To Crowdfund Research,Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work

As rates of traditional sources of scientific funding decline, scientists have become increasingly interested in crowdfunding as a means of bringing in new money for research. In fields where crowdfunding has become a major venue for fundraising such as the arts and technology, building an audience for one''s work is key for successful crowdfunding. For science, to what extent does audience building, via engagement and outreach, increase a scientist''s abilities to bring in money via crowdfunding? Here we report on an analysis of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding experiment in which 159 scientists attempted to crowdfund their research. Using data gathered from a survey of participants, internet metrics, and logs of project donations, we find that public engagement is the key to crowdfunding success. Building an audience or “fanbase” and actively engaging with that audience as well as seeking to broaden the reach of one''s audience indirectly increases levels of funding. Audience size and effort interact to bring in more people to view a scientist''s project proposal, leading to funding. We discuss how projects capable of raising levels of funds commensurate with traditional funding agencies will need to incorporate direct involvement of the public with science. We suggest that if scientists and research institutions wish to tap this new source of funds, they will need to encourage and reward activities that allow scientists to engage with the public.     

Tapping the crowds for research funding

Scientists are exploring crowdfunding as a potential new source of cash for their research.One day early in 2011, Jarrett Byrnes and Jai Ranganathan, both ecologists at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, had a great idea about an alternative way to fund research projects. Byrnes was sitting in his office when Ranganathan came in to tell him about a proposal he had seen on the crowdfunding website Kickstarter (www.kickstarter.com) to erect in Detroit a statue of RoboCop, the robot-human hero of a US science fiction action film. “The RoboCop project seemed a little esoteric, but the proposers had done a fabulous job at communicating why it was both interesting and important,” Byrnes said. It took the internet by storm and raised more than US$65,000 from almost 3,000 backers.If this could be done for RoboCop, Byrnes and Ranganathan wondered whether it could be done for science as well. They asked friends and fellow scientists whether they would be interested in crowdfunding a research project and, after receiving substantial positive feedback, launched #SciFund Challenge in November 2011 with 59 research proposals. #SciFund Challenge helps researchers put together a crowdfunding proposal, supports their outreach activities and launches coordinated campaigns on the crowdfunding website of their partner RocketHub (www.rockethub.com). “We thought we would do it all at the same time so we could help each other out,” explained Byrnes, who is now chief networking officer for #SciFund Challenge.Crowdfunding is the practice of funding a project by raising many small contributions from a large number of individuals, typically via the internet. An artist, film-maker or musician would put together an online profile of their project and choose a platform such as Kickstarter, RocketHub or Indiegogo for its presentation. If people like the project, they can pledge money to it. Backers are usually charged only if the project succeeds in reaching its funding goal before the deadline. Kickstarter is one of the largest crowdfunding portals and focuses on creative projects; in 2012, more than 2 million backers pledged more than US$320 million to Kickstarter projects (http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012?ref=what_is_kickstarter#overall_stats).Creative projects always work towards a concrete product—an exhibition, a DVD or a computer game—which is not necessarily the case for science, particularly basic researchThe challenge for Byrnes and others is whether crowdfunding works for science. Creative projects always work towards a concrete product—an exhibition, a DVD or a computer game—which is not necessarily the case for science, particularly basic research. Would people donate money for the pursuit of knowledge? In a time of economic crisis and budget cuts, many scientists are eager to give it a try. Crowdfunding of science has exploded in recent years, with funding goals becoming increasingly ambitious; some projects have attracted US$10,000–20,000 or even more. New platforms, such as Petridish, FundaGeek or Microryza, specifically cater to research projects [1]. The academic system is starting to adapt too: the University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA, has made a deal with the crowdfunding site Indiegogo that allows backers to make money donated via the site tax deductible [2].Kristina Killgrove, now assistant professor in the department of anthropology, University of West Florida, USA, became interested in crowdfunding when traditional ways of funding research were not available to her. “At the time, I did not have a permanent faculty job. I was an adjunct instructor, with a contract for only one semester, so there was no good way for me to apply for a grant through regular channels, like our National Science Foundation,” she explained. Her proposal to study the DNA of ancient Roman skeletons to learn more about the geographical origins and heritage of the lower classes and slaves in the Roman Empire was part of the first round of #SciFund Challenge projects and attracted donors interested in ancient Rome and in DNA analysis. She exceeded her financial target of $6,000 in less than 2 weeks and eventually raised more than $10,000 from 170 funders.Ethan Perlstein had also reached an academic deadlock when he first turned to crowdfunding. His independent postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University, USA, came to an end in late 2012 and his future was unclear. Grants for basic research came in his experience from the government or foundations, and he had never questioned that premise. “But as I felt my own existential crisis emerging—I might not get an academic job—I started to think about crowdfunding more seriously. I searched for other scientists who had tried it,” Perlstein said.