DeSci – (How) Will It Make Research Great Again?

DeSci may be more valuable for business and industry than you thought. Why? Because the business world increasingly relies on data and research. At a time when universities are losing credibility and science is drifting into irrelevance, DeSci tosses a lifebuoy. This report showcases the diversity of uses, explores the potential of business models, and assesses the impact on the real world.

Collect this report as an NFT
research-material-is-difficult-to-access

Share:

Partners

  • asteriskdao-logo

    AsteriskDAO - Disease-specific data lakes for female-biased disorders.

    Visite website
  • datalake-logo

    Data Lake - building blockchain tools to solve the $100 B problem of patient recruitment into scientific trials.

    Visite website
  • etica-logo

    Etica - a decentralized protocol funding open source medical research without intellectual property.

    Visite website
  • welshare-logo

    Welshare Health - The web3 app to personalize your contribution to medical research.

    Visite website

Key takeaways

  • Any entrepreneur who wants to build a meaningful, Web3-based project should look at DeSci. The field holds high potential for both academia and business. It’s already battle-tested (though at a small scale), promises to create significant real-world change, and has an established non-degen community.
  • The application areas where DeSci’s contribution is most fruitful are data sharing, research marketplaces, and facilitating collaboration between researchers. This includes commercial and scientific research, private and institutional.
  • At present, the one industry that benefits from DeSci and attracts Web3 entrepreneurs and scientists is healthcare. To some extent, the idea also gains traction in open publishing. However, in the long run, DeSci could become relevant for more sectors. The report explores which.
  • Enterprises are starting to explore DeSci-oriented innovations, e.g., incentivized, collaborative research, incentivized data collection from users, etc. You’ll find the most popular platform models described in the report.
  • DeSci can modernize and reform completely outdated processes of traditional science (TradSci) and revive a field that has been losing relevance and credibility.
  • The future of DeSci in academia depends on the scale of adoption. Projects like Bloxberg which connects researchers and universities using blockchain are a good start. When the academic world moves onchain, the rest is more likely to follow. Time to get involved with DeSci.

Why is this report urgent?

The 20th century treated humanity with an unprecedented amount of innovation and scientific discovery: antibiotics, transistors and semiconductors, genetics, modern computers and the Internet—to name a few. All these transformed the way we live and do business.

Looking at the 21st century alone reveals an entirely different picture. Besides AI—which dates back to the previous millennium—or advancements in renewable energy, not many significant scientific breakthroughs have changed our lives.

Science and research don’t seem to be disruptive anymore and don’t seem to influence businesses much.

But the millennium is still young. Some modern innovations have yet to be adopted. One of them is blockchain.

In 2017, the Decentralized Science (DeSci) movement promised to revolutionize stagnating scientific processes and structures. The idea was to create an equal playing field for all curious minds, ready to research whatever intrigues them. The concept incentivizes them to work, discover, and collaborate with the help of multiple Web3-based mechanisms.

This paper reevaluates DeSci’s promise and assesses its current state. The Onchain research team explores the question, “Can DeSci help the world of research make a real-world impact?” You will discover businesses and industries where this is likely to occur. You receive an analysis of Web3 mechanisms underlying DeSci projects.

Join our quest for a perfect solution that will benefit not only academia but also businesses. And discover how you can get the most out of this exciting field as a builder, user, or contributor to DeSci.

Where is the impact?

Science is not disruptive anymore. A study published in the renowned science journal Nature supports this statement. It exposes a sad truth about the world of science and raises questions about its purpose.

In their research, the scientists used a specific “CD” index as a “disruptiveness” score for the discovered innovations. They could then demonstrate that the impact of papers and patents decreased significantly over the last decades, regardless of the field.

Source: Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2022). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x

Although unpopular among academics, this view is not isolated. More than ten years earlier, in 2011, a similar study conducted specifically on research of European origin also revealed a negative trend. 

Moving further back in time, we find that John Horgan’s famous 1996 book already predicted “The End of Science.” Oswald Spengler had prophesied the same as early as 1923. He devoted a significant part of his famous “The Decline of the West” magnum opus to the challenges of scientific activities.

