Table of Contents

• Why We Need More Science
• Seeking Truth in Daily Life
• The Current Scientific Funding System
• The Science Complexity Spectrum
• The Non-Institutional Science Funding Problem
• A Three-Part Problem
• 1. Incentivizing Funders
• 2. Excessive Formality
• 3. Unproven Utility
• Existing Solutions & Why They Don’t Fully Address the Problem
• Venture Capital
• Charity
• Citizen Science
• DeSci / Web 3 Solutions
• Suggestions for Non-Institutional Science
• Funding Source Options
• A Modern Revival of Patronage
• Conclusion

Why We Need More Science

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

...Just kidding, wrong manifesto.

What I meant to say is that science and its consequences have been an amazing transformation for the human race, and we should make sure we can keep doing more of that.

Seeking Truth in Daily Life

First — Do you value truth?

Second — How do you seek it?

Truth matters because it enables us to create, to affect, to take initiative. It may not always please us to know the truth, but it always improves our ability to act within the existing world. Only when we understand what is can we succeed in affecting what could be.

There are a few different methods by which humans can seek truth. Primarily, they can be categorized as:

Of the three, science is the one that tends to push the frontiers of knowledge the most, because it lets us see beyond what intuition alone can perceive. Some truths are counterintuitive or cannot be seen without the use of tools.

Many people have an intense desire to seek truth. We follow our hunches, learn from what others have done, and experiment to see what works.

When you vary the time to boil your eggs in order to find that perfect yolk consistency, this is science. When a YouTuber makes a video about their skincare routine, and others trial it and report their results in the comments, this is science. When a business offers a new pricing plan to see if it raises sales, this is science.

Is it always the perfect experimental design? No, but it’s far better than having no information at all. You don’t need a chainsaw to cut a piece of paper. There are many examples of capable people making important contributions to human knowledge through their independent experimentation efforts.

Many questions can be approached scientifically. Anyone can be a scientist in the sense that anyone can be systematic in the way they approach a question.

The Current Scientific Funding System

Unfortunately, we have more questions and people interested in answering them than we have societal capacity for doing so.

Most science is done by highly educated people who can win grant money or develop profit-generating findings for enterprise. Research topics are decided by what the government deems important or what companies believe will be profitable.

A simplified version of the current science funding cycle is summarized like this:

Most science is funded through corporations — about 60%, according to OECD. There are a few other mechanisms in place to fund innovative science, but not enough to reach our full potential.

How do we answer the valuable questions that fall outside of this system?

The Science Complexity Spectrum

Some questions are simpler, amateur, or easily accessible forms of scientific inquiry that anyone can engage in, while others are more complex, potentially expensive, or expertise-requiring research endeavors. The former can be referred to as “grassroots science” and the latter as “expert science”.

These are two sides of a spectrum, but some things will fall somewhere in between.

Despite their different types of questions and approaches, both ends of the spectrum face similar problems. They struggle to demonstrate value to the players of the current science funding system.

Expert scientists waste time conforming their work into a narrative that fits a grant application’s specifications. One top neuroscientist described seeking funding for her work on the brain’s functional organization. She admitted that the true importance of the work was for developing the fundamental models of neuroscience, but it had to be pitched as a way of helping stroke patients. Why doesn’t the primary value of the work align with the metrics that we assess it by?

Even if grassroots scientists do excellent work, they lack the official stamps of approval to spread their ideas and attract funding. Even if many admirers support their work, their ability to commit to underfunded work is limited when other priorities arise.

In either case, the value of their findings cannot necessarily be defined from the start. Many discoveries are unexpected and unknowable — that’s the whole point of R&D. For example, the famous PCR procedure (essential for genetic analysis) hinges on the serendipitous discovery of Taq polymerase, an enzyme that was unexpectedly discovered in a Yellowstone hot springs bacteria in 1969. Each year, the Golden Goose Award recognizes some such discovery that sounds frivolous but ends up being unexpectedly crucial to society.

But here’s the key (and possibly controversial) point: Maybe a long-run utilitarian value doesn’t need to exist at all. Maybe there is value in the satisfaction of curiosity itself. More on that soon.

The Non-Institutional Science Funding Problem

It’s not that doing good science doesn’t require education, planning, and a structure for collaboration. The existing systems are helpful and necessary. But there are many questions that can be investigated by capable, motivated people outside of the existing systems and institutions of science.

How can capable people, not affiliated with formal institutions, answer more questions scientifically?

A Three-Part Problem

1. Incentivizing Funders

Without financial support, the incentive for individuals to dedicate their lives to scientific inquiry would significantly diminish. Additionally, the pursuit of science requires more than just intellectual capital; it demands physical resources as well. From compensating participants to advanced laboratory equipment and costly materials, the acquisition of these tools is impossible without adequate funding.

On the other hand, funders need an incentive to give up their money. They’re either viewing it as:

• an investment, where they will eventually profit,
• a purchase, where they receive something of value that they can use,
• or a donation, where they receive philanthropic satisfaction by feeling that they are contributing to something good or important.

Unless funder’s receive something in return, they are not motivated to give much money for long. This is a problem that many attempts to support science run into — how can they incentivize a consistent source of funding?

2. Excessive Formality

Not all questions require highly-credentialed scientists and formal institutions. On the spectrum of grassroots science to expert science, there can be many levels of scientific training.

