ResearchHub Foundation

SciCon 2025 brought scientists, funders and founders together in one room for a full day of discussions. Here are the highlights from an event that left everyone energized. 1/8

Here’s why science funders use ResearchHub: 1. Fund exactly what you care about Support specific proposals or post your own RFP to attract teams working on research questions you want explored. 2. Funds go directly to researchers Your capital goes straight to vetted scientists, not overhead. No indirect costs. Transparent 9% platform fee. 3. Expert review before funding Proposals undergo open peer review, giving funders context on study design, rigor, and feasibility. 4. Track outcomes in real time Budgets, milestones, and updates are public. 5. Tax benefits Donations may qualify for tax deductions via eligible 501(c)(3) nonprofit partners.

Important preprint (with awesome figures!) showing monocytes are biological sensors of aging and frailty in humans by the @JudeM_Phillip lab from Johns Hopkins @JHUBME. researchhub.com/paper/11126914…

You can now buy or deposit $RSC directly into your ResearchHub wallet. researchhub.com/researchcoin

>200 million people have peripheral artery disease (PAD). In its worst form, blood vessels fail to regrow after surgery. Wounds stay open. Muscles waste. @HaoYin20's preregistered proposal just received $10k to study the pathology of PAD on ResearchHub. 🧵

We’re talking funding feature and AI!

> be tech guy in australia > adopted a dying rescue dog > cancer everywhere > months to live > pay $3K > sequence tumor DNA > feed it to ChatGPT and AlphaFold > design custom mRNA vaccine > no biology background > 3 months to approve > gets rosie her first shot > tumor halves > coat glossy > dog is thriving > "if we can do this for a dog, why aren't we rolling this out to humans?" now imagine what happens when you let thousands of people run experiments in parallel w/ open data, permissionless research and ai-accelerated discovery desci is early @bioprotocol @researchhub

Truly appreciate the support of ResearchHub @ResearchHubF @ResearchHub @rust_ruslan 🙏🙏🙏 For so many years, this is my FIRST grant submitted & FUNDED!!!🥹 Pickering lab is now ready to continue our NAD+-Sirt6 adventure into microvascular zone🤠 Also thank @DocJasonLee for the powerful & beautiful preliminary data🙌 👉Can microvascular mural cells orchestrate the vascular & muscular regeneration following ischemic skeletal muscle injury? 👉Can senescence be propagated from one cell type to another in ischemic muscle? 👉Can we design a therapeutic strategy, such as NAD+ supplementation or Sirt6 activation, to prevent tissue damage/failure in peripheral artery disease? Please take a look at my grant, and any advice/suggestions are highly appreciated! researchhub.com/proposal/5526/…

@rust_ruslan Thanks for the shoutout, Ruslan! We’re building systems to accelerate the speed of science: promoting open science, paying peer reviewers, and funding proposals.

I currently have three papers in review at "high impact" journals. One of them has been sitting there for two years. In that time my daughter was born and learned how to walk, but apparently publishing a PDF was still not possible for me. For another one, after four months in review the editor told me they cannot find a second reviewer and asked me to suggest more reviewers. A third one sent me a message in 2026 saying the PDF I uploaded was larger than 10 MB and that I should please reupload everything to make the file smaller. All of this just to eventually pay between 7,000 and 12,000 USD per paper so someone can officially approve that the science we do is "legitimate". Reminder: not a single reviewer will be compensated here. I still don't understand how we as scientists can collectively be so smart when doing science and still tolerate a system like this when it comes to sharing our findings. We should move to preprints plus open review, whether human or AI, asap. So frustrated about it. I'd suggest sharing your work on bioRxiv or medRxiv, reading and reviewing preprints when you can, and highlighting good research, especially if it is still a preprint. Try platforms like ResearchHub (that pay for peer review) and experiment with AI based reviewers for faster feedback. Instead I read this as a proposed "revolutionary" measure:

In the next Community Call, we’ll discuss: • New RFPs and funding proposals • Our AI-assisted proposal review system • Early details on a new event this summer 🗓 Monday, March 16 ⏰ 10 AM PDT Join the conversation. x.com/i/spaces/1yGBe…

You can fund this proposal toward its $1k goal on ResearchHub. Or earn $150 in $RSC by submitting a peer review. researchhub.com/fund/5614/a-mu…

Most AI models in biomedicine work in silos. Histology captures tissue structure. Spatial transcriptomics captures gene expression. But their representations are typically analyzed separately. A team from the @OHSUKnight Cancer Institute applied for a $1k microgrant to build a reusable multi-agent MCP server that brings both into a shared embedding space. They will test it on 92 triple-negative breast cancer patients to assess whether integrated representations improve tumor microenvironment characterization beyond either modality alone.

Crowdfunding toward the preregistration's $10k goal is now live on ResearchHub. Donations are tax-deductible. researchhub.com/fund/5094/de-n…

An application to our $10k Aging & Longevity RFP targets a quiet driver of aging: advanced glycation end products (AGEs). These sugar-derived molecules accumulate over time and contribute to cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, and diabetes. The proposal uses AI-based de novo protein design to create binders that capture and neutralize AGEs before they trigger damage.

That’s very exciting 🤩 Someone has just put $200,000 on the table to scientifically prove (or disprove!) my little stone softening experiment in a pot WITH REAL SCIENCE! 🧪 Grab it! It’s for you! I’m not a scientist and I don’t even pretend to be one, so this amount is for YOU, the real SCIENTIST with pedigree and such. Let me quote the announcement: “A $200K funding opportunity was just posted on @ResearchHub to capitalize experiments testing a decades-old hypothesis: That ancient megaliths weren't carved from quarried stone — they were cast from geopolymer concrete” Use this repost of mine and scroll up in the thread to find the juicy details:

Fund this proposal toward its $5k goal on ResearchHub. Or earn $150 in $RSC by submitting a peer review. researchhub.com/fund/5606/axon…

AxonVoice, led by investigators at @AxonDAO, proposes a $5k Phase I build to create a standardized, reproducible, AI-ready voice biomarker infrastructure. The goal: scalable, reliable phenotyping of neurological and psychological states for research and future clinical use.

Crowdfunding toward the $10k goal is live on ResearchHub. Donations are tax-deductible. researchhub.com/fund/5532/scpe…

Most aging clocks can measure biological age. But they don’t reveal which genes to target to slow it. A team from MIT, @ragoninstitute of @MassGenBrigham, and @broadinstitute of @MIT and @Harvard applied to our Aging & Longevity RFP to address that gap. Their proposal combines Perturb-seq with single-cell aging clocks to move from correlational signatures to causal regulators. By systematically perturbing genes and measuring shifts in aging state, they aim to produce a ranked map of aging drivers and druggable pathways.