1 of 26

DeSci is Here to Fix Science

Let´s create the descicommons.org

2 of 26

Science is broken

Obviously, all earlier ”revolutions” failed to fix science.

Just imagine how you would organize science with current available means, without legacy.

Get rid of all old stakeholders and limitations.

Get rid of old cultures that developed because of this

What is different this time? 🤔

3 of 26

“This time, we will fix science.

Because this time, we can decide who gets the money and how to do science with it.”

🧑🏻‍🔬🧬🩹

4 of 26

The DeSci community will develop guidelines and best practices that will be followed by DeSci science funders

and scientists 💪🏼💪🏼

DESCICOMMONS.ORG

5 of 26

Publications

High-threshold, outdated/monopoly, expensive, closed pre-publication peer-review culture,

discontinued publication, static PDFs, lock-in, expensive, closed access, no dynamic/micro publications, no reuse,...

Tools

Centralized, siloing servers, new technology adverse…

Social Networks

Silo-ed, acting in their own interest, …

Funding

Poor decisions, overhead, slow, inside jobs, big chunks of money, more signaling than content, unrealistic long-term planning, no serendipity, …

Institutes

Local cultures, legal, administrative, etc overhead, act in their interest, change resistant, outdated thesis cultures, ”you have to follow the rules, once you made it, you tend to stick with the culture” …

Incentives

To publish, create narratives towards the mean, one or two monolithic impact factor measurement systems, …

Research data

Not open, open only at some point, no data trail, rendered intentionally unusable, …

Researchers

Make things overly complex, fake results, look “biased” at research results, “cargo-cult science”, …

Organization

Overhead, administration, limited to local/personal networks, collaboration adverse, no up-to-date collaboration tools, ...

Culture

Support the mean, not the innovative, crazy thinkers“, Ex post facto hypothesizing, the tendency to overcomplexity “looks scientific”, reproduction/replication-crisis,

IP

Massive overhead, based on paper,

Translation

Risk-averse financing, large overhead, do not acquire IP, …

SO, WHAT IS WRONG WITH SCIENCE? TLDR

There is not “one” thing that is broken …

6 of 26

What’s Wrong with Science? Exp. 1

www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

7 of 26

What’s Wrong with Science? Exp. 2

8 of 26

Tip of the Iceberg

📚Stuff we read about

👀 Stuff that we observe, that we know through experiences and from our gut, that never surfaces

Tell us your story….

9 of 26

Publications

dynamic/micro publications, prompt, time-stamped publications, reuse culture, GIT, dynamic “peer review”, Jupyter, …

Tools

Decentralized, Blockchain, NFTs, AI-generated content positive…

Social Networks

Decentralized, non-siloing,

Funding

DAOs, transparent, crowd-funding, retroactive public goods funding, quadratic funding, content-driven proposals, prompt, no-overhead, impact certificates, prediction markets, …

Institutes

Globally distributed hubs

Incentives

Tokenized incentive structures, multiple and competing incentives structures, …

Research data

Immutable,( promptly open) data trails, new deals on data, Data-DAOs, IPFS, Data-NFTs, data markets, zero-knowledge, compute-to-data, FAIR data principles, …

Researchers

Independent, on-chain certificates, multiple (pseudonymous-) identities, new reputation systems, …

Organization

On-chain governance, DAO, novel organization tools, tech trees, ….

Culture

Novel culture, towards real innovation, negative results, …

IP

IP-NFTs, IP-DAOs, transparent, …

Translation

Risk-averse financing, large overhead, do not acquire IP, …

The #DeSci revolution (TLDidR) - there is not one thing that will fix science

How do we “do” the revolution?

10 of 26

Earlier Science Revolutions

Very enthusiastic, “ WE WILL FIX SCIENCE”

We will improve XYZ

Did something but failed largely

Enthusiasm is good and fun, but it wasn’t enough..

11 of 26

Continuously popping up with projects

E.G. open access self-publishing platforms, Center for open science, GIT, self-archiving, etc. pp.

Never really achieved anything big

Conclusion Providing infrastructure/tech is good and fun, but was not enough

“Open Science”

12 of 26

Conclusion Reasoning / Publishing about Open Science is good and fun, but was not enough

Reasoning for Open Science

13 of 26

Slide

Dated 2008

Science 2.0 or Web 2.0 for Science

14 of 26

Dated 2010

Science 2.0 or Web 2.0 for Science

Conclusion Creating companies, teams and shaking hands with important people is good and fun, but was not enough

15 of 26

Dated 2018

Blockchain for Science Revolution 2018

Conclusion Blockchain and decentralization by itself is good and fun, but was not enough

16 of 26

Slide

Dated 2022

And now? #DeSci? Will we fix science?

What has actually changed?

17 of 26

To make an impact we need to harness our community’s special power.

“This time, we will fix science.

Because this time, we can decide who gets the money and how to do science with it.”

OR

Blockchain as a root technology to solve coordination problems in science

18 of 26

2 ways of doing #DeSci

For scientists that do #desci, but still have to adhere to traditional career paths and conduct in e.g. traditional institutes

For scientists that go full #desci,

e.g. in desci network states or “institutes”

19 of 26

Ex. Publishing

  • Open Access journals
  • Copies on decentralized platforms
  • Also micro publications
  • As soon as possible
  • CC-BY

  • Micropublications
  • AI and reuse positive
  • As results occur (IP!)
  • Dynamic publications, GIT…
  • CC-BY

20 of 26

Ex. Open Data

  • Findable
  • Accessible
  • Interoperable
  • Immutable
  • Reusable

  • PRomptly Open
  • Findable
  • Immutable
  • Interoperable
  • Accessible
  • Decentralized
  • ZKs, etc

21 of 26

Ex. Funding

  • Both DeSci funding and traditional funding

  • New funding methods, quadratic, public goods, …
  • No (signalling) overhead (e.g. 1 pagers)
  • Low entry
  • DAOs, IP-NFTs
  • No overhead for research spending reports

22 of 26

DeSci Commons: A signalling brand for really good science

Not only to technically decentralize,

but culturally,

to make science more effective, innovative, reusable, open, true…

23 of 26

Vision for Future

I can trust the results of my peers and can build on them, reuse their data and texts

Hey, science is fun again, I just created a pull request to update a publication with our new mouse results, my publications are my spending reports - no overhead, all on chain, promptly open and proofable using zk - no more reasons to hide exciting results!

My crazy idea was funded - I only spent an afternoon on my grant, I m almost all the time in the lab now testing my hypotheses - and can let serendipity happen

VC / IP collective

We can trust those time-stamped results - lets put money for translation behind it

24 of 26

For this to happen we need…

to kick start the descicommons.org process

the DeSci community: to contribute to the guidelines

for scientists that understand desci to early join the process

adoption: spread the word, DAOs / Web3 Science funders and DeScientists adhering to these guidelines

the governance: setting up a neutral guarding organisation & technical solution for education, organization, branding & marketing and continuous iteration

👉

👉

👉

👉

https://qrco.de/bdqOOa

👉

25 of 26

26 of 26

For this to happen we need…

to kick start the descicommons.org process

the DeSci community: to contribute to the guidelines

for scientists that understand desci to early join the process

adoption: spread the word, DAOs / Web3 Science funders and DeScientists adhering to these guidelines

the governance: setting up a neutral guarding organisation & technical solution for education, organization, branding & marketing and continuous iteration

👉

👉

👉

👉

https://qrco.de/bdqOOa

👉