Skepticism vs Dogma
Why decentralized science will upend the scientific establishment
Christopher Columbus arrives in America
“I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.”
Martin Luther
Fear, above necessity, drives technological progress. Consider the world’s first programmable computer. The Z3, created by Konrad Zuse, was built with funding from the Nazis, desperate for any advantage over their counterparts.
Like many technological marvels, the initial response from the German leadership was boredom: It was never harnessed because it was considered strategically useless. In ordinary times, the invention of the Z3 would have been lauded by newspapers across the globe, but during WW2, it died unremarkably in the lab. And, perhaps the world would look very different today had it not.
Stepping back, this isn’t merely a feature of WW2; more generally, technological growth is intertwined with the macroeconomic environment of its time. The optimism of a booming economy showcases a promise of the future and heralds the virtuous cycle of further inventions.
In a sense, one could forgive investors for their undying perseverance in pumping dog coins, one drop blood testing companies, and electric car companies who don’t build cars, much less electric ones.
But the striking bull market we live in isn’t new; in fact, it’s over 500 years old. The privileges bestowed upon us were crystallized in 1492, when Colombus, on the first of his four central voyages, discovered a Novis Orbis, a ‘New Globe,’ which inexorably laid the foundation of modernity.
Precipitously, it was around this time that the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance – Cusa, Machiavelli, Montaigne, and Erasmus – were wrestling with the reconciliation of humanism and deism. Machiavelli had witnessed Florence, the city he had spent his life protecting and advising, engulfed in torturous and ageless conflict because of tyrannical popes and their regal counterparts.
As his later writings describe, before any scientific or philosophical change could occur, the political establishment would have to adapt and allow leaders with virtù to rule. He was unfortunately unable to see his vision of a united Florence arrive, but his work eternally molded the Enlightenment and the first golden age of science that soon emerged.
Yet, the trouble didn’t stop there. During the Enlightenment, science and its apostles had to fight a two-front war: It had to survive the onslaught of the clergy and an irascible, exhausted populace who couldn’t handle incessant change. But after the battles of the 17th and 18th century, science was declared victorious; deism slowly suffocated and died with a prolonged, lavish burial.
Henceforth, the institution of Science was so successful that it became what itself once despised – a dogmatic cathedral handing out indulgences (tenure) to those who toed the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Of course, universities purported the lie that Science was the underdog to distract prying eyes from their hellish actions on students and staff; the government was a willing conspirator by bankrolling administrators who then persuaded their painfully naive students into indentured servitude.
Overpromising and underdelivering in science has been the general sine qua non of the field until now. Decentralized science, the marriage of science and crypto, is chipping away at the cathedral and, like Martin Luther, is highlighting the perverse incentives of academic research. New organizational structures like DAOs will eventually see the resurgence of fundamental science and, with it, erase the scandalous church of Science permanently.
Political Science
Science was once the arena of the mind – skeptics competing against one other to discover the fundamental truths of the universe. The Royal Society of London had their own share of quagmires and squabbles, notably Humphry Davy and and Michael Faraday. But, these contortions sharpened the blade of science and refined the nature of the institution itself. Any company that avoids controversy is doing itself a disservice: Issues left acknowledged always boil over and dramatically so when the stakes are much greater.
However for all intents and purposes, since the 1950s, these debates have effectively stopped. Contemporary science looks a lot more like Lysenkoism, the political theory championed by Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko, which bludgeoned the-then nascent field of genetics in favor of Lamarckism.
Marx and the USSR leadership deeply admired Lamarckism because it matched one of their cherished beliefs. The championed faith of communism, dialectical materialism, suggests that the environment and material conditions shape people. Acquired characteristics that emerge from, say, forcing the Bourgeoisie into squalor could exist eternally. In other words, the USSR’s sweeping changes to society would forever reshape the world in their image.
And if this was the case for people, then it should naturally be true of plants and animals. And Lysenkso was the pseudoscientific prodigal son they utilized to convince themselves of this notion; He initially shocked many when he said that genes didn’t exist and that geneticists were “people haters.” As prison was imminent for dissenters, his horrific ideas proliferated.
He was so successful that the entire communist leadership, Stalin and later Khrushchev, soon became devout believers in his work, making him director of Genetics for the Academy of Sciences in 1940, ensuring he would oversee the entire gamut of Soviet science and going so far as to imprison his former teachers who dared to question Lysenko.
Seeing this as proof of Lamarckism, Mao implemented the same policy in the late 1950s, causing upwards of 30 million deaths. Unquestionably, the majority of the famines in the 20th century can be traced back to Lysenkso and his powerful pathos.
But, it’s not as if countries abroad were bought into Lysenkso’s schizophrenia. A British biologist in the American Antioch Review in 1950 recounts:
Lysenko’s writing on theoretical lines are the merest drivel. He obviously fails to comprehend either what a controlled experiment is, or the established principle of genetics.
