Crowdsourcing is becoming an important new aspect of social media. In brief, crowdsourcing is just what it sounds like. Massing the resources of many to achieve a goal. The resources that are pooled can be almost anything. Even the use of surveying can represent crowdsourcing. Ranard, et al., has just e-published, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, a “systemic review” of 21 studies using crowdsourcing in areas of problem solving, data processing, monitoring, and surveying. They report improvements in quality, cost, and speed.
The better known and more widely used resource obtained from crowdsourcing is money. Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Unbound, and others are companies that provide a mechanism for people to gather funding for projects of all types. One of the more recently publicized and successful projects was funding a movie based on a cancelled TV show. They set what they thought was a tough goal of raising two million dollars in 30 days. They hit that goal in ten hours and ended up raising a total of nearly five million. In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those donors. (I really liked that show).
It then comes as no surprise that someone would look to apply this mechanism to funding projects in the medical field. Medstartr (www.medstartr.com) is a company looking to do just that. From their website: "Whether you are a Startup, Physician, Scientist, Investor, or Innovation leader within a Fortune 500 global brand, empowering crowds is the best new way to drive innovation better and faster than ever.” So far most of the projects relate to developing forms, media, or physical products for patients.
One project is currently seeking funding, however, that may herald a real paradigm shift. I am not going to name the project but from their proposal page: "We have come to MedStartr to fund a larger scale clinical trial to prove once and for all that our product can help prevent kidney disease and treat people in kidney failure.” Yes, they are asking all of us to fund a clinical trial. Given the drop in resources for federal funding and the potential difficulties in raising venture capital, is this really surprising?
As much as I appreciate the notion here, some real pitfalls come to mind:
- How much bad science is going to be funded because people don’t evaluate the science but respond to a well-written pitch page?
- Many crowdsource-funded projects offer rewards or premiums. What rewards get offered for funding trials? Can you buy an authorship?
- If academic researchers use this funding mechanism, how do indirects get handled?
- Should any of us fund a project that succeeds and we end up discussing the data at a meeting, we will all know to acknowledge our funding support in our conflicts, right?
This is not to denigrate the idea. I do think it has interesting potential. I simply would prefer that we don’t have to clean up messes after they occur when, with thought and foresight, we could prevent them from occurring in the first place.
Comments
Alex Fair
Jul, 21 2013 7:30 AM
Thank you for writing about us Dr. Graham. Indeed, clinical studies are among the most exciting uses of our platform. As a published cancer research scientist myself, this is an area of particular interest to me personally as well. The project you refer to is not the first such project. Dr Jen Dyer funded a clinical trial last year as well. What happens on the site generally attracts the attention of other entities too, which also facilitates partnerships and additional funding. This offline element is generally 20 times the value of what is raised on the site.
You raise an important point about ensuring the quality of the science. In addition to myself, we also have CRO Theresa Merrill review all projects with her team and bring in experts from around the world as needed.
While buying authorship isn't really viable, you can sometimes buy into the clinical protocol and participate as part of a multi center clinical trial. Then, if your contribution was significant the paper will include you, at least in theory.
I don't know if you saw the Crowds Care 4 Cancer Challenge, but this denotes two other key aspects of crowdfunding science. First, crowdfunding is not a stand alone funding mechanism, just part of the total picture. Secondly, traditional funding sources, in this case the NCI, want the active participation of the general public in selecting which ideas and projects get funded. This was just a pilot project, but it bodes well since the finalists raised more from the "crowd" than the government put into the finalist prizes, doubling the prizes and showing which ideas the public wants most. This is the most democratic use of tax payer dollars to support research and represents a real change that could change everything.
Finally, you raise a great point about well written pitches. This is a key element in dealing with crowds as much as in writing grants. There is a method to It, but it is Not hard to learn. We actually give all our clients our template that makes it easy. Some call it the "color by numbers" approach to crowdfunding and it truly levels the playing field. Our clients went to grad school and med school, not design school or business school, so we offer writing assistance, videography help, strategic planning, and more. We figure our projects are too important to fail so we try to help them all we can.
Once again, thank you for writing about us. Without the support of communities like ASCO, crowdfunding does not work very well, so we sincerely appreciate the introduction.
Molly Lindquist
Jul, 24 2013 7:09 PM
Dr. Graham, thank you for touching upon this new and innovative way of funding medical research. I launched Consano (which means "to heal" in Latin) after my own diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer (at the age of 32 in 2011). When I went to look for ways to support research that might help my two young daughters (aged 3 and 5 years old at the time of my diagnosis), there was no easy way to direct my donation to research that might direcly impact my girls (genetics, vaccines, etc) nor was there a way to become a "virtual part of the lab" i was supporting. Consano (www.consano.org) was my solution as a patient. And in talking with others touched by health issues, whether that was patients, caregivers, families or friends, I realized that I was not alone in looking for this. We launched in late March of this year and are gaining fantastic traction, with researchers participating from OHSU Knight Cancer Institute (our first fully funded project was from Dr. Monika Davare out of Dr. Brian Druker's lab looking at pediatric medulloblastoma), UW Medicine in Seattle and UC San Francisco. We're in talks with a dozen other institutions, and we are always looking for great new researchers.
One of our key differentiators at Consano is our vetting process. In addition to working closely with the academic/research institution, we have also recruited a 28-member Scientific Advisory Board (comprised of researchers, clinicians and patient advocates) to act as a secondary check to the quality of our projects. We also offer a community where anyone touched by a health issue can share why they donate to medical research. We are non-profit, with 100% of donations (less a minimal PayPal processing fee) going to the project a donor chooses to support. Transparent, Directed, Connected -- all things I was looking for as a patient.
To be honest, I was very surprised at how much time research scientists spend writing grants. In speaking with a researcher at MD Anderson last week, he told me that he spends as much as 90% of his time writing grants. My personal hope as a patient and a mom is that more time can be spent dedicated to research -- and that more quality research can be funded. It is the only way we can really provide the hope, honor and healing that we are so dedicated to at Consano.