

Microryza (YC W13) Is A “Kickstarter” For Scientific Research - irollboozers
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/25/microryza-yc/

======
reasonattlm
I've said in the past that it's good to see a variety of groups trying to
crack the science crowdfunding issue - it's tough, and differs from the more
popular branches of crowdfunding in very important ways.[1]

The future of medicine, however, rests upon success; there's a lot of medical
research that just doesn't get funded because the regulatory situation for
commercial applications of research is terrible beyond all belief [2], [3].
The incentives there percolate back up the research chain to ensure that few
people work on genuinely groundbreaking things, or on things that are intended
to do something other than treat late-stage conditions in marginal ways.

Yet this is an era of plummeting costs and soaring capabilities in biotech -
so much can be done now with a grad student and a few tens of thousands of
dollars that 20 years back would have taken tens of millions and a whole lab,
if it could be done at all. In recent years I've been privileged to watch the
Longecity community work through the process of crowdfunding small research
projects like microglia transplants in mice to evaluate prospects for
neurodegenerative treatments [4], to pick one example. That is exactly the
sort of thing we'd like to see better frameworks and a broader audience for.

In other words, work taking place in niche fields that are important but
underfunded and underappreciated, but nonetheless have strong communities with
a willingness to step up and help out.

But as I've said, it's really, really hard. You can't just kickstart a science
project in the same way as for games, tools, etc. It doesn't work that way. So
I'm hoping that one of these present ventures finds the key.

[1] [http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/you-cant-just-
kic...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/you-cant-just-kickstart-a-
science-project---it-isnt-that-easy.php)

[2] [http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/the-fda-is-a-
dest...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/the-fda-is-a-destructive-
force.php)

[3] [http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/05/envisaging-a-
worl...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/05/envisaging-a-world-
without-the-fda.php)

[4] [http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/05/updates-on-the-
lo...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/05/updates-on-the-longecity-
crowdfunded-microglia-study.php)

------
Lewisham
Given the furore that occurs whenever a Kickstarter doesn't actually produce
the product that people had backed (and mistakenly read as "pre-ordered"), I
can't imagine the fuss that will come from funding academic research.

My own research has often diverged down a path that I thought more
interesting, dead-ended quickly from what I thought I should do, or turned out
to either be trivial if done 80% of the way, or impossible taken 100% of the
way, so I couldn't publish it.

I'm sure if I had a crowd behind me, it would have turned into a rabble very
quickly. I would not have liked it.

~~~
mjn
True, but most funding mechanisms, short of no-strings-attached corporate
gifts, have some rabble chasing you around, who may get angry in various ways
if it doesn't pan out as they had thought they were led to believe. I'd rather
have people on the internet disappointed that my research changed direction,
than a DARPA program officer on the phone demanding an explanation for missing
deliverables...