What are the reasons for such a bleak outlook at the most fruitful time for scientific research? That depends on who you ask. But there’s probably a bit of truth in each argument. You can compare them below. 

1. “Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time”
Author(s): Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. | Year: 2022

Why is science falling?
Researchers focus on specialized, narrow areas – hence losing track and understanding of the “big picture.”

2. “The Resistible Decline of European Science”
Author(s): Bauwens, L., Mion, G., Thisse, J. | Year: 2011

Why is science falling?
The lack of funding and collaboration among Europe-based researchers as compared to US Universities.

3. “The End of Science”
Author(s): Horgan, J. | Year: 1996

Why is science falling?
All significant developments have already been discovered and implemented. We’re left with incremental innovations only.

4. “The Decline of the West”
Author(s): Spengler, O. | Year: 1923

Why is science falling?
Science is just another “cultural construct,” the same as art or music. Hence, it won’t result in many groundbreaking papers but rather in a massive amount of articles relevant only to their authors.

The top 5 challenges of scientific research

What if the downtrend of scientific impact is an optical illusion, and we’re simply unaware of the most significant breakthroughs? After all, the internet needed 30 years to break into the mainstream. Who knows what scientists are cooking for the year 2050? 

The truth is, it’s not easy to find positive signs for the future of research when considering the struggles of its academic branch. What’s worse, there’s hardly any attempt to address the challenges that remained relatively unchanged over the last few decades:

research-material-is-difficult-to-access

Challenge 1: Research material is difficult to access

    • There’s no open access to academic research papers.
    • Publishers place research papers behind paywalls to generate income, thereby limiting access. 
    • Articles are often unaffordable for individual researchers due to high prices (e.g., 1 article from the Journal of Marketing = 29€ for 24-hour access). 

Such obstacles have also been confirmed by DeSci Founders we interviewed for this report:

Traditional publishing houses charge between $2,000 and $11,000 per paper, with open access fees ranging from $2,000 to $4,000. If authors don’t pay these fees, readers must pay $50 to access the PDF, with all proceeds going to the publishing house. – Maria Goreti Freitas, Leader of deScier

Challenge 2: The majority of research papers lack real-world impact

    • Paper reviews conducted by academics focus on retaining the status quo rather than challenging it.
    • Researchers use the same tools and methods repeatedly to increase the chances of positive reviews.
    • A point system for academics encourages researchers to prioritize quantity over quality. Points are gained with frequent publications, and a low number of publications may result in dismissal from academia.

Challenge 3: Research results lack reliability

    • Researchers strive to achieve extraordinary results to capture attention and increase the chances of becoming accepted in journals. 
    • Researchers avoid results that don’t prove the initial hypothesis due to being perceived as less influential despite often being more representative. 
    • Reproducibility crisis – the majority of results can’t be reproduced which casts doubts on their accuracy. 
    • Paid journals where researchers practically pay for placements are gaining popularity. 

Challenge 4: Collaboration and synergies are not encouraged

    • Researchers prefer to publish papers alone or in small groups because it allows them to retain the total amount of points.
    • The number of open datasets and sources on which researchers can collaborate is limited.
    • Collaboration elements (e.g., peer reviews) are generally non-paid, so there’s no incentive for people to cooperate more frequently.

Challenge 5: Academic publications ignore the reader’s perspective

    • The language used in academic papers is highly sophisticated and often overly complex, making it difficult to attract a broader audience.
    • Academic journals have yet to adapt to the internet and digital media, holding on to formats common in the 1950s. The authors forget about web writing and the general preferences of today’s audience.

It’s not surprising that even seasoned scientists, such as Maria Goreti Freitas from deScier, decide to move from traditional science to less conventional spheres of research:

maria-goreti

I’ve been a scientist for 40 years. And these challenges (that I’ve basically faced already during my 1st career in academia) led me to build and offer an alternative solution for scientific publications: The DeSci (not TradSci) journals.

Maria Goreti Freitas, Leader of deScier

Our survey of 365 business representatives confirmed the challenges of obtaining valuable scientific research—especially for business purposes. Respondents named data access difficulties and insufficient expertise to extract insights from cumbersome papers as top challenges. These are in addition to the cost and reliability issues we already mentioned.