“It is time to experiment with the way we experiment,” Perlstein''s crowdfunding video proclaims. Indeed, he approached crowdfunding in a scientific way. He analysed various successful projects in search for some general principles. “I wanted a protocol,” he said. “I wanted to do as much as I could beforehand to increase the likelihood of success.” Together with his colleagues, David Sulzer, professor in the departments of neurology and psychiatry at Columbia Medical School, New York, NY, USA, and lead experimentalist Daniel Korostyshevsky, he asked for $25,000 to study the distribution of amphetamines within mouse brain cells to elucidate the mechanism by which these drugs increase dopamine levels at synapses. The crowdfunding experiment worked and their project was fully funded.Creation of a good website with a convincing video is a crucial step towards success. “When crafting your project, it is important to try to put yourselves in the shoes of the audience,” recommended Cindy Wu, who founded San-Francisco-based science crowdfunding company, Microryza, with Denny Luan when they were in graduate school. “You as a scientist find your work absolutely fascinating. Communicating this passion to a broader audience is absolutely key,” said Byrnes. However, recruitment of people to the website is at least as important as the site itself. Many successful crowdfunders build their campaign on existing social networks to channel potential funders to their own website [3]. “Building an audience for your work, having people aware of you and what you are doing, is of paramount importance,” Byrnes explained, and added that crowdfunding can be as time consuming as grant applications. “But it''s a different kind of time. I find it actually quite satisfying,” he said.“Be scientific about it,” Perlstein advised. How many donors are needed to reach a funding goal? How many page views would be required accordingly, assuming a certain conversion rate? “If you approach a crowdfunding campaign methodically, it doesn''t guarantee success, but at least you implement best practices.” Perlstein is now an independent scientist renting laboratory space from the Molecular Sciences Institute, a non-profit research facility in Berkeley, CA, USA. “Academia and I were in a long-term relationship for over a decade but we broke up,” he explained. With federal and state funding flat or on a downwards trend, he sees his future in fundraising from patrons, venture philanthropists or disease foundations in addition to crowdfunding. Yet Perlstein remains an exception. Most scientists do not use crowdfunding as an alternative to normal funding opportunities, but rather as a supplement. A typical crowdfunding project nowadays would raise a few thousand dollars, which is enough to fund a student''s work for a summer or to buy some equipment [3].A typical crowdfunding project nowadays would raise a few thousand dollars, which is enough to fund a student''s work for a summer or to buy some equipmentCrowdfunding is also ideal to get new ideas off the ground, which was a key incentive to found Microryza. Cindy Wu''s experience with the academic funding system in graduate school taught her how difficult it was to get small grants for seed ideas. Together with her colleague Denny Luan she interviewed 100 scientists on the topic. “Every single person said there is always a seed idea they want to work on but it is difficult to get funding for early stage research,” she said. The two students concluded that crowdfunding would be able to fill that gap and a few months later set up Microryza. “Crowdfunding is a fantastic way to begin a project and collect preliminary data on something that might be a little risky but very exciting,” Byrnes said. “When you then write up a proposal for a larger governmentally funded grant you have evidence that you are doing outreach work and that you are bringing the results of your work to a broader audience.”Crowdfunded projects cover a wide range of research from ecology, medicine, physics and chemistry to engineering and economics. Some projects are pure basic science, such as investigating polo kinase in yeast (http://www.rockethub.com/projects/3753-cancer-yeast-has-answers), whereas others are applied, for instance developing a new method to clean up ocean oil spills (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cesarminoru/protei-open-hardware-oil-spill-cleaning-sailing-ro). Project creators may be students, professors or independent scientists, and research is carried out in universities, companies or hired laboratory space or outsourced to core facilities. Some projects aim to touch people''s heartstrings, such as saving butterflies (http://www.rockethub.com/projects/11903did-you-know-butterflies-have-std) and others address politically relevant topics, such as gun policy and safety (https://www.microryza.com/projects/gun-control-research-project).Some proposals have immediate relevance, such as the excavation of a triceratops skeleton to display it in the Seattle museum (https://www.microryza.com/projects/bring-a-triceratops-to-seattle). Backers can follow the project and see that the promise has been kept. For many projects in basic research, however, progress is much more abstract even if there are long-term goals, such as a cure for cancer, conservation strategies to save butterflies or so on. But will a non-scientist be able to evaluate the relevance of a particular project for such long-term goals? Will interested donors be able to judge whether these goals are within reach? Indeed, science crowdfunding has drawn criticism for its lack of peer review and has been accused of pushing scientists into overselling their research [1,4,5]. “There is a risk that it provides opportunities for scientists who are less than scrupulous to deceive the general public,” commented Stephen Curry, professor of structural biology at Imperial College, London, UK.