~~~
Brashman
Although it may not be this way on paper, most academic funding agencies
realize that the exact details of the research are likely to change. Usually
as long as the general direction of research (e.g., solving problem X), they
are ok with it. There's rarely deliverables, as far as I've seen. Though it is
true that sometimes the defense agencies want something more concrete.

~~~
mmc
In a variety of government-funded computer science projects, I've seen
everything on the spectrum from "here's some cash, tell us what you do with
it" to extremely detailed, measurable deliverables with heavily negotiated
deadlines. Some agencies appear to lean one way or the other, and it also
seems to depend on the amount of funding. In my experience, more cash means
more planning up front and more oversight. No big surprise there.

------
otuseless
As an investigator myself I see huge promise for this type of program.
However, I have a major and immediate concern for this funding mechanism.
There is tremendous potential for unethical research to be performed here.
Some of the projects currently receiving funding and presented on the web-site
are already in potential violation of public safety and patient/animal rights
violations. Asking people on the internet to participate in these research
efforts is not only unwise, but unethical and at worst, potentially illegal.

For example, the project titled, "Viral Causes of Lung Cancer" featured on the
homepage proposes to analyze, "...blood from a nine-year study of over 9,000
men.". As indicated in the background material, "People living with AIDS and
transplant patients are at higher risk for lung cancer." Therefore, I am to
assume that some of these blood samples may contain infectious HIV. At this
point, this is only an assumption, but how am I to know that the research is
being processed under required biosafety conditions? Equally as important, how
am I to know that the patient data has been protected and adequately de-
identified? I can make these assumptions, but when dealing with disease
control and patient rights assumptions are not a place where I want to
dedicate my money.

What happens if the investigator accidentally inoculates himself with patient
blood via a contaminated needle? The entire proposal is predicated with the
idea that the samples are laden with virus, so unless the investigator is
wrong, there are at least some infectious samples. Similarly, what controls
are in place to prevent the association of patient data with viral load and
cancer status amongst other things?

How is Microryza going to prevent the investor from law suits in the case of a
biosafety incident or patient/animal rights violation?

Regulatory committees are a blessing and a curse to all researchers. They are
a curse in that it means a lot of paperwork, boring courses and regulatory
meetings. But they are there for a reason, specifically to protect the
individuals working on the research, the patients from which samples are
obtained (when applicable) and the funding agencies supporting the work. Many
regulatory requirement are put into place only following an accident or
tragedy. I hope that Microryza is able to respond to this proactively instead
of retroactively after someone has been harmed.

Perhaps this has all been thought out by the founders, but I was unable to
find any information on the web-site about any of these issues. My general
assumption is that when funding is provided to an investigator at a University
that it will all be handled under the universities regulations. However, all
funding agencies have a set of rules that must be complied to in order to
protect themselves from these exact scenarios. And I can't even begin to
imagine a mechanism to properly monitor 'citizen science' projects. These will
largely not involve patient data, but may involve topics such as environmental
monitoring of plants and animals. These also have their own issues of
regulatory concern for the welfare of the environment and animals under study.

~~~
irollboozers
Hi, Denny here from Microryza. Excuse my HN pseudonym but I wanted to respond
with regards to research regulations.

We are assembling a science advisory board to help us define several of the
checkpoints you brought up, particularly when it comes to ethics and safety.
Working with universities does help us to deal with this now, but we do strive
to have a rigorous system that we can rely on, regardless if you might be an
institutional or independent researcher.

We are also working on making the messaging about these topics on the site
better in the coming weeks. I would love the chance to continue this
conversation, shoot me an email at founders@microryza.com. We find these sorts
of conversations very useful and important!

~~~
otuseless
The poster above indicates that institutional IRB approval would cover things,
but that can actually be a bit tricky depending on the regulatory board and
the specific situation. For example, I am a member of our IBC (Institutional
Biosafety Committee). We approve all scientific research done on our campus
for safety reasons (chemical and biological). However, the legalities behind
this are a bit unclear. The NIH and institution require this board, and you
can't do research if you don't get our approval, but what is unclear is what
would happen if something unfortunate occurred? Right now, we have legal
backing from the institution which should cover all scenarios, but in speaking
with said legal council, we are actually all personally liable for
consequences from approvals we sign off on. Board members at other
institutions have been personally sued, so there is precedent for this
happening. However, with the backing of the University legal team it is much
easier to swallow. It is difficult to see how Microryza will be able to
replicate this without documenting full legal support.

I am not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, and I really like the concept. For
most of your research topics this will not be an issue, but I would hate to
hear how the entire organization got burned to the ground over some regulatory
law suit, and I certainly would not like to see someone get harmed.
Particularly since all of the hard work has already been done for you by other
organizations. You just need to take advantage of it.

If handled correctly, this could actually be a marketing point for your
organization over others. You would need to balance the headache of
implementing these regulations against the real and perceived benefits, but I
think folks would be much more confident in the process from an investigator
or potential investor perspective if you implemented a transparent but
rigorous system.

