Все
 
 
 


Blockchain for Science, from Covid-19 towards DeSci: the Implementation of Decentralized Technologies in Young Academia
 
Код статьиS278229070028454-5-1
DOI10.18254/S278229070028454-5
Тип публикации Статья
Статус публикации Опубликовано
Авторы
Космарский Артём Анатольевич 
Должность: researcher
Аффилиация: State Academic University for the Humanities (GAUGN)
Адрес: Moscow, Russia
Название журналаLaw & Digital Technologies
ВыпускТом 3 № 2
Страницы37-43
Аннотация

Objective: This paper explores the evolving landscape of blockchain technology and its applications in the field of science, with a specific focus on the period from 2021 to 2023. It examines the challenges and opportunities posed by blockchain, particularly in the context of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and the concept of decentralized science (DeSci).

Methods:

The research draws on a comprehensive review of existing literature, including prior works by the author related to blockchain in science, as well as an analysis of recent developments in the blockchain ecosystem. It discusses the principles of blockchain technology and its potential in academia, addressing both the technical and socio-organizational aspects of its implementation.

Results:

The paper reveals the shift in focus from blockchain as a tool for transparency and automation in science to its decentralization aspects, such as DAOs. It highlights the application of DAOs in research crowdfunding, decentralized decision-making, and cross-border collaboration, with a special emphasis on the Covid-19 interlude in 2020-2021. The discussion also delves into the role of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in science, which provide new avenues for monetizing research and democratizing funding and organization in the field.

Scientific Novelty:

The novelty of this paper lies in its examination of the latest wave of blockchain projects in science, particularly the emergence of DAOs and DeSci in the years 2021-2023, an analysis that is still largely absent from scholarly literature. It underscores the evolving blockchain ideologies and controversies within the scientific community, as well as the tensions between transparency and decentralization.

Practical Significance:

The paper highlights the practical significance of blockchain technology in academia, particularly in facilitating research funding, transparent decision-making, and cross-border collaboration. It discusses how blockchain and NFTs offer innovative ways to monetize research and democratize funding, reducing dependence on traditional funding sources.

Ключевые словаblockchain, academia, DAO, NFT, Covid-19, decentralization
Источник финансированияThe paper was prepared at the State Academic University for the Humanities under the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (topic NoFZNF-2023-0003 "Traditions and values of society: mechanisms of formation and transformation in the context of global history").
Получено05.11.2023
Дата публикации30.12.2023
Кол-во символов21402
Цитировать   Скачать pdf Для скачивания PDF необходимо авторизоваться
100 руб.
При оформлении подписки на статью или выпуск пользователь получает возможность скачать PDF, оценить публикацию и связаться с автором. Для оформления подписки требуется авторизация.

Оператором распространения коммерческих препринтов является ООО «Интеграция: ОН»

Оглавление

1. Introduction1
Blockchain and Science: The First Engagements
Blockchain and COVID-19
The New Wave of Blockchain for Youth Science: DAO and DeSci
Conclusion: Blockchain in times of conflict?
1

1. Introduction1

This paper continues a series of studies by the author devoted to the problems of implementation and use of blockchain technologies in the sphere of science [Kosmarski, 2019; Antopolskiy et al., 2019], started in 2019, at the time of active interest in this relatively new technology and the first attempts to solve various problems of the academic industry with its help – both in Russia and in across the globe. In my previous research I paid special attention not so much to the technical peculiarities of blockchain as to the social, organizational, cultural, and legal collisions that arose when it entered an area relatively distant from IT and financial technologies. It is important to note that, contrary to pessimistic forecasts about the blockchain's unnecessary use, labor-intensiveness of its use, wariness on the part of the scientific community, etc., new principles and practices of successful dissemination of decentralized blockchain solutions in science are emerging. This paper is devoted to the problems of the latest wave of such projects (2021-2023).

