butterfly/kb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Scrape wikipedia-science: 49 new, 1 updated, 50 total (kb-cron)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
turtle89431 2026-05-04 19:57:26 -07:00
parent 608b83a40a
commit 97d65db323
17 changed files with 581 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
_index.db
View File

Binary file not shown.

75
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascial_Net_Plastination_Project-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
---
title: "Fascial Net Plastination Project"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascial_Net_Plastination_Project"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:15.556947+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Fascial Net Plastination Project is an anatomical research initiative established in 2018 aimed at plastinating and studying the human fascial network. The collaboration was initiated by Robert Schleip as a joint effort between Body Worlds, Fascia Research Group, and the Fascia Research Society. The project focuses on preserving the fascia, a complex connective tissue network that plays a crucial role in the human body's structure and function.
One outcome of this three-year project is the creation of the world's first 3-D representation of the fascial network of a whole human body, named FR:EIA (Fascia Revealed: Educating Interconnected Anatomy), which is on display at the Body Worlds museum in Berlin, Germany.
== Origination and objectives ==
The project was conceived to provide a comprehensive and tangible understanding of the fascial system through plastination. This technique, developed by Gunther von Hagens, involves replacing water and fat in biological tissues with polymers to create durable, lifelike specimens. The specific goals of the project include:
Enhancing Educational Outreach: By creating detailed and durable plastinated specimens of the fascial net, the project aims to elevate the anatomical education of medical professionals and the general public.
Advancing Research: Detailed anatomical studies of plastinated fascia specimens facilitate a deeper understanding of its structure and function.
Public Exhibitions: Specimens from the project are displayed in Body Worlds exhibitions worldwide, providing an unprecedented view of the human fascial system.
== Background ==
The fascia is a band or sheet of connective tissue, primarily collagen, that supports and surrounds muscles, bones, nerves, and blood vessels. It extends from head to toe without interruption. Recent studies have highlighted the fascia's significance in movement, stability, and overall bodily function, debunking the previous notion of fascia being merely passive tissue.
== Overview ==
In January 2018, the Fascia Research Society, Somatics Academy, the Plastinarium, and Body Worlds embarked on a collaborative journey to create the world's first 3D representation of the fascial network of a whole human body via plastination. Directed by fascia research scientist Robert Schleip, professor of anatomy Carla Stecco, with the assistance of clinical anatomist John Sharkey and support from several other experts, the project is taking place in Guben, Germany, at the renowned Plastinarium under the direction of Dr. Vladimir Chereminskiy.
The project was supported by a Scientific Advisory Board consisting of Vladimir Chereminskiy, Gil Hedley, Thomas W. Myers, John Sharkey, Robert Schleip, Carla Stecco, Jaap Van der Wal, Gunther von Hagens, and Angelina Whalley.
The first ten plastinated specimens from this project, demonstrating fascial architecture of different selected body regions from this project were exhibited for the first time at the Fifth International Fascia Research Congress in Berlin, Germany, on November 14 and 15, 2018, in an exhibition titled "Fascia in a NEW LIGHT: The Exhibition."
=== Phase one ===
The first phase began in January 2018 with a team of scientists, academics, and anatomy enthusiasts. Several formalin-fixed specimens were dissected to illustrate fascial structures from superficial fascia/subcutaneous tissues, including the abdomen, arm, and lower limb. Additionally, several deep fascia structures were dissected, such as the fascia lata, a 5 cm cross-section of the thigh, a 5 cm cross-section of the leg, the fibrous pericardium with the respiratory diaphragm, and the lumbodorsal fascia.
These specimens went through the first two stages of plastination; soaking in high and low temperature baths to replace water with acetone and dissolve fats, followed by another bath to replace acetone with plastic polymer. These stages typically take up to six months depending on the size of the specimen.
=== Phase two ===
In June 2018, the team returned to Guben to position the specimens. Now infused with silicone rubber, the specimens were still supple and could be positioned back into their original shapes. The team created forms to support the soft specimens so they could undergo the final stage of gas curing to harden them into durable plastinates ready for exhibition.
During this phase, additional dissections were undertaken, including a second attempt at the lumbodorsal fascia, a 10 cm cross-section of the abdomen, the deep fascia of the arm, and an anterior prosection of the pelvis.
=== Phase three ===
The third phase aimed to create a full-body fascia plastinate for exhibition at the Sixth International Fascia Research Congress in Montreal, Canada, in 2021. This phase involved complex decisions on how best to dissect and display the fascial structures in a meaningful way. This plastinate has now become a major highlight at the Body Worlds museum in Berlin.
A collection of ten plastinated specimens from this project showing fascial architecture of selected human body regions was given as a long-term loan to the University of Padova in Italy in 2023, where the collection is currently displayed for the purpose of educating medical students at the entrance hall of the Department of Neuroscience.
== Techniques and methodologies ==
The project employs advanced plastination techniques to preserve the intricate details of the fascial network. This involves a meticulous process where water and lipids in biological tissues are replaced with curable polymers like silicone, epoxy, or polyester, resulting in odorless, durable, and anatomically precise specimens. These plastinates are then used for educational and research purposes, showcasing the complexity and functionality of fascia.
== Scientific significance ==
The plastination of the fascial net has significant implications for both medical research and education. It