Crowdfunding science: Many a mickle makes a muckle

Necessity, so the proverb has it, is the mother of invention. And science is nothing if not inventive. So, as conventional sources of money get harder to tap (the success rate enjoyed by those applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health, America’s biggest science-funding agency, has fallen from 30% in 2003 to 18% in 2011), some of science’s more creative minds are turning elsewhere.

Philanthropic sponsorship of science, particularly in the form of expensive pieces of kit such as large telescopes, or sponsorship for expeditions to far-off places, has been around for centuries. But the internet now permits what might be thought of as microphilanthropy. Through a technique called crowdfunding, in which members of the public donate small sums to projects they like the look of (sometimes in the knowledge that the donation will be taken up only if sufficient other pledges are made to surpass a stated target), the possibility of scientific philanthropy has been extended to those of more slender means.

On October 4th, for example, Ethan Perlstein, a pharmacologist at Princeton University, launched a bid on a site called RocketHub to collect $25,000 to study the effect of drugs such as methamphetamine on the brain. He has until November 18th to raise the money.

Kristina Killgrove, an anthropologist at the University of West Florida, has already raised over $12,000 on RocketHub to examine the DNA of Roman skeletons. And on another crowdfunding site, Petridish, the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) offered to name any new species of ant discovered during a conservation project in Madagascar after those who donate more than $5,000 to the enterprise.

Although the crowdfunding of science is not raising the sorts of sums sometimes attracted by those with ideas for things like video games, it has already spawned a couple of specialised platforms of its own. Petridish is one. Another is called Microryza. And academic institutions are starting to follow the lead taken by the CAS. The University of California, San Francisco, has made a deal with a site called Indiegogo that will allow the university’s charitable status to make money donated via Indiegogo tax deductible. It will launch the first such project later this month.

Donors can expect no revenue if a crowdfunded science project is successful, of course. But they can expect to be kept up to date with progress. Dr Perlstein has promised to upload all data from his experiments onto a website, for his sponsors to look at. And even those who are not immortalised in the myrmicine literature, as the CAS proposed, may still get a warm glow from the feeling that they are making a contribution to the advancement of knowledge in a way which was previously open only to philanthropists with rather fatter wallets.

First published in The Economist. Also available in audio here.

Image credit: VentureBeat

Geek philanthropy

An innovative charity rallies geeks for a good cause

Businesses avidly mine data to improve their efficiency. Non-profit groups have plenty of information, too. But they can rarely afford to hire number-crunchers. Now a bunch of philanthropic geeks at DataKind, a New York-based charity, are helping other do-gooders work more productively and quantify their achievements for donors, who like to see that their money is well spent.

A typical DataKind two-day “hackathon” last month in London attracted 50 people who worked in three teams. One pored over the records of Place2Be, which offers counselling to troubled schoolchildren. Crunching the data showed that boys tend to respond better than girls, though girls who lived with only their fathers showed the biggest improvements of all. The charity did not know that.

The expertise is far beyond what is available to a typical charity. The small-talk among the volunteers was of dizzyingly complex statistical and artificial-intelligence techniques. Volunteers included an analyst at Teradata, a data-analytics firm. Around 20 employees attended from Aimia, a firm that mines data from consumer-loyalty programs.

In a previous hackathon in San Francisco, DataKind volunteers analysed the data from Mobilising Health, a non-profit group that connects rural patients in India with doctors in cities that are usually many hours away. Volunteers record symptoms and relay them by cellphones. The doctors then may prescribe drugs or recommend a hospital visit. The charity wanted to use the many months’ worth of accumulated text messages to evaluate the medics’ performance. Thanks to DataKind the charity was able to rejig the system to take more account of urgency and to direct requests to the most responsive doctors.

Thomas Levine, a data scientist at ScraperWiki, a provider of data-processing services, says he has attended DataKind events out of altruism but also for education. Would anyone care to measure that benefit?

First published in The Economist. Article written with Kenn Cukier. Also available in audio here.

Image from here.

The magical role of the doormen

Half of all pharmaceuticals work because of a family of proteins that sit on the boundary of cells in the human body. This year’s Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka for their work on a family proteins called G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Nearly every function of the human body from smell and sight to heart rate modification is dependent on GPCRs. Dr Lefkowitz and Dr Kobilka have helped us understand their chemical structure and mode of action to help create better means of manipulating them to our advantage.

Embedded in the fatty membranes of cells, GPCRs act as doormen to a mansion. They detect chemical signals that reach the cell and convey messages through creation of G proteins inside the cell. These G proteins that take on the role of maid servants then act on the message by activating the necessary response.

But this was not known until the 1960s. All that was known then was that hormones communicated with cells in someway but no one knew how. Dr Lefkowitz started probing these hormones by attaching radioactive isotope Iodine on to them. This revealed that the cell membrane had special proteins that acted as telegraph operators relaying information from one side to the other. He was able to identify one class of these proteins called beta-2 adrenergic receptors. These are interesting because they are now implicated in responding to the neurotransmitter adrenaline known to control the fight-or-flight response.

In 1984 when Dr Kobilka arrived in Dr Lefkowitz’s lab, the lab was working on duplicating the gene sequence that made beta-2 adernergic receptors. If they could, then it would enable them to know more about the role of these proteins and how they work. When they eventually managed to do it, after a lot of failed attempts, they realised that this protein was very similar to rhodopsin, a protein that sits in the retina and is responsible our perception of light. Rhodopsin was known to activate G-proteins in the cell and that is it was thought that these could be a class of proteins, now known as GPCRs.

We now know that human body has about 800 GPCRs splayed across different cells performing some of the most critical functions. About half of these are predicted to be pharmaceutically useful, but less than 10% of that have drugs targeting them today. A major hurdle in creating pharmaceuticals for them is because little is known about the chemical structure of these proteins.

A way to shine light on the chemical nature of proteins is by using X-ray crystallography. To do that though, a protein first needs to be crystallised (lots of molecules arranged in a regular fashion in a tiny space). Proteins, in general, and GPCRs, particularly, are notoriously difficult at doing that. Of the 63 million proteins registered in the database of the Chemical Abstracts Service, only 600 have comprehensive structural data available for them. But in 2007 after decades of work Dr Kobilka managed to tame the beta-2 adrenergic receptors and published its structure in Nature.

The pharmaceutical industry has only started scratching the surface when it comes to designing drugs that affect GPCRs. And that has been the result of many decades of efforts by structural biologists and medicinal chemists in academia and industry. The work of Dr Lefkowitz and Dr Kobilka has opened the possibility of better understanding what one scientist calls cell biology—an alien world that has the most profound impact on humanity.

Main references:
  1. Rasmussen et al, Nature, 2007
  2. Buchen, Nature, 2011
  3. Sansom, Chemistry World, 2010
Image from here.