Decentralized science (DeSci) continues to gain momentum, and hopefully, this momentum ushers in a new era of how we conduct and fund scientific research. However, with the rise of blockchain technology, crowdfunding platforms, and open-access initiatives — all hallmarks of DeSci — the movement inherently challenges traditional paradigms of medical research and drug development.
One of the overarching goals of DeSci is to democratize scientific research, making it more open, transparent, and accessible while reducing the influence of centralized institutions. If this is true, then we need to start asking some difficult questions that consider these traditional paradigms, so let’s start with a good one: Can decentralized science coexist with Big Pharma — a sector that has long dominated pharmaceutical development and innovation, and an industry that’s done so, at times, groundbreakingly brilliantly; at other times, irresponsibly with deadly outcomes; and, at all times, with profit-seeking motives.
In mid-January of 2025, state attorneys finally reached a milestone opioid settlement with Purdue Pharmaceuticals and the Sackler family. Purdue Pharma, the company that makes OxyContin, has been ordered to pay a $7.4 billion settlement. Unlike other settlement deals discussed in the past, this settlement does not give the Sackler family immunity from future lawsuits. Initially, the Sackler family tried to protect themselves through bankruptcy courts, but the Supreme Court ruled that bankruptcy couldn’t financially protect the family to the degree that the Sacklers wanted.
So, are we finally holding Big Pharma to account? Not really. While the ruling didn’t allow the Sackler family to set up a financial firewall against future lawsuits through bankruptcy courts, they’re still receiving a lot of protection. This is especially true when you consider that they pled guilty multiple times to federal charges for deceptive marketing practices; millions of people died due to those marketing practices; and the opioid crisis still ravages communities throughout America. You can blame whoever you want for fentanyl, but the drug is just a synthetic consequence of the opioid crisis — and we have a pretty good idea of who to blame for that.
Defining Decentralized Science and Big Pharma
In case you’re unfamiliar with the term DeSci, decentralized science refers to a movement aimed at disrupting traditional scientific processes by leveraging decentralized technologies, particularly blockchain and other Web3 protocols. Some of the basic tenants of DeSci include:
- Open access: Making research findings and data freely available to everyone.
- Crowdfunding: Allowing the public to fund research projects, bypassing traditional funding mechanisms.
- Smart contracts: Using blockchain to automate and secure agreements related to intellectual property, funding, and data sharing.
The overall idea of DeSci is to enable more diverse, inclusive, and efficient research by removing barriers to entry and creating a more collaborative and transparent environment. As you might imagine, this isn’t exactly Big Pharma’s modus operandi.
What is Big Pharma?
Big Pharma refers to the behemoth conglomerate of multinational pharmaceutical companies that dominate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of medicine. These companies have massive financial resources and significant influence over the global healthcare system … and beyond.
Along with controlling much of the world’s drug development pipeline, from initial research and clinical trials to regulatory approval and marketing (and post-marketing lawsuits), Big Pharma also has its hands in other cookie jars of everyday life — literally. In the past few years, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly expanded into the food, agriculture, and wellness industries through either acquisition or strategic partnerships.
For example, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech Ventures, have yet to acquire a food company, but they have invested in food-related initiatives, such as its Pfizer Animal Health division, which provides vaccines, antibiotics, and other medicines to the animals of our food supply.
On the flip side, Nestlé has now ventured into the realm of health and wellness through its Nestlé Health Science initiative, leading to the acquisitions of nutritional supplement brands. Considering Nestlé owns Häagen-Dazs and DiGiorno Pizza, as well as pushes their own candy bars, Nesquik, and other diabetes-aligned delicacies, you may wonder why the company would foray into the wellness sector. Well, when you fatten people up, it makes financial sense to sell weight-management supplements to the post-plumped. And guess who Nestlé purchased the R&D from to enter the wellness sector? Pfizer. In 2012, Nestlé purchased Pfizer Nutrition for $11.85 billion.
The Deepening Roots of Pharma and Food
The Nestlé and Pfizer example is eyebrow-raising, but it’s not exactly hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck-raising. For that, you’d need to dig into the 2018 merger between Bayer and Monsanto. Bayer, the chemical and pharmaceutical giant, acquired Monsanto, the American agricultural giant known for its genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and controversial pesticide products, for $63 billion.
The merger was positioned as a strategic move to create a global leader in agriculture, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals, which has sparked widespread debate. Practically, Bayer took over control of Monsanto’s operations, including its vast intellectual property in genetically engineered seeds and pesticides. According to Bayer, the decision to merge with Monsanto was driven by the desire to boost food production by creating more efficient agricultural practices. However, regenerative farmers and scientists contend that Monsanto’s pesticides (Roundup/glyphosate) and gene-modified seeds have severely affected the health (biome) of our soil.
When the health of our soil suffers, our food loses nutritional value. When our food loses nutritional value, our bodies suffer. Guess what we generally do when our bodies suffer? Yup, we buy medicine… from companies like Bayer. In other words, our food is increasingly making us sick, leading to a pretty obvious question and answer: Why is Big Pharma interested in the food industry? Because, of course, they are.
