Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Open Discussion: What do scientists really want?
Recorded: Jan. 15, 2025 Duration: 1:25:01Space Recording
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Jim, Jim, hello everyone.
Jim, welcome. awesome super excited to dive into this episode of the dsci mic uh it's erin mcginnis behind the
account and this week we are partnering with orisci to dive into a discussion on what do scientists really want, which really should be kind of the
cornerstone discussion as we're thinking about or talking about DSci, what the future of science,
decentralized science, or tech-enabled science might be able to look like. So if you have a scientific background or are working in the space,
which looking through the audience right now, many of you are, and have some thoughts on this
question, definitely keep those top of mind, drop them down below. And this week will be a bit of an
open discussion on that.
So get ready to come up on stage and share some of those thoughts as well.
Francesca, I believe you're behind the Orsi account this week.
Welcome.
Thank you so much. Yes, here I'm Francesca and I am definitely a DSI Maximist and longevity advocate, currently
working with the RSI team as well as the Avinasi team.
And this topic came about because we were reviewing a manifesto that we share with some
of you and is the PSI ACC manifesto for collaboration.
And we were discussing, you know, what container can we create
that has been created already?
That is a necessity
for to enhance collaboration and
and and support scientists, researchers, students in achieving their goals.
And we were having a debate on what is needed and how this container should be shaped
in order to support scientists. But then we were like, OK, well, maybe instead of assuming
what we already know, of course, funding and educational opportunities
and so on and so on.
But really, we wanted to kind of get some quotes
and get some insights directly from researchers and
scientists and have that discussion specifically to understand a little bit better if we are on
the right path or if there are maybe some details, insights that we have overlooked. And so that's kind of like where we would like to bring this conversation towards
is how do we create or support the initiatives
that are already there
for scientists to become more and more involved
into this side and support them in the process.
Amazing, love that.
I'll share maybe the manifesto as well with the Science ACC below maybe the chat of this space
so everyone can look at it.
everyone can look at it.
And we also brought Rodrigo and Erika from the RSI team.
And we'd love to bring them up to the space as well to have maybe their perspective.
And then we can kickstart a conversation with anyone interested in the group.
That would be awesome.
Awesome.
I've just invited them up to the stage if they're able to join.
Rodrigo, welcome.
A pleasure to be here.
Happy New Year.
I usually don't talk too much on Spaces, but this is a really good topic that I
would love to talk about. And also, I don't know how we can proceed our presentations or
how can we build this conversation? Yeah. I mean, I think just really keeping the underlying question of what do scientists really want, keep coming back to that throughout the conversation, I think it might be able to take us to some really interesting places, especially because I know there are a variety of different scientists or people with different scientific backgrounds or experiences listening in right now.
So I guess the first question to you might be based on your experience in science,
maybe from a more like marine biology type of perspective,
or any other experiences and spaces you might be in, are there any really kind of prominent
needs or desires that you've seen from the scientific community or things that you might
personally be wanting as a scientist?
Hey, yeah, in terms of what a scientist want, it usually depends, I believe, of the
context, you know, because many, at least many Latin American countries, I'm based in
Mexico, really, really want more presence and inclusion, sorry. But usually scientists have distinct desires regarding
science and open science itself, which include accessibility to research, for example,
ethical sharing of knowledge, enhanced collaboration, and infrastructure. And we must remember that this, I really want to define this as the second iteration
of the open science movement, because it's built in open science, and open science is
part of the UN, you know, narrative of what we need in science, you know, as the whole
framework by huge entities, you know.
And this is, we need to see science as a, how can humanity could essentially acquire knowledge,
and this knowledge needs to have a hierarchy in terms of how can we do this knowledge and how can we spread this knowledge.
Usually, science or researchers want to, it depends on various contexts, but in terms of
increased accessibility, we have seen that the open access movement has many many issues right now you know about
with certain capitalism components that are quite inherently in certain systems and science is a
business and we need to change a little bit that framework or at least play a little of evolution and game theory
in how can we build those systems?
And I believe that this could eventually mitigate many issues regarding that.
For example, the other aspect is regarding open data.
You know, in terms of decentralized repositories we have seen right now with AI,
that it could be possible in many ways.
Many blockchains are trying to achieve that in the long term.
But we need to figure out how could we scale those kind of things.
You know, there are many projects in the space right now that have been doing a lot of awesome things regarding nodes and how can we
decentralize the storage. But other aspect is ethical responsibility in terms of transparency,
in terms of quality over outcomes, you know, this kind of situation about the publish and perish.
Scientists really or researchers really want to have, you know,
a huge impact in their research lines. Many of researchers usually want that.
And how can we create an equilibria? Okay, they don't want to invest too much time in writing
for grants, for example. Usually, many of them
use their undergraduates or scholars to do that. And, you know, to, because right now, at least
many researchers do many things, you know, in their own labs. And I have seen that,
and it's quite insane to see it, because they're quite getting crazy, you know, in the whole process.
You need to be quite aware that, yeah, there are many components that are essential in the research formation.
But other situation is collaboration and community engagement.
Usually all the products that do the researchers is for a product. It could be a thesis, it could be a technical report, it could be an article. And usually that knowledge stays there.
to create new ways to divulgate or diffuse that knowledge to be practical, you know, to citizens.
And that's an aspect that I believe that this side could mitigate, you know, in terms of how can we share things that we know
and how can we apply it to thrive as a society, you know, in terms of humanities and social sciences, for example, and in terms of the biological impacts that we have,
the Anthropocene impacts, the human impacts that we have been facing around the world
with all those phenomenons regarding climate change.
