Re: [DIYbio] Re: Kickstarter bans project creators from giving away genetically-modified organisms | The Verge

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=JG25
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Also, self-hosting is viable if you handle banking and refunds
ethically: http://selfstarter.us/

That's a software platform for another excellent project that
Kickstarter rejected, based on (I think) Ruby. Handles all the frontend
stuff, so you just accept the money personally; no cut goes to anyone,
no stupid editorial rules, no third party for lobby groups to bully.

The disadvantage is that you lack the "trust" of a third party if
you're doing an all-or-nothing project, because there's no escrow to
guarantee a refund if the project goal is not met. So, not worth trying
to convince people that's how things will work; just run it indiegogo
style and say "this is the target but all donations gratefully
accepted".

Also, projects should not forget the awesomeness that is gittip.com,
and should totally set up a gittip and let it be known that more
long-term, sustained funding is also very welcome. At present gittip's
pay-out is only to the US, but Gittip's founder is looking at ways of
sending payouts elsewhere, manually if need be. I think he suggested
that someone earning a reasonable amount could be simply sent cheques
or cash.

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 06:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Antony Evans <antonyevans@gmail.com> wrote:

> Indigogo accepts all projects with no editorial content...
>
> On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:07:25 PM UTC+8, Paul Schroeer-Hannemann
> wrote:
> >
> > Are there any crowdfunding sites specifically for research projects?
> >
> > On Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:27:27 PM UTC-5, Thomas Landrain wrote:
> >>
> >> This backfiring is just the beginning of what the glowing plant
> >> project has triggered, in my sense, by a lack of responsibility.
> >> Let's be humble and take this as a lesson for the future.
> >>
> >> T
> >>
> >>
> >> Kickstarter is clamping down on genetically-modified organisms
> >> following the success of a project to genetically engineer glowing
> >> plants<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-natural-lighting-with-no-electricit>
> >> for use as additional lighting in people's homes. Earlier this
> >> week and without explanation, the crowdfunding website quietly
> >> altered its guidelines for project creators
> >> <http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines>, introducing a new
> >> term that bans creators from giving away genetically-modified
> >> organisms (GMOs) as rewards to their online backers. "Projects
> >> cannot offer genetically modified organisms as a reward," the new
> >> language states. The prohibition is effective July 31st, meaning
> >> that the popular glow-in-the-dark plant project is safe, but that
> >> any future projects like it can't offer GMOs to their backers.
> >>
> >> "PROJECTS CANNOT OFFER GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AS A REWARD."
> >>
> >> When asked about the change by *The Verge*, the company provided
> >> only the following canned statement: "we aim to be as open as
> >> possible while protecting the health and creative spirit of
> >> Kickstarter for the long term." Yet the move comes just days after
> >> a project called "Glowing
> >> Plants"<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-natural-lighting-with-no-electricit>successfully
> >> raised nearly half-a-million dollars.
> >>
> >> The project was launched by a team of trained synthetic
> >> biologists, who want to insert bioluminescence genes from bacteria
> >> and fireflies into several types of plans — arabidopsis and roses—
> >> to make them glow in the dark. Project backers who pledged $40 or
> >> more were promised packets of seeds of the final glowing plant
> >> products. Similar glowing plants have been created separately by
> >> other biologists going back to the 1980s. But the Kickstarter
> >> project creators are hopeful that their effort will go further,
> >> and that future iterations of their plants can replace some
> >> electric lighting altogether.
> >>
> >> "For us, [Kickstarter's move] doesn't change anything," said Omri
> >> Amirav-Drory, one of the project's creators, a biochemist who is
> >> also CEO of a biotech company Genome Compiler. "We already have
> >> the money, and we're working on the project as we speak,
> >> transforming plants using DNA. But for me, I'm very sorry to see
> >> this, because it puts synthetic biology in the same category on
> >> Kickstarter as hate crimes and tobacco." Amirav-Drory said he had
> >> not been in touch with Kickstarter about the change in policy, but
> >> expressed puzzlement about it, because his glowing plant project
> >> had been featured repeatedly on Kickstater's editor-curated
> >> project sections.
> >>
> >> "IT PUTS SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY IN THE SAME CATEGORY ON KICKSTARTER AS
> >> HATE CRIMES AND TOBACCO."
> >>
> >> The creators maintain their project is legal under US law, and
> >> that the risk of cross-pollination is low because the main plant
> >> they're engineering, arabidopsis, is not native to the US.
> >> However, they also say they won't be able to send the seeds to
> >> countries in the European Union and other areas where GMO crops
> >> are widely curtailed. Meanwhile,Environmental
> >> advocates<http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Tell_Kickstarter_not_to_allow_bioengineered_organisms>
> >> and some scientists outside of the project have expressed concerns
> >> that it may lead to a negative perception of synthetic biology, or
> >> set a worrisome precedent for unsupervised release of GMOs. One
> >> researcher recently told* Nature
> >> <http://www.nature.com/news/glowing-plants-spark-debate-1.13131>*
> >> that the plants were "frivolous."
> >>
> >> As for Kickstarter, the website seems to be trying to insulate
> >> itself against critics of the glowing plants project and GMOs more
> >> generally. But as Amirav-Drory noted to *The Verge,* Kickstarter's
> >> new stance may lead scientists like himself to choose other
> >> crowdfunding platforms for their projects going forward.
> >>
> >
>