…science crowdfunding has drawn criticism for its lack of peer review and has been accused of pushing scientists into overselling their researchMany scientific crowdfunding sites have systems in place to check the credibility of research proposals. “At #SciFund Challenge we have what we like to call a gentle peer review. If an undergraduate is promising to overthrow they theory of gravity we will have some questions about that,” explained Byrnes. Microryza would also not let any project pass. The team checks the proposal creator''s identity and evaluates whether the proposal addresses a scientific question and the project goals are within the capabilities of the researcher. “We plan to have some sort of crowd-sourced peer review sometime in the future,” said Wu. Other platforms, such as FundaGeek, have discussion forums where potential donors are encouraged to debate the merits of a proposal. As crowdfunding does not involve spending large amounts of public money, it might be an ideal way to try out new forms of peer review. According to Curry, however, there are important aspects of academic peer review that cannot be provided by these systems. “The advantage of grant committees considering many applications in competition with one another is that it allows the best ones to be selected. Details of prior work and expected feasibility are necessary to judge a project,” he said.Crowdfunding is selling science to the crowd, and, just like in any outreach activity, there might be cases of conveying projects too optimistically or overstating their impact. Yet, a main advantage of crowdfunding is that it allows donors to stay involved in projects and that it encourages direct interaction between scientists and non-scientists [3]. If a crowdfunding project does not live up to its promises, the donors will find out. “Microryza is really about sharing the discovery process directly with the donors,” Wu explained. “Every time something happens in the lab scientists post an update and an email goes out to all donors.” Perlstein also maintains close contact with his backers, having met many of them in person. “If we accept their money we are going to give them front row seats to the science,” he said. Research is a labour-intensive, slow process that includes technical difficulties and reconsideration of hypotheses, a fact that might come as a surprise to non-scientists. “We are actually doing a service here to enlighten the non-scientists that this is the rhythm of basic science,” said Perlstein.Crowdfunding of science has exploded in recent years, with funding goals becoming increasingly ambitious; some projects have attracted US$10,000–20,000 or even moreCrowdfunding is by no means a gold mine, with most research projects raising only a few thousand dollars. Byrnes, however, is optimistic that it will grow and inspire a larger crowd to get involved. “Now you see $10 million projects in gaming technology and the arts. That took some years to happen. We will get there, but we still have a lot to learn. I think science crowdfunding is still in the early growth phase,” he said. As crowdfunding increases, scientists will find themselves confronted with some questions. The open sharing of the scientific process with a broader public is a key aspect of crowdfunded projects. In many cases, scientists make the primary record of a research project publicly available. What does this entail when it comes to publications or patents? “Most journals don''t have a policy on open notebooks,” acknowledged Wu. Filing of patents could also become difficult if scientists have already made all their work and results public.Crowdfunding also enables projects to be undertaken outside the academic system where rules and regulations are less well defined. uBiome, a citizen science start-up, draws on crowds not only for funding but also for providing data. The company collected more than US$300,000 through Indiegogo to sequence the microbiome of its donors (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-microbiome). Whereas academic biomedical research involving humans has to be reviewed by an independent ethics committee, this requirement would not apply to the uBiome project. “[P]rojects that don''t want federal money, FDA approval, or to publish in traditional journals require no ethical review at all as far as we know,” Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte, cofounders of uBiome, wrote in an invited guest blog on Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/07/22/crowdfunding-and-irbs-the-case-of-ubiome/). The researchers worked with an independent institutional review board to provide ethics oversight. Some crowdfunding websites, such as Microryza, make sure their researchers have approval from an institutional review board. Greater consistency is needed, however, to ensure that research is carried out according to ethics standards.Crowdfunding is not going to substitute public funding … rather, it would coexist as a more democratic form of philanthropyCrowdfunding is not a one-size-fits-all revenue stream for science. It might be easier to get support for ‘catchy'' topics than for investigation of molecular interactions or protein structures. Crowdfunding is not going to substitute public funding either; rather, it would coexist as a more democratic form of philanthropy. But for those who embrace it, crowdfunding can be a rewarding experience. “I had a lot of fun being part of #SciFund—I got to meet a lot of other interesting scientists, I raised some money, and I learned a bit about working with journalists and science writers to get my ideas and results disseminated to the public,” Killgrove said. Crowdfunding provides an opportunity for public engagement, raises public awareness, and gives scientists an incentive to communicate their research to a broader public. “In many cases, scientists do not receive any real incentive for doing outreach work” Byrnes said. “Crowdfunding can be seen as a means to reward them for their effort.”     