Everything is connected in this life, and I science that researchers and science itself and technology
could mitigate all those all those risks that probably by the end of this century
the humanity will face um but another aspect that i guess said before is collaboration and community
the public involvement i actually say a little bit about that. Supportive infrastructure. I believe that we as builders of the second iteration of open science movement,
we have a lot of things to share in terms of,
okay, we need to create inclusive meritocratic or systems on chain
that eventually could mitigate
many issues regarding how can we proceed
to build the next wave.
So I don't know, I have been talking too much,
but yeah, I want to see your perspectives.
What are the aspects that you need or how can
citizen school get involved in the process of design? I believe that that will be a really good
highlight because many researchers, yeah, they're eager to explore new innovation perspectives,
but they do not have time. And you need to onboard them properly, for example, doing workshops, doing some activations with them,
you know, exercises of definitions.
If you want, you could have access or acquire like a professor regarding blockchain, you know, apply blockchain.
acquire like a professor regarding blockchain, you know, apply blockchain.
It's really interesting because we have seen since three years ago, we have seen many,
many, many publishing papers regarding this side.
And for example, a month ago, I think there was a how can i put it there was a paper releasing in nature
i believe of research hub and you say okay it's an article it's like a divulgation article
but uh but many people are really more get involved in you know the researchers are getting involved and
more in the in the in the system of these you know uh i don't know if they're doing a purpose
but basically it's the it's the thing that we need you know the preview process is a situation
actually for example one of the co-founders of our initiative in Mastery, though, just applied to be
the editorial boarding member of
the DSAI journal. It's quite cool, you know,
to see people that have the ROGs in the game, that have
careers of 30, 40 years.
They're trying to experiment to use new platforms,
you know, because they know the situation, but they are quite stuck in the system.
You know, they have that framework of science and how can they build the product?
the product.
Lots of insights there, Rodrigo.
Thank you so much.
I just wanted to highlight, because I made a list,
and I wanted to highlight that you mentioned inclusivity and access,
and equal access to opportunities,
as well as make knowledge
practical for citizen scientists this is something that we can do through this
I and decide being a revolution of point open science and also you mentioned how
do we come together and create activations that support this process?
I think that's an interesting part of what kind of activations in collaboration
should we initiate to continue on this journey of inclusivity, access,
and packaging knowledge in a practical way so that everyone can become
part of it. Definitely. I think also another important point you brought up, Rodrigo, was
around like a common definition of what DSI is and just kind of laying out there that you see DSI
as the second kind of wave of the open science movement. I think
there are a lot of folks within the DSI ecosystem that definitely agree with that. And I know I've
always kind of seen it as, okay, now we have some of the different tools or mechanisms to be able to
actualize some of the different visions that the original kind of way of building out the open
science movement might have set, but maybe just from a societal perspective, we weren't quite
there, or from a technological or technological adoption perspective. In the meantime, we have
Desai Asia, which has come up on stage. Anyone else listening down below, today's whole space
on the Desai mic is focused on what do scientists really want and making sure that this is
continuing to be a core part of the conversation as we keep building out and doing awesome things
in Desai. So Desai Asia, go for it. We'd love to hear your thoughts. Yeah, welcome. Thank you.
for it. We'd love to hear your thoughts. Yeah, welcome. Thank you. Yeah, hello, hello everyone.
My name is Archie Fievel, which is Design Asia. We hope that we foster and support the design
development in Asia. So according to the topic, what do scientists really want? And I would like to pronounce the decentralized.
So giving an example, which is different from scientists,
which is the newspaper or media talking about daily news.
In the past tense that we all rely on the television
without a mobile or without any platform or social media.
We all believe there is only one truth which is presented by the television or the centralized
media, government media or the television doing their announcement and sharing the
daily news in the radio or the television.
So there is a centralized one.
So after years and we got mobiles
and everyone had the camera
and they are able to live stream any daily live news
or every real fact, which is without any censorship.
So everyone has their say, have their truth,
their truth, what they believe.
And right now, everyone which is with the revolution about the daily news,
because we don't only rely on the centralized media,
which is from the government the government only we believe
all the different kinds of things and more than that we we even developed a community verified
function such as uh right now we all saw that there is a ramification about the facts,
which is under the Twitter posts.
So sometimes we will see that the picture is made by AI,
which is proposed by someone else under the post.
So I would say decentralized would be the one of key point
because right now we all believe that the knowledge
development or the research developed
or the new technology from the centralized big organization.
So decentralized science which is given to the powers back to the community.
So they are not restricted by the fund which is allocated by the government, by the big farmer, or even
by the greater grant.
We can saw different kinds of support from the community every day.
Everyone can join into the project they're interested in.
Everyone can verify the scientific data or the event,
or the research, or the development by themselves
and put it publicly.
So this is the one point I would like to focus on,
which is decentralized can, which is the scientists really
which is the scientists really want. Thanks.
want.
Thanks.
Well, I really love that perspective because I was born in Italy and actually we had a similar kind of idea growing up,
is that what was aired by the TV was pretty much set in stone.
And of course, it took some time,
and decentralization definitely helped with understanding
that there are alternatives, right?
But a lot of people utilize still these mainstream media
to get their news, and it's you know they failed to to really tell
the whole picture so what are uh awesome um point that you're making thank you meanwhile i also
shared some like um points um that i um under the space um and we'll also add the dsi acc document
for everyone to look at and feel free to comment,
share, or reach out to us for any sort of a collaboration.
And by the way, just wanted to say hello, CryptoShimp.
If you want to join the conversation, we'd love to hear from you because I know you might
have some insights.
Amazing. A couple more people have joined up on stage. Dithae Asia, did you have a follow-up thought?
Yes, just some more feedbacks that I agree with you. In Asians, the newspaper and the news controls which is very international famous not
even in one country but you will you've given a lot of example in Asian past
that about the news delivery and the message transparency there are a lot of There are lots of cities over there.
Definitely.
