How some research is never published.
10.31.08 by David Vitrant
One issue that you will hear us gripe about here (and try to find a solution for) is the lack of mediums to discuss or publish “non-data”. What i mean by non-data is anything that can’t be published but might be useful. In that list I include hypotheses that were not correct, or data that is unpublishable or unreproducible.
You ask why non-data would ever be published eh ? Well while positive results are great and lead to new avenues, all the negative results help others not waste time doing useless time consuming experiments. Another reason why non-data is important is that your non-data may actually support somebody else’s research (some examples I will get to in another post). The problem is how to organize it, and how to constitute exactly what a piece of non-data entails.
Anyway. on to the meat of this “depressing” story. Let’s talk about Antidepressants 
This NYT article describes how some makers of antidepressants didn’t disclose about 1/3 of their drug related studies. This is nothing new for most of us in the scientific field. Many times when we receive funds from biotech firms or pharmaceutical firms to do research there are strings attached. That’s not to say the strings are all bad. The funding is necessary to bring some research into industry but one of the most prevalent string is that the corporation funding a research project usually has the final say on what data can be published, and when. They pay the research, they own the rights, and are accountable to shareholders.
Does Open Source Apply to Science?
10.24.08 by Syam Anand
Release early, release often- the mantra of open source softwares- can it be applied to Fundscience?
By Syam Anand
I want to first introduce the mantra of open source softwares to the small minority of those who may not be aware of it. “Release early and release often” summarizes the philosophy of people who work and support open source softwares. Open source softwares thrive on the committed efforts of groups of people who work from different parts of the world. They put their brains together for a common goal- constant improvement based on feedback. They are not part of any real organization. But they always evolve into an organization of sorts that is governed by operating principles that co-evolve with them keeping in tune with changing priorities. The good thing about evolution is, it tests and selects the fittest. Being more flexible thus makes them more adaptable as an organization.
From a strategic perspective open source softwares thrive on “real” feedback and “real” solutions. People who actually uses these softwares work on it and to improve it and keeps on improving it. First, they don’t wait to come up with packages such as version x or version y and then try to sell it in a form that cannot be tinkered with (similar to a biology kit whose information in “proprietary” and you don’t have access to it, even if you own the kit!). Second, they don’t set the intervals with which they come up with updates, beforehand. They do it on a regular basis. If a software has a bug, it is explained in the open for possible solutions. When a solution is found, it is notified to everyone. As a practicing scientist, it seems very similar to what we do everyday for every aspect of laboratory life, except for funding. We regularly do experiments, we regularly improvise and find better ways to ask questions and get answers. But when it comes to funding, we can do it three times a year for NIH and once a year for the foundations. Of course, we regularly work towards getting funded!
Direct public funding of science
10.1.08 by Syam Anand
Currently, NIH funds the majority of biology research in USA using taxpayer dollars. The success of the NIH system and the adaptation of the scientific community to NIH have made this system stable and dependable. A significant amount of additional support for biology research, especially health related research, also comes from foundations. Some of them such as Bill&Melinda Gates foundation, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute provide substantial financial support far exceeding and often more attractive than what even NIH offers. A lot of good science have been done and fundamentally important discoveries been made by scientists who have been recipients of grants from all these sources. However, the success of NIH funding philosophy has influenced every major biological research funding operation that goes on in USA. Its impact is so widespread that the alternative funding options seem to be a product of inbreeding and incapable of providing new cultures or avenues that would complement the goals of NIH. As a result, the differences between most of these foundations that have clear independent goals are only superficial and all of them operate essentially on the same principles as NIH.