Later, even after the 20th century’s carnage – when it became apparent to all that they had been conned by Lsykenso – criticism of his work remained illegal for years. While Lsykenso may have died, his methods of persuasion still live on in western science.
At this point, his storied rise and fall should sound familiar to anyone who has paid close attention to the events of the last few years: A wayward virus escapes from a faraway continent many have never seen, which invariably results in a flurry of competing explanations.
In order to excuse incompetence, the inconvenient truths are collapsed, like a wave-function, into a convenient lie, usually paired with a leader who rapidly morphs into a scapegoat. Later, when the dust settles and most of the public forgets, the real truth emerges (as well as the identities of all those who knew about it beforehand) and one that looks remarkably different from what was said to the public.
Yet, if one had any questions, where would they look to find samizdat material? The technological and political behemoths worked together to find naysayers and did everything to crush dissent. Youtube channels that hinted at alternative theories were demonetized, professors who asked for “high quality evidence” saw feral crowds clamoring for their resignation, and Twitter accounts were erased permanently, never to return.
In this chaos and fear, the seeds of decentralized science were first planted.
A New 95 Theses
Returning to the present, there are three major ways in which blockchain tools will alter the nature of science: long-term funding through smart contracts, open-access to information, and incentivizing non-scientists through tokens.
Here’s what that future could look like:
Over drinks at a bar in Palo Alto, a team of researchers decide that they want to study the nature of dark matter. They’re aware that projects in academia without a finite lifespan are rarely completed. They decide to leave the Black Mirror paradise of academia.
The team surmises that they should write up an initial outline to the public with a smart manuscript, combining text and open protocols together. They all agree on a name for this project – AstroDAO.
After sharing their thoughts on Twitter, the team at AstroDAO sees an overwhelming level of interest from the community. Consequently, they embark on a token sale to reward community members who want to develop this concept further or conduct peer review.
The token sale for $ASTRO is a success and the money that the DAO raises is enough to pay other researchers or willing members to join the project and help with a preprint. Afterwards, they create a smart contract on Ants Review for peer review.
Because peer reviewers are judged on their on-chain reputation and are sufficiently rewarded through tokens to help assess the paper, AstroDAO receives stellar feedback and are fit to publish their paper.
Currently, the realm of academic publishing is an oligarchy. Elsevier, one of the largest academic journals, consistently posts around ~40% margins. They do so by paying scientific editors that debate the piece’s grammar, but the actual work – done by scientists who measure the veracity of the paper – are volunteers.
As the Guardian rephrases: “It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill.”
AstroDAO astutely realizes Elsevier is a robber baron and bypasses them by harnessing Arweave, storing their research permanently on the internet.
Now, the team has to figure out how to continually recruit talent for their DAO to further progress. They decide to award contributor NFTs to those who hit certain milestones inside of the project, and IP-NFTs to showcase and fund original research.
But, new models can also impact the often unsung heros that make most new discoveries possible. Retroactive funding allows AstroDAO to issue past compensation to successful ideas and work. They can trace the stack and assess which individuals or groups were useful, thereby compensating them in the future. No work, therefore, is lost in the aether – the only important question is whether or not you contributed useful work to the project.
Some DAOs that are already doing this include Molecule, VitaDAO, PsyDAO, and LabDAO. In fact, Vita is a pioneer in IP-NFTs, having purchased The Longevity Molecule last year, giving the DAO full legal IP rights and data access to the Scheibye-Knudsen Lab at the University of Copenhagen.
The pioneering work of these DAOs is a lodestar for anyone who is yearning for a return to fundamental science, and for those who want to avoid the contemporary dichotomy of nihilism and mendacity.
Moreover, the challenges we’ll face in the coming century – the fertility crisis; the end of NATO and America as the world’s policeman, and a nonviolent transition into becoming a multiplanetary species to name a few – all depend on a functioning, apolitical scientific apparatus.
Ultimately, decentralized science is an exciting tailwind that will underpin discoveries many of us cannot yet fathom, but more importantly, is a start to returning science to its roots, placing the quest for knowledge above politics, and ending its insidious era of dogmatism that has plagued us all.
Amazing post! Honestly DeSci and Refi are the only spaces that are working the initial visions of crypto pioneers.
You are mostly right, there was much stupidity present in Lysenko and co as evident from their failures. But he wasn't wrong about genetics. He called out the dogmatism that saw genes as some imaginary cause that destined us to be what we are. Genes as destiny don't exist. Epigenetics show that gene expression is dependent on material conditions - they are symptoms of our environment.
And how much dogma is at the root of science? Science seeks truth and it conceives of truth as an abstract universal. What is the will to truth? The will to nothingness. Today it takes the exploration of nature and man further than ever in a particular direction, but it is also taking submission to the ascetic ideal and the established order further than ever. Science can wear a new decentralized mask but the will won't change, unless we do something about it!