That comment made me think of something you were touching on earlier, Rodrigo, just around like Mexican scientists wanting more inclusion within the scientific space.
Would love for you to elaborate on that point.
And then I know we have a couple other speakers that have joined up on stage, but I think that is a really important part of like the global scientific D-side conversation.
Yeah, I agree.
Not only Mexicans, for example, but at least Latin American countries and low-income countries, you know, those countries that are usually these days people call Global South. the situation that we suffer a lot is that you need to migrate your whole, your own country,
you know, to, to have better education, you know, and to be part of the system itself of, of, of
sciences, you know, or, or the big, the big labs, you know, in your, in your guild of expertise.
I believe that this side could mitigate that,
because we eventually, in the future,
we need to build certain facilities
or certain independent research labs
in many parts of the world
to boost the open science movement
and to enhance more collaboration
between barriers, you know,
between countries. And it's good to see, for example, that many researchers are quite,
you know, aware and are quite eager to learn a little bit more, but many of them are quite
restricted for policies, you know,
or for certain contracts that they have in their research labs or stations or even in universities,
you know, they're quite conservative in various ways. And I believe that many people that are quite involved in this,
I know this.
And yeah, they will tell you, yes,
we're eager to experiment and this and that,
but okay, are you a legal entity?
How can you monetize this?
How work the IP, for example?
Moeco has been done also work building like a new IP infrastructure for that and to fund projects properly.
But they're quite aware.
For example, I really would love to see that you to see a comment that I just shared that was on that article released by Research Hub.
You know, it was made for a researcher that find a little bit of Research Hub
quite interesting, you know, in the process of peer reviewing.
But it said, for example, I don't know if I could share it on the space,
but this legend, this guy is from the liverpool uk and say okay usually the space of blockchain
applied blockchain in science usually is quite difficult for many researchers because you know
it's quite exploited by bad players you know it's like a game and you have good players bad players, you know? It's like a game and you have good players, bad players, and usually
are quite aware of those. And academics are really conservative group of people. We need to focus at
least, I guess, in the new wave of researchers, you know, in the young researchers. That's why
many of us are here because many of us usually do not have like 40 years. Usually design is for
young-minded individuals that are quite eager to not disrupt only the system. I believe that we
could build mixed systems, hybrid systems in terms of how can we proceed to innovate and build science and potentially technology. But I believe that we need to be flexible
and we need to learn what are the necessities of researchers
because researchers do not want to invest a lot of time
in exploring a new tool that could incentivize or could mitigate many problems that they have in their work.
They only want a really good incentive to proceed to, okay, to scale in their work and to fund the
things that they need in terms of the research land that I already have.
Because it's really bad to see that many labs usually start a project, for example,
for an undergraduate or for a master's or for a PhD student. And usually, if you don't have funds to achieve that project,
eventually that project will disappear, you know, in that framework of four years, for example.
So I believe that that is a huge part.
Okay, decide and could mitigate that, you know,
supporting every step of the whole scientific process to another level.
So I want to discuss a little bit with you about that,
because right now with ai agents we
have seen that it could be possible you know and tokenizing 13 assets or certain experiments it
could be possible to achieve that in the long run you know definitely but we need to have we need to
have a really good consensus that probably in the future could be a 380, you know, like a bioregional, you know, policy,
for example, decentralized policy. I think that it will be quite interesting to see that
in a few years. For sure. Vitamin C, I know you raised your hand at one point during it,
so would love to hear your thoughts, either
kind of building off of what Rodrigo was saying, or if it made you think of any other connected
points.
Hi, everyone.
Thanks for putting me up to speak.
So just wanted to jump on one of the things that Rodrigo said near the end there, which
is about disrupting the space
and kind of the young researchers,
the new wave of researchers versus kind of
the established researchers.
So, and this is based mostly kind of on our experience
currently, of course, but potentially there's a very big
chance to have an even bigger disruption
if it's almost as a kind of like Rodrigo mentioned, a connection between the new wave and the established players.
Just as an example, so we've been recently in communication with a big established institution
in the US, and they are facing a very big issue with some studies that they want to
fund in pharmaceuticals, but that
no pharmaceutical entity is going to fund because there's no monetary value.
There's clear public health value in it, but there's no monetary value in it.
Of course, it's related to vitamin C since we've been in contact with them.
But the reason we got in touch with them and they responded was because they realized this kind of design movement could be the way that they can actually fund a novel research that they are struggling to get funding for that has clear public benefits.
bringing in, we see bringing in these big institutions and showing to the scientific
community at large that this space can be disrupted very effectively to achieve those
goals that Rodrigo mentioned and kind of whether it's undergrad and you're trying to develop
something new or it's, you know, institutions that are, or participants within institutions
that are trying to get something unique off the ground and showing them that there is
a unique kind of crowdsourced community way in order to achieve those goals.
And understandably that, you know, pharmaceutical research especially usually is extremely expensive.
But if it's focused on compounds that are potentially, you know, more available and
cost less to develop and less to kind of show the public benefit of, then that
could be a great kind of way to disrupt the space and bring in these institutions, bring in a lot
of the potential skeptics of DSI to jump on board and develop this space faster.
Definitely. To clarify, when you're saying these big institutions, are they like
universities? Are they in the biotech or pharma space? Are they manufacturers or yeah?
Yes. University and special disease research institutes.
Institutes. Cool, amazing. Yeah, I think the interests of a lot of universities or researchers
at different institutes or university academic type settings often are kind of forced down a
certain path based on where they're able to get funding. And that really ties into some of the bigger conversations or things we're starting
to see in Deci of just other funding pathways or incentive mechanisms to allow for some more of
that exploration. And I think there's a lot left to still be discovered on how might we as a society or as kind of specialized groups of maybe smaller groups of people focused in one specific area able to pursue things that don't have these giant potential like price tags or financial returns tied to it, but have major upside in other types of ways?
or upside in other types of ways.
And often, I think that ties into why a lot of people
might have become scientists in the beginning
and what they were really interested in,
but then just getting kind of sucked into the system that is.
I see a couple other hands raised.
Disa Asia, I saw yours first.
And then Ed would love to bounce down to you.
EDUARDO BAKERA down to you. Right, thank you.
Just echoes that agree with that fundraising
or the restriction of the fund application,
which is a very important thing.
But for Design Asia and collaborate
with different kinds of Asian PACT community.
We hold a prototype grant for the Asian design research and application recently.
So we hope that the amount is small, it's just around 11K something.
But we hope that this is the first step that we make it a small scale and really hope to kick off this initiative in Asia Packs so that scientists or the community will have another way to look for the funding or the grant to support what they really want to do.
But last but not least is I would like to point out that the traditional They build a society and they keep our life
and develop different kinds of drug over there.
So in some situation or some kind of that,
they are quite slow,
but they really did something which is positive.
So at the same time, I'm not saying
we should replace the traditional way.
But on the other hand, decentralized science
would play another world to supplement
or serve different kinds of innovative purpose,
which is the traditional way can make it.
So thanks, Alfa.
I think that's such a good point
that like D-Sci can be filling in some of these different gaps and that doesn't mean other things aren't working like the pharmaceutical industry has obviously figured out a lot of things within that space.
been able to create some life-saving applications and different drugs and things like that.
So there's lots of good benefits to it. I often think about it in the way of like, there's
reasons why you might want to go to like a surgical center, but a surgical center isn't
going to help you with some other kind of chronic or preventative type of medicine in that type of way. And I see DSI kind
of filling in some of these other gaps that haven't been addressed within that broader scientific
ecosystem. Ed, I would love to hear from you if you're able to chime in. Yeah, thanks for having
me up. Yeah, I like the fact that DeSci, other than just being decentralized,
we can build networks and we can collaborate
because so much of science has become so competitive.
And instead of just friendly competition with collaboration,
we're in such silos.
And like vitamin C down there, us in regenerative agriculture
are looking at the metabolomics and we're realizing that
because of the nutrient variation by how we've started to grow food,
we have oranges with no vitamin C in them.
And so the public, you know, in the old traditional
sense, you know, it's winter, it's cold, I need more vitamin C, so I'm going to eat some food
that's supposed to have vitamin C in it. And yet we find it doesn't have vitamin C in it,
or has such small amounts and the variation is incredible to when it's really grown properly
with the right soil biome and the right nutrients that it can really have a lot of vitamin C in it.
So, and if we work across science to solve some of these problems and I think getting it to the
public. So scientists become human again. They're people that have passions and are trying
to do things and they want to communicate with the public. They need to communicate with
other practitioners or other clinics, you know, working, connecting with doctors,
connecting with patients to really understand what people need for science and working together to build collaborations and we probably need to
build some technology other than just social media because social media is a great way to
to find people you know but then when you when we leave these spaces how do we really take that and put it together in a network and into projects and have a platform to do that.
Other than something like Discord that I haven't really seen work effectively yet.
Because then we can also be effective in science.
We can be efficient.
There's so many times you hear of other people doing something and then you realize somebody else is doing the exact same thing and somebody else is doing the exact same thing and they're not connected.
And that's just, you know, then it makes sense. But it doesn't make sense for the human part of it, that we're people that want to work together and can share ideas and can advance science so much more quickly. And, and we can take the stress off of some of the things that aren't going to make a lot of money, but are good for people, are good for the planet.
If we work together on those things, it might be a little easier to accomplish those things.
And if we speak to the public and we speak to practitioners, then they really get that we're trying to do something good. We're not just an institution. We're not just Pfizer.
We're not just, you know, a major Harvard or something like that.
That scientists are people and they all have individual talents.
And, you know, we need to get the public trust and interest and understand that scientists are people again.
They're not just somebody in a lab coat that
you see a name on a paper. And of course, people don't see those papers anymore.
When I talk about our scientists in agriculture doing talks on YouTube, we get, you know,
well, that's senseless. You know, where's the peer-to-peer review? Only these scientific papers matter. No, what really matters is explaining to people what we're doing in a real sense, in a real talk by a real human. And so I'll land it there.
I want to quickly add on what Ed just mentioned, because I also have experienced and seen a lot of that narrative, right?
One of the important aspects, I think, of decentralization and Web3, at least at the beginning, at the ethos of it, was to create an alternative system and don't do business as usual and this is
an important aspect a lot of times we see people that are extremely excited to enter the space and
they bring that same kind of not bad like you know cut cutthroat type of startup vision to just have a little bit of a predatory way of entering the
space or leveraging information and people, right? And so this is important to highlight,
especially to keep us in check as a community, because I think
it's different than building a community to sell something to people and building a community
where we collaborate and have common vision and working together. So if we are all agreeing that
we're building a community, then we have to watch out for these kind of behaviors and make sure that we don't stay silent and we make sure that we keep us in check on making sure exactly that we keep this, we move from that same, from that, you know, capitalistic,
capitalistic, predatory way of utilizing resources,
of dealing and collaborating with each other in that way,
but bringing more conscious capitalism.
And this is what I would like to also focus on
and an important point to keep in focus
when we collaborate with one another with these initiatives.
Thank you, Ed.
