science. The public, who are unqualified to do so, would also have to prioritise research topics. Rewards in the system would further the problem of targeting technological development over curiosity.

Crowdfunding isn’t the answer. We must instead fix the public funding system by pressuring politicians to make reforms. Requirements to justify research in economic terms must be removed and the total funding should be increased to at least 1% of GDP. Politicians often claim^8,9, incorrectly, that there’s no money available. In reality, there’s a huge amount of wealth in society but it’s massively concentrated¹⁰ into the hands of a few. Government should use its power to expropriate some of that wealth and fund curiosity-based research for the common good.

1. https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats
2. https://www.kickstarter.com/discover?ref=nav
3. https://www.indiegogo.com/explore
4. http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v2/n10/full/nmat992.html
5. http://learnedsocietywales.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Curiosity-driven%20Blue%20Sky%20Research%20WEB%20LSW.pdf
6. http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2013/03/11/show-me-the-numbers/
7. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%280.006*+UK+GDP+in+GBP%29+%2F+%28UK+population%29
8. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/06/george-osborne-britain-cuts-austerity
9. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/balls-binds-labour-austerity-promise-no-extra-borrowing
10. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller