Why do we not have scientific crowdfunding?

I greet the venerable Habrazhiteley! We have been waiting for the appearance of the service of scientific crowdfunding in Russia. In the outgoing year, our patience dried up and we decided to create such a service on our own. We began by trying to understand: why is scientific crowdfunding still so unpopular? Of course, the great role played by the novelty of crowdfunding as a phenomenon, but only in this case? Under the cut, I will talk about the reasons that, in our opinion, impede the development of public funding for research projects.

Projects of the day: “jaws of a unicorn”, “agrochemistry of podzols” and “bright hardware for children”

Why I, as a researcher, do not want to publish my work on well-known crowdfunding services? On the one hand, in order to raise funds, my project should be clear, bright, socially important, and against the background of successful film and art projects, scientific research usually seems boring and often even ridiculous. On the other hand, often I need not so much money as materials from other researchers, equipment or the help of colleagues, whose attention can be attracted only by publishing on a thematic site. Will existing crowdfunding services help me in this? Correct, will not help.
A site for fundraising for scientific research should be, if not narrowly thematic, then at least focused on a scientific audience.

Reason 1. Crowdfunding sites are boring for potential sponsors of research projects.
')

“Agrochemistry of podzols” will save the world and bring happiness to every home!

The grind of science grinds, though inexorably, but very slowly. Studies whose results this year seem incomprehensible and unnecessary may be needed like air next year. Of course, short timeframes for raising funds spur active advertising, but they also force everyone to chew up the details and show the work as the most profitable party. But damn it! I don’t want to make the world happy, I just need money to go to the experimental square twice a week. I am ready to report on each ruble, but I don’t promise that my reports will be read avidly like tabloids. If you do not want to read about the fractal properties of the phytocenotic continuum, will you give me money for research? That's right, do not give.
I, as a researcher, would like to have something like a page where I would periodically post the results, report on the work done, elaborate further plans and listen to criticism of the project. Cradfanding invites me to work on the principle of one-time production (“money in the morning - chairs in the evening”).

Reason 2. Scientific research for the majority is a long process with boring and incomprehensible periodic results.

“I created a project, but nobody gave money”

Initial money is brought by friends and relatives, but the main amount can be collected only if they tell about your project on word of mouth, duplicated on social networks and on popular websites. Many of the potential authors of scientific projects are so unwilling to advertise their research that they end the conversation at the first mention of the word “advertisement”.

Unfortunately, many of those who have already heard about crowdfunding, perceive it as another grant, for which they must adjust their research to a minimum of mandatory requirements.

Reason 3. Authors are usually not ready for wide advertising of their project and communication with sponsors.

I did not help your project so that you could give me back the money!

This concerns not only scientific crowdfunding. If the project does not collect the required amount, the money is returned to the sponsors. But, often, sponsors are not at all happy about this. For example, I am ready to leave my money to the author, provided that he will use them only for the purposes of the project. But, if he returned them to me, would I sponsor him again? In most cases I will not. A service is needed which, on the one hand, allows the author to collect money without unnecessary rotations, on the other hand, allows the sponsor to control his funds until the project implementation.

Reason 4. The author risks wasting all his efforts, even if he didn’t have enough for the required amount.

Keep your letter to yourself

I had enough education to understand the project so much that I trusted him with my money. Why, then, did the author decide that the full text of the research would seem boring to me? If I finance the game, I plan to play it one of the first. If I finance a study, then one of the first I want to get access to its result. I can be hung with letters, t-shirts and photos from the author, but if his article can be read only in English for n dollars - will I sponsor the project?
This does not contradict the second remark at all. Based on the fact that the majority considers science to be boring, the authors sometimes make the false conclusion that the results of their work will not interest the minority of people who supported the study.

Reason 5. The authors often believe that the results of their research (and even more so the collected data) are uninteresting to sponsors.

What is electronic money?

One of the biggest problems is the total absence of the practice of using electronic money (many not only do not have their own electronic wallet, but also do not know about this possibility). There are almost no alternative methods of payment: most people use debit cards only when absolutely necessary (they usually answer that they don’t want to “shine” their cards on the Internet once again). SMS billing services are not enough that they do not allow to make at least some large amounts (rarely someone has a balance exceeding 300 rubles), they also require a huge commission (sometimes over 30%). As for terminals and banks, people simply do not reach them.

Reason 6. Cash transactions on the Internet continue to cause mistrust. Other payment methods are either inconvenient or expensive.

I want to help the author, not your site

To sponsor an author, it is usually necessary to go through three stages: create an account, deposit funds into your account and only after that transfer them to the author. On the one hand, it simplifies the refund if the project did not collect the required amount. But, on the other hand, people are frightened by the frequent misconception that if the money is returned, they do not come directly to them, but to their account on the site, that is, except for the support of other projects, money cannot be spent anywhere (in part this is true : on the same Bumstarter total commission for depositing and withdrawing funds may be more than 9%).

Not everyone even reaches the account replenishment, leaving the site immediately after the registration offer. Many of the people we surveyed were willing to give 50-100 rubles for an interesting project, provided that they do not need to delve into the mechanism of the service and spend time on registration.

Reason 7. The sponsorship procedure is often too complicated and scares off potential sponsors.

Conclusion

In funding research projects, crowdfunding plays an extremely small role. Individual successful projects are usually associated either with expeditions (read traveling), or with big names and controversial methods. The value of crowdfunding in science, if growing, is extremely slow. In many ways, the reason for this is in the very approach to raising funds for scientific work.

The results of scientific research are a rather specific thing, in many ways inferior in color and clarity to projects in the field of art, games or technology. Potential sponsors of research projects are often fundamentally different from other sponsors. At the same time, the importance of projects for which funds cannot be received in the usual way is often enormous. Does this mean that scientific crowdfunding services should evolve according to different templates than fundraising services for projects of other subjects?