Yeah, I think that's a really interesting point just about like the cultural norms of
maybe some of the traditional more competitive academic scientific sectors versus in DSI with more of this collaborative network
knowledge sharing type of approach and just balancing the fact that, okay, people are coming
from this other type of system with different rules governing how people operate within it to
be able to survive or succeed. And then that transition into this new
space and making sure they're the right, both like personality type of bridges into this, as well as
other onboarding type of mechanisms, which has always been such a big convo in the broader
Web3 ecosystem of just how do you onboard people into this kind of new way of operating or new technologies people are interacting with. for maybe other people who have a more business type of background coming into spaces that might
have more of a public goods or impact type of focus. I think all those onboarding mechanisms
are needed. One question I had for you, Ed, as you were talking about the vitamin C example
and oranges, is there an easy at-home test people could be doing where they just might like
cut off a piece of their orange, drop it in something, and it could measure those vitamin
C levels? Like, are there any different things like that, either Ed, that you might know or
anyone else listening in? Because I've been thinking for a while that that would be a really interesting kind of like
citizen science type of project that DSI might be able to enable. There was a convo in the
Microbiome DAO chat going on recently just about probiotics and how a lot of different probiotics might not actually have any probiotics in them and just kind of
evaluating supplements or food supplies kind of across the board. So yeah, Ed was curious if
there's anything that you might know of to be able to measure like, hey, is the food we're actually
eating? Is it actually nutritious?
Or any other thoughts you might have on this? Yes, that's actually a tool that's
been created. It's being perfected now. First thing we had to do because we kept in the regenerative
ag movement, we kept asking academia and institutions like, is there much of a variation in nutrient density in our food?
And they used to always tell us, no, it's really tiny.
There's really not that much difference.
So we had to do their research.
And first we had to, you know, come up with the term nutrient density because that's actually a recent term.
come up with the term nutrient density because that's actually a recent term
dan kitteridge and the bionutrient food association really started to focus on about 10 years ago
and so then we had to do the research so in other words found a researcher because of technology
now we can measure like a couple thousand metabolites in food to first we had to
understand what is the variation so let's use an example of carrots you know like
collected about I think there was close to 400 different carrots and some of
them came from supermarkets some came from gardens come some came from
farmers markets some were considered organic, some were considered just traditional, conventional.
Then we had to understand what, you know, and test those to see what their variation was.
Then it's like, so what determines that variation?
So we had to send in soil samples, practice samples, and, you know, what we're doing, all these different things, and to realize what there is in variation.
And, of course, we knew there was going to be variation, but we were shocked at how much variation there was. And we were shocked that about somewhere around 90 something percent of the basic foods,
whole foods produced on a farm, whether they be fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, grains, whatever,
about 90 percent of what we have access to is within the 10th to 25th percentile of that
potential variation, which made us realize that our food is really bad,
but that we have a lot of potential to change that. And then we had to look at, so what's the
main correlation causation factor? And it wasn't the variety, it wasn't the sand, silt, and clay
of the environment you lived in or whatever. the number one thing was the soil microbiome.
The ones that had the higher nutrient density had the more robust microbiome.
So then we had to say, well, like you just mentioned, we can know there's variation now, but how does that help the consumer?
can know there's variation now but how does that help the consumer and it was determined that light
was the ability to to once you understood the variation then you start figuring out those
you know within a carrot what are you expecting from a carrot what are you expecting from an orange, like vitamin C. And so there is now a handheld meter that a consumer or somebody that has a market can use.
You have two different carrots.
You shine that meter on each of the carrots.
And we're not at the point where it can give you a breakdown of everything that's in that
but we find the real correlation um with that variation um so then in other words you'll shine
on one carrot and it'll come up with a 20 which is in the 20th percentile and you shine on another
carrots in the 80th percentile so we all know to eat or we're
learning where you can learn that you can eat certain foods if you have a deficiency but then
what's that variation and this can certainly go into a smartphone um in the near future um the
the only thing that and they have a I think it's now second generation little
handheld meter that can do this. The group is, you can go to the Bionutrient Food Association,
and they also have what they call the BionutrientInstitute.org. And we have reports now on that variation. All this work is being, is basically in regenerative
agriculture, we consider ourselves like a pioneer in the DSI movement. So in other words, we want
all this to be open science, open knowledge, so that it's not, we could have advanced this meter.
I'm not saying we, as I'm working on it specifically, but us in the regenerative ag movement consider ourselves we because we are decentralized. We work together. We collaborate together.
Because we could have, the group that has done this work could get a lot of funding from some corporation, but then they'd hold control over that product.
And we know often when good products come out, they either put an absorbent price on it or they'll sort of limit who has access to it.
And so we want to have open access to these products so yes we do
have a product that can do that um it won't give you every little thing but we can certainly advance
that there's also another tool that's just been created again through regenerative farmers working
with researchers to actually in the field measure the mineral contents
of a plant, of a seed, of our soil out in the field. And so because we know that health in our
plants, which gives them the resilience from pests and pathogens, a lot of times has to do with
mineral deficiencies. And so if we can monitor in the field
these mineral deficiencies,
then we can create that healthy plant.
And of course that creates a healthy product
in whatever it produces for us to eat.
And that transfers to our health
because we've now been able to produce plants so healthy
that no pests or no pathogens attack
them anymore and if we can do that for plants and our livestock we can do that for people
and so we're building the technology again you know we need to connect we need to collaborate
we need to bring in that's why i come to these spaces i'm trying to connect with people in the
medical community or they're working
on health in general like let's look at health much more holistically um because it has to start
with the soil if we're eating you know crap that isn't connected doesn't have any nutrients in it
or anything we're gonna be fighting disease forever and it's going to be impossible to
we're gonna be fighting disease forever
and it's gonna be impossible to ever get anywhere.
So yes, we're thinking of that.
We have the product and it's advancing.
And as I say, first level,
we can get it to some people that have a market
and then they could actually just do the tests
and put it on a sign. But in the near future, we could actually
have it into a smartphone. Hope that helps. That's amazing. That's super, super exciting. And
I'm like, going to be so pumped once it's in the smartphone level, just to make it accessible to everyone. But in the meantime, I would love to be able to connect with them.
