Unchaining Collective Intelligence for Science, Research, and Technology Development by Blockchain-Boosted Community Participation

Since its launch just over a decade ago by the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, the distributed ledger technology (DLT) blockchain has followed a breathtaking trajectory into manifold application spaces. This study aper analyses how key factors underpinning the success of this ground-breaking “Internet of value” technology, such as staking of collateral (“skin in the game”), competitive crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, and prediction markets, can be applied to substantially innovate the legacy organization of science, research, and technology development (RTD). Here, we elaborate a highly integrative, community-based strategy where a token-based crypto-economy supports finding best possible consensus, trust, and truth by adding unconventional elements known from reputation systems, betting, secondary markets, and social networking. These tokens support the holder’s formalized reputation and are used in liquid-democracy style governance and arbitration within projects or community-driven initiatives. This participatory research model serves as a solid basis for comprehensively leveraging collective intelligence by effectively incentivizing contributions from the crowd, such as intellectual property work, validation, assessment, infrastructure, education, assessment, governance, publication, and promotion of projects. On the analogy of its current blockbusters like peer-to-peer structured decentralized finance (“DeFi”), blockchain technology can seminally enhance the efficiency of science and RTD initiatives, even permitting to fully stage operations as a chiefless decentralized autonomous organization (DAOs).

[1]  Jens Ducrée,et al.  Efficient Development of Integrated Lab-On-A-Chip Systems Featuring Operational Robustness and Manufacturability , 2019, Micromachines.

[2]  John R. Douceur,et al.  The Sybil Attack , 2002, IPTPS.

[3]  Tim K. Mackey,et al.  A Framework Proposal for Blockchain-Based Scientific Publishing Using Shared Governance , 2019, Frontiers in Blockchain.

[4]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[5]  Qi Zhang,et al.  Sidechain technologies in blockchain networks: An examination and state-of-the-art review , 2020, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[6]  Melanie Swan,et al.  Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy , 2015 .

[7]  Mark Rubin,et al.  When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress , 2017 .

[8]  Y. Murayama,et al.  Interlinking open science and community-based participatory research for socio-environmental issues , 2019, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.

[9]  Dennis Grishin,et al.  Data privacy in the age of personal genomics , 2019, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  I. Cockburn,et al.  The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research , 2015, PLoS biology.

[11]  D. Resnik,et al.  Reproducibility and Research Integrity , 2017, Accountability in research.

[12]  Vikram Dhillon,et al.  Blockchain Based Peer-Review Interfaces for Digital Medicine , 2020, Frontiers in Genetics.

[13]  N. Altman,et al.  Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation , 2020, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[14]  Carla H. Lagorio,et al.  Psychology , 1929, Nature.

[15]  Douglas Heaven Bitcoin for the biological literature , 2019, Nature.

[16]  Michael W. Grieves,et al.  Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Undesirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems , 2017 .

[17]  J. Ducrée Research – A blockchain of knowledge? , 2020 .

[18]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Handbook of Collective Intelligence , 2015 .

[19]  Holger Becker,et al.  Collective Wisdom , 1998, American Scientist.

[20]  Emmanuel Delamarche,et al.  High-Content Optical Codes for Protecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests from Counterfeiting. , 2018, Analytical chemistry.

[21]  Joris van Rossum,et al.  The blockchain and its potential for science and academic publishing , 2018, Inf. Serv. Use.

[22]  Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin : A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System , 2009 .

[23]  M. Baker 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility , 2016, Nature.

[24]  George Kesidis,et al.  Sybil Detection via Distributed Sparse Cut Monitoring , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[25]  Krzysztof Janowicz,et al.  On the prospects of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for open science and academic publishing , 2018, Semantic Web.

[26]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[27]  Ray Walshe,et al.  Blockchain for Organizing Effective Grass-Roots Actions on a Global Commons: Saving the Planet , 2020, Frontiers in Blockchain.

[28]  Manoj Misra,et al.  Sybil Detection in Online Social Networks (OSNs) , 2016, 2016 IEEE 6th International Conference on Advanced Computing (IACC).

[29]  Tin-Chih Toly Chen 3D Printing and Ubiquitous Manufacturing , 2020 .

[30]  David Swanson,et al.  The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency , 2018 .

[31]  Moritz Schubotz,et al.  A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science , 2019, Front. Blockchain.

[32]  Lisa VanRaemdonck,et al.  Applying Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership Principles to Public Health Practice-Based Research Networks , 2016, SAGE open.

[33]  Burkhard Stiller,et al.  A Blockchain-based Scientific Publishing Platform , 2019, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC).

[34]  Edmund A. Mennis The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations , 2006 .

[35]  Ray Walshe,et al.  Open Platform Concept for Blockchain-Enabled Crowdsourcing of Technology Development and Supply Chains , 2020, Frontiers in Blockchain.

[36]  L. H. van de Burgwal,et al.  Blockchain-facilitated sharing to advance outbreak R&D , 2020, Science.

[37]  Anneke Zuiderwijk,et al.  Sharing and re-using open data: A case study of motivations in astrophysics , 2019, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[38]  Fan Zhang,et al.  Town Crier: An Authenticated Data Feed for Smart Contracts , 2016, CCS.

[39]  S. Ebrahim,et al.  Data dredging, bias, or confounding , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[40]  L. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known , 2002 .

[41]  Nirupama Bulusu,et al.  A new product anti‐counterfeiting blockchain using a truly decentralized dynamic consensus protocol , 2019, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

[42]  Shawndra Hill,et al.  Expert Stock Picker: The Wisdom of (Experts in) Crowds , 2011, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[43]  Osman Ghazali,et al.  BLOCKCHAIN BASED FRAMEWORK FOR EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATES VERIFICATION , 2020 .

[44]  R. Lanfear,et al.  The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science , 2015, PLoS biology.

[45]  Tsuyoshi Miyakawa,et al.  No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis , 2020, Molecular Brain.

[46]  David Metcalf,et al.  Blockchain in Science , 2017 .

[47]  Melinda Baldwin,et al.  Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States , 2018, Isis.

[48]  Andrew Forbes,et al.  Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[49]  Holger Becker,et al.  Accelerating innovation and commercialization through standardization of microfluidic-based medical devices. , 2020, Lab on a chip.