The findings are cause for concern. As you can see from the graph below, the vast majority of businesses use research to make informed decisions, setting aside the limitations. This highlights the pressing need to develop accessible, cost-effective research tools and platforms to support these companies.

To better understand the demand, let’s look at the purpose of research outside the academic world. The responses from the same survey indicate a wide range of possible uses in decision-making processes. An equally high percentage use research for company or product-specific purposes. However, a notable portion still does not use research, which suggests growth opportunities in this area.

etica-logo

Is the right to intellectual property or human rights more important to you?

Sponsored content by Etica

Intro

To understand what Etica is trying to fix, it is important to understand what are some problems with medical research:

  • Many studies are poorly designed in order to promote an agenda.
  • Replicating results is necessary for good science, but rare
  • Peer review has many shortcomings
  • Too much science is locked behind paywalls
  • Intellectual Property is slowing down science and creating inequalities

The pharmaceutical industry is a massive global business, worth billions of dollars each year. It is made up of numerous companies that develop, manufacture, and market drugs and medical devices. Corporate interests play a significant role in the pharmaceutical industry, as these companies are driven by the need to make a profit. This profit motive can sometimes conflict with public health interests.

Visite website

Challenges in obtaining research funding

One of the biggest challenges for medical scientists is to find a sustainable source of funding. In most places around the world, Governments or public organizations provide funding for medical research, which is good, as there are fewer chances of conflict of interest, but there is not enough. This means researchers will then look for private funding, which will only support science if it supports their corporate agenda. This is catastrophic because it means that some science is guided not by what is good for society/humanity in terms of science, but by what will make the most return on investment to these private funders. Much of nutrition science is funded by the food industry, and this is a major conflict of interest, food companies will not change the results of research, but they will not fund something if the hypothesis goes against their interests, thus shaping how science evolves.

A significant portion of healthcare spending is on drugs to treat conditions like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol, which are largely caused by poor diet and a lack of exercise. Implementing policies like stricter regulations on unhealthy foods and drinks, subsidized healthy school meals, and courses on preparing nutritious and affordable meals can help people lose weight, making drugs unnecessary. The research done by pharmaceutical companies is often focused on profitable markets. Only around 1% of newly developed drugs in the late 20th century were for tropical diseases like African sleeping sickness, dengue fever, and leishmaniasis. As a result, only a single new drug has been introduced in the past 50 years to treat tuberculosis, which claims the lives of millions of people each year.

Since scientists have to compete for this finite and decreasing amount of funding (at least for public funding), it creates conflicts of interest between scientists of the same field, puts pressure to publish many papers instead of a few quality ones, and forces scientists to oversell their work (use buzzwords to get funding). This competition between scientists for funding affects what people study, the risks they take, and the risks they don’t take, overall it pushes researchers to do predictable, safe, and hyped science. On top of that, grants are usually short-term (3-5 years), which means that scientists are less likely to apply for long-term projects, even though these are usually the ones that create the biggest discoveries. All this pushes scientists to submit repetitive, short, safe studies.

Repetitive results and lack of trust

Medical researchers are judged by the research they publish, and they have tons of pressure to get certain types of results. If you get good splashy results, it will be easier to get published in a prestigious journal, but if they get mediocre results, many scientists consider presenting the data differently to keep it exciting. “The consequences are staggering. An estimated $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on poorly designed and redundant studies, according to meta-researchers who have analyzed inefficiencies in research. We know that as much as 30 percent of the most influential original medical research papers later turn out to be wrong or exaggerated.”

Interoperability crisis

There might be a “crisis of irreproducibility”, a survey made by nature.com about reproducibility (1576 researchers) concludes that “70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.”

On top of that, studies that fail to replicate results from a “good” study might not get published, thus creating bias in science (rejected publications may have value). Some causes could be a lack of understanding of statistics, poor experimental design, lack of mentoring from senior researchers, fraud, hyper-competition, lack of resources, or simply selective reporting of results.

Science behind a paywall

A lot of the science and research is locked away and not easily accessible. They are often costly to access and can be hard to find. Many Researchers have argued that academic research should be free for all to access, as many for-profit publishers actually slow down the pace of science. One article in a scientific journal can cost you 30$, some yearly subscriptions are 300$ and up to 10,000$. On top of publishing fees paid by the research team.