Crowdfunding,stem cell interventions and autism spectrum disorder: comparing campaigns related to an international “stem cell clinic” and US academic medical center

Background aimsStudies examining crowdfunding campaigns for stem cell interventions have typically focused on campaigns seeking funds to send individuals to businesses marketing unlicensed and unproven stem cell products. However, some crowdfunding campaigns identify academic medical centers as destinations for individuals seeking access to stem cell products provided either in clinical studies or on an expanded access basis. This study examines crowdfunding campaigns seeking funds to enable children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder access to stem cell interventions.MethodsThis study compares and contrasts crowdfunding campaigns, identifying an international stem cell clinic marketing a purported umbilical cord blood-derived stem cell treatment for autism spectrum disorder, with campaigns soliciting donations intended to help children with autism spectrum disorder either participate in clinical studies or obtain expanded access to stem cell products provided at an academic medical center in the US.ResultsCampaigns connected to both sites contained inaccurate claims. However, campaigns identifying the international clinic as the intended destination site made stronger claims about efficacy and were more reliant upon testimonials than campaigns listing the US-based academic medical center as the planned clinical site. Acknowledging these important distinctions, clinical studies and press releases associated with the academic medical center played an important role in lending the perception of credibility to the putative stem cell treatments marketed by the international clinic.ConclusionsThe study's findings emphasize how important it is for researchers at academic medical centers and comparable research facilities to avoid engaging in stem cell hyperbole; highlight the preliminary nature of early clinical studies; ensure that any claims about safety and efficacy are based upon robust and reliable evidence; and promote responsible science communication by exercising restraint when crafting press releases, conducting media interviews and otherwise publicizing clinical research findings.     

Focus: Personalized Medicine: Crowdfunding for Personalized Medicine Research

Given the current funding situation of the National Institutes of Health, getting funding for rare disease research is extremely difficult. In light of the enormous potential for research in the rare diseases and the scarcity of research funding, we provide a case study of a novel successful crowdfunding approach at a non-profit organization called Rare Genomics Institute. We partner with biotechnology companies willing to donate their products, such as mouse models, gene editing software, and sequencing services, for which researchers can apply. First, we find that personal stories can be powerful tools to seek funding from sympathetic donors who do not have the same rational considerations of impact and profit. Second, for foundations facing funding restrictions, company donations can be a valuable tool in addition to crowdfunding. Third, rare disease research is particularly rewarding for scientists as they proceed to be pioneers in the field during their academic careers. Overall, by connecting donors, foundations, researchers, and patients, crowdfunding has become a powerful alternative funding mechanism for personalized medicine.     

