Author: Decentralised.Co Source: X, @Decentralisedco Translation: Shan Ouba, Golden Finance

Science It has long been the greatest driving force for human progress. Yet the mention of “science” these days often attracts skeptical glances. When headlines claim "Science shows...," people are likely to react more with an eye roll than genuine interest. This growing disillusionment is not without reason – science is increasingly reduced to a marketing term, diluted by corporate interests and antithetical to its core mission: to advance human knowledge and well-being.

Decentralized Science (DeSci) is an emerging paradigm that promises to rebuild scientific research on a more solid foundation. The current focus of DeSci projects is primarily on pharmaceuticals, a "low-hanging fruit" that can rapidly improve humanity's most important resource - our health.

The funding system for traditional science has broken down. Academic researchers spend up to 40% of their time writing grant applications, yet have a grant success rate of less than 20%. As federal funding decreases, the share of private funding increases, but these funds are highly concentrated in the hands of big business.

The pharmaceutical industry has evolved into a high-risk, high-cost field with opportunities for innovation Very little. Picture this: for every 10,000 compounds discovered, only 1 makes it to the market. This process is extremely cruel. Only 10% of drugs that enter clinical trials are ultimately approved by the FDA, and the entire process can take up to 15 years and cost more than $2.6 billion.

In the 1990s, centralization in the pharmaceutical industry seemed like a boon—it led to efficiencies, streamlined supply chains, and rapid expansion of drug discovery. But an industry that was once an engine of innovation has now become a bottleneck that hinders progress, with a few players monopolizing the market and driving up research and development costs.

The current model is this:

1. Biotech startups spend years Time to secure early discovery funding from the NIH (National Institutes of Health).

2. Then raise $15 million in Series A funding to advance into preclinical trials.

3. If successful, these companies license the intellectual property (IP) to a large pharmaceutical company, which then invests more than $1 billion to push it into Clinical trials and commercialization.

In this model, the incentive mechanism is distorted. Rather than focusing on breakthrough treatments, Big Pharma has mastered another, more profitable game: patent manipulation.

The game is simple: When a lucrative drug patent is about to expire, companies file for dozens of minor patents covering minor modifications. — a new delivery method, a slightly tweaked formula, or even just a new use for the drug.

For example, AbbVie's anti-inflammatory drug Humira is one of the world's best-selling drugs, generating more than $20 billion in annual revenue. Its original patent expired in 2016, but AbbVie filed more than 100 additional patents to block generic competition. This legal maneuvering has delayed affordable alternatives from entering the market, resulting in billions of dollars in additional costs to patients and the healthcare system.

During a recent debate on DeSci (hosted by @tarunchitra and @benjileibo), this stagnation in pharmaceutical innovation was brought up, leading to Eroom's Discussion of Law (the inverse of Moore's Law).

These behaviors reflect a deeper problem: innovation is hijacked by the profit motive. Pharmaceutical companies invest resources into tweaking existing drugs, such as making slight chemical modifications or developing new delivery mechanisms, not because these changes will provide significant health benefits, but because they can capture new patents and prolong profitability. cycle.

Meanwhile, the global research community, despite its talent and creativity, has been left out of the process. Young researchers are constrained by limited funding, cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, and a “publish or lose” culture. This culture prioritizes topics that make headlines and ignores research that is meaningful but not eye-catching enough. As a result, rare diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and early-stage exploratory research are severely underfunded.

Decentralized Science (DeSci) is essentially a coordination mechanism. It brings together the world’s human capital—biologists, chemists, and researchers—enabling them to conduct comprehensive research, test, and iterate without relying on traditional institutions.

Funding methods have also been redefined. Rather than relying on grants or corporate sponsorships, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and tokenized incentive mechanisms democratize access to capital.

The traditional pharmaceutical supply chain is a rigid and siled process dominated by a few key actors. It usually follows a linear path:

1. Centralized data generation

2. Isolation Discovery in the laboratory

3. High-cost clinical trials

4. Exclusive Manufacturing

5. Restricted distribution

Every step of the way is optimized for profitability, not accessibility or collaboration.

In contrast, DeSci introduces an open and collaborative chain that redefines every stage. It democratizes participation and accelerates the innovation process.

Through these changes, DeSci brings science closer to its essential goal: serving human welfare rather than serving the interests of a few. The following is a comparison between the two:

DeSci model: Platforms aggregate and democratize access to scientific data, creating a foundation for transparent collaboration.

Case: @yesnoerror uses AI to review mathematical errors in published papers, thereby improving the reproducibility and credibility of research.

Traditional model: The discovery process occurs in closed academic or corporate laboratories, constrained by funding priorities and intellectual property issues.

DeSci model: By directly funding early-stage research through decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), scientists are free to explore breakthrough ideas without being constrained by institutional red tape.

Case Study:

•@vita_dao raises millions to fund longevity research, supporting projects such as cellular senescence and drug discovery that may be difficult to fund under traditional models.

•@HairDAO_ is a collective of researchers and patients documenting treatment experiences with different compounds dedicated to solving the problem of hair loss.

Traditional model: controlled by intermediaries. Researchers rely on traditional publishers, conferences, and networks to share research and gain access to resources.

DeSci Model: A decentralized marketplace that connects researchers with funders and tools around the world.

Case:

•@bioprotocol provides a platform where researchers can create BioDAO—— An autonomous organization focused on researching new compounds. These organizations continue to fund the production of biotech assets and provide a liquid market for tokenized intellectual property. In the DeSci world, BioDAO can be considered similar to Virtuals in the AI ​​field.

•@Big_Pharmai is an investment institution in DeSci that invests in tokens in the field of decentralized science. It now manages more than US$1 million in assets and Plans to launch its own Bio Agent framework.

Traditional model: Preclinical and clinical trials are expensive and usually limited to large pharmaceutical companies. Transparency is low and failure data is often hidden.

DeSci mode: platform decentralized test flowprocess, supporting global participation and funding through tokens.

Case Study:

•@pumpdotscience uses bond curves to crowdfund longevity experiments, combining compounds Advancing from worm trials to fruit flies to rat trials to commercialization.

•On the Pump.science platform, medical researchers can submit drug research proposals, test those drugs with worms, and transmit experimental results to the platform front-end in real time. Users can speculate on tokens related to these drugs, such as Rif (Rifampicin) and URO (Urolithin A). If tests find that the compounds extend lifespan, they will be advanced into commercialization, with token holders sharing in the profits.

Traditional model: Intellectual property is locked in patent monopoly , hindering innovation and leading to high drug prices. Patenting new compounds is costly, complex and cumbersome.

DeSci model: Tokenizing intellectual property through a protocol enables researchers to transparently share and monetize their discoveries.

Case Study:

•@Molecule_Dao's intellectual property framework allows researchers to segment intellectual property for NFTs and tokens, thereby aligning incentives between scientists and funders.

Currently, there are still few pilot projects based on this model, and there are limited cases where researchers have tokenized intellectual property. When intellectual property is commercialized, how profits flow back to the holders remains difficult to predict. To ensure that intellectual property rights are fully protected, researchers may still need to register with traditional institutions.

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are challenging in coordinating complex tasks and sustaining There are difficulties with accountability - few DAOs have demonstrated the ability to consistently succeed in managing long-term projects. DeSci (decentralized science) faces even greater challenges: it requires researchers to coordinate on complex problems and complete research tasks on time, while maintaining scientific rigor and without the supervision of traditional institutions.

Despite the many shortcomings of the traditional scientific system, mechanisms for peer review and quality control have been established. DeSci must either adapt to these systems or develop entirely new accountability frameworks. This challenge is critical in medical research This is especially true because the risks are extremely high. A failed NFT project may only cost money, but a poorly executed medical trial may be life-threatening.

Critics. ThinkDeSci It’s just a hype game—it’s just a trading game. Historically, new technologies often struggle until a breakthrough succeeds in capturing the public’s imagination. As well as gaining mainstream attention through examples like @aixbt_agent, DeSci may need a defining moment to change perceptions

DeSci. The future may not turn out exactly as its proponents envision, but perhaps it’s not about replacing traditional institutions entirely but creating parallel systems that drive innovation through competition. Or perhaps the real value of DeSci is in finding where traditional models fail. specific areas, such as rare disease research.

Imagine a world where geniuses are dedicated to solving humanity's greatest medical challenges, regardless of borders or budgets. in the world, The laboratory's breakthroughs can be immediately verified in Singapore and rapidly expanded in São Paulo.

Pioneers are gradually moving towards this future through experiment after experiment. Take @bryan_johnson, an independent biohacker who experiments with unapproved drugs and unconventional treatments. While his approach may be disturbing to traditionalists, he embodies the core of DeSci's ethos: push past conventional barriers and experiment.