I was made aware of a project in pure mathematics that is asking the public for money via 'crowdfunding'.

 

As the people involved are not looking '... to cure cancer' or '...build new IT equipment' or '... to contribute significanlty to the local economy', their funding options are rather limited. The fact they are asking for money in this way shows how difficult getting funding for pure mathematics and fundamental science can be. There seems to be a drive for short term economic gains from research, and this short sighted and not good for science.

 

Asking openly for money is somthing I have considered, but not that seriously...yet.

 

Personally, I am not sure if this is the right way to go, but needs must.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Edited May 22, 20169 yr by ajb

Crowd funding NASA.... People like crowd funding because it makes them feel good."I donated to cure cancer!" Tends to make people feel better then saying "I donated to advance science!"

That's my opinion. I would crowdfund NASA though if it were an option

I would crowdfund NASA though if it were an option

You kind of already do via your taxes.

People can do what they like with their money. If they wish to use some of it to support furthering the advancement of human knowledge, even without any tangible gain personally, I can't see any problem with that at all; they know the score.

People can do what they like with their money. If they wish to use some of it to support furthering the advancement of human knowledge, even without any tangible gain personally, I can't see any problem with that at all; they know the score.

Sure, I agree.

 

However, I am not sure that the pubic will give money to projects that they do not understand at all. I hope to be proved wrong on that.

You kind of already do via your taxes.

I'm about 5 years away from paying taxes

I have thought about that for a while and discussed it with colleagues but essentially it is unlikely to work out with current models. There are issues on every level. For example, in typical research deliverable are often "just" scientific output. Thus, it is unlikely that sufficient people would buy into a pitch that they cannot assess scientifically. In cases where a scientist is sufficiently famous, just using ones name as brand might work. However, many scientists known to the public are actually science communicators rather than active researchers. As such, crowdfunding an outreach/engagement project might work, but it is likely to fail for basic research.

 

Another area could be in applied sciences where the output is potentially much more tangible. But then the question would be why they were unsuccessful via traditional funding sources. Also it would be limited to relatively cheap projects, which is another limitation.

I have successfully crowdfunded a few small projects.

 

Generally have big, easily tangible aims (e.g. solve antibiotic resistance) a small budget (e.g $5,000) and a lot of community interaction (e.g.organize a regular sci-beer event at your local ale house, teach a middle school "virus hunters" course). Basically, you need a lot of people to sling a few bucks your way. It's a lot of work, for a relatively small return (compared to NSF/NIH grants) but it looks pretty awesome on your tenure packet/broader impacts statement.

I have successfully crowdfunded a few small projects.

Thats great.

 

So these small projects were on things that a large precentage of the general public already had some idea about?

 

Just by browsing the few websites set up for science funding biology, ecology and medicne seem to be popular. I imagine that astronomy could also become popular, but maybe buying telescope time to too expensive for such crowdfunding. Pure mathematics I feel may never really get much attention.

 

 

Thus, it is unlikely that sufficient people would buy into a pitch that they cannot assess scientifically.

This is my expectation also. Maybe we are wrong, but I don't see the public handing money over to fundamental pure science. However, the project that I was made aware of seems to be doing well, but this maybe because of their very high hopes related to quantum gravity. They may have thrown in enough exciting words to get some attention.

That would be my guess. Actually there have been some crowdfunding successes, though in my mind there were more outreach than research programs. Such as bringing in samples, looking at the bacterial community via sequencing, food testing etc.

I guess I was thinking more in terms of maintaining research programs, which includes salary and other big items.