Reid Rubsamen希望开发一种艾滋病疫苗，但他不是从NIH申请基金，而是通过集资网站征集资金。这种依靠网络募集科研经费的方法到底是否靠谱？

依靠民间力量支持科学研究，过去比较多的是一些民间基金会，例如许多罕见少见病的患者家属设立的一些基金，大多数属于这类，他们依靠自己的力量和宣传，募集经费支持某一疾病的研究。随着网络社会的发展，一种新的募集科研基金的方式悄然出现，并逐渐形成气候，这也许代表着一种可行的科研资助方法。依靠捐助募集科研经费，有点类似于股票市场，不过股票是投资的未来预期，募集科研经费投资的是未来的科学发现。如果这种方式管理规范，制度恰当，至少可以把监督权交给社会和市场，依靠欺骗和蒙蔽申请经费不可能长期肆虐。

Reid Rubsamen是麻醉师和企业家，加州奥克兰“免疫项目”网络视频帮助他获得40.2万美元集资，另一个小项目获得2万美元集资。

但遗憾的是，在Rubsamen的宣传活动中，缺少艾滋病毒研究者或学术数据支持下的科学规划方案。这种非正统的经费募集方法过去经常见于硅谷，这种模式更注重技术和市场，不太关注同行评议的东东。问题是现在Rubsamen们把这种模式放到医学研究领域是否合理？医学研究领域逐渐成为科学家家呼吁公众基金关注的领域。

一些大型集资网站禁止进行医学研究相关的经费募集，但医学研究人员正在寻找其他捞钱的方式。2月6日，旧金山进化药理学家Ethan Perlstein的一个项目通过AngelList给他的独立实验室募集到150万美元经费，AngelList是一个投资社会网络。

Max Hodak是Menlo Park和加州生物技术公司Transcriptic的发起人，虽然他的公司给AngelList（410万）提供了120万美元支持，但Hodak对这种方式仍表示担心，成功的经费募集项目和学术研究能力不是一回事，学术能力不怎么样的学者或者更善于在公共场合筹款。

令人惊诧的是，曾经属于项目组成员的两名HIV学者，麻省总医院的Bruce Walker和南非艾滋病项目研究中心主任Salim Abdool Karim上周提出推出项目组。美国的Walker说他被列为项目指导人是个错误，南非的Abdool Karim是该项目的临床研究员，没有对这一事件作任何解释。

        这一艾滋病研究项目的目的是激活T免疫细胞，让该细胞攻击患者体内被艾滋病感染的细胞。一些科学家对这一研究策略表示怀疑。研究计划希望发现艾滋病毒的碎片（抗原表位epitopes），这是被一类对艾滋病有天然免疫力人群免疫系统识别的病毒目标。项目组成员计算机科学家David Heckerman负责在公共数据库中寻找这些抗原表位。他和Rabsumen希望如果他们将抗原表位作为疫苗免疫人，他们将启动被免疫人体内专门针对艾滋病毒的保护型T细胞。但艾滋病研究者认为，艾滋病天然免疫者部分原因是由于特殊的基因类型，这无法被其他人群模仿。也就是说这种策略并没有可行性。 

Selling science

"They’re preying on people who aredesperate for a vaccine," says immunologist Louis Picker of the OregonHealth and Science University in Portland. "The concept they’re selling isan old concept that has been shown not to work, and can’t work."

Indeed, the project was denied funding bythe Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington — an outcome Rubsamen attributes tothe field’s current interest in vaccines that trigger a response mediated byprotective proteins, called antibodies, rather than T cells. Both that approachand the T-cell approach have failed inhuman clinical trials of HIVvaccines. Researchers are working on improvements to both strategies1–3.

"Since there’s more science happeningthan could ever be funded by the government, maybe crowdfunding is an importanttool to start these things off," says Rubsamen, who previously founded twocompanies, one of which, Aradigm, in Hayward, California, makes inhaled drugs."It’s a different operating zone for some people, and I’m sure it’s anuncomfortable zone for some people."

Researchers indeed seem uncomfortable aboutwhether materials designed to inspire and engage the public can accuratelyconvey the state of Project Immunity’s science. They point out that theproject’s website does not mention its minuscule chance of success (most vaccinecandidates fail), or the fact that existing agreements already promise to makean HIV vaccine available at low or no cost. (Its website reports that “Animalstudies [were] successfully conducted with positive results", but theseanimal studies tested a vaccine against other viruses. Rubsamen says this workhas been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.)

"It seems like they’re going straightto the public and making appeals to emotion because they don’t have thescientific background to establish themselves in the research community,"says virologist Abbie Smith at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who criticizedthe project on her blog, ERV.

Rabsumen hopes that crowdfunding willenlist more people on behalf of science: “We need to do a better job ofcommunicating what we’re doing,” he says.

And Mitchell Warren, executive director ofthe non-profit HIV prevention advocacy group AVAC, based in New York, givesRabsumen credit for doing this so far."They have been more successful thanothers in captivating attention around social media and using novel fundraisingapproaches," he says.

Warren hopes that this will not backfire:"I hope that they don’t discourage people if there is not a licensedvaccine at the end of the day."

Naturedoi:10.1038/nature.2014.14675