Jonathan Heppner wants to fix science with crypto

Most people assume science is self-correcting. But what if the system we rely on for medical breakthroughs and climate models is quietly failing? That’s the fear behind the growing “replication crisis,” where studies fall apart when repeated – and the decentralized science (DeSci) sector is testing blockchain tools to improve reliability.

Jonathan Heppner, Director of Science Communication at the Research Hub Foundation, is among those sounding the alarm. “I'm passionate about truth,” he told The Crypto Radio, “and I was dissatisfied with the state of science.”

His organization is experimenting with a new approach: using blockchain tools and economic incentives to promote more transparent, reproducible research.

Why some science can’t be trusted

To understand the problem, imagine following a recipe and ending up with a completely different dish each time. That’s what’s happening in some areas of science today. Researchers attempt to replicate results from published studies, but too often they fail.

The problem spans disciplines, including psychology, medicine, and even economics. “The replication crisis occurs when a scientific study's results cannot be replicated, casting doubt on the reliability of the initial findings,” Heppner said.

This isn’t just a matter of academic pride. When medical treatments are based on unrepeatable research, patients suffer. When public policy relies on flawed data, entire communities are affected.

What’s causing the crisis?

Pressure to publish positive results and limited funding distort how research is done and shared. Photo: Unsplash / Louis Reed

One major factor is the pressure to publish significant results. Scientific journals favor “positive” findings – experiments that seem to prove something new – while negative or inconclusive results often go unpublished. This skews the research landscape and gives a false impression of certainty.

“There’s the pressure to publish significant results and the issue of not publishing negative findings, leading to a skewed view of scientific outcomes,” Heppner said.

Another issue is funding. Scientific research is expensive. With limited grants and tight competition, researchers are often forced to align their work with whatever interests funders want to promote – sometimes at the expense of rigor or innovation.

“There are high costs of scientific research, including the need for funding for people, materials, and technology,” he said.

And then there’s the structure of the system itself. Research funding decisions are often concentrated in the hands of a few institutions or individuals, which can stifle diverse ideas. “The top-down nature of funding decisions and the challenges of aligning scientific agendas with political and financial agendas,” Heppner explained, also contribute to the problem.

A blockchain-based alternative

Founded by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, the Research Hub Foundation offers a different model. Structured as a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), it runs on community governance rather than a traditional academic hierarchy.

“The Research Hub Foundation operates as a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and aims to accelerate science by improving funding, writing, publishing, and product development,” Heppner said.

The platform uses a cryptocurrency called Research Coin to reward contributions that advance science. Researchers can earn coins by publishing high-quality papers, reviewing work, or even sharing raw data. These coins can be traded, spent, or used to fund further experiments.

“Research coins can be used to incentivize research tasks, such as writing code or funding experiments,” he said. In one case, “a biologist [used] research coins to hire programmers to improve software for his project.” In others, peer reviewers have swapped their coins for stablecoins like USDC to buy lab supplies for their students.

Why declaring your hypothesis first matters

One of the most promising changes Research Hub supports is called pre-registration. This means researchers must publicly declare their hypothesis and methodology before conducting a study. “Pre-registering hypotheses and predictions before conducting experiments helps prevent researchers from changing their methods or results after the fact,” Heppner said – an issue that can distort the outcome and make failed studies look deceptively successful.

It’s the same principle that guided Einstein when he predicted the bending of light around massive objects – a clear, testable claim made in advance, not retrofitted to match observations.

Rethinking peer review

Peer reviewers are now being paid on platforms like Research Hub, challenging traditional academic publishing norms. Photo: Unsplash / Dan Dimmock

Peer review is another area ripe for reform. In traditional publishing, reviewers are unpaid and journals often charge authors steep fees to publish their work. This has created a system where the people doing the most important quality checks are under-resourced and overburdened.

Traditional peer review often relies on unpaid labor, even though it plays a critical role in validating research. “Research Hub pays peer reviewers to review preprints,” Heppner said, “changing the incentives and making the process more attractive.”

The result is a more balanced, accountable review process, and a better chance of filtering out flawed or overstated results before they make headlines.

Proof of concept, in the wild

This isn’t just a concept – it’s already funding real-world science. Research Hub has supported open-source projects in spectroscopy and MRI simulation, helping other scientists improve their tools and verify results.

The platform is also starting to attract attention outside the crypto space. “Research Hub is gaining recognition in traditional science circles, with more innovators adopting the platform,” Heppner said. It’s proving especially useful for decentralized organizations and research groups that struggle to access traditional journals.

“Innovators in traditional science are adopting Research Hub due to issues like censorship, transparency, and inefficiencies in the current system,” he said.

A vision for a more open science

Heppner’s ultimate goal isn’t just to fix peer review or reduce fraud – it’s to make science more open, accessible, and trustworthy. “I hope that the Research Hub Foundation's efforts will help achieve this goal by making scientific research more accessible and transparent,” he said.

He envisions a future where anyone curious enough can explore high-quality scientific work without paywalls or jargon blocking their path. Where trust in research doesn’t come from institutional reputation alone, but from provable, reproducible results.

Blockchain alone won’t solve science’s problems. But by aligning incentives around transparency and collaboration, DeSci is offering a fresh path forward – one that puts the focus back on discovery, not politics or profit.