DeSci. Decentralized Science. Sounds revolutionary, right? The promise is tantalizing: using blockchain to tear down the ivory towers of traditional research, democratizing funding, and making knowledge accessible to all. Before we uncork the champagne and declare science liberated, let's ask a crucial question: Whose science are we decentralizing? Have we truly achieved a more level playing field? Or are we simply paving it over with crypto and good intentions, as the biases go deeper and deeper?
Equity For All? Or Digital Colonialism?
This excitement about DeSci usually centers on the potential for more funding opportunities and open access to data. That's fantastic in theory. Consider this: a researcher in Ghana, working on a project crucial to their local community, now has access to the same global funding pool as a well-connected Harvard professor. Great! Does that researcher have reliable, high-speed internet? Do they have access to a deep bench of well-connected, experienced thought partners and the digital literacy necessary to traverse the wild west world of DAOs and crypto tokens?
Otherwise, we’re in danger of reproducing digital colonialism. Western-centric research agendas funded by well-heeled, tech-savvy teams could quickly swamp DeSci platforms. Research that would be most applicable to African contexts – for example, climate-resilient agriculture or indigenous medicine – would perhaps be overshadowed. It's easy to imagine vitaDAO, focused on longevity, attracting far more funding than a project studying sickle cell anemia, a disease disproportionately affecting people of African descent. Is that democratization? Or is it simply a new mechanism to allow the privileged to game the system in pursuit of their self-interests?
Consider the initial deployment of internet infrastructure. The promise was universal access to information. What we ended up with was a world in which misinformation spreads like wildfire and echo chambers amplify and deepen people’s biases. Are we fated to relive that same song and dance with DeSci?
DeSci is based on Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) to govern funding and peer review. The premise is that community members vote on which projects to fund. Sounds fair, right? Who is this community?
DAOs: Democracy or Digital Cliques?
Early adopters of DeSci are usually people who are already at home with blockchain technology. These pioneers are generally from developed countries and are largely well-financed. This creates an inherent bias. Now picture that same DAO, run by Silicon Valley tech bros, picking and choosing which research projects are valuable and should receive funding. Are they seriously able to grasp the needs and priorities of researchers in the trenches of the developing world? Will they focus on fundamental research across all disciplines, or research that is the most commercially viable?
Additionally, the potential for incentivizing contributions through cryptocurrency, such as ResearchHub’s $RSC token, is enticing. What if the value of that token suddenly drops by 80%? For other researchers, the barrier to entry is just too high. They find it hard to conceptualize crypto wallets, gas fees, and intricate governance structures. Otherwise, we run the risk of creating a system that ultimately benefits only the rich and highly connected. In the process, the people who need the most help are often shortchanged.
Consider the traditional scientific establishment. It has its flaws, no doubt. But even this research has some measure of peer-review process, ethical guidelines and institutional oversight (albeit flawed though they may be). What protections are being implemented in DeSci to avoid misuse of funds, fraud, or even actively promoting pseudoscientific research? Bio Protocol provides several funding mechanisms, but is that enough to guarantee appropriate resource distribution? Open funding is a double-edged sword, it turns out.
The potential of DeSci is undeniable. Blockchain’s verifiable and auditable nature, noted Tangem, would change the entire paradigm in which we validate research and protect our intellectual property against theft. The potential of open access to scientific literature, as exemplified by the platform ResearchHub, can eliminate these barriers to knowledge. We need to be intentional about addressing the risk of bias and inequality. Otherwise, DeSci risks becoming yet another instrument through which the powerful deepens their grip.
Forgotten Voices: Amplifying or Silencing?
We need to actively seek out and amplify the voices of those researchers who hail from these underrepresented regions. Most importantly, we need to ensure DeSci platforms are open and inclusive to all. Let’s do everything we can to empower and equip those without technical know-how. We need to critically examine the governance structures of DAOs to prevent the formation of digital cliques that perpetuate existing power structures.
Think of it like this: opening the floodgates of scientific funding is great, if the water only flows to those who already have swimming pools, we haven't achieved anything.
We shouldn’t be so distracted by the promise of “decentralization” that we ignore the risks of “decentralized bias.” The future of science depends on it. The real question is, do you have the courage to ask these hard questions.
Let's not let the allure of "decentralization" blind us to the potential for "decentralized bias." The future of science depends on it. The question is, are you willing to ask these tough questions?