~~~
irollboozers
>You would need to balance the headache of implementing these regulations
against the real and perceived benefits

This is why we can do this and get by because we are still a startup. :)

But yes you are absolutely right. We are currently pursuing more formal legal
agreements with our partner schools, and this was a proactive move on our part
when a lot of folks questioned the need for it. We belive strongly in
integrity of science, it just won't be simple to shoehorn this new process
into the machine that is big science today.

------
_delirium
Eligibility is a bit unclear; is it in transition? On one page [1] it says "We
ask that a researcher to be tied to a university or research institution in
order to help us ensure the safety of a project's funds." But on another one
[2] it says, "we love to see proposals from people outside of research
institutions".

[1] <https://www.microryza.com/institutions>

[2] <https://www.microryza.com/faq>

~~~
irollboozers
Thanks for pointing that out, we'll be sure to clarify that on the site!

For now we are currently able to host research that is based at universities,
while private or independent research requires more effort to evaluate and vet
the proposal on our end. We are working hard to launch more independent
projects soon!

~~~
_delirium
That's a reasonable place to start. I do think crowdsourced money could often
go further outside academia, especially in areas with less required lab
equipment, but requires more vetting on your part.

One idea could be to branch out of academia starting only with "less risky"
areas, e.g. fund independent mathematics research but require medical research
to be through existing institutions.

------
qfchen
From their profiles (<https://www.microryza.com/about>), few of the founders
present experience in real research, I doubt a team with little domain
expertise aiming to change the game. They did not see the real problem with
scientific funding system: to figure out how to spend the money effectively.
It seems they were science undergraduate with experience in iGEM (science
competition but not real research). Founders with real research experience
should be like Quartzy’s (<http://www.quartzy.com/about-us/team/>).

I really admire watsi.org, which is non-profit and makes it transparent to
transfer all the money raised to the lives in need. It is unnecessary to have
a layer between donor and researchers. For social good, it is better to have a
non-profit “Microryza” rather than the current for-profit one, because: if
Microryza perfroms really well in financing high quality research and
generating breakthrough of social good as watsi, which in turn makes them a
perfect non-profit to be supported by various foundations (it is likely for
research facilities with great contribution for scientific advancement to be
funded by billionaires), they grow; if not, they die. And being for-profit
decreases research budget and “sometimes caused messy disputes in the
unsuccessful ones” (<http://ycombinator.com/ycvc.html>). Also as they
explained, “As long as you are building something that people love, then a
corporation status doesn’t change how likely you are to succeed”
(<http://blog.microryza.com/why-is-microryza-for-profit/>). So, why not stop
thinking about making money but funding good science?

In conclusion, I am afraid using microfinance to feed non-filtered research
proposals may not necessarily make Kickstarter for research.

~~~
irollboozers
Hi there,

I saw this comment and the one on TC as well, though a little bit later than
expected.

I'd love the chance to chat with you further, since it seems you have many
unanswered questions about our process, our mission, our research backgrounds,
and our process of transparency. We are working hard to improve the way we
message these things, so a chance to answer them for you would doubtless be
helpful for future inquiries.

Feel free to drop me an email at denny@microryza.com! I would really love to
learn more about what you are thinking.

------
josephpmay
There is a great need for greater amounts of private funding in scientific
research, but I'm worried that this format could contribute to sensationalism
and rushed/biased results.

~~~
qfchen
Funding for a typical research project is in a scale of $10^5~$10^6. And
private funding like $5000 or so doesn't do much in most "real" research but
may be a part of the whole project and if in this case, it is definitely
duplicated ([http://www.nature.com/news/funding-agencies-urged-to-
check-f...](http://www.nature.com/news/funding-agencies-urged-to-check-for-
duplicate-grants-1.12317)).

~~~
irollboozers
Regarding the notion of duplication in grants, there is still a need for both
repeating research and following projects with repeated aims, though in a
slightly different fashion as promoted through recent reproducibility
initiatives ([http://www.nature.com/news/independent-labs-to-verify-
high-p...](http://www.nature.com/news/independent-labs-to-verify-high-profile-
papers-1.11176)).

------
picklefish
I think they'll need a re-branding if they want to be successful. Kickstarter
is a very easy word to say, spell, and understand. It can also be used as a
verb ("Did you kickstart that project?"). Microryza has none of those things.
That said, hopefully they can do better than petridish, which seems to have
floundered.

------
scottbartell
I really don't understand differentiating a crowdfunding platform based on
specific industry.

This would imply that the platform can create a community of people who are
willing to donate over and over again to several relatively similar campaigns.
Kickstarter does not work this way.

Kickstarter has been successful not because of their "community of
investors/doners" but because they provide people who have an idea with a tool
that they can use to reach out to their already existing followers and
friends.

The doners of kickstarter campaigns come from the campaigns existing
connections.. not from kickstarter itself.