Science is slowed and locked by intellectual property: 

*This will be the longest section as it is arguably the most important thing to change in the way we do medical research.

Why we need to look at patenting

Protected patents are a relatively recent invention, the first modern patent system was created in 1474  in Venice, and it has since evolved into a complex set of laws and regulations, both at the local and international levels. Despite the fact that patents are intended to promote innovation and progress, their impact on the development and access to life-saving drugs has been a subject of increasing concern. The current patent system, which grants exclusive rights to pharmaceutical companies to produce and sell drugs, has led to high medicine prices, limited the scope of research, and limited access to care for many people, especially those in developing countries.

Is the right to intellectual property or Human rights more important to you? I believe that patents should not extend so far as to interfere with individuals’ dignity and well-being. Where patent rights and human rights are in conflict, human rights must prevail.

How patenting works

The current system allows pharmaceutical companies to patent new drugs and prevent other companies from manufacturing and selling generic versions of those drugs for a fixed period of time, usually around 20 years. This gives the patent holder a monopoly on using, producing, importing, and selling the drug, which allows them to charge high prices to recoup their research and development costs and make a profit.

It also prevents researchers from sharing their ideas and promotes wasteful practices. Ironically, stronger patent protection may even lead to less innovation. When patents expire, drug companies frequently sue competitors to prevent them from selling cheaper generic versions. The European Commission estimated that these legal battles had cost the EU €3 billion over an 8-year period.

Before the mid-1990s, pharmaceutical product patents were not permitted in many developing nations (India is a huge example). This decision was often a deliberate policy choice, based on the belief that the advantages of low-cost access to medication outweighed any potential negative consequences resulting from the absence of domestic patents on multinational companies’ research and development decisions. However, since the World Trade Organization’s adoption of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement in 1995, all countries have been required to allow pharmaceutical product patents. TRIPS has been controversial, as it can make it difficult for developing countries to produce or import affordable generic versions of patented medicines. According to the World Bank: “Nothing is more controversial in TRIPS. […] Many developing countries see little potential benefit from introducing patents. In contrast, potential costs could be significant.”

“Like a poorly conceived new drug with deadly side effects, the modern medicine patent regime is a relatively recent innovation and, not a good one.”

Patenting issues

Overall, the flaws are: 

  1. Patent monopolies allow pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for essential medicines. This can make them unaffordable for many people, particularly those in developing countries who cannot afford to pay high prices for life-saving treatments.
  2. The high cost of drug development is often used as an argument to justify high drug prices, but the actual cost of drug development is often overstated. Pharmaceutical companies often spend more money on marketing and lobbying efforts than they do on research and development. Independent analysts have estimated the cost of developing a new drug to be significantly lower than the industry’s claim of around US $1 billion, and the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) believes they can develop a new drug for $110 million to $170 million. These costs include a theoretical expense for failed projects. Ultimately, drug prices do not reflect research and development expenses but rather what heavily subsidized “markets” are willing to pay. Making private insurance more expensive, as well as government-supported healthcare thus wasting tax money.
  3. Pharmaceutical companies can extend their patent protection by making minor changes to a drug or by obtaining multiple patents on the same drug. This practice, known as “evergreening,” can extend a drug’s patent protection for years and prevent the development of generic versions. The strategic value of patents has expanded beyond their role in promoting innovation. Even if a patent does not generate revenue, it can still be highly valuable for its strategic benefits. Using a patent as a blocking strategy is common practice
  4. The current patent system does not incentivize the development of medicines for neglected diseases that primarily affect people in developing countries. This is because there is often little profit to be made in developing treatments for these diseases.

Must read papers to understand the cost of patents: “Deadly gaps in the patent system : an analysis of current and alternative mechanisms for incentivising development of medical therapies.” and “Are Patents Really Necessary?”

What is Etica Protocol?

It is an open-source protocol for medical research without intellectual property. It aims to create an alternative funding solution for medical research while removing patents. Researchers are financially rewarded throughout the process of research, and all solutions found within Etica are immediately available for anyone to use. Open Source has already proven to be faster and more efficient in many other fields like Software development (such as AI research) and can fundamentally change how we do medical research.

