For decades, many observers have complained that the current structure of science is broken.

The complaints vary in emphasis, but a recurring set includes:

• Funding is restricted, bureaucratic, and skewed toward “safe” projects rather than bold breakthroughs.
• Publication is slow, paywalled, and often shaped by prestige games rather than truth-seeking.
• Data is siloed, inaccessible, or locked away for proprietary advantage.
• The incentives facing researchers reward career advancement more than collaborative progress.

Observers assert that, as a result of these problems, science has lost its innovative spark. The quantity of scientific publications has never been higher, but the overall value delivered falls far short of what’s possible. There are so many words – so many pages with so many self-serving references – but so few groundbreaking insights.

It’s a deeply frustrating situation.

From time to time, new technologies and new institutions are proposed as remedies. In recent years, one such proposal has gathered a growing wave of interest: Decentralised Science, or DeSci.

A Brief Definition

The idea of DeSci is straightforward to state, though more complex to implement:

DeSci applies decentralised technologies – blockchain, smart contracts, decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs), and token-based incentives – to scientific research and dissemination.

Proponents say DeSci could disrupt the current “gatekeeper” system in much the same way that decentralised finance (DeFi) challenged banks, or that open-source software challenged proprietary development. Instead of science being controlled by a small number of funding councils, journal publishers, and elite institutions, DeSci aims for a more open, permissionless, and transparent ecosystem.

It’s an exciting vision: a new operating system for science, built to align incentives, empower collaboration, and speed discovery.

But like all revolutions, DeSci brings both opportunities and risks. In this Mindplex article, I’ll explore both sides of the ledger. I’ll begin with the upside.

Strengths and Opportunities

1. Democratised Funding

Traditional research funding often runs on a grant system where a handful of committees decide which proposals survive. This process can be slow, opaque, and conservative. Gatekeepers over-estimate their own expertise in fields outside their core knowledge domain. However, DeSci opens up alternative paths:

• Crowdfunded science: Anyone, anywhere, can back a project they believe in, channeling micro-funding from a global community.
• Token-based incentives: Researchers can issue project-specific tokens that rise in value if the research gains traction, giving backers both altruistic satisfaction and potential financial upside.
• Faster cycles: Without waiting months for grant decisions, promising ideas can move from concept to lab bench far more quickly.

This doesn’t mean the old funding agencies will disappear, but it does offer a parallel track – one that may especially benefit high-risk, high-reward ideas that would otherwise struggle for initial support.

2. Open Access by Default

In the current model, publicly funded research often sits behind expensive paywalls. DeSci projects, in contrast, tend to embrace open data and open publications from the outset. That’s partly ideological and partly technological: smart contracts can automatically enforce that results and data are uploaded to decentralised storage (e.g., IPFS, Arweave) before funds are released.

This transparency could accelerate replication, meta-analysis, and cross-disciplinary fertilisation.

3. Immutable Provenance

One of blockchain’s key virtues is its ability to timestamp and record information immutably. In a DeSci context, that means:

• Clear attribution: A permanent public record of who made which discovery and when.
• Defence against idea theft: If a researcher posts a hypothesis or dataset on-chain, the world can verify the timestamp later.
• Better citation tracking: Smart contracts can automate credit and royalties for follow-on work.

This could be a powerful antidote to the sometimes murky world of academic priority disputes.

4. Global Collaboration Without Borders

Science already aspires to be international, but visas, funding rules, and institutional boundaries often get in the way. DeSci bypasses much of that:

• Researchers can join projects pseudonymously if they wish.
• Contributions can be tracked and rewarded automatically, even for micro-tasks like annotating a dataset or running a simulation.
• Governance can be coordinated via DAOs, with decisions made transparently and collectively.

5. Incentive Realignment

In the traditional system, the currency of success is often “papers in high-impact journals.” DeSci introduces new forms of reputation and reward:

• Tokens linked to measurable milestones rather than journal impact factors.
• DAO voting power tied to demonstrable contributions.
• Financial upside for early supporters when a project delivers value.

Done right, this could encourage behaviours that significantly accelerate useful discovery, rather than just advancing individual careers.

Weaknesses and Risks

Of course, the “done right” is the sticking point. DeSci inherits all the messiness of decentralised systems – plus the inherent messiness of science itself.

1. Quality Control Challenges

Peer review, for all its flaws, is at least a filtering mechanism. DeSci’s open participation risks being flooded with low-quality proposals and dubious claims. Without robust curation:

• The signal-to-noise ratio could collapse.
• Funders might back charismatic but scientifically unsound projects.
• Opportunists could exploit “science tokens” as a speculative asset class, with little intention of delivering results.

While decentralised reputation systems have been developed, none are yet as mature as the best existing peer review networks.

