Author: Austin Frimuth, Messari Research Analyst; Translated by: 0xxz@Golden Finance
DeSci's potential to improve the scientific research process is enormous, but its unique challenges are often underestimated.
The flaws of the current publishing system
DeSci’s narrative correctly points out that the current publishing system is flawed. Publishers have a monopoly over the entire publishing system, with profit margins as high as 30-40%. This is achieved by relying on the free labor of government and institutional funded researchers and reviewers, and then placing research behind expensive paywalls.
Scientific research with good proof-of-concept can be difficult to advance because of the way funding is allocated. Because governments and institutions provide the majority of grants, funding decisions are often influenced by bias, financial interests, or political agendas. As a result, important research that lacks immediate commercial or political appeal is often overlooked. This leads to a "valley of death" where many groundbreaking discoveries fail to move from the lab to real-world applications, slowing innovation and progress.
Then there is the credibility crisis: The pressure to “publish or perish” encourages scientists to keep producing new results, leading some to commit fraud and manipulate data in order to advance their careers.
DeSci's solution
DeSci proposes innovative solutions to these problems, such as IP-NFTs for funding, alternative publishing systems, and novel peer review methods.
In theory, these could increase transparency, reduce publication bias, and provide viable alternative funding models. While early projects such as VitaDAO and Molecule have shown promise in attracting early funding and interest, they have yet to demonstrate scalability.
Moreover, DeSci’s narrative ignores researchers’ concerns, a significant barrier to its wider adoption that is likely to become more pronounced as the field develops.
Neglected Challenges
The existing publishing system provides researchers with a clear hierarchy of journals.
Nature, for example, has a strong reputation for interdisciplinary, biological, physical, chemical, and geoscience journals. Publishing in top journals provides researchers with a clear career path that is lacking in DeSci. Many researchers, especially those early in their careers, may prefer to work in a system they already understand and trust rather than risk a career on a largely unproven model.
For researchers, DeSci raises more questions than answers, such as:
How will it comply with funding and publishing regulations?
How will cryptocurrency volatility affect financial stability?
Will working with DeSci affect my reputation in traditional academia?
What are blockchain, DAOs, and IP-NFTs, and how do they relate to my research?
How do we ensure quality control and peer review?
It is important not to underestimate the technical complexity and public distrust of cryptocurrencies, which make it extremely difficult to convince researchers to participate in DeSci. Before it can gain legitimacy in the scientific community, it must first align with established academic career incentives, demonstrate that it can maintain the rigorous standards of traditional peer review, and demonstrate compliance with research ethics guidelines.
Given these challenges, DeSci still has a long way to go before most scientists consider it a viable alternative. The obstacles, while large, are not insurmountable.