Medical crowdfunding and the virtuous donor

Patients and families are increasingly turning to crowdfunding to help them cover the cost of medical care. The ethics of crowdfunding has garnered some attention in the bioethical literature. In this paper I examine an ethical aspect of medical crowdfunding (MCF) that has received limited attention: the role of donors. I defend a virtue ethical approach to analyzing the role of donors in MCF. Vicious donation, where donors do not exercise the relevant virtues, can compound some of the ethical risks associated with MCF, as seen in the several recent, high‐profile cases. My primary contention in this paper is that encouraging donors to think about how donating to a particular campaign would measure against the virtues I outline could help to discourage acts of ethically problematic donation to MCF campaigns.     

Aquatic ecology in The Netherlands: What is being done by whom?

Summary About one third of the Dutch environmental research is concentrated on aquatic problems. The largest number of these projects is physicochemical (65%) and 47% of the aquatic projects contains an ecological component. The aquatic research projects are executed in a large number of different research institutes. Many institutes just formulated one project (43.2%) and about 10% of the institutes formulated 10 projects. The institutes with 10 or more projects account for almost 50% of the total number of projects. However, the size of the research projects with respect to the average total personnel per year may differ considerably. The largest number of aquatic research projects is carried out in governmental institutes. This relative high share of governmental institutes has proportionally increased during the period of 1975–1982. During this period the relative shares of all the aquatic research projects with an ecological component, of the strictly ecological projects and of the ecological/physicochemical projects have also proportionally inclined. However, in absolute numbers there seems to be a decline of both ecological and non-ecological projects on aquatic problems.     

Trends in Australian wetland rehabilitation

This paper summarizes trends in Australian wetland rehabilitation on the basis of responses to a questionnaire from sixty-nine rehabilitation projects and a literature review. Project sizes ranged from 0.4 to 110,000 ha. Costs ranged from A$6 to 70,000 ha^–1 yr^–1, with most projects costing less than A$1,000 ha^–1 yr^–1 and with larger projects generally costing less per area than smaller projects. The oldest project began in 1963, but most projects began between 1990 and 1996. The most commonly cited dominant plant genera in rehabilitation projects were Eucalyptus, Melaleuca, Muehlenbeckia, Juncus, Avicennia, and Typha. Filling and draining and altered hydrology were the most commonly cited impacts that led to a need for rehabilitation, while excavation and planting were the most commonly cited rehabilitation methods. About 65% of projects undertake rehabilitation methods that address the causes of impacts. Habitat improvement was the most commonly stated objective in wetland rehabilitation. Of the projects that supported monitoring programs, fewer than 25% appeared to monitor variables that were closely linked to project goals. Thirty-six projects reported involvement in research other than monitoring, with vegetation research most frequently cited. Most projects encouraged some level of community involvement. Wetland rehabilitation in Australia could benefit from a centralized register of projects and a library of rehabilitation literature, including government and in-house reports.     

Eradications and People: Lessons from the Plant Eradication Program in Galapagos

It is often argued that the benefit of eradication of an invasive species—a one-off injection of funds and the problem is solved—far outweighs the cost of a perennial control program. Furthermore, these are very attractive projects for funding agencies as outcomes are clear and easy to assess. Galapagos is in the early stage of the invasion process, with most alien species not yet naturalized and still restricted to gardens and farms. These species should be easy targets for early and cost-effective eradication projects, which would prevent many future problems. We review 30 plant eradication projects covering 23 potentially invasive species with limited distributions on four of the Galapagos Islands. Of the 30 projects, only four were successful: these were all less than 1 ha in net area, on land with a single owner and did not have persistent seed banks. Of the other 26 projects, most failed due to a lack of support from institutions that did not offer continuity of resources, from land owners who denied permission to carry out the work or from being too ambitious. As a result of these problems, 64.3% of the funding secured for the program was spent on discontinued projects. We highlight lessons learned to inform plant eradication programs in the future.     