 1. The paper was prepared at the State Academic University for the Humanities under the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (topic NoFZNF-2023-0003 "Traditions and values of society: mechanisms of formation and transformation in the context of global history").
2

Blockchain and Science: The First Engagements

However, let us begin with a brief description of what blockchain is and what the principles of its implementation in academia have been. Blockchain technology, or, as it is technically more accurately called, distributed ledger technology (DLT), extended itself beyond the boundaries of specialized developments and gained global popularity in the mid-2010s (Herian, 2018; Campbell-Verduyn and Hütten, 2019; Voshgmir, 2020).
3 In essence, a blockchain is a set of data blocks connected by cryptographic tools in such a way as to make it impossible to change the contents of one block without changing the others. In a digital ledger, information is stored in a network of decentralized nodes, and all recorded transactions are transparent to each member of the network. This approach to data processing (decentralized and distributed) prevents retroactive alteration of data and other types of covert manipulation.
4 The blockchain network relies on a consensus mechanism to ensure the accuracy of transactions without requiring trust in the actions of individual participants (Werbach, 2018). Blockchain allows verification of the status of data of any kind (time of its creation or modification, authorship, content), and verification is performed by a distributed network of computers (nodes) that does not belong to a single person or organization. Thus, this technology provides a system that is resistant to unfair interventions and manipulations and, at the same time, open to the approval of all sorts of data and operations with it (Waal et al, 2020).
5 In a distributed registry, the data is: - transparent; - verifiable; - immutable (it is technically impossible to change them retroactively without leaving a clear trace in the system); - distributed across different nodes in multiple copies; - decentralized (included and removed from the system subject to the consensus of all participants rather than one central node of authority).
6 The reason for the initial interest of scientists, scientific administrators, and IT-enthusiasts close to science in blockchain was due to the fact that this technology was supposed to improve all sorts of “grand” systems of economy, politics, and society. Its key benefits were a guarantee of data stability, a guarantee of trust among distrustful entities, and a guarantee of successful interactions between these entities without the need for a central governing body. Optimism was aroused by the deep, structural similarities between science (as a social institution) and blockchain: it is just as decentralized (there is no main authority that decides everything) and develops thanks to networks of trust and agreements within the community. Or, in another formulation, “scientific data is inherently a large, dynamic corpus of information that is collectively (collaboratively) created, modified, used, and exchanged - which aligns perfectly with blockchain technology.” (van Rossum, 2017: 8).
7 However, contrary to this structural similarity, at the level of management, funding, peer review, applied scientometrics, and expert evaluation, there are many opaque “black boxes” in science - systems whose processes are closed and opaque (Bunge, 1963). How does the selection of reviewers for a manuscript submitted to a journal - and decision-making about the publication of this manuscript in general - take place? By whom and on the basis of what indicators is the level and quality of a scientist's work evaluated? How and by whom are grant recipients determined? The insularity of these processes from the scientific community, their inertia, bureaucratization, and corruption often cause justifiable dissatisfaction among scientists (Fanelli, 2009; Head et al., 2015). It was expected that the application of blockchain in science would at least unlock some of the “black boxes” and make the processes inside them more open, reliable, and decentralized.

