Want to crowdfund your science New study hints at who is successful

first_img Atmospheric scientist Maria Zatko was close to completing her thesis on ground-level ozone in 2014 when she learned of a perfect opportunity to fill a gap in her research on this air pollutant.Zatko and her adviser at the University of Washington in Seattle realized she could join an ongoing research project in Utah that was studying causes of the area’s unusually high ozone levels during winter. Zatko wanted to measure the release of nitrogen oxides from snow. But collecting the snow samples would require a month of fieldwork, and Zatko had no funding to cover the costs.So Zatko decided to try an emerging source for research funding—online crowdfunding. Through a campaign on a website, Experiment.com, she raised $12,000. The cash was “critical” to completing her Ph.D., she says. “Even more important is how it has played out postgraduation,” she adds, because presenting the data at a conference led to her current job with an environmental consulting firm. “I’m just eternally grateful” to the 155 people who responded to her funding plea, she says. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Want to crowdfund your science? New study hints at who is successful Lauren Easley Maria Zatko used this mass spectrometer in her crowdfunded research project when she was a Ph.D. student at the University of Washington in Seattle. By Jeffrey BrainardMar. 26, 2018 , 4:05 PMcenter_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Zatko fits the profile of scientists who have had success with Experiment.com campaigns, according a new study. Women have a higher success rate than men, and a majority were led by students, found scholars who wrote the study for The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a nonprofit group in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that supports economics studies relevant to public policy.In one of the largest studies of its kind, the researchers studied 728 campaigns conducted on Experiment.com, the biggest crowdfunding platform specifically for research. (It was founded in 2012 under a different name.) The site allows scientists to set a funding goal, but the project receives the money only if the goal is met. Experiment.com, a for-profit enterprise, retains 8% of funds raised. The website’s staff provides some review of projects before posting them, and most campaigns last 30 to 60 days.Almost half of the studied projects met their targets and received funding, the researchers found. But students and postdocs had higher success rates than tenured faculty members, even after controlling for the fact that the junior people tended to ask for less money.Requests for help typically focused on travel and lab costs as well as equipment and fees for publication and conferences. And the median amount raised was relatively modest, just $3100. That reflected the small amounts requested—most target amounts were less than $15,000. Only three projects requested more than $100,000, one of which was an outlier: a project led by Hollywood producer Gordon Gray sought $1 million to develop treatments for Batten disease, a rare, inherited neurodegenerative disease. It raised $2.6 million.What makes for a successful campaign? A statistical analysis by the NBER authors found that project leaders who worked actively to solicit contributions had higher success rates and raised larger sums than those who didn’t. That active engagement included posting online endorsements from experienced scientists and others, providing compelling “lab notes” containing updates and project background, and offering donors a nonmonetary reward such as visits to the research lab and, in the case of wildlife studies, offering photographs of subject animals.Such outreach takes time and effort, which scientists need to weigh against the modest dollar amounts they are likely to raise. “You can’t just put out a project and you wake up the next morning and have $10,000 in the bank,” says one of the authors, Henry Sauermann of the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin.Zatko can attest to the work involved to spread the word. She knew about half of her donors, she says, and had sent many of them emails asking for help. And preparing an appealing pitch that described her research was eye-opening. “That was one of the first times when I was forced to explain my project in layman’s terms,” she recalls. “For most of the Ph.D., I was really down in the weeds. It was so nice to take a step back and think about how this affects the broader community.”In Zatko’s case, she says the support did produce a finding that could benefit society at large: She concluded that chemical reactions in snow were making only a minimal contribution to the region’s ozone pollution, compared with emissions coming from natural gas drilling. That could help policymakers better focus their efforts to improve air quality.Although she encourages others to consider crowdfunding, Zatko says, “I really wish there was more funding for scientists, so people didn’t have to go down this path. For already stressed Ph.D.s, this is one more stressor. Until it’s funded—and then it’s awesome.”To be sure, the dollar amounts provided by crowdfunding are far smaller than those typically obtained from government or private grants. But “the point is not to replace traditional [funding] mechanisms,” Sauermann says. Rather, crowdfunding can be a complementary source “that can fill gaps or expands access” to funding for researchers—such as early career scientists or those working in meagerly funded fields—who “traditionally wouldn’t have had those grant opportunities.”last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *