Original text: Decentralised.co

Translation: Yuliya, PANews

Science has always been the greatest catalyst for human progress. However, when the term "science" is mentioned today, it is often met with skepticism. When headlines proclaim "science shows…", it is more likely to provoke ridicule than genuine interest. This growing disillusionment is not without reason—science has increasingly become a marketing term, diluted by corporate interests, straying from its fundamental purpose of promoting human knowledge and well-being.

Decentralized Science (DeSci) as a new paradigm promises to rebuild scientific research on a more solid foundation. Currently, DeSci projects mainly focus on the pharmaceutical field, which is one of the low-hanging fruits for improving humanity's most important resource—health.

The Funding Crisis of Scientific Innovation

The traditional scientific funding system is in shambles. Academic researchers spend up to 40% of their time writing grant applications, yet the success rate is below 20%. While private funding has increased, it is primarily concentrated in large corporations, as federal funding has decreased.

The pharmaceutical industry has evolved into a high-risk game that is detrimental to innovation. Consider this reality: out of every 10,000 discovered compounds, only 1 can successfully reach the market. The process is exceptionally brutal. Only 10% of drugs entering clinical trials receive FDA approval, and the entire process can take up to 15 years, with the cost of each successful drug exceeding $2.6 billion.

In the 1990s, the centralization of the pharmaceutical industry seemed like a blessing—it brought efficiency, streamlined the supply chain, and allowed for rapid scaling of drug discovery. However, this initially innovative engine has evolved into a bottleneck, with the same players hindering progress to maintain their monopoly, leading to skyrocketing costs.

Under the current model, a biotech startup needs to spend years seeking NIH funding for early discoveries, then raise $15 million in Series A funding to enter preclinical trials. If successful, it will license the intellectual property to a large pharmaceutical company, which will invest over $1 billion in clinical trials and commercialization.

This is where the incentive mechanism is distorted. Large pharmaceutical companies are no longer focused on groundbreaking new therapies but have mastered a more profitable game: patent manipulation. Their strategy is simple: when a lucrative drug patent is about to expire, they apply for dozens of secondary patents for minor modifications—new delivery methods, slightly altered formulations, or even just new uses for the same drug.

Take AbbVie's anti-inflammatory drug Humira as an example. For years, Humira has been one of the best-selling drugs globally, with annual revenues exceeding $20 billion. Its original patent expired in 2016, but AbbVie submitted over 100 additional patents to block generic competition. This legal maneuver delayed the entry of affordable alternatives into the market, costing patients and healthcare systems billions of dollars.

In a recent DeSci debate by Tarun Chitra and benjels, the issue of stagnation in pharmaceutical innovation was raised, citing the Eroom's Law (the opposite of Moore's Law).

These practices reflect a larger problem: innovation is captured by profit motives. Pharmaceutical companies invest resources in fine-tuning existing drugs—making slight chemical modifications or seeking new delivery mechanisms—not because it brings significant health benefits, but because it allows them to obtain new patents and extend their profit periods.

Science on a Better Track

Meanwhile, the talented and creative global research community remains excluded from this process. Young researchers are constrained by limited funding, bureaucratic red tape, and a "publish or perish" culture that values sensationalism over meaningful research. This has resulted in a severe lack of funding for rare diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and early exploratory research.

DeSci is essentially a coordination mechanism. It brings together global human capital—biologists, chemists, researchers—enabling them to synthesize, test, and iterate without relying on traditional institutions. The funding model is also reimagined. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and tokenized incentives replace government funding or corporate sponsorship, making capital acquisition more democratic.

The traditional pharmaceutical supply chain is a rigid, isolated process dominated by a few gatekeepers. It typically follows a linear path: centralized data generation, closed laboratory discoveries, high-cost trials, exclusive manufacturing, and restricted distribution. Each link is optimized for profit rather than accessibility or collaboration.

In contrast, DeSci introduces an open collaborative chain, reimagining each stage to democratize participation and accelerate innovation. This is primarily reflected in the following aspects:

1. Data and Infrastructure

Traditional Model: Data is proprietary, fragmented, and often inaccessible. Research institutions and pharmaceutical companies hoard datasets to maintain competitive advantages.

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

Example: yesnoerror uses AI to check for mathematical errors in published papers, enhancing the reproducibility and credibility of research.

2. Discovery and Research

Traditional Model: Discoveries occur in closed academic or corporate laboratories, constrained by funding priorities and intellectual property issues.

DeSci Model: DAOs directly fund early research, allowing scientists to explore breakthrough ideas without institutional red tape.

Example: VitaDAO has raised millions to fund longevity research, supporting projects on cellular aging and drug discovery that would otherwise struggle to secure funding. HairDAO is a collective of researchers and patients documenting experiences with different compounds for treating hair loss.

3. Market

Traditional Model: Controlled by intermediaries. Researchers rely on traditional publishers, conferences, and networks to share discoveries and obtain resources.

DeSci Model: Decentralized markets connect researchers with funders and tools globally.

Example: Bio Protocol provides a platform for researchers to create BioDAOs—these DAOs are dedicated to researching new compounds, providing ongoing funding for newly generated biotech assets, and offering liquidity markets for tokenized IP. Compared to the AI agent space, Bio can be seen as the Virtuals of the DeSci world.

Big Pharma acts as a counterpart to ai16z, launching investment DeSci tokens on Daos.fun. Their AUM has exceeded $1 million, and they plan to launch their own Bio agent framework.

4. Experimentation and Validation

Traditional Model: Preclinical and clinical trials are costly and typically limited to large pharmaceutical companies. Transparency is minimal, and failures are often hidden.

DeSci Model: Platforms decentralize trials, enabling global participation and funding support through tokens.

Example: Pump Science utilizes bonding curves for crowdfunding longevity experiments, advancing compounds from worm tests to fruit flies and then to rat tests, ultimately leading to commercialization.

Medical researchers can submit drug research proposals on Pump Science, which helps test these drugs on worms and transmits experimental results in real-time to the platform's front end. Users can speculate on tokens representing these drugs. Two popular tokens, Rif (Rifampicin) and URO (Urolithin A), are being tested on worms, and if found to extend lifespan, these compounds will enter the commercialization phase, with holders sharing in the profits.

The results of these experiments are recorded and live-streamed on Pump.science.

5. IP and Monetization

Traditional Model: Intellectual property is locked in patent monopolies, creating barriers to innovation and inflated drug prices. Applying for patents on new compounds is both costly and painfully complex.

DeSci Model: Protocols tokenize IP, allowing researchers to transparently share and monetize discoveries.

• Example: Molecule's IP framework enables researchers to fund projects by splitting IP rights into NFTs and tokens, coordinating incentives between scientists and funders. However, this model is still in its early stages. Only a few researchers have tokenized their IP, and how profits flow to holders when IP is commercialized remains difficult to estimate. Additionally, to ensure IP is adequately protected, researchers may still need to register with traditional government agencies.

BioDAO has held over $33 million in tokenized IPT through the Molecule framework.

Accountability Challenges

DAOs face challenges in coordinating complex tasks and maintaining accountability—few DAOs have demonstrated sustainable success in managing long-term projects. DeSci faces an even greater challenge: it requires researchers to coordinate handling complex issues, meet research deadlines, and maintain scientific rigor without traditional institutional oversight.

Despite its flaws, traditional science has established peer review and quality control mechanisms. DeSci must either improve these systems or develop entirely new accountability frameworks. Given the high risks involved in medical research, this challenge is particularly daunting. A failed NFT project may lose money, but a poorly executed medical trial could endanger lives.

Critics argue that DeSci is merely speculative behavior—a trading game. This assertion is not entirely incorrect. History shows that new technologies often go through a struggle period before achieving breakthrough success and capturing the public imagination. Just as AI agents gained mainstream attention through projects like aixbt, DeSci may also need a decisive moment to change perceptions.

The future may not develop entirely in the direction envisioned by DeSci supporters. Perhaps it will not completely replace traditional institutions but rather create parallel systems that drive innovation through competition. Or, it may find specific niche markets—such as rare disease research—where traditional models have failed.

Imagine a world where brilliant minds are not constrained by borders or budgets, dedicated to solving humanity's greatest medical challenges—breakthroughs in Chinese laboratories can be instantly validated in Singapore and scaled up in São Paulo.

Pioneers are building this future step by step. Take Bryan Johnson as an example—this independent biohacker is experimenting with off-label drug use and non-traditional therapies. While his methods may concern traditionalists, he embodies the spirit of DeSci: experimentation takes precedence over gatekeeping.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。