Grant proposals are grouped by disease on Etica.io, and then users (holders of ETI) can vote and get rewarded for correctly participating. In the long term, Etica.io will be only one of potentially thousands of websites connected to the Etica blockchain. Potentially, instead of having science locked in journals with paywalls, we could have websites directly connected to the Etica blockchain, without restriction and free of patent. To that extent Etica blockchain can be called a permissionless decentralised science journal.

The Etica solution

  • The big money problem: Etica provides a new additional decentralized funding system for medical researchers to use. We are not naive, most people will act for their own interest. Good and evil people will come to Etica but what is different is that Etica is not under the control of the incumbent of the system that chooses the pace and direction of research according to their vested interest.
  • Poorly designed studies, and reproducibility: It will be important for the community to select quality and not flashy research. In fact the token holders have a collective interest that Etica maintains its value. If the network globally accepts useless proposals then the network is going to become worthless. A key part of the Etica system is that the token holders have a responsibility to get the best proposals rewarded so that people keep increasing the amount of work they do for each proposal and create a healthy open-source ecosystem.
  • Paywalls: All Etica proposals are public and free to read, uploaded on the IFPS network, as well as easy to access.
  • Intellectual property: Etica removes intellectual property which is costly to medical research and human rights.

Etica enables people to “donate” / invest money in open-source medical research. You can earn rewards by deciding what will get funded, and it is always possible to cash out ETIs. The current model is funded by the government (taxes, public health insurance) or private insurance often colluding and price-fixing with pharma companies funding mostly useless overpriced science. We are currently paying taxes, or insurance to solve hair loss problems, instead of actually saving lives. With Etica is possible to self-fund open medical research, all while protecting your money in a low-inflation asset.

The case of commercial research

This raises the question of whether research from outside academia can address the aforementioned matters. Can papers from renowned consulting agencies, etc., provide a solution? Well, so-called commercial research struggles with its own set of challenges.

Challenge 1: Report findings tend to be repetitive

  • Research topics are dictated by the supply side (research companies) without assessing the needs of the demand side. 
  • Research reports show a lack of diversity. Different companies take similar approaches to a particular topic, resulting in comparable findings.
  • The overuse of ChatGPT and generative AI, in general, increases the feeling of “reading the same thing as before.”

Challenge 2: Report findings are prone to biases and rely on inconsistent data

  • Three separate reports on the same topic (with similar findings) may use three different datasets about fundamental aspects (e.g., market size).
  • An increasingly commercial approach to research leads to partiality towards a pre-claimed outcome to support it.

Opportunity 1: Research papers are helpful for businesses

  • Businesses use reports prepared by commercial entities more frequently than pure academic papers locked in universities.

Opportunity 2: Higher potential of attracting non-research-savvy readers

  • Research papers are tailored to the broader audience because business models require research entities to sell their work to non-academics (businesses, individuals). 
  • Reports that are easier to access and read, better structured, formatted, and visually appealing can set benchmarks for future research material.

After reading this, you might think that the research world is doomed to a continuous decline in significance. You’re not entirely wrong. Without a fundamental change in research structure, this important field may slowly slide into oblivion. 

Of course, nobody wants that to happen. Web3 offers a solution to this problem. Leaving traditional science (TradSci) behind, let’s explore how Decentralized Science (DeSci) attempts to restructure the research world.

DeSci’s promise to the world of science (and beyond)

DeSci vs. TradSci

Veronica Kirin, founder of AstriskDAO running a DeSci platform on women’s health, and publisher of the Anodyne Magazine, described DeSci in her article in the Onchain Magazine as follows, “Decentralized Science (DeSci) is a movement that applies the principles of the blockchain—transparency, trustless engagement, and democratized access—to traditional science.

DeSci’s primary objectives are to facilitate unrestricted sharing of ideas and data and ensure fairness and objectivity in the process. This paradigm shift aims to address several limitations inherent in traditional scientific methods through transparency, accessibility, and integrity in the scientific process.