If you have any recommendations of a specific person to reach out to,
get them on the causality list of devices that are just being able to prove causal effect or factors,
or just kind of properly measure different things,
and have them, the first one, kind of more in the agriculture type of space. If anyone else is
working with any other devices, or know of cool devices, maybe in your specific scientific sector,
would love to get them, like, to be a verified approved device um showing causality i'll go i'll grab a uh talk
from the group um and put it in the purple pill um so people and it's a one that was done um
late spring early summer this year that explains the whole process, the scientific approach they've taken,
talks a little bit about the meter
and is the group that is working on this.
But there's a lot of farmers and other people
like that are working in the soil,
working the soil biome that are also collaborating
in this area of work to understand health
from a growing perspective?
Definitely. Yeah, I think there's a lot of really cool stuff happening from
just like different farmers agriculture associations, especially in a more organic or regenerative type of approach. And it just seems
like there's more and more kind of cooperation or groups are expanding that are focused in that
area. And it's becoming more commonplace within those communities, or maybe they're just doing
a better job of getting the word out there
that, hey, these are the great practices we've been using forever, and it actually matters. So
super excited for all of this. Vitamin C, I see you have your hand up, so want to hear from you.
Yes, actually, I wanted to, first of all, thank Ed very much for letting the space know about that. And if you don't mind, I would love to connect with you kind of outside of the space privately, because that's one aspect that our long-term goal because the long-term goal we have is
trying to solve vitamin C deficiency across the world because it's somehow still a big problem.
And the soil factor and the nutrient factor of the actual food is something we haven't looked at.
So I would love to kind of connect on that and explore that a little bit.
And then the second thing that I wanted to kind of mention is what Ed also brought up and Rodrigo also brought up earlier is regarding making the space collaborative and showcasing that scientists are not just the people in lab coats. has to, first of all, has to use great marketing in order to essentially achieve the awareness
and outreach that it can, because the way kind of I see the space and how it's been
evolving and the incredible amount of inspiration and unique projects popping up, it feels like
almost like, you know, to use a pop culture analogy, like a Carl Sagan kind of moment in science potentially,
that can onboard a whole new wave of future scientists
because of how it's a completely unique approach,
how open it is, how transparent it is,
and how inspiring it can be to absolutely new people looking into the space and new researchers and people
looking like what direction to take.
I think DSI with proper outreach and proper evolution can be an absolute revolution kind
of in the next big scientific leap for humanity.
So, so true.
It's all connected.
Desai Asia and then Aiden.
Yeah, I would like to say that thanks for this conversation.
And it's really good to kick off the question about what
do scientists really want.
And we need a collaboration together not
only the one one community or one platform really do but it would be good that our site and design
might to this together and last the different kinds of community have their faith and feedback over there.
And would like to say that sorry to have to leave
because there is another meeting right now.
So sorry about that, but we'll keep an eye
and love to join this kind of initiative
and collaborative in the future.
Yeah, thanks a lot.
Thanks for joining.
Aiden.
Yeah, thanks, Irene, for having me as a speaker.
So thanks for also, thanks for ADD
for bringing this highly connected
and collaborative vision of the track you are doing.
It also reminds me, echo on everything like that.
I don't know like Cosati Network focus on the verification
about the trust of the data source.
So I think there are many like points that collaborate
in like at your project you've been working on
many different individuals or parties.
They provided the deficiency the the deficiency of
the that the variety of the carers and the nutrition nutrition like info so i think for this
kind of highly um collaborative network we also need to find a way to make them you know like
help them coordinate and better collaborate and And I think there's a thing
is the attribution of each part
should be properly unrecorded.
And that will be
provides a so-called causal relationship
to help those different parties
to record how exactly they have contributed
to the final result.
And so that's why I want to speak for this.
And we believe this proper attribution could help
each part of the whole scientific research
to get properly incentivized and recorded,
and then they could be better motivated
and contribute to their work.
So I would love to connect to the team
and see how this could happen.
Yeah, we're really excited to see this decentralized
yet highly collaborative future.
It's all connected.
And everyone's doing such important work
on each of these different sides
to be able to make sure data can be trusted or shared along the whole pathway.
And then that info can get into the hands of the people that should have access to it or might be able to influence making the data or science or food or whatever it is better for us all.
Feel free to hop in for anyone who has further thoughts. or whatever it is better for us all.
Feel free to have in for anyone who has further thoughts.
Heather, you want to go ahead?
I see you just raised your hand again.
Yeah, one thing I've done because I'm, as I say,
the regenerative ag movement and the scientists we work with, we're pretty well connected and networking.
And we've realized for a long time that, you know, scientific journals and all that sort of thing, it's complicated, it's expensive.
It takes a long time to get it out there. Often by the time you get it out there, you've already advanced well past that. And that's why I mentioned earlier, we use platforms like podcasts, spaces,
YouTube. And if people go to my profile, I've put together over the years, a YouTube playlist of,
and I keep up with what our farmers are doing what our different researchers
are doing all the different areas that we're working on and i try to keep it updated to the
most recent talks some of the talks are a little older but they're relevant um and that's one way
that you know we can do in a lot of areas is build these basic libraries of of communications
and you know we can include the science in it you get to know who the people are working on it the
scientists specifically so then you can contact them directly and we found that because i come
from more of a farmer that's always been interested in science in a non-traditional way.
I avoided university. I went to D-Sci back in the 60s to realize that collaborations among everybody is the way to go.
And so that's the approach we've continued to take.
And so that's the approach we've continued to take.
And now I'm actually working on trying to build a new platform network for this kind of work so that we can really do it other than the platforms that we have.
As I said, social media is a great way to meet new people, that sort of thing.