~~~
fbeeper
Don't you think that specific industries may need specific tools that
Kickstarter doesn't provide?

And the "return" is absolutely different...

I think that these simple things are the sparkle to create the need for
separated platforms.

However, many of these alternative croudfunding platforms are not implementing
any difference. And there I will support your point of view, there is no need
to do that. In fact, it should be better to take advantage of Kickstarter's
moment of inertia.

~~~
scottbartell
I can't really think of a good example of a tool that is needed to crowdfund a
project in a specific industry.. but this is the best argument I've heard and
I can imagine something like this actually actually adding some value.

~~~
fbeeper
There are many things I'd expect as such tools/customisations... A pair of
simple examples:

* Specialised support: the croudfunding platform could offer legal and strategic support in the narrow field they are focusing. I think Kickstarter cannot embrace all industries even if they try.

* Specialised tools and rules: Each platform must have extremely distinct interactions with the backers and product outcomes. In an academic platform (as the one being discussed) I'd expect some tools for scientific divulgation (which must be a mandatory "return" from crowdsourced research projects) and collaboration (which must be extraordinarily stimulated). I think Kickstarter will never consider/establish these rules/tools.

------
tibbon
Just me, or are the targets for this obscenely low for doing any 'real'
science? $5000 doesn't do much in most labs..

------
asafira
I worry a little about this idea because I think it's a little limited in
scope. The kind of scientific ventures that the founder described she had
trouble getting funding for (summer undergraduate research) aren't exactly the
best examples of the financial needs of most scientific research. Even
relatively minor projects can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year
(and often take longer to get results!). We don't see that sort of money on
the already-popular Kickstarter very often, and it's an uphill battle to woo
people as much much as one can on Kickstarter.

For very small, 3-month projects? Sure. Maybe. For projects at the same level
of academic research? Not now, and it's gonna be tough for it to happen in the
future.

------
melling
If you just took Europe and the US together, you'd have 700 million people.
Convince half of them to donate an average of $100 a year for "science", then
we could help accelerate scientific progress. The hard part is figuring out
how to spend the money effectively.

------
dcaranda
Are contributions tax-deductible?

~~~
cindywu123
Contributions will be tax-deductible soon!

We work closely with the development offices at universities to allow the
university to provide tax receipts to donors.

~~~
dcaranda
Cool! Looks great. Best of luck!

------
famulus
See also <http://www.petridish.org/>

~~~
cing
Petridish appears to have no active projects and their blog hasn't been
updated since August 2012. I'm assuming they are dead.

------
logjam
I'm a little unclear on the concept here, because this doesn't sound at all
like Kickstarter.

Microryza sound like nothing more than middlefolk between my research and
funding sources. They "vet"? And their domain knowledge in my field is...?

Am I missing the idea? Why do I want another layer between me and a funding
source?

~~~
irollboozers
Hi! The idea is that we don't do much vetting. The only criteria that we
evaluate on are:

1) Is the researcher who he says he is? 2) Is it actually research? 3) Is the
researcher capable of meeting the research aims? e.g. is it a matter of
expertise, equipment time, etc?

Beyond that, we just work with universities to ensure that the standard
research guidelines are in place (ethics, practices).

In the future, we have ambitious ideas of opening up this process into a more
democratic and transparent flow.