As the links between diet, nutrition, and chronic diseases (such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and even mental health disorders) become clearer, pharmaceutical companies see food as an essential part of a “solution.” Or, in other words, Big Pharma can now have a hand in the problem and the solution, positioning their companies as leaders in consumption from a few different angles. While there may be a few good actors who view their straddling position between food and medicine in terms of preventative health (i.e., healthier foods), a vast majority of obvious data points suggest otherwise.
So, with all this being said, can the ethos of DeSci — transparency, interdisciplinary scientific collaboration, and a people-over-profit approach — coexist with Big Pharma? The realist in me says, “Exsqueeze me, baking powder?” The perpetually heartbroken optimist in me says, “Maybe.”
Decentralized Science and Big Pharma: Game Theory
Big Pharma has faced very fair criticism for various issues, including high drug prices, profit-driven motives, monopolistic practices, and now profiteering from the weakening life force in our food. However, these companies also play a crucial role in advancing medical science, developing life-saving medications, and conducting large-scale clinical trials.
At first, second, and third glance, decentralized science and Big Pharma seem at odds with one another, as the profit-driven, proprietary world of Big Pharma, where intellectual property is fiercely guarded and research is often conducted behind closed doors, is pretty antithetic to the ideals of DeSci. But, let’s try to game theory it out anyway. Here are three examples of practical and philosophical points of contention between DeSci and Big Pharma, with possible resolutions.
1. Intellectual Property and Patents
Big Pharma thrives on intellectual property (IP) rights. Patents give companies exclusive control over a new drug for a certain period, allowing them to recoup research and development costs and generate profits. However, decentralized science challenges the traditional model by promoting open-source research, data sharing, and community-driven projects. This could lead to clashes over how to handle IP — should it be freely available, or should inventors retain control?
Potential Solution: One way these two worlds might coexist is through hybrid models. For example, decentralized platforms could support early-stage research and open data sharing, while Big Pharma could step in for the more expensive and lengthy clinical trials and commercialization phases. This approach could ensure that valuable research doesn’t get locked behind paywalls while still allowing companies to protect and profit from innovations in the long term.
2. Funding and Research Priorities
Big Pharma has vast resources to fund drug research. However, much of its focus is on high-revenue, high-demand diseases — often ignoring rarer conditions or those with lower profit margins. DeSci, in contrast, enables funding for a wider variety of scientific endeavors through tokenization, crowdfunding, and specialized decentralized autonomous organizations (DOAs) that focus on oft-overlooked conditions. In theory, this decentralization can lead to a more diverse set of research priorities.
Potential Solution: Decentralized science could complement Big Pharma by supporting areas of research that are underfunded or neglected by the industry. For example, DeSci projects might explore alternative medicine, rare diseases, or early-stage drug discovery, creating a more comprehensive and holistic approach to global healthcare. Big Pharma could then collaborate with or license promising innovations from these decentralized efforts, especially when they prove viable in the later stages.
3. Trust and Transparency
Big Pharma has often been criticized for a lack of transparency in drug pricing, clinical trial data, and marketing practices. Decentralized science aims to eliminate these issues by using blockchain to ensure transparency in the research process, including publishing trial results in real-time, creating immutable records of data, and allowing for more public involvement in research. This approach could help restore trust in scientific findings and provide the public with more reliable, open data.
Potential Solution: A hybrid model could allow for transparency in clinical trial results while still enabling Big Pharma to control the commercialization process. DeSci’s focus on open data could lead to better oversight and accountability, and help build trust with the public. However, for this to work, both sides would need to agree on standard protocols for data sharing and privacy, ensuring that proprietary information and patient confidentiality are maintained.
Symbiosis Versus Cynicism
Despite their very apparent practical and philosophical differences, there are several reasons why decentralized science and Big Pharma could mutually benefit from collaboration rather than conflict:
1. Faster Innovation
Decentralized science could dramatically accelerate the pace of innovation by leveraging the collective intelligence of a global community. Crowdsourced research and open data can lead to new breakthroughs that might otherwise take years or decades through traditional channels. Big Pharma, with its infrastructure and regulatory expertise, could expedite the development of these breakthroughs into real-world treatments.
2. Access to Resources
Big Pharma has the financial and logistical resources needed to bring new drugs to market. DeSci, on the other hand, provides the intellectual and innovative potential. By partnering, DeSci could gain access to the funding, infrastructure, and expertise necessary to scale its discoveries, while Big Pharma can tap into a wider array of novel ideas and approaches that it might not have considered.
3. Addressing Global Health Challenges
Both sectors can collaborate to address global health challenges. DeSci initiatives could help bring attention to neglected diseases, environmental health concerns, and new therapeutic approaches, while Big Pharma could help scale these solutions for a broader, global population. By working together, they could create a more equitable and efficient healthcare system that benefits everyone.
While decentralized science and Big Pharma may have different motivations and operational models, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, there’s a strong case for collaboration, where each can benefit from the strengths of the other. And, in truth, the benefits could be transformative for science and society as a whole.
With my optimism always firmly in tow, let’s also be honest about the heartbreak. While writing this, a friend of mine relayed how much her life-saving cancer medication would cost after insurance. Before I give that number, I should mention that this person is the wife of a pediatric cardiologist. She has excellent insurance. To better her chances of surviving cancer, she’d need to spend $7300 out-of-pocket per month for the medication.
Can DeSci and Big Pharma coexist? Maybe, but the optimism is very expensive.