But we need a platform to go back to and work and you know a
lot of people are young i'm old and people are young enough to not realize what happened before
social media before facebook's twitter's that became single threads there were old open source PHP BB type forum platforms that an individual group,
you know, you, it's an open source platform.
So you, it's a basic design.
That's really well functional.
A group can set it up, bring people into it.
And it's not just single threads, it's archived, so that you can
really work on projects for a long period of time within and build a network of people and
collaborate on them. I did that in a I had an idea for an algorithm for coffee roasting in the
specialty coffee movement. In other words, the artisan quality coffee.
And I worked on one of these forums back in 2010,
got about 50 other collaborators around the world
working on the hardware, the software,
and to develop this algorithm
called rate of rise and coffee roasting.
And it revolutionized the industry across the world.
It made it so that startup people that were coffee roasting is extremely hard to do.
They didn't have the technology.
It was very much an art without the science and the proper algorithms.
So just working on that within a small group, we were able to make
a change that was global. It's the way that most of your small roasters, your specialty coffee
roasters, how they roast their coffee nowadays. So it can work. And we were comfortable because
we didn't have to worry about being monitored by big, you know, by Mark Zuckerberg
or Elon or anything like that. It was our own little platform. We could determine who comes in,
who doesn't, keep it civil, keep it kind, keep it collaborative. And, you know, that's something
I'm trying to build again, bring that in back into that, which is sort of like decentralized social media.
As I said, it's fine to go meet.
And I didn't find Discord really captured that, which is the common one people use or something like Telegram or something.
It's just it's still vertical threads.
It's kind of not
designed for effectiveness we need to really think about building a network
for decentralized otherwise we're just going to be silos like traditional
science was and we know where that went It just doesn't work well.
Definitely. I think that's such a important point to make sure
that we aren't just repeating the same things that have existed before in science.
And yeah, I think that should be essential throughout all these convos.
I just have a strong echo on this.
So first, I think that's the reason why DCI Mike,
this kind of open space is required because this thought should be exchanged
and broadcast to engage many inspiring or
like motivated scientists or DCI builders in the field,
then we can gather together and co-build.
Also, I'm doing similar things, but I'm not building a platform.
So basically, I host a core research community
where we have researchers from both academia and industry.
They focus on like blockchain related stuff and some decentralized AI.
So they're from like top schools and, you know,
the EF and the NEMI, those reputational institutes.
So I think this kind of community can have a fusion
or like interdisciplinary collaboration.
And so some thoughts could like integrate
and hopefully there could be new thoughts bumping.
And for this incoming year, we are hoping to connect more scientists like researchers to join the movement so that they can exchange ideas and hopefully find something like interact or like aligned with each other,
then they can initiate hopefully some proposal
or they can build together.
I highly agree that this is the way we can prevent
our thoughts becoming siloed.
Yeah, thanks for adding that.
I think we share a similar like vision.
And if you're interested in giving a talk,
or I mean like any of you interested
in giving a research centric talk
or join a discussion, feel free to reach out.
Yeah, that's what I want to echo.
And thanks to Design Mike, this kind of podcast,
or main like a space.
Yeah, thanks for joining
there are like a ton of hands up so uh orsi would love to hear from you pamela i'm know you keep
getting like rugged and kicked off uh so if you're able to speak too, but would really like to hear your thoughts.
Awesome. Thank you, Erin.
So I love how the space
and the conversation has developed.
Going back to the collaboration container,
and do you think that creating a D-Sci consortium, kind of like, you know, what we have seen with the human genotyping genome project that has showed, you know, being very successful in completing even the, you know, the sequence of the human genome
in less time that was projected.
Do you think creating containers like that,
perhaps with the representation of researchers
or people that have been at the work on the side without having any sort of
specific titles or not to come together under this container and perhaps discuss
more in that collaborations and sharing information and data.
So, DSAI Consortium. What are your thoughts on this?
I mean, I think we're, we've really seen amazing scientific progress across history is either
through some of these different consortiums. Right now, a few leading the way are things like convergent research and some of the progress they're making with like E11 Bio and all of their other spin outs and focusing on that FRO approach, focused research organizations where there's kind of a time bound aspect to it where in three to five five years this big moonshot goal will be achieved and
just compiling all of that funding necessary to do these things that should exist in the world but
isn't necessarily incentivized for one company or one lab or one startup to be able to do so.
So I think that approach is really interesting and in my mind falls over into this
consortium. Let's compile all the right people and resources that need to be connected together
to achieve this. I think the other place throughout history where we've seen really cool progress
take place or interesting discoveries emerge is when people weren't siloed to only being a
scientist. Like if we look at some of the greatest scientists throughout time, like they were also
artists or philosophers or inventors in a broader sense. And I think Desai is creating that possibility for people to be scientists as well as other
things as well.
And by being those other things too, that actually is able to give inspiration or help
people see things from a different angle to then make those world-changing different
discoveries.
So I think enabling those individuals
as well as creating more connectivity across the board
are the two pieces that come to mind for me.
That's awesome.
Thank you, Aaron, for sharing that.
We would love, I already discussed with you,
you know, this initiative
and we're super excited for Musematric and you to be
part of it.
And we'll definitely have more of these conversations coming up as well as IRL during ETH Denver.
So if any of you would like to participate, please definitely reach out and tune in and
we'll make it happen. Yeah.
ETH Denver should be an awesome convening of all this.
And to your point of creating these consortiums and grouping people together,
that was really the original inspiration of Muse Matrix,
getting those scientists, developers, and now business marketing folks in the same room,
learning together and creating better de-sci solutions. And then having this whole like
mentor matrix network of other connected organizations to be able to plug people into
as they're most aligned or solve different problems those organizations might be facing.
aligned, or solve different problems those organizations might be facing. A few things that
have come up in the broader space, as well as I've heard a couple people mention it throughout this
one, is just the marketing and awareness perspective, which I think there's definitely
opportunity there across DSI as well. And that's one reason why we have these spaces on the D-Side mic every week at 5 p.m. UTC.