Stream Restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis of Interviews with Project Managers

Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are spent on river restoration in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), but little is known about the effectiveness of this effort. To help address this gap, we analyzed a database containing 23,000 projects at 35,000 locations in the region. We selected a subset of these projects for interviews using a survey instrument developed by a national team of scientists. In total, 47 project contacts in the PNW were interviewed to learn from the individuals directly involved in restoration. At least one‐third of the projects surveyed (34%) did not conduct sufficient monitoring to evaluate effectiveness. More than two‐thirds (70%) of all respondents reported their projects were successful, but 43% either have no success criteria or are unaware of any criteria for their project. Although almost two‐thirds (66%) of respondents anticipate a need for ongoing project maintenance, less than half (43%) have maintenance funds available. These findings suggest that establishing a connection between effectiveness monitoring and project implementation is not a usual component of project design. Consequently, we can only assess the benefits in a few isolated projects and cannot quantify the cumulative benefits of restoration on a larger scale. These findings highlight the need for (1) planning prior to implementation of restoration projects that accounts for monitoring design; (2) coordinated effectiveness monitoring to assess cumulative effects of restoration; and (3) management and maintenance of projects based on real measures of project performance.     

青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复综合效益评估指标体系

青藏高原作为我国重要的生态屏障和战略资源基地,兼顾经济社会的发展和生态环境的保护,是当前区域发展的主要目标。为实现该目标,国家先后开展了多项推动当地经济发展的重大建设工程项目,并在项目开展的过程中,针对出现的生态问题,实施了一系列的生态修复措施。目前针对青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复的研究,在多工程类型修复效益的融合,以及宏观空间布局尺度上对生态修复成效的评估还相对较少,并且缺乏统一的评价标准。故本研究选取青藏高原道路、水电和矿产开发三类典型的重大建设工程,结合区域及工程特点,通过文献调研、业界专家咨询等方法手段,以生态修复后的生态系统结构、质量和服务为核心架构,筛选能够综合客观的反映该地区生态修复效益的具体指标,最终构建系统、合理和科学的青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复综合效益评估指标体系。该评估指标体系涉及生态系统结构、质量和服务三大指标类别,包括10个主题指标,21个具体指标。以期为青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复效益的总体认知和长期监测,以及未来生态修复工程的制定、建设工程的布局及其他生态系统管理措施的实施,和未来生态修复评估的相关研究提供科学参考和理论支撑。     

Countering the Broadleaf Invasion: Financial and Carbon Consequences of Removing Hardwoods during Longleaf Pine Savanna Restoration

The once widespread Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)–dominated ecosystems of the southeastern coastal plain of the United States have been greatly reduced in extent, and many of the remaining stands are being degraded by hardwood invasion due to fire suppression. The first step toward pine savanna restoration is often hardwood removal, a costly process due to their large volumes and low market values. Despite these problems, by marketing a wide range of hard‐ and softwood products, the costs of 13 restoration projects in northern Florida were substantially reduced. Ten different products were sold to 19 different buyers. Fuel chips represented 71–100% of all biomass removed (8.2–81.1 Mg/ha). Although landowners were charged modest amounts for removing biomass harvested as fuel chips, other marketed products yielded revenues. Overall, four projects earned net profits of $29–$383/ha, and four projects generated sufficient revenue to pay 17–99% of the cost of hardwood removal as fuel chips. A carbon accounting of a second set of projects demonstrated that carbon harvested as fuel chips far exceeded that consumed in harvest and transport, yielding net carbon offsets of 451–1,320 Mg C/project (3.3–13.9 Mg C/ha). Using fuel consumption results of this second set of projects, carbon offsets for the 13 restoration projects were estimated as 89–1,524 Mg (3.8–37.9 Mg C/ha). Restorationists should monitor traditional forest product markets as well as developing carbon markets for price fluctuations that could provide significant revenues to restoration projects.     

lntracortical Connections in the Snakes Natrix sipedon and Thamnophis sirtalis

The association and commissural connections between the four cortical areas in water (Natrix sipedon) and garter (Thamnophis sirtalis) snakes were studied by placing lesions on the cortical surface and studying the resulting degeneration in Fink-Heimer preparations. Lateral cortex projects to the outer one third of layer 1 of ipsilateral medial cortex. Dorsal cortex projects to the middle third of layer 1 of ipsilateral medial cortex. Dorsomedial cortex projects bilaterally to the inner third of layer 1 and to layer 3 of me dial cortex. It also projects to layer 1 of contralateral dorsomedial cortex. Medial cortex projects ipsilaterally to each of the other cortical areas. With the apparent exception of the projection of medial cortex to lateral cortex, each projection is organized such that each rostrocaudal segment of a cortical area projects to all segments of the target area lying at the same or more caudal levels.     