The key components of DeSci include:

  • Blockchain-based data storage: Research data is securely stored on distributed ledgers, ensuring immutability and transparency.

    Existing use case examples:

    • Preprints is an open science publishing platform. It uses blockchain to store research papers as NFTs where data remains immutable and transparent. 
    • DeSci Labs is another publishing platform. It utilizes DLT to store research data in a decentralized manner and guarantee its integrity.
  • Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs): These govern research projects, allowing for community-driven decision-making.

    Existing use case examples:

    • Galeon is an AI-based decentralized healthcare platform. Its founders created a DAO to enable community-driven decision-making on funding allocation and project direction.
    • VitaDAO is a community focused on longevity research. It leverages DAO technology to pool resources and fund research specifically in its chosen niche. It’s worth noting that its DAO has over 4,000 members and has raised $9M in funding to support scientific research.
  • Tokenization: Intellectual property and research contributions are tokenized, often in the form of NFTs, enabling fair attribution and potential monetization.

    Existing use case example:

    • Molecule built a Web3 marketplace for research-related intellectual property (IP) tokenized in the form of NFTs.
  • Open access: Research findings and data are made freely available, promoting collaboration and reducing barriers to knowledge.

    Existing use-case example:

    • ResearchHub is a blockchain-based publishing platform. It provides open access to research papers on various topics and encourages scientists to collaborate using token incentives. 

See an extended comparison of TradSci and DeSci in the table below.

The future of science and research certainly is not black or white. Oliver Slapal, the CTO of Data Lake, believes the real potential is hidden in merging both approaches:

oliver-slapal

We believe that the ultimate measurement of the success of DeSci is a breakthrough that will make a significant impact on the world as we know it. In order to achieve this, the gap between TradSci and DeSci has to be bridged so that collaboration is frictionless amongst all researchers and problems such as lack of funding are solved. In the ideal future, TradSci should be able to leverage the benefits of DeSci and vice versa.

Oliver Slapal, CTO of Data Lake

The DeSci landscape

How are all DeSci components implemented in practice?

The Onchain research team chose 34 projects with working products and an active community out of over 60 analyzed. Our goal was to assess efficiency and impact. 

When it comes to DeSci, healthcare is the dominant niche. This industry has already experienced some incremental evolutions driven by decentralized science (more on that in the section on “DeSci beyond academia”).

As you can see, two-thirds of the investigated DeSci projects operate in healthcare, while the remaining third is spread across all other industries.

Healthcare is significantly more heterogeneous. We mapped the most popular subcategories within DeSci for healthcare.

Interestingly, two of the largest healthcare-related project do not specialize in any particular niche. Hippocrat promotes the decentralized use of health data and implements it in hospitals. Galeon focuses on building AI models based on health data. 

The most prominent healthcare sub-categories with working products in the market are genomics and longevity. GenomesDAO for example is a patient-owned genomic database that rewards patients with tokens in exchange for sharing data. A similar project is Genobank.io, which builds a marketplace of genomics data. The idea is to generate personalized insights for patients based on the sensitive information they share and store on the blockchain. 

Other more specialized projects can provide similar value. HairDAO, for example focuses solely on hair-loss data, and AthenaDAO on women’s health research.

It’s worth noting that many DePIN companies enable and support the purposes of decentralized science by providing decentralized computing power. Good examples to mention here are Dynex, Nuco.cloud, and BOINC. 

And last but not least, “open science” is another prolific-looking DeSci approach. It includes publishing platforms that offer open access to research papers and token incentives for their preparation. DAOs and blockchain infrastructure that enable efficient collaboration between researchers and universities is another form of open science.


Below is a map of the decentralized science market:

asteriskdao-logo

AsteriskDAO: A breakthrough for womxn’s non-reproductive health

Sponsored content by AsteriskDAO

The problem

Traditional clinical research does not draw a distinction between men and women in clinical trials. They are neither required to specify the sex or ethnicity of their subjects nor define the data they have collected by sex or ethnicity. This means that whatever conclusion they have drawn is generalised to the majority of participants (typically white males). It is widely known that men and women are physiologically distinct. However, the data is not representative of this. Similarly, there are differences between ethnicities which are not being acknowledged.