всего просмотров: 74

Оценка читателей: голосов 0 

1. Antopolskiy A.A., Kosmarskiy A.A., Gordiychuk N.V. Smart contracts in scientific activity: legal aspects // Information Resources of Russia. 2019. № 5. P. 37-43 (in Russian).
2. Branscombe, M. The Network Impact of the Global COVID-19 Pandemic // The New Stack. April 14. 2020. URL: https://thenewstack.io/the-network-impact-of-the-global-covid-19-pandemic/ 
3. Bunge M. (1963) A General Black Box Theory. Philosophy of Science. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 346—358.
4. Bychkova O., Kosmarskiy A. (2021) Blockchain as res publica: to the political genealogy of the distributed ledger // Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. Vol. 5. No. 4. 2021. P. 175-200. (in Russian).
5. Campbell-Verduyn, M., and Hütten, M. Beyond scandal? Blockchain technologies and the legitimacy of post-2008 finance // Finance and Society. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2218/finsoc.v5i2.4137 
6. Cimpanu, C. AMCA data breach has now gone over the 20 million mark. ZD Net. June 14. 2019. URL: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amca-data-breach-has-now-gone-over-the-20-million-mark/ 
7. Choudhury, H., Goswami, B., & Gurung, S.K. (2020). CovidChain: An Anonymity Preserving Blockchain Based Framework for Protection Against Covid-19. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 30, 257 - 280.
8. Shaen Corbet, Yang (Greg) Hou, Yang Hu, Charles Larkin, Les Oxley. Any port in a storm: Cryptocurrency safe-havens during the COVID-19 pandemic. Economics Letters, Volume 194, 2020, 109377, ISSN 0165-1765, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109377  .
9. Cowen, N. Market for rules: the promise and peril of blockchain distributed governance // Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy. 2019. 9, 2. P. 213-226.
10. Ducrée, J., Codyre, M., Li, T., Walshe, R. & Bartling, S. (2022). DeSci - Decentralized Science [preprint]. DeSci Community. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202205.0223.v1 
11. Fanelli D. (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. 
12. Feichtinger, R., Fritsch, R., Vonlanthen, Y., & Wattenhofer, R. (2023). The Hidden Shortcomings of (D)AOs - An Empirical Study of On-Chain Governance. ArXiv, abs/2302.12125.
13. Head M. L., Holman L., Lanfear, R., Kahn A. T. Jennions M. D. (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science. PLOS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 
14. Herian, R. Regulating blockchain: сritical perspectives in law and technology. Routledge, 2018.
15. Kiranmayee, Tadepalli Sarada, and Ruppa K. Thulasiram. "Analysis of Blockchain-Backed COVID-19 Data." Assessing COVID-19 and Other Pandemics and Epidemics using Computational Modelling and Data Analysis (2022): 283-297.
16. Kosmarskiy A. A. Blockchain for science: revolutionary opportunities, implementation prospects, potential problems // Public Opinion Monitoring: Economic and Social Changes. 2019. № 2. P. 388-409. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.2.16.  (in Russian).
17. Kosmarski, A. Blockchain Adoption in Academia: Promises and Challenges // Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020. Vol. 6. No. 4. Article 117 https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/4/117 
18. Leible, S.; Schlager, S.; Schubotz, M.; Gipp, B. A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science // Frontiers in Blockchain. 2019, 2, 16.
19. H. Leite, I.R. Hodgkinson, T. Gruber. New development: 'Healing at a distance'-telemedicine and COVID-19. Public Money & Management (2020), pp. 1-3, 10.1080/09540962.2020.1748855
20. Lv, W., Wu, S., Jiang, C., Cui, Y., Qiu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Towards Large-Scale and Privacy-Preserving Contact Tracing in COVID-19 Pandemic: A Blockchain Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 9, 282-298.
21. Manski, S., Manski, B. No Gods, No Masters, No Coders? The Future of Sovereignty in a Blockchain World. // Law Critique. 2018. #29. P. 151–162.
22. Joris van Rossum. (2017) Blockchain for Research. Perspectives on a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communication. Digital Science Report. November 2017. https://doi.  org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5607778.
23. Raju Vaishya, Mohd Javaid, Ibrahim Haleem Khan, Abid Haleem. Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications for COVID-19 pandemic // Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2020, Pages 337-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.012  .
24. Amalesh Sharma, Anirban Adhikary, Sourav Bikash Borah. Covid-19′s impact on supply chain decisions: Strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data. Journal of Business Research, Volume 117, 2020, Pages 443-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.035 
25. Stefan Tönnissen, Frank Teuteberg. Analysing the impact of blockchain-technology for operations and supply chain management: An explanatory model drawn from multiple case studies. International Journal of Information Management, Volume 52, 2020, 101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.009  .
26. Voshmgir, Sh. Token Economy: How the Web3 reinvents the Internet. Berlin: Blockchain Hub Berlin, 2020.
27. Waal, M.B., Ribeiro, C.D., Ma, M., Haringhuizen, G., Claassen, E., & Burgwal, L.V. Blockchain-facilitated sharing to advance outbreak R&D // Science. 2020. 368, 719 -721.
28. Werbach, K. The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.
29. Xu, H., Zhang, L., Onireti, O., Fang, Y., Buchanan, W.J., & Imran, M.A. (2020). BeepTrace: Blockchain-Enabled Privacy-Preserving Contact Tracing for COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8, 3915-3929.

Система Orphus

Загрузка...
Вверх