How will DeSci redefine the future of scientific innovation and medical research?

Author: Decentralised.Co Source: X, @Decentralisedco Translation: Shan Ouba, Golden Finance

Science has long been the greatest driving force behind human progress. However, the mention of "science" today often attracts skeptical eyes. When headlines declare that "science shows...", people may react more with eye rolls than real interest. This growing disillusionment is not without reason - science has gradually become a marketing term, diluted by corporate interests, and runs counter to its core mission: to promote the advancement of human knowledge and well-being.

Decentralized Science (DeSci) is an emerging paradigm that promises to rebuild scientific research on a more solid foundation. The current focus of the DeSci project is mainly on the pharmaceutical field, a "low-hanging fruit" that can quickly improve humanity's most important resource - our health.

Funding crisis for scientific innovation

The traditional scientific funding system is broken. Academic researchers spend up to 40% of their time writing grant applications, while the funding success rate is less than 20%. As federal funding decreases, the proportion of private funding increases, but these funds are highly concentrated in the hands of large companies.

The pharmaceutical industry has evolved into a high-risk, high-cost field with little opportunity for innovation. Imagine this: For every 10,000 compounds discovered, only 1 makes it to market. The process is brutal. Only 10% of drugs that enter clinical trials are eventually approved by the FDA, a process that can take up to 15 years and cost more than $2.6 billion.

In the 1990s, the concentration of the pharmaceutical industry seemed like a boon—it brought efficiency, a streamlined supply chain, and rapid expansion of drug discovery. But what was once an engine of innovation has morphed into a bottleneck that impedes progress, with a handful of players dominating the market while driving up R&D costs.

The current model looks like this:

1. Biotech startups spend years vying for early discovery grants from the NIH (National Institutes of Health).

2. Then raise a $15 million Series A to advance to preclinical trials.

3. If successful, these companies license the intellectual property (IP) to a big pharma company, which then invests more than $1 billion to move it toward clinical trials and commercialization.

In this model, incentives are distorted. Instead of focusing on breakthrough treatments, Big Pharma has mastered another, more profitable game: patent manipulation.

The game is simple: When a lucrative drug patent is about to expire, the company files for dozens of secondary patents covering minor modifications—new delivery methods, slightly tweaked formulations, or even just new uses for the drug.

For example, AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory drug Humira is one of the world’s best-selling drugs, with revenues of over $20 billion per year. Its original patent expired in 2016, but AbbVie filed over 100 additional patents to block generic competition. This legal maneuvering has delayed affordable alternatives from entering the market, costing patients and healthcare systems billions of dollars in additional costs.

In a recent debate on DeSci (hosted by @tarunchitra and @benjileibo), this stagnation in pharmaceutical innovation came up, leading to a discussion of Eroom’s Law (the inverse of Moore’s Law).

These actions reflect a deeper problem: innovation is hijacked by the profit motive. Pharmaceutical companies invest resources in fine-tuning existing drugs, such as making slight chemical modifications or developing new delivery mechanisms, not because these changes can bring major health benefits, but because they can obtain new patents and extend the profit cycle.

Putting science on a better track

Meanwhile, the global research community, despite its talent and creativity, is excluded from the process. Young researchers are constrained by limited funding, cumbersome bureaucracy, and a “publish or perish” culture that prioritizes headline-grabbing research over meaningful but less eye-catching research. As a result, rare diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and early exploratory research are severely underfunded.

Decentralized Science (DeSci) is essentially a coordination mechanism. It brings together human capital—biologists, chemists, and researchers—around the world, enabling them to conduct integrated research, testing, and iteration without relying on traditional institutions.

Funding methods are also being redefined. Instead of relying on government funding or corporate sponsorship, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and tokenized incentives make access to capital more democratic.

The traditional pharmaceutical supply chain is a rigid and siloed process dominated by a few key players. It typically follows a linear path: 1. Centralized data generation 2. Discovery in isolated labs 3. High-cost clinical trials 4. Exclusive manufacturing 5. Restricted distribution Each step is optimized for profitability rather than accessibility or collaboration. DeSci, by contrast, introduces an open and collaborative chain that redefines each stage. It democratizes participation and accelerates innovation.

Through these changes, DeSci brings science closer to its essential goal: serving the welfare of mankind rather than the interests of a few. Here is a comparison between the two:

1. Data and Infrastructure

Traditional Model: Data is proprietary, fragmented, and often difficult to access. Research institutions and pharmaceutical companies monopolize data as capital for competitive advantage.

DeSci Model: The platform aggregates and democratizes access to scientific data, creating a foundation for transparent collaboration.