The NIH funding philosophy
NIH fellowships and grants come in different flavors with one underlying foundation, which is the provision of an efficient and goal-oriented institutionalized system that takes into account national priorities. This system makes sure that the available budget is prioritized and distributed between various sub-disciplines. Policy-makers arrive at these decisions through a systematic process, which tunes itself to changing demands from time to time. The institutionalized system makes sure that adequate resources are constantly available for the carrying out the funding process with a high efficiency by maintaining and providing trained pools of peer-reviewers (scientific colleagues) and program managers. The system of peer-review ensures that support is provided ONLY to scientists (or emerging scientists) who are likely to be successful. This is largely decided by three factors- 1) their prior success and pedigree 2) current environment of support and 3) the likely success of their research proposals based on preliminary evidence and arguments they provide in support thereof. The independent foundations that fund biology have also adopted the same principles and have not thought seriously outside the hat. So far, no one has argued with the success of NIH philosophy.
Why we are here
09.16.08 by Daniel Gaddy
I would like to begin by giving a little information about myself. My name is Daniel. I am a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh, in the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics. For those of you who may not know, a Postdoctoral Fellow is basically an apprentice. I equate it to a Residency for physicians. I earned my Ph.D. in 2006 from Wake Forest University. I then moved to Pittsburgh, where my postdoctoral work has focused on developing and testing adeno-associated virus as a vector for gene therapy of type-1 diabetes. If anyone would like to know more about me and my work, you can learn more and contact me through my LinkedIn page here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielgaddy.
So, what is the purpose of FundScience and why am I blogging on this site? The central goals of FundScience are to educate the public regarding the scientific research that impacts their lives, and to give the public a direct mechanism to influence the funding of this research, thereby directly shaping the research that takes place. This is a novel idea, and one that is antithetic to all established routes of scientific funding. In the current system, the vast majority of medical research that takes place in the United States is funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a government agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. Unfortunately, federal funding is very cyclical and is dependent upon any number of factors, not the least of which is the administration that is governing the country. The budget for the NIH has remained flat throughout the current administration. This may sound reasonable to a layperson, but a flat budget does not take into consideration the steady increase in inflation and the rising costs of conducting research. Thus, a flat budget is actually a declining budget, and every year fewer and fewer worthy projects are funded by the NIH. As a result, many researchers have turned to private funding. However, there is a severe lack of opportunities for private funding. This is where FundScience steps in and offers an alternative to both federal and private funding.
MixedNRGSoul’s Blog Vision
09.14.08 by MixedNRGSoul
I hope that the FundScience.org page and this blog will help further the lay understanding of complex and intertwined issues surrounding energy production, distribution, and consumption. The main thrust will be to apply basic engineering principles to real world issues that may come up, particularly from the sometimes unreliable new media source known as the interweb. This blog will focus on energy issues from the standpoint of electrical and transportation needs in the US, as that is my main expertise, but will also compare and contrast the US situation to other energy markets to help understand what principles, if any, drive world energy decisions.
Stay tuned and stay active; This community can become a great resource for people wanting to discover how they can make a real and meaningful difference in all areas of science and technology and to further understand how and why.
Our Innaugural Post
09.13.08 by David Vitrant
Hello,
I’m David Vitrant the Executive Director of FundScience Inc. Here at FundScience we are looking to get the public to fund individual pilot research projects. This will drive innovation in many scientific fields, and open up complex scientific discussions to the public. In the end research is meant to help understand nature and for the benefit of society in general. With our blogs, wiki’s, forums, and soon project proposals we hope to bring a community of scientists and laypeople together to discuss the future of science and help fund our future generation of scientists.
The aspect of introducing the public to the life of a scientist, how scientists think, how we tackle problems, what our problems are, is critical to this step and I hope that by providing these blogs you will be able to peer into the life of a scientist, and go past political pandering, and marketing, to arrive at the issues and possibly the solutions.
In order for us to be Successful we need your help though in the following aspects:
1) We need content and bloggers to talk about the issues. If you know somebody please spread the word help us find scientists willing to blog (or laypeople willing to blog about science)
2) Are you interested in a specific topic, want to understand some research as a layperson? Email us or make a post on our forum. We will see what we can do.
3) Digg our posts please. This will help get our word out and get attention to our site.
4) Are you willing to fund a research project or have thoughts on how to do so? Email us again.
Lastly, we are all here to learn about science, talk about science, and collaborate. So please be courteous and don’t be shy to ask questions.