The solution

We at asterisk are working towards a global initiative which provides womxn from every background the means to directly contribute their experiences to research. These disease-specific data lakes will sort data by location, age, menstrual cycle phase, contraception (if any), and more. This will combat the current shortfall found in traditional research methods and provide insight into the effect of menstruation and contraception on female-biased disorders and their treatment.

Our initial project will tackle the lack of female representation in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) research. OCD biases toward womxn 2:1 and is an excellent entry point due to the large amount of research and funding already present. Thanks to the wealth of research it is easy to see the gap in OCD research specific to womxn. By identifying these gaps in research we are able to tailor our OCD platform for the development of female-specific data lakes.

We hope to use this initial model to explore other disease states which bias toward womxn and are critically underrepresented in research.

The platform

In the 1970s, women were banned from clinical trials in the United States. Between then and 1993, when US Congress mandated women be included in trials, most of the drugs we utilize today were researched and patented. We are working to address the lack of female-specific data for OCD, including medication side-effects, by building a portal through which participants can enter their symptoms and treatments. We utilized Sepolia and ZK proofs for privacy, Proof of Passport to verify humanity and female-only data, and React to build a comfortable UX for non-Web3 native users. As a result, we are building the first female-specific healthcare data lake.

We deployed on Sepolia for low costs, privacy, and scalability. We use a transaction relayer for the proof submission so that users don’t need to maintain two accts to remain anonymous, which could have put them at a risk of doxxing themselves. On semaphore, our contract limits each individual to submit data reports once per day to restrict point distribution (which will someday convert to tokens). The dAPP is gated by Proof of Passport, which limits acct creation by gender (and only one per person).

null

From there the participant is prompted to complete their profile. We ask questions that, based on our market research, will later help researchers filter the data. These include whether a participant is self-diagnosed, where they are located, if they are on any medications (and which), age, ethnicity, and whether they would like to be approached for other studies.

A participant can return to their profile at any time update their diagnosis, medication, and other changeable characteristics.

Finally, the participant is brought to the daily check-in screen for the first time. The daily check-in is designed to feel as simple as a daily menstruation app check-in. The participant will receive reminders to log in and submit their symptoms daily, and receive points for doing so.

Future outlook

Our next step is to further develop the participant prototype into a workable app for Beta Users. During the participant beta test, we will then develop the backend from which researchers and aligned organizations can sort and access the data.

Now that you have an idea of the types of projects active in DeSci let’s explore their mechanisms. The table below displays an overview of the most frequently utilized approaches.

The question you must be asking is, how do these mechanisms work in practice? Look at the example of Rejuve.AI. The app offers insights into the user’s longevity based on the data collected from other people:

1. Users use the Rejuve.AI app to provide valuable medical data along with their activities in exchange for RJV tokens.

2. This data is transformed into dNFTs (data NFTs), which external parties can use to build apps, research drugs, or create treatment plans. These are then stored on the platform in the form of pNFTs (product NFTs).

3. Whenever a pNFT (e.g., a specific drug) is minted per product ideation, the pNFT shards are distributed to users proportionally based on their contribution to that product, calculated by an AI algorithm.

4. At the same time, RJV tokens earned by an individual user can be used within the platform to buy supplements, medical tests, personalized plans for living longer, and more at deeply discounted prices.

The two most popular mechanisms listed in the table above—DAOs and token incentives—require separate breakdowns. We’ll start with DeSci-oriented Decentralized Autonomous Organizations.

An exemplary process involving a DeSci DAO can be straightforward – as in the case of Cerebrum DAO. The organization facilitates crowdfunding of neuroscience research projects:

1. Grant funding application from a researcher or a group of researchers.

2. Creation of an IP-NFT from their research project.

3. Licensing the outcome of their work (e.g., new product) to companies.

4. Moving the equity back to the researchers and the Cerebrum DAO – based on their IP-NFT shares.

Another critical ingredient of DeSci companies is their tokenomics. Without incentivizing people to contribute data, share research papers, or govern DAOs, the entire space wouldn’t differ from its centralized counterpart. And as you’ll see in the following table, the utility of DeSci tokens goes way beyond the examples provided.