Case: @yesnoerror uses AI to review mathematical errors in published papers, thereby improving the reproducibility and credibility of research.

2. Discovery and Research

Traditional Model: The discovery process takes place in closed academic or corporate labs, restricted by funding priorities and intellectual property issues.

DeSci Model: Directly funding early-stage research through decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) enables scientists to freely explore breakthrough ideas without being constrained by institutional red tape.

Examples:

• @vita_dao has raised millions of dollars to fund longevity research, supporting projects such as cellular aging and drug discovery that may be difficult to fund under traditional models.

• @HairDAO_ is a collective of researchers and patients documenting treatment experiences with different compounds to address hair loss.

3. Marketplace

Traditional Model: Controlled by intermediaries. Researchers rely on traditional publishers, conferences, and networks to share research and access resources.

DeSci Model: Decentralized marketplaces connect researchers with funders and tools around the world.

Examples:

• @bioprotocol provides a platform where researchers can create BioDAOs - autonomous organizations focused on researching new compounds. These organizations continuously fund the production of biotech assets and provide a liquid market for tokenized intellectual property. In the DeSci world, BioDAOs can be seen as similar to Virtuals in the AI ​​field.

• @Big_Pharmai is an investment institution in DeSci that invests in tokens in the field of decentralized science. It now manages more than $1 million in assets and plans to launch its own Bio Agent framework.

4. Experimentation and Validation

Traditional model: Preclinical and clinical trials are costly and are usually limited to large pharmaceutical companies. Transparency is low and failure data is often hidden.

DeSci Model: The platform decentralizes the experimental process and supports global participation and funding through tokens.

Examples:

• @pumpdotscience uses a bonding curve to crowdfund longevity experiments, advancing compounds from worms to flies to rats to commercialization.

• On the Pump.science platform, medical researchers can submit drug research proposals, test these drugs in worms, and transmit experimental results to the platform front end in real time. Users can speculate on tokens associated with these drugs, such as Rif (rifampicin) and URO (urolithin A). If these compounds are found to extend lifespan, they will be advanced to commercialization and token holders will share in the profits.

5. Intellectual Property and Profitability

Traditional Model: Intellectual property is locked in patent monopolies, hindering innovation and leading to high drug prices. Patenting new compounds is costly, complex and cumbersome.

DeSci Model: Tokenizing intellectual property through protocols enables researchers to transparently share and monetize their discoveries.

Use Cases:

• @Molecule_Dao’s IP framework allows researchers to split IP into NFTs and tokens, aligning incentives between scientists and funders.

Currently, there are still few pilot projects based on this model, and there are limited cases of researchers tokenizing IP. When IP is commercialized, it is still difficult to predict how profits will flow back to holders. To ensure that IP is fully protected, researchers may still need to register with traditional government agencies.

Accountability Challenges

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have difficulty coordinating complex tasks and maintaining accountability—few DAOs have demonstrated the ability to successfully manage long-term projects. The challenges faced by DeSci (decentralized science) are even greater: it requires researchers to coordinate on complex problems, complete research tasks on time, while maintaining scientific rigor, and without the oversight of traditional institutions.

Despite its many flaws, the traditional scientific system has built-in mechanisms for peer review and quality control. DeSci must either adapt to these systems or develop entirely new accountability frameworks. This challenge is particularly acute in medical research, where the stakes are so high. A failed NFT project might only result in monetary loss, but a poorly executed medical trial could put lives at risk.

Critics argue that DeSci is just a hype play—a game of trading. There’s some truth to this view. Historically, new technologies have struggled for a while before a breakthrough success captures the public’s imagination. Just as AI agents have gained mainstream attention through examples like @aixbt_agent, DeSci may need a defining moment to change people’s perceptions.

DeSci’s Vision for the Future

DeSci’s future may not play out exactly as its backers envision. Perhaps it’s not about replacing traditional institutions entirely, but about building parallel systems that drive innovation through competition. Or perhaps DeSci’s true value lies in finding niches where traditional models fail, like rare disease research.

Imagine a world where geniuses work to solve humanity’s greatest medical challenges, unconstrained by borders or budgets. A world where breakthroughs from a Chinese lab can be instantly validated in Singapore and rapidly scaled up in São Paulo.

Pioneers are moving toward this future, one experiment at a time. Take @bryan_johnson, an independent biohacker who experiments with unapproved drugs and unconventional therapies. Although his approach may make traditionalists uncomfortable, he embodies the core of DeSci's ethos: breaking the traditional barrier, experimentation over control.