We funded @NoLongerMeow's proposal to explore a way to make living tissue temporarily transparent. This would allow biologists to see deeper inside living tissue without invasive surgery.

I absolutely agree. In our new NIH-funded research we try to adhere to this as much as possible. Ideally, data should be released the moment the result is there. The paper can serve as a sort of summary, but it should not be the primary outcome, because it emphasizes storytelling more than the actual results. This would be super easy if all scientists had a digital lab book that could be traced. AI could easily make this accessible to everyone, at least whatever can be shared. And @NIH could (and should) mandate this very easily. This would also help to make scientists more accountable to the research they proposed to do in their grants. That helps with reproducibility and many of the other problems. We will also try to implement and incentivize as much of this as we can with @ResearchHub, and keep making research more open and easily available.

Publicly funded science should work more like open source software. Today a result is a PDF. The data often isn't shared, the code isn't public, and few studies ever get replicated. Imagine every experiment as a repo. Data, code, and protocol, all versioned. Anyone could fork it, rerun it, and send a fix. Funders could reward replications as much as new papers. AI makes this urgent. Agents are now making more discoveries than ever. The bottleneck becomes replication/validation. Then commercialization, which still requires moving atoms in the real world and meetings with regulators.

Watch our interview about how we came up with the idea to study how microplastics may affect brain cells in Alzheimer’s disease. Led by Gavin in our lab, the project was made possible by crowdfunding through @ResearchHub @ResearchHubF in less than a day.

They got their research idea fully funded in less than a day. Meet @rust_ruslan and Gavin, investigating how microplastics affect brain cells involved in Alzheimer's. Hear how ResearchHub helped them secure funding and start experimenting while the idea was still fresh.

How much does the world actually spend on science? 1. US government research funding: ~$99 billion
In FY2024, federal agencies obligated about $47.5B for basic research and $51B for applied research. That's the pool most scientists mean when they say "grants": NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA and others. 2. Add philanthropy: ~$126 billion
Foundations and donors add about $27B on top of federal grants, supporting research at US universities and nonprofit institutes in 2024. That's roughly a fifth of all support for that work. 3. All US R&D: ~$1 trillion
Total US R&D hit $937B in 2023 and an estimated $993B in 2024. Most of it is industry funding product development. Government research and philanthropy together make up only about one-eighth of the total. 4. Global R&D: ~$3.8 trillion
The world spent an estimated $3.8T on R&D in 2024. The US and China each crossed $1T What this means
The money that funds open, curiosity-driven science is a fraction of total R&D, and it flows through slow, centralized channels. Even modest improvements in how that ~$126B is allocated would compound across every field. That $126B is the segment ResearchHub is currently starting with. Moving just 1% of it, about $1.3B a year, through preregistered proposals with incentivized peer review would change how a meaningful share of American science gets funded, reviewed, and shared.

New thing we're trying on X 🧪 If you see a post with a dubious scientific claim, reply "@ResearchHub test this" We will automatically generate a preregistered experimental design you can fund to test the claim in question

Platform fees collected by ResearchHub Foundation are burned weekly. 🔥 More platform activity = More RSC burned Every burn is permanent and verifiable on @base. Track $RSC burns ↓

Science organizations are either embracing AI or keeping it out of their workflows. @ResearchHub is leaning into AI for writing and reviewing funding proposals, as a complement to human experts, not a replacement.

RSC Transparency Update Over the coming days, the ResearchHub Foundation will carry out planned RSC token transfers between internal wallets. None of the tokens are being moved for sale. The community does not need to take any action.

@VitalikButerin We’re funding research on this through an open-science RFP. • If you work on airborne disease defense, apply with an open proposal. • If you want to back it, add to the funding pool.

@VitalikButerin We’re funding research on this through an open-science RFP. • If you work on airborne disease defense, apply with an open proposal. • If you want to back it, add to the funding pool.

Introducing our SciCon 2026 keynote speaker: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya! NIH Director, former Stanford professor, and author of 170+ peer-reviewed papers. 🗓 December 10 📍 San Francisco

OpenAI posted this on Tuesday. By Wednesday there was a $44,220 protocol on ResearchHub to test it in human iPSC neurons, reviewed and open to fund. The lead took 32 minutes. Testing it is still the slow part, and that's the part we're working on.

Glad to see someone is on board with making replication a top priority! Although the notion that NIH is “scaling down” our work on replication is complete fiction. We are deeply committed to making replication a core part of the biomedical research enterprise. Work is moving forward on many fronts: 🔎 Investing $174M in efforts to test interventions that incentivize replication, support research with built-in replication, and more. 🔎 Created the Linked Discoveries tool in PubMed Central, which connects researchers with related evidence and replication studies. 🔎 Issued highlighted topic encouraging research on rigor, transparency and replicability. 🔎 Creating a new S-index to measure (and incentivize) data sharing among researchers, with other new metrics to come. 🔎 [Coming soon]: a new journal focused on replication work. No amount of money will fix the issues the scientific enterprise faces on this topic. It requires a major cultural change affecting how we conduct, evaluate and reward scientific work. The culture of biomedical science must reward replicable, reproducible research — or else we won’t make much progress improving human health.