Sciencebucks.com, the kickstarter of science funding?

[ygolo]

http://www.sciencebucks.com/

http://www.sciencebucks.com/2012/03/03/the-basic-idea/

What do you think?

Does this guy have a shot at making this work?

Do you think it can become as good as http://www.kickstarter.com/ ?

 

[UniqueMixture]

I don't think science has endeared itself to the mass consciousness in the same way that business has. Especially since it is perceived as being controlled by corporate interests on the subconscious level.

 

[ygolo]

Really?

So subconsciously, people think of corporate interests when the think of the Curies, Pasteur, and Einstein?

When they hear about people working on cancer, or biofuels, they subconsciously think about corporations?

Whereas, when they think about business they don't subconsciously think about corporations?

This seems really counter-intuitive to me.

 

[1487610420]

100% real science already has it's funding guaranteed from tax payer money. If anything, the same bureaucracy of which project gets elected and for how much will still be a hurdle. Nice try though.

 

[Metamorphosis]

I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure about the chances of it actually working.

Some problems I see currently are:
1. There isn't a clear enough vision about how it's actually going to work.
2. They aren't going to spend any money until they get a big enough audience. That would turn me off from donating anything.
3. The "support science bucks" indicator has a really small amount. That doesn't really build any confidence. They need to salt that tip jar some.
4. The website needs to look a lot more professional, imo.
5. Investors really get nothing in return. Wonder and amazement are awesome, but I can get that for free by going to physorg.
6. They need to actually do something, even if it's really small, just to demonstrate some efficacy.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Really?

So subconsciously, people think of corporate interests when the think of the Curies, Pasteur, and Einstein?

When they hear about people working on cancer, or biofuels, they subconsciously think about corporations?

Whereas, when they think about business they don't subconsciously think about corporations?

This seems really counter-intuitive to me.

I think this is part of the "global warming is a hoax to steal all our money" conspiracy theory for example. Or the resentment to drug companies for not providing drugs for less money (thus these "holistic" movements). Or the idea that "they already have the cure for cancer/aids look at magic johnson!." I think this is why NTs are NTs because they think of "good" things when they think of science and only the good things (thus the exuberance of the the transhumanism movement). I think people in general think of science in terms of how they are affected by it. Also, lots of technology is an indicator of high social status now and causes resentment there.

Also, science is one of women's least fasvorite topics to talk about. I wonder why that could be?