Science today faces several significant challenges that affect the reliability and usefulness of research. Although the number of scientific papers is increasing rapidly (Hubbert, 1963), fewer results can be replicated by other researchers (Loken & Gelman, 2017). Many findings do not contribute to future discoveries or practical applications. Additionally, the growing specialization of researchers makes it difficult to integrate knowledge across different fields, further complicating validation and progress (Beam, 1980). Together, these issues reduce the overall efficiency of scientific progress. Beyond internal problems, science is also under pressure from external forces. Public trust in scientific research is declining, and maintaining independence from political influence has become increasingly difficult. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how fragile public trust in science can be, with widespread debates on topics like the virus origin, safety measures, and vaccines (Hamilton & Safford, 2021; Pavića & Kovačevićb, 2024). Meanwhile, academic freedom is diminishing. According to the Academic Freedom Index (Academic Freedom Index), 22 countries have experienced significant declines in academic freedom over the past decade. Funding is another major concern—public funding for research is being reduced, while private funding often comes with conditions that limit what can be studied or published (Cooper, 2009). As a result, scientific research is squeezed into the narrow boundaries of what gets funded, what gets published, and what fits the current agenda. In response to these challenges, several open science initiatives and alternative models have emerged. These efforts aim to increase public access to research, improve the communication of scientific results, and develop new ways of sharing results that facilitate reuse and verification. Despite their potential, these initiatives have had limited success, largely because they involve a small number of organizations and achieve only incremental improvements. In response to these problems, the decentralized science (DeSci) movement has emerged as a new and ambitious alternative. It brings together researchers, crypto enthusiasts, and open-source developers to create new ways of conducting research and sharing results. DeSci use blockchain to facilitate transparent governance, manage decision-making, and securely store research data. They also issue digital tokens to reward contributors, which can be exchanged for other cryptocurrencies or traditional currencies. Blockchain technology plays a key role in ensuring the secure management and sharing of research data. Although the DeSci movement is still relatively new - it only emerged two years ago - it has already made notable progress, including securing investment from major industry players (Cumbers, 2023) and producing initial research findings (AthenaDAO | Reproductive Health Report, 2023; VitaDAO - Discovering Novel Autophagy Activators, 2021). With a technology-driven approach, DeSci aims to overcome barriers such as limited collaboration, insufficient funding, inequitable evaluation systems, and intellectual property challenges. Given the novelty of the topic studied, little is published. The closest publications related to scientific DAOs include concept proposals and calls (Hamburg, 2021; “The Community of the DAO,” 2023), presentations of results by project leaders (Mikhaylov et al., 2024; Wang, 2022; Wang et al., 2022) (Wang, 2022; Wang et al., 2022), introduction and explanation of DeSci models (Ding et al., 2022; Lukács et al., 2023; Unfried, 2024), broader DeSci movement (Ducrée et al., 2022; Kosmarski, 2020; Sicard, 2022), and overviews on existing projects (Díaz et al., 2024; Weidener & Spreckelsen, 2024). A broader range of relevant literature includes research on grassroots open science initiatives, case studies examining specific elements within DAOs in different fields, studies on crowd science, and open-source projects. So far, however, we lack a systematic inventory of the initiatives, their core assumptions, ambitions, strategies, and progress as a new element of the current academic system and its organizations. References: 1. Academic Freedom Index. (n.d.). Academic Freedom Index. Retrieved January 15, 2025, from https://academic-freedom-index.net/ 2. Are We Retrogressing in Science? | GSA Bulletin | GeoScienceWorld. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2025, from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/74/4/365/5566/Are-We-Retrogressing-in-Science 3. AthenaDAO | Reproductive Health Report. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2023, from https://www.athenadao.co/reproductive-health-report 4. Cooper, M. H. (2009). Commercialization of the University and Problem Choice by Academic Biological Scientists. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(5), 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329379 5. Cumbers, J. (n.d.). Longevity Startup VitaDAO Raises $4.1m, Backed By Pfizer, Balaji Srinivasan. Forbes. Retrieved October 27, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2023/01/30/longevity-startup-vitadao-raises-41m-backed-by-pfizer-balaji-srinivasan/ 6. Díaz, F., Menchaca, C., & Weidener, L. (2024). Exploring the Decentralized Science Ecosystem: Insights on Organizational Structures, Technologies, and Funding. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.173092030.00870337/v1 7. Ding, W., Hou, J., Li, J., Guo, C., Qin, J., Kozma, R., & Wang, F.-Y. (2022). DeSci Based on Web3 and DAO: A Comprehensive Overview and Reference Model. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 9(5), 1563–1573. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2022.3204745 8. Ducrée, J., Codyre, M., Walshe, R., & Barting, S. (2022). DeSci—Decentralized Science (2022050223). Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202205.0223.v1 9. Elite Cues and the Rapid Decline in Trust in Science Agencies on COVID-19—Lawrence C. Hamilton, Thomas G. Safford, 2021. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214211022391 10. Fragmentation of Knowledge: An Obstacle to Its Full Utilization | 13 |. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2025, from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429313301-13/fragmentation-knowledge-obstacle-full-utilization-robert-beam 11. Hamburg, S. (2021). Call to join the decentralized science movement. Nature, 600(7888), 221–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03642-9 12. Kosmarski, A. (2020). Blockchain Adoption in Academia: Promises and Challenges. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040117 13. Loken, E., & Gelman, A. (2017). Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3618 14. Lukács, B., Weidener, L., & Heurich, B. (2023). Opportunities and Limitations of Decentralization in Decentralized Science. 15. Mikhaylov, D., Shafeeg, A., Shazhaev, I., & Tularov, A. (2024). Promoting Scientific Research: rNFT and DeSci Conjunction. The Indonesian Journal of Computer Science, 13(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.33022/ijcs.v13i1.3588 16. Pavića, Ž., & Kovačevićb, E. (2024). Negative information leads to a decline of trust in science: The connection between traditional and social media uses and vaccination conspiracy beliefs. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 2, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.35782/JCPP.2024.2.03 17. Sicard, F. (2022). Can decentralized science help tackle the deterioration in working conditions in academia? Frontiers in Blockchain, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2022.1066294 18. The community of the DAO. (2023). Nature Biotechnology, 41(10), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-02005-1 19. Unfried, M. (2024). Advancing Longevity Research through Decentralized Science. Frontiers in Aging, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2024.1353272 20. VitaDAO - Discovering Novel Autophagy Activators. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2023, from https://www.vitadao.com/projects/korolchuk-lab 21. Wang, F.-Y. (2022). The DAO to MetaControl for MetaSystems in Metaverses: The System of Parallel Control Systems for Knowledge Automation and Control Intelligence in CPSS. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 9(11), 1899–1908. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2022.106022 22. Wang, F.-Y., Ding, W., Wang, X., Garibaldi, J., Teng, S., Imre, R., & Olaverri-Monreal, C. (2022). The DAO to DeSci: AI for Free, Fair, and Responsibility Sensitive Sciences. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 37(2), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2022.3167070 23. Weidener, L., & Spreckelsen, C. (2024). Decentralized science (DeSci): Definition, shared values, and guiding principles. Frontiers in Blockchain, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2024.1375763

To Scoop website

PhD

Lidia Yatluk

0000-0002-0920-1883

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor

Prof.dr. Rafael Wittek

0000-0002-8473-6984

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor

Dr. Malcolm Campbell-Verduyn

0000-0003-1081-5417

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor

Prof.dr. Frank Hindrinks

0000-0002-5818-4071

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

• gig economy
• Institutional change
• Institutional entrepreneurs
• organization of science
• Platform cooperativism
• Sociology
• STS

• Organisation science
• Philosophy
• Platforms
• Sociology

• Work

• External Shocks

• Reshaping organizational forms

The project integrates approaches from organizational studies and science and technology studies. It draws on key concepts such as institutional entrepreneurship, new organizational forms, organizational fields, and alternative organizations. These perspectives are enriched by examining the role of technology and materiality, with insights from actor-network theory and the biography of artifacts and practices. This combined theoretical framework offers a holistic view of how collaboration within organizations interplays with the production of scientific knowledge and the technological character of processes.

—