And then now we've started the series called In the Lab with Science Stanley, Smarter with Science,
and really focused on telling those different scientific stories. I know a few people listening
down below, you guys tuned in to some of the past episodes of that.
So that will also be an ongoing series.
And I know a bunch of different people here constantly
on different Twitter spaces or X spaces
sharing really important information
and perspectives too.
Cool. Aiden, yes.
Oh, I think, no, sorry. I think I just missed Clay. No, no, no more right now. Thanks.
All good. Well, this week has been a really awesome conversation. Just looking down below,
we had one other person request to come up. So I'll bring them up real quick.
If anyone else has any other thoughts that might have sprung up to mind on what do scientists
really want as we've gone through this conversation, would love to kind of circle it back around and
bring up to the surface any of those thoughts as well.
In the meantime, welcome, Alexander.
Would love to hear your thoughts either on this overarching question
or any other perspectives or questions that might have emerged
listening in to the convo so far.
Yeah, I just would like what you were just, a reference to what you were saying,
kind of a coalescent tangent was that a quote by Einstein is, after a certain high level of
technical skills is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in aesthetics, plasticity,
and form the greatest scientists, artists as well. So they go hand in hand.
artists as well. So they go hand in hand. I love that. That's such a great quote. I don't think
I've heard it kind of framed, connected to this. I know he was a proponent of it, but that's such
a timely point. And I think, yeah, incorporating that more into some of like okay what are the benefits of dsci how is this
different than what's been done before but can also expand on the good things that have happened
uh throughout scientific history i think that quote should definitely be front and center
yeah and and also he goes into the concept of um religion is no different than the sciences and music.
They all coalesce, even though it starts with physics.
But the pyramid scheme is physics, then biology, microbiology, chemistry, art, language, linguistics, and furthermore, as we know, music know music and maybe already said music but
yeah
so I just yeah yeah yeah thanks so much for for adding that I feel like that's
such a perfect recap and and way to possibly in the space unless anyone else
has any last thoughts but I think that really does
a great job tying together some of the conversation on just creating more connectivity,
cooperation, coordination across different scientific sectors, connecting that from
the stage of when data might be collected to all those different people or organizations that are involved in that process
to when it actually interacts with those end people and users or consumers, such as taking
a bite of an orange or a carrot. There's a famous quote from World War II. Oh, I apologize. Go ahead.
No, would love to hear this quote. Well, it was a soldier during World War II.
He was a British soldier and he fought in these parts of Africa.
And he was, you know, reaching points of starvation.
And he traveled up, his new mission was going towards Germany, but he was a prisoner of war.
But then he found out he was free and someone gave him a pear, like a peach.
And he ate the peach and it was like eating something
you know through the stimuli of his brain and the neurons and part of the you know the frontal
cortex would allow him to to process and think about it he said he let like 90 years later i
mean when he was 90 he says he can taste the very peach that he ate that that far back showing the
connection that he had to if that makes sense but yeah and and like you said i think
corporate cooperation cooperation and positivity in science i think is the only route we can take right now in a world that sometimes has pessimism towards science and um you know uh fear of science
and i think as you were to implement what you were saying, one of the best ways to shine
science is to do it in fun ways or productive that have a productive and positive outcome,
which can unite so many different people, if that makes sense.
I hope that makes sense.
Yes, definitely.
I think that fun element is really how DSi will be able to go mainstream
and some of these different possibilities or opportunities might be able to be realized.
100.
Awesome.
Francesca, do you have any closing thoughts?
I'm just very impressed how these conversations just really dive deep and bring up so many
cool perspectives that I did not think of. So I really appreciate this space and opening up the
discussions and at the end of the day we're all in the same mission to help support more of the evolution,
but also the betterment of our lifestyle and our connection with nature and science, right?
Both sides.
I just want to reiterate again to reach out for collaborations.
to reach out for collaborations.
Don't be shy.
Don't be shy.
We want to involve and include more people
that want to be active in this space.
So make sure that you reach out either to Erin, Desai Mike,
Muse Matrix, or RSI.
RSI is building a bridge between all these different initiatives,
projects that are in this space, as well as
bridging with institutions and universities. So anytime you would like to collaborate or say,
or mention something, or always Erin also mentions that you want to discuss a specific topic,
please reach out and let's make this a collaborative effort.
Absolutely. This is just part of the conversation, but it's not the whole conversation.
We'll be back here for a new topic next week, same time, 5 p.m. UTC, 12 p.m. Eastern time.
BC, 12 p.m. Eastern time. And if you have a topic that you think should be discussed,
it can be something kind of open-ended, like what do scientists really want? Or we could dive into
a really specific aspect or share what you might be working on within the D-Sci space.
These are all possibilities of things we can cover on the DSci mic. And if there
are any different points that resonated with you throughout the conversation, definitely reach out
to whoever shared that point. Really cool things can come from those different connections and by
reaching out those cool things are then able to happen. Take a look through some of the different posts pinned up above the
DSI Asia grant for DSI and DAO research, the PSI acceleration manifesto from Orisai, and some other
kind of frameworks and points that they've been publishing and looking for feedback on.
Some of the different points Rodrigo had shared
and different articles such as the one in Nature about Research Hub. There's so much cool stuff
happening in the DSI space. And I know you're all part of making that all happen too. So let's keep
making it happen and see you back here next time we're live next week. We might have another episode in the
meantime with Long COVID Labs or Curatopia and Ethan. So be on the lookout for those notifications
as well. Thanks so much for joining in, everyone. Have a great one. Thank you. Have a great one.
Bye-bye. Thank you, Erin. one thank you have a great bye bye thank you erin