A capable, motivated person can absolutely spearhead a grassroots science initiative. For example, sex researcher Aella took an interest in fetish research and got over 700,000 people to respond to her kink survey. Despite not having a formal education, she used self-taught analytical techniques and the assistance of data scientist friends to produce her results. This impressively large dataset is a unique and valuable contribution towards our understanding of human behavior.

Even at the expert science levels, credential requirements often unnecessarily prohibit participation. For some research, you absolutely need the expertise of a PhD. But other research is lower stakes, and if no one is doing it anyway, it might as well be done less formally by someone who is willing to do it.

For example, there has been regrettably little exploration of the deep sea, since it does not easily fit into the incentives of the existing science funding cycle. Victor Vescovo, a private equity investor with a passion for exploration, accomplished the remarkable feat of being the first human to visit the deepest point of each of the Earth’s five oceans. He collected novel, valuable data on each of the dives. He was able to self-fund the project by putting up a significant portion of his own capital, and he did not let a lack of science background stop him in making this incredible contribution.

3. Unproven Utility

The satisfaction of curiosity fuels a fundamental aspect of human nature—the thirst for knowledge—and this alone is a profound and worthwhile pursuit. It is the very act of asking questions and seeking answers that has propelled our species forward. Most major scientific discoveries have been made by individuals driven solely by curiosity. People will at times invest a great deal of time, money, and effort into finding answers that have no obvious utility.

Although these endeavors were historically funded through patronage, modern day science funding mechanisms have increasingly limited support for the pursuit of pure curiosity. Many require the output of a commercializable product.

But the under-appreciated fact is that people are actually willing to pay for the satisfaction of their curiosity. Why do donors fund the CETI project aiming to understand whale language? Why do individuals buy 23andMe kits to discover their genetic ancestry, or even dog ancestry kits to know their pet’s background? Why did Yuri Milner spend $100 million of his own money on Breakthrough Listen, the largest search for alien communication to date, and Victor Vescovo $50 million on his deep sea expeditions? It’s because we want to know.

Existing Solutions & Why They Don’t Fully Address the Problem

In summary, each existing solution provides innovative contributions towards enabling more science. But the challenges of incentivizing funders, excessive formality, and proving utility remain.

Suggestions for Non-Institutional Science

Funding Source Options

What are the options for a non-institutional scientist to fund their research outside of the traditional pathways?

1. Loopholes in the existing system: Sometimes there is a fortuitous loophole in the existing system, though this is not a reliably repeatable strategy. One’s research may happen to align with the strategic interests of a company innovation arm or a particular grant program. For example, the U.S. government’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program funds R&D that has potential for commercialization, but they tend to be more loose with what qualifies as commercial potential in the early stages.
2. Crowdfunding: Scientists can tap into the collective power of individual donors and charitable organizations who share a common interest in their research goals. Such efforts can be facilitated by DAOs, or they can simply use a crowdfunding platform like Patreon, Kickstarter, or Experiment.com. This method not only provides a financial foundation for research but also builds a community of invested supporters who are often willing to promote the scientist’s work.
3. Individual: Another option is personal investment, either from their own resources or through patronage. Self-funding allows for complete autonomy over the research direction. However, it requires substantial personal capital and risk. Patronage, on the other hand, is a historical model where wealthy individuals support a researcher's work. Today, this can mean partnership with individuals or private organizations who are curious about particular scientific questions.

A Modern Revival of Patronage

Throughout history, patronage has played a pivotal role in the advancement of science.

In ancient Persia, the Barmakids family supported scientists such as Gebir who wrote the oldest-known classification system of chemical substances. During the Mayan Empire (1200–1250), leaders funded scientific research that resulted in the development of the Venus Table, a remarkable astrological chart for the time. From the 14th to the 17th centuries in Southern Europe, the Medici family were the patrons of Galileo, da Vinci, and many others, spending the modern equivalent of $460 million on their patronage.

In the 18th-19th centuries, academies became the centers of research. They started to incentivize discovery via prizes and publication in journals, rather than gifts from patrons. This created the benefit of establishing institutions of collaboration, but as the system optimized further and further, we lost the opportunity to answer non-utilitarian questions.

So what would a modern revival of patronage look like?

The key is that funders would understand that they are paying for the answer to a question. They are not simply making a donation to a good cause (though good may come of the effort). They are not expecting a return on investment (though profitable discoveries may be made). They are basically purchasing the satisfaction of their curiosity.

In modern patronage, there is no expectation of return on investment or a specific utilitarian outcome. The incentive is the answer to the question.

How does it solve the problems of non-institutional science?

• Incentivize funders: Funders view their contribution as a purchase. They are motivated by the answer to the question.
• Excessive formality: Anyone can try to find a patron. They still have to prove capability, but they are less likely to need specific credentials. They can address low-risk questions that formal pathways are not addressing.
• Proving utility: There is no need to prove utility because the value comes from the satisfaction of curiosity. The discoveries may or may not be useful in the short or long term.

Conclusion

In order to solve the problem, we have to define it clearly. The frameworks in this article are meant to help us define the present limitations of scientific research. The frameworks are:

• The existing science funding cycles: Government incentives or private industry incentives
• The spectrum of science complexity: From “grassroots science” to “expert science”
• The 3 parts of the non-institutional science funding problem: incentivizing funders, excessive formality, and proving utility

Additionally, this article has reviewed the advantages and challenges of existing solutions, and the possible funding sources for non-institutional science.

Lastly, it has introduced the idea of a modern revival of patronage. This idea can help foster a more expansive scientific landscape.