How to work with children and animals: A guide for school‐based citizen science in wildlife research

Engaging school students in wildlife research through citizen science projects can be a win–win for scientists and educators. Not only does it provide a way for scientists to gather new data, but it can also contribute to science education and help younger generations become more environmentally aware. However, wildlife research can be challenging in the best of circumstances, and there are few guidelines available to help scientists create successful citizen science projects for school students. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges faced when developing school‐based citizen science projects in wildlife research by synthesising two sources of information. First, we conducted a small, school‐based citizen science project that investigated the effects of supplementary feeding on urban birds as a case study. Second, we reviewed the literature to develop a database of school‐based citizen science projects that address questions in wildlife ecology and conservation. Based on these activities, we present five lessons for scientists considering a school‐based citizen science project. Overall, we found that school‐based citizen science projects must be carefully designed to ensure reliable data are collected, students remain engaged, and the project is achievable under the logistical constraints presented by conducting wildlife research in a school environment. Ultimately, we conclude that school‐based citizen science projects can be a powerful way of collecting wildlife data while also contributing to the education and development of environmentally aware students.     

An application programming interface for CellNetAnalyzer

CellNetAnalyzer (CNA) is a MATLAB toolbox providing computational methods for studying structure and function of metabolic and cellular signaling networks. In order to allow non-experts to use these methods easily, CNA provides GUI-based interactive network maps as a means of parameter input and result visualization. However, with the availability of high-throughput data, there is a need to make CNA's functionality also accessible in batch mode for automatic data processing. Furthermore, as some algorithms of CNA are of general relevance for network analysis it would be desirable if they could be called as sub-routines by other applications. For this purpose, we developed an API (application programming interface) for CNA allowing users (i) to access the content of network models in CNA, (ii) to use CNA's network analysis capabilities independent of the GUI, and (iii) to interact with the GUI to facilitate the development of graphical plugins.Here we describe the organization of network projects in CNA and the application of the new API functions to these projects. This includes the creation of network projects from scratch, loading and saving of projects and scenarios, and the application of the actual analysis methods. Furthermore, API functions for the import/export of metabolic models in SBML format and for accessing the GUI are described. Lastly, two example applications demonstrate the use and versatile applicability of CNA's API. CNA is freely available for academic use and can be downloaded from http://www.mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de/projects/cna/cna.html.     

A hierarchical approach to ecosystem assessment of restoration planning at regional,catchment and local scales in Japan

A hierarchical approach to restoration planning at the regional, catchment and local scales is proposed and examined. Restoration projects limited to a local scale and focused on habitat improvement for individual species ended in failure, which has led to the recognition that there is a need for ecosystem-based management at the landscape level. The first landscape-level restoration in Japan is under way in the Kushiro and Shibetsu River Basins, in northern Japan. However, public consensus on these large-scale restoration projects has not yet matured and there are very few projects that have progressed even as far as mapping to classify intact and disturbed ecosystems. Classification of habitat quality using physical and biological indicators appears to be the core element of analysis of ecological degradation at the regional scale (100–1,000 km²). This mass-screening process is critical to identify areas in potential need of restoration. The causes and mechanisms of ecosystem degradation are then examined at the catchment scale (10–100 km²) by linking material flows and habitat conditions. Direct environmental gradient analysis is useful to determine cause and effect relationships between species and habitat quality. Finally, we recommend implementation of field experiments with a clear hypothesis at the local scale (0.01–1 km²). At this stage, key variables causing degradation of the target ecosystem are manipulated to verify the hypothesis. Based on the results of local-scale analyses, the possibility of restoration success can be evaluated, which directs us to practical schemes for future restoration projects at larger scales.     

