When Elon Musk took charge, he wasted no time in tackling “bizarre research” with the mantra of optimization and efficiency. His team of highly intelligent individuals, willing to work 80-hour weeks for no pay, targeted projects such as:

1. A $170,000 Brown University study on LGBTQ issues in China.
2. A $1.04 million creative writing initiative related to DEI at the University of Iowa

These examples highlight how American institutions often exploit taxpayers, and Musk himself hasn’t escaped scrutiny. Since aligning with Trump, he has faced frequent investigations from California’s government and environmental groups.

Some investigations were downright absurd: studies checked if SpaceX’s Starship recovery affected sharks. When sharks weren’t found, they tested whales, and then seals to see if launches disrupted their hearing.

Musk responded pragmatically: he instructed SpaceX staff to test launch noise effects on a seal wearing headphones, eventually proving no significant impact through data.

Both Musk’s personal experiences and university research inefficiencies point to a shared problem: a waste of resources. Odd academic studies erode public trust, while Musk’s struggles are just examples of unproductive capital flows.

This is why Musk naturally gravitates toward alternative research systems like DeSci. Starting with Binance’s investment in Bio Protocol, the decentralized science (DeSci) movement has gained momentum, especially with longevity research boosting interest in biology. Is the 21st century truly the age of biology?

The Problem with Research Systems

While the DeSci hype might be driven by dreams of wealth, many researchers are yearning for freedom from the stifling bureaucracy of traditional academia, where grants, publications, and titles form a perpetual cycle.

Contrary to common belief, most scientific research, especially in STEM, is essentially a public service. Funding often comes from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), which works closely with universities and labs.

(Side note: Indians seem to thrive better than Chinese here—it’s easier to manage research funding than conduct it!)

Young academics typically need grants to recruit students and fund research. This drives innovation to become an exercise in appeasing the NSF’s requirements. The acceptance rate for NSF proposals is under 30%, with a median funding amount of $150,000 per project. While this seems decent, it barely scratches the surface given the scale of U.S. academia.

2023-2024 NSF Grant Approval Rates

Source: NSF

In recent years, the rise of DEI culture (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has further influenced NSF’s priorities. To align with federal trends, researchers increasingly focus on DEI-themed publications to secure tenure-track positions and academic recognition.

This rigidity isn’t unique to the U.S. China’s academic system offers a more extreme version, adopting NSF practices but layering in distinct, hierarchical “academic hats.”

Since China’s reforms, it has mimicked NSF systems but adapted them to local contexts, introducing unofficial titles like Academicians, Changjiang Scholars, and others. While not official criteria for teaching roles, these titles are key references and are heavily tied to grant levels. This has fueled a publishing frenzy, with researchers pouring creative ideas into journals in hopes of recouping the high costs of publication fees.

The Academic Publishing Industry: Profits Over Knowledge

The current hype around DeSci, which even brings Sci-Hub into the spotlight, feels both predictable and surprising.

In the cycle of “grants—papers—titles,” academic papers are the key evidence for securing funding. Since most basic research cannot be commercialized, publishing in top-tier journals is often the only way to validate research results. Nature, Science, and Cell represent the pinnacle of academic prestige. In the U.S., publishing in these journals is a critical step for Chinese international students seeking to advance their careers. In China, these journals are seen as a fast track to wealth and academic recognition, even leading to positions as academicians.

The issue lies in the highly commercialized nature of the global academic publishing industry. A few major companies—Springer, Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publishing, and Taylor & Francis Group—control over 80% of the market.

Here’s the irony: researchers pay to publish in these journals, but their institutions must also pay subscription fees to access the same content. This monopoly over distribution channels enables academic publishers to reap massive profits. For instance, Elsevier reported €7.49 billion in revenue and €1.96 billion in net profit in 2018, achieving a profit margin of 26%.

In response, the Open Access (OA) movement emerged, advocating for free and unrestricted access to academic research. Unfortunately, high-quality OA platforms are still controlled by traditional publishers, who charge hefty fees for authors. For example, publishing in a Nature OA journal costs Chinese scholars $5,000. While OA makes research free for readers, it shifts the financial burden onto authors.

Low-quality OA journals, on the other hand, face issues of oversight, leading to a flood of poorly vetted content. This has tarnished the OA label, associating it with low-quality publications. Thus, high-quality journals remain prohibitively expensive, while low-quality ones damage credibility.

Against this backdrop, Sci-Hub emerged as a game-changer. Founded in 2011 by Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazakhstani with Soviet roots, Sci-Hub was born out of frustration with the unethical practices of academic publishing. Elbakyan’s vision was simple: make academic papers freely available to everyone.

Image Caption: The Inspiration Behind Sci-Hub

Image Source: https://sci-hub.se/alexandra

Elbakyan believes that scientific knowledge belongs to humanity and that academic publishers should not profit by restricting access. Sci-Hub allows users to retrieve full-text papers with just a DOI number, eliminating paywalls and restoring knowledge to its rightful role as a public good.

The DeSci Boom: Hype or Hope?

The combination of memes, crypto influencers like Vitalik and CZ, and longevity research has created a frenzy around tokens like Resveratrol (RIF) and Urolithin (URO). Platforms like Pump.Science have built on the legacy of Pump.Fun, while Bio Protocol and its sub-DAOs have drawn massive speculative investment.

Image Caption: BIO Protocol Structure

Image Source: https://www.bio.xyz

However, it’s worth remembering that developing a drug from lab research to market readiness takes years, sometimes decades. While this highlights inefficiencies in the current system, bypassing these steps doesn’t necessarily accelerate drug effectiveness.

Cryptocurrencies, nonetheless, hold enormous potential for driving bold research. Among Silicon Valley elites, practices like injecting young blood serum, targeted drug supplements, and even blood replacement therapies are already common. To sidestep FDA regulations, some investors turn to smaller countries like Thailand or African nations to fast-track approvals.

He Jiankui’s controversial genetic experiments earned him charges of bioethical violations. If cryptocurrency-driven innovation can make academic papers freely accessible, it would be a noble outcome. But if it ushers in an era of reckless human experimentation, we should heed Liu Cixin’s cautionary words: “Let civilization give time its meaning, not time civilization.”

May we safely navigate this challenging phase in human scientific research.

Disclaimer:

1. This article is reprinted from [佐爷歪脖山], and the copyright belongs to the original author [Zuo Ye]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. The Gate Learn team translated the article into other languages. Copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited unless mentioned.