Crowdfunding Science: A Bold Leap Forward with Experiment
By Franklin Smith
When I first found out about Experiment, I was intrigued by its premise: a platform that democratizes research funding by enabling scientists to pitch their projects directly to the public. It seemed like a bold, almost rebellious, attempt to disrupt the traditional gatekeeping mechanisms of research grants. As someone who has spent years going through the tortuous grant application process, I couldn’t help but wonder—does this platform genuinely live up to its promise, or does it merely offer an illusion of accessibility?
On one hand, the need for innovative, boundary-pushing science has never been greater. On the other, the mechanisms for securing funding often feel antiquated, restrictive, and inaccessible to those without a specific pedigree or institutional backing. That’s where Experiment comes in. This platform aims to make it easier for anyone to get funding for their scientific ideas by allowing the public to help. It's an interesting proposition.
To provide a fair and balanced review, I’ve taken the time to examine Experiment from multiple angles: its usability, impact, limitations, and long-term potential. I’ve also spoken to colleagues who have used the platform, reviewed successful and unsuccessful campaigns, and considered the broader implications for academia and public engagement with science. Here’s what I found.
What Experiment Gets Right
First, let’s acknowledge what’s remarkable about Experiment: it puts research back in front of the people. By allowing scientists to directly engage with the public, the platform achieves something that traditional grant systems often fail to do—make science feel personal and relevant. When you scroll through the projects listed, you’re not just reading about research; you’re meeting the people behind it. You see their faces, read their stories, and understand their motivations. This human connection can be incredibly powerful.
The platform is also refreshingly straightforward in its design. Unlike federal funding applications that demand pages of bureaucratic jargon and months of work, posting a project on Experiment feels intuitive. Researchers write a short summary, upload a video pitch, and set a funding goal. Within hours, their campaign is live. For early-career scientists or those working in niche fields overlooked by major funding bodies, this simplicity can be liberating.
Another strength is the transparency built into the system. Donors know exactly where their money is going, and researchers are accountable for delivering results and updates. This accountability creates an environment of trust, which is essential when asking the public to fund scientific endeavors.
Finally, the platform fosters a sense of community. Researchers often report that engaging with backers—many of whom are not scientists—helps them rethink how they communicate their work. This two-way dialogue between scientists and the public could be one of Experiment’s most underappreciated contributions. It’s not just about funding research; it’s about building bridges between academia and society.
The Limitations and Challenges
One of the most glaring issues with the platform is its reliance on the researcher’s ability to market their work. Let’s face it, not every scientist is a natural storyteller or social media wizard. The platform’s success stories often feature charismatic researchers with compelling narratives and strong networks. But what about the brilliant but introverted scientist who struggles to distill their complex work into a catchy pitch? Or the researcher without a large social circle to tap into for initial funding momentum? These individuals are at an inherent disadvantage.
The platform’s reliance on crowdfunding also raises questions about equity. Projects that align with popular interests—think climate change, space exploration, or medical research—tend to attract more attention and funding. Meanwhile, less “sexy” but equally important fields, such as taxonomy or theoretical mathematics, may struggle to gain traction. This popularity-driven model risks perpetuating biases in research funding, favoring projects that are easy to sell over those that are scientifically valuable.
Another challenge is scalability. While Experiment works well for smaller projects with modest budgets (typically under $10,000), it’s not a viable solution for large-scale research requiring millions of dollars in funding. For early-stage or exploratory work, the platform is fantastic. But for established labs with significant operational costs, it’s little more than a supplementary tool.
Lastly, while the idea of engaging the public is admirable, it does place an additional burden on researchers. Running a successful campaign requires time and energy—creating promotional materials, answering questions from backers, and providing updates. For scientists already stretched thin by teaching, publishing, and administrative duties, this can be a significant drawback.
The Bigger Picture: Implications for Science and Society
Despite its limitations, Experiment represents an important shift in how we think about funding research. It challenges the notion that science must always be mediated by institutions, reminding us that the pursuit of knowledge belongs to everyone. This democratization of science is particularly relevant at a time when public trust in institutions, including academia, is eroding. By inviting the public to invest directly in research, the platform helps rebuild that trust, one project at a time.
It also opens up new possibilities for interdisciplinary work. Because the platform isn’t tied to traditional funding silos, researchers have the freedom to propose unconventional projects that might not fit neatly into the categories favored by grant agencies. This flexibility can lead to innovative, cross-cutting research that pushes the boundaries of what’s possible.
However, for the platform to achieve its full potential, it must address its current shortcomings. Experiment could gain from providing more support for researchers who lack marketing skills—perhaps through workshops, templates, or even partnerships with science communication experts. It could also explore ways to promote underfunded fields, such as featuring a “Project of the Week” from an overlooked discipline or offering matching funds for projects that struggle to get off the ground.
Moreover, while the platform is currently focused on individual donors, there’s potential to expand its reach by partnering with philanthropic organizations, corporate sponsors, or even universities. These partnerships could provide additional funding streams while maintaining the platform’s core mission of public engagement.
A Personal Reflection
What I find most compelling about Experiment is its ability to bring science closer to people’s lives. I’ve spent years writing grant proposals that disappear into the black box of review panels, often with little feedback or connection to the broader public. Experiment.com feels different. It’s not just a funding mechanism; it’s a conversation starter. It forces you to think about your work in terms of stories, values, and impacts—not just hypotheses, methods, and results. That’s a good thing.
But I also worry about the potential for burnout. Crowdfunding is emotionally taxing, and the stakes feel personal in a way they don’t with traditional grants. When your project doesn’t get funded, it’s hard not to take it as a reflection of your worth—not just as a scientist, but as a person. That emotional toll shouldn’t be underestimated.
Well, experiment is not a perfect solution, nor is it meant to replace traditional funding mechanisms. But it is a valuable addition to the research ecosystem, particularly for early-career scientists, exploratory projects, and fields that struggle to secure institutional funding. It challenges us to think differently about how we value and support science, and it opens up new opportunities for public engagement.
If you’re considering using the platform, my advice is this: be prepared to put yourself out there—not just your science, but your story. And remember, success on Experiment isn’t just about meeting a funding goal. It’s about forging connections, sparking curiosity, and reminding people why research matters. Whether or not your project gets fully funded, that’s a contribution worth making.
Comments(24)
Grace A
March 18, 2025 09:03 AM
Oliver Robinson
March 18, 2025 09:02 AM
Zoe Wright
March 18, 2025 09:02 AM
Lucas King
March 18, 2025 09:01 AM
Sofia Rivera
March 18, 2025 09:01 AM
Bernard S
March 18, 2025 09:00 AM
Amelia L
March 18, 2025 09:00 AM
Noah Gonzalez
March 18, 2025 08:59 AM
Mia Clark
March 18, 2025 08:59 AM
Alexander Hughes
March 18, 2025 08:58 AM
Charlotte Turner
March 18, 2025 08:58 AM
Ethan Carter
March 18, 2025 08:57 AM
Ava Nelson
March 18, 2025 08:57 AM
Liam Adams
March 18, 2025 08:56 AM
Liam Adams
March 18, 2025 08:56 AM