Decentralized science — a reality check

Decentralized science has many promising ideas, but is it too utopic to bring about real change? We analyzed two areas of DeSci to identify mechanisms for implementation and determine if these mechanisms really work. 

First, we look at its most anticipated disruption industry: academia. Decentralized technology or token-based incentive adoption in academia provides a strong indicator of DeSci’s future success.

Then, we expand our view of DeSci by assessing its adoption in existing companies. We’ll review the use cases of various projects and gather feedback from the business representatives themselves. 

The outcome of this analysis is compiled in the impact assessment below, where we define whether DeSci can make research great again and, if yes, when and where. We conducted our analysis for academic and business purposes. 

Decentralized science in academia 

DeSci intersects two transformative movements: one in science and the other in Web3 technology. 

  • In science, there’s a growing push to reshape how research is funded, and knowledge is shared to promote openness and collaboration. 
  • The core values of Web3 include removing intermediaries and giving individuals more control over their digital assets and interactions.

DeSci combines these ideas, applying Web3 principles to academic research to create a more decentralized, transparent, and equitable ecosystem. This is possible due to three main DeSci attributes: open access, democratized and accessible funding, and fostering collaboration and ownership. 

DeSci academic use case 1: Open access

Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers – Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub.

While science is considered a global public good, much remains locked behind paywalls. High costs make it inaccessible both for researchers and the general public. Submission fees for journals like Elsevier can range from $150 to a staggering $5,000, and subscription fees to read these journals quickly add up. 

Purchasing access to published papers can equally balloon. Respondents to our survey confirm that increasing the accessibility of research papers plays a primary role in enhancing their utilization.”

Several non-Web3 platforms, such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu, have been working to address these challenges for years by connecting researchers and facilitating the sharing of publications. While not specifically leveraging blockchain technology, these elements play a crucial role in establishing the foundation for a more open and collaborative research environment.

It begs the question: do we actually need blockchain to create open access to research, or are non-Web3 platforms already doing enough to address these issues?

Let’s make a comparative analysis of ResearchGate/Academia.edu with one of the most promising DeSci projects we encountered during our analysis – ResearchHub

It is a free and open-source space for researchers to present their work. Researchers can upload both previously published journal articles and original research directly onto the platform. Once uploaded, each publication (whether a research paper or a simple analysis) includes a comment section, fostering discussions and collaboration within the research community. 

We’ll take a deeper look at ResearchHub in an upcoming section. For now, look at the side-by-side comparison of Web3 and non-Web3 platform features.

For example, DeSci nodes, a publishing platform developed by DeSci Labs, plays a crucial role in fostering collaboration and data sharing within the decentralized science ecosystem. It transforms how researchers can publish and share their research by integrating manuscripts, data, code, and more into versionable research objects. The platform also provides tools for researchers to easily share their research objects with collaborators, invite feedback, and track contributions.

There’s more! To get detailed insights and evaluations of DeSci projects

unlock the remaining 65% of the report now.

What you will discover:

  • Which business implementations of DeSci have the highest traction?

  • What are the most practical use cases of DeSci in academia?

  • Which are the most useful and promising DeSci project models?

  • What is the level of DeSci adoption beyond universities (with actual data)?

  • Which global challenges can be tackled thanks to DeSci?

  • And more!

Report price

49,00

If you already purchased this report

Led by

  • Michał Moneta

    Michał Moneta

    Leader & Chief Strategy Officer

Conducted by

  • pp

    Leon Waidmann

    Head of Research

  • Ananya Shrivastava

    Ananya Shrivastava

    Research Analyst

  • Arin Soleymani

    Arin Soleymani

    Head of Business Development

  • Ambreen Khral

    Ambreen Khral

    Market Researcher

Contributors

  • Ruth M. Trucks

    Ruth M. Trucks

    Head of Content

  • Lucas de Melo

    Lucas De Melo

    UX Designer

  • untitled-1

    Adewale Aloba

    Graphic Designer

  • veronica

    Veronica Kirin

    Content Writer

  • Chris Braithwaite

    Chris Braithwaite

    Content & Technical Writer

  • onchainheadshotkade

    Kade Garrett

    Content Writer