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Real Options Approach to the Challenge of Financial Sustainability

BackgroundIn contemporary complex societies, social values like ethics, corporate social responsibility, and being respectful with the environment, among others, are becoming social requirements. Corporations are expected to fulfill them and, according to empirical evidence, an overwhelming majority aspires to good social valuation. At the same time, the maximization of market share value in the long run continues to be the central corporate goal. Making environmental and social expenses compatible with value creation is a central challenge for corporations since it implies the financial sustainability of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Methods and Results

The value creation capacity of CSR projects, mainly through innovation, is widely acknowledged in economic literature and corporate practice. This fact arouses the need of having a quantitative framework capable of summarizing the value creation capacity of the variables involved in CSR projects. With this aim we build up a sensitivity analysis of real option ratios that studies and quantifies the value creation capacity of CSR projects connected with innovation. Ratio analysis has the advantage of being scale independent. Hence, it furnishes a homogeneous framework to express the interaction of value creation variables and, thus, supports strategic thinking quantitatively. Often, CSR expenses can be regarded as preliminary projects that create the opportunity to undertake a full future project. For them, we obtain the minimum expectations scenario that makes financially sustainable a preliminary project that can be interpreted as a call option. We propose a classification of CSR projects from the decision analysis perspective following a two-fold approach: Their relationship with value creation and their links with existing corporate activities. This classification of CSR projects aims at contributing to choose the best capital budgeting method to study the financial sustainability of the project and identifying those CSR projects that fulfill the required features to be studied from the real options perspective.     

Obtaining the sequence of the rice genome and lessons learned along the way

Rice holds the record for the largest number of separate genome projects and for having the genome of two subspecies sequenced. This might be a short-lived record in the genomics era, but it highlights the significance of rice as a food staple and as a model plant for cereal species. Clearly, obtaining the genome sequence four times seems redundant, yet the rationale and motivation for each of these projects is valid; whether it is serving corporate shareholders or the general scientific community. Although the multiple projects resulted in some duplicated efforts, the value of data sharing was obvious and the winner in the end will be the global public.     

Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners

Despite expenditures of more than 1 billion dollars annually, there is little information available about project motivations, actions, and results for the vast majority of river restoration efforts. We performed confidential telephone interviews with 317 restoration project managers from across the United States with the goals of (1) assessing project motivations and the metrics of project evaluation and (2) estimating the proportion of projects that set and meet criteria for ecologically successful river restoration projects. According to project managers, ecological degradation typically motivated restoration projects, but post‐project appearance and positive public opinion were the most commonly used metrics of success. Less than half of all projects set measurable objectives for their projects, but nearly two‐thirds of all interviewees felt that their projects had been “completely successful.” Projects that we classified as highly effective were distinct from the full database in that most had significant community involvement and an advisory committee. Interviews revealed that many restoration practitioners are frustrated by the lack of funding for and emphasis on project monitoring. To remedy this, we recommend a national program of strategic monitoring focused on a subset of future projects. Our interviews also suggest that merely conducting and publishing more scientific studies will not lead to significant improvements in restoration practice; direct, collaborative involvement between scientists, managers, and practitioners is required for forward progress in the science and application of river restoration.     

UNDP与中国合作实施GEF生物多样性项目的成就与经验

全球环境基金(GEF)作为《生物多样性公约》财务机制的运行主体,已在全球范围内实施了7个周期,各国在执行GEF项目期间,遇到了可持续性不强、项目设计方案复杂、期望过高等挑战.作为GEF的国际实施机构,联合国开发计划署(UNDP)与中国政府合作,针对各项挑战,采取综合应对措施,优化设计与实施的生物多样性项目取得了系列成就...     

PlasmoDB: the Plasmodium genome resource. An integrated database providing tools for accessing, analyzing and mapping expression and sequence data (both finished and unfinished)

PlasmoDB (http://PlasmoDB.org) is the official database of the Plasmodium falciparum genome sequencing consortium. This resource incorporates finished and draft genome sequence data and annotation emerging from Plasmodium sequencing projects. PlasmoDB currently houses information from five parasite species and provides tools for cross-species comparisons. Sequence information is also integrated with other genomic-scale data emerging from the Plasmodium research community, including gene expression analysis from EST, SAGE and microarray projects. The relational schemas used to build PlasmoDB [Genomics Unified Schema (GUS) and RNA Abundance Database (RAD)] employ a highly structured format to accommodate the diverse data types generated by sequence and expression projects. A variety of tools allow researchers to formulate complex, biologically based queries of the database. A version of the database is also available on CD-ROM (Plasmodium GenePlot), facilitating access to the data in situations where Internet access is difficult (e.g. by malaria researchers working in the field). The goal of PlasmoDB is to enhance utilization of the vast quantities of data emerging from genome-scale projects by the global malaria research community.