Slides of our first meetup on how science and knowledge creation could benefit from the blockchain revolution.

1. Blockchainified Science: Meetup #1
PD Dr. Sönke Bartling: “Blockchain for Lifesciences: Introduction”
https://www.meetup.com/de-DE/ScienceB0/
Please reuse and provide reference.

4. BlockchainHub
blockchainhub.net
blockchainhub
@blockchainhub
Shermin Voshmgir
@sherminvo
@sherminvoshmgir

5. PD Dr. Sönke Bartling
• Scientist in basic medical imaging sciences (dkfz)
• Freelance Radiologist
• Open Science advocate
• Experience in several research cultures (applied
research Germany/USA, basic research)
• Blockchain for science and knowledge creation –
living doc – goo.gl/P9rTQ

6. Blockchain for (Life-
)sciences:Introduction
BlockchainHub ■ PD Dr. Sönke Bartling ■ Nov 29, 2016 ■ HIIG

7. What is blockchain?

8. The etymologic answer:

9. The historic answer:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
1. I ntroduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-
reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.
A working combination of:
• Public key cryptography and hashes
• Consens mechanisms
• Proof-of-Work
• A blockchain
• P2P network
• Economic incentives (intrinsic value – Bitcoin) to
maintain the correct status

10. The abstract answer I:
To organize digital things so
that they are:
• Decentralized
• Distributed
• Transparent / provable
• Immutable
• Time-stamped

11. The abstract answer II:

12. The hype answer
Blockchain revolution will replace lots of middle man businesses. Old trusted third
parties will be replaced by new (unaware & impotent) trusted third parties...
Massive implications for supply chain management, banking, IoT, ...
Even nation states are being questioned ...
“Cryptography took out the middle man in communications – now it takes out the
middle man in everything else”

13. The database answer
A modern database system
Intrinsic backup, distributed, fail-proof
Modern cryptographically secured access rights, signatures
Immutability
Open / Public (at will)

14. The “No” answer

15. The “Yes” answer

16. Which blockchain for
science?

17. What are the problems in current
Knowledge Creation?

18. What are the problems in knowledge creation?
Reproducibility crisis1
Only few parts of the scientific process are open to scientific self-correction
Legacy (infra-)structures
Large overhead structures / workload
Thinking out of the box is not incentivized
1Blockchain for science and knowledge creation – living doc – goo.gl/P9rTQ

19. Research in blockchain

22. Experiment
Real-world/blockchain interface problem

24. Data acquisition
Internet of research things (e.g. MRT scanner, western blot, microscope, ...)
Blockchain
database
IoRT
Devices
• Time-stamped
• Serial number
• Trusted devices
• More and more research
devices have interfaces
• Cryptographic signatures
• Cryptographically assured
subject privacy
• Cryptographically assured
researcher blinding
Questionnaires

26. Data processing
Traceable and provable data processing, e.g. through smart contracts
Open (at will)

28. Analysis
• Blockchain pre-registered study design1
• Prevent publication bias
• Prevents ex-post-facto hypothesizing
• Great for approval studies
“Smart evidence”1 Irving G, Holden J. How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical
science. F1000Res. 2016;5: 222. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8114.1

30. Publication
Publication on blockchain database
Cryptographically assured author attribution
Disintermediation of publishing platform – p2p publishing > more in the next meetups
Interesting for dynamic publications, low-threshold publications
Anonymous publication
Much larger parts of the scientific process open to scientific self-correction

32. Anonymous publications?
Currently no incentive > no name, no fame, no money
Imagine: Publishing on blockchain with a cryptographic code
Certificates proof “good standing” – “A German Prof. at an university with more
than 20 peer-reviewed paper”
And still get credits, money for it
Release real name if wanted

33. Somebody did it! 
ScientistFive. Agora: A proposal to overcome the
limitations of the current knowledge creation process
[Internet]. Zenodo; 2015. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14969
«under a ‘nom de plume’ in order to
minimize the risk of adverse effects
(e.g., unfavourable editorial decisions,
or stern letters to employers)»

34. Isn´t «really good science not always a break with orthodoxy –
and how could the orthodox than fairly assess it?» (Michael
Polanyi)
«Science advances one funeral at a time» (Max Planck)

36. Many more applications ...
... crowdfunding, rating research, assessing impact, etc.
... new ways of research money distribution,
... tokens for ideas / patents
...
Discussion in the next Blockchainified Science meetups.

38. Next steps?
Communicate potential
Discuss problems
Legal implications
Make it happen!

39. Thank you
PD Dr. Sönke Bartling, @soenkeba
soenkebartling@hiig.de
Blockchain for Science:
@science_b0
Blockchain for science and
knowledge creation – living doc –
goo.gl/P9rTQ
(incl. references, implementation
examples, etc.)