Researchers turning to “crowdfunding" to pay for their work

I am all for this happening. Yes, there is the risk that the best marketers will get their research funded, regardless of whether their research is worthy, the PI has a chance in hell of succeeding (part of peer-review is to assess whether they can do what they say they want to do based on their previous experience and skills) or going to actually benefit the public. But this is the way science used to be done, and I think scientists have gotten way too complacent avoiding that which they are uncomfortable with - interacting with the public - by having government grants available as their primary funding sources. Not only that, but it's come back to bite us in the butt with a public that is largely ignorant of some of even the most basic tenets of science. We've allowed others (media, special interests, etc) to enunciate our message for us, and it's been done so poorly, sometimes innocently, sometimes maliciously, that it's created a culture in which misinformation about vaccines, evoution, climate science, stem cell therapy, and more, is rampant, and therefore, opposed based on incomplete and wrong data. It's high time we take back the education upon ourselves, and give the people whom it is to benefit a say in what research matters more.

Gifted in Science
Researchers look to the emerging phenomenon of “crowdfunding” to pay for their work
By Kerry Grens | September 1, 2012

“We have all-or-nothing funding,” says Matt Salzberg, the cofounder of Petridish. That means that if a project doesn’t meet its goal within a preset deadline, “nobody’s card gets charged.” An inventor, a moviemaker, or a scientist puts an idea out there, does some social-network marketing, and hopes the project will inspire people to donate.

The idea of crowdfunding scientific research has taken off. In Petridish’s 6-month history, 80 percent of projects have reached their funding goals, says Salzberg.