2. Governance Complexities

A DAO may sound like a fair and efficient way to govern a research project, but in practice:

• Voter apathy can lead to decisions being made by a small, active minority.
• Token-weighted voting risks plutocracy, where wealthy holders dominate.
• Voters with a shallow understanding of science can exert undue influence.
• Disputes over scientific direction may be harder to resolve without a trusted lead investigator.

Without clear governance models, some DeSci projects could collapse into infighting or paralysis.

3. Regulatory and Legal Uncertainty

Scientific research touches on sensitive areas, such as health, safety, intellectual property, and privacy. DeSci projects that operate “outside the system” may face:

• Restrictions on handling certain kinds of data (e.g., human genomics).
• Difficulty enforcing contracts across jurisdictions.
• Scrutiny from regulators concerned about securities laws if tokens are tradeable.

In the worst case, poorly handled DeSci projects could provoke a backlash that makes governments clamp down on both legitimate and illegitimate initiatives.

4. Sustainability of Funding

Crowdfunding enthusiasm can be fickle. Individual DeSci projects may enjoy an initial surge of attention but then struggle to secure ongoing support.

Token models also risk boom-and-bust cycles: prices soar on hype, collapse when timelines slip, and leave projects under-resourced.

Sustained scientific progress often needs steady, patient funding. That can be a hard fit for speculative markets.

5. Ethical and Privacy Concerns

Open data is a strength, but when research involves sensitive information, such as medical records and personal genomics, “radical transparency” can become a liability.

Blockchain’s immutability means mistakes or data leaks can’t be undone.

There’s also the risk of dual-use research: making dangerous information too accessible.

DeSci in Practice: Encouraging Examples

While it’s still relatively early days for DeSci, a number of initiatives are addressing the above concerns, and indicate what’s possible:

• VitaDAO: funding longevity research through a DAO, with token holders voting on proposals.
• Bio Protocol: providing a new financial layer for DeSci, using IP-NFTs to represent intellectual property rights on-chain.
• Rejuve.AI: creating a decentralised token-based platform where members contribute to longevity research and access the personalised insights arising.
• LabsDAO: advancing a global, decentralised laboratory network where members can run experiments via shared protocols.
• SCINet: developing blockchain-based provenance and credit systems for scientific contributions.

Likely Trajectories

From here, several scenarios are plausible:

1. Parallel Track Growth: DeSci doesn’t replace traditional science, but becomes a thriving adjunct, particularly for niche or early-stage projects that need fast, flexible funding.
2. Integration and Hybrid Models: Established institutions adopt DeSci tools for parts of their workflow: blockchain timestamping for provenance, DAO-like governance for collaborative projects, and decentralised storage for open data.
3. Speculative Bubble and Shakeout: Hype attracts a rush of projects, many of which overpromise and underdeliver, leading to a loss of trust and a contraction – leaving only the most robust initiatives standing.
4. Regulatory Capture: DeSci grows in influence, prompting regulators to impose strict compliance requirements. Some projects adapt and flourish; others retreat to less regulated jurisdictions or fade away.

My bet is a blend of (1) and (2), with a seasoning of (3). The most promising future is not a wholesale replacement of the current scientific establishment, but a richer, more pluralistic landscape where DeSci complements – and challenges – the mainstream.

What Needs to Happen for DeSci to Succeed

To move beyond today’s encouraging experiments to the lasting transformation of the practice of science, DeSci will need to:

• Build credible curation systems: combining decentralised input with rigorous expert review.
• Develop sustainable funding models: blending token incentives, philanthropic support, and institutional partnerships.
• Clarify governance: ensuring DAOs can make decisions efficiently without sliding into plutocracy or chaos.
• Navigate regulation proactively: engaging with policymakers to craft frameworks that enable innovation while protecting the public interest.
• Prioritise ethical safeguards: especially around data privacy and dual-use risks.

If the movement embraces these challenges rather than brushing them aside, I anticipate it will expand into a powerful global force for dramatic scientific progress.

Closing Thoughts

The phrase “decentralised science” can mislead. Science is already decentralised in one sense: there is no single command centre. But in practice, key chokepoints exist: in funding, publishing, data access, and institutional prestige. DeSci, at its best, seeks to bypass those chokepoints without abandoning rigour, safety, and coordination.

The road ahead may not be smooth. In science, as in politics, decentralisation is no magic cure. It can empower both brilliance and folly. Yet if DeSci’s proponents can harness the former while containing the latter, the movement could help accelerate the journey toward a scientific ecosystem that is faster, fairer, and more open.

Count me in!

Links to explore further

For a different way of thinking about the problems with science as it is currently practised, listen to this recent London Futurists Podcast episode, featuring Jonah Messinger of the Breakthrough Institute: Intellectual dark matter? A reputation trap? The case of cold fusion.

This page gives examples of longevity projects already being funded by VitaDAO.

This page showcases an AI agent providing state-of-the-art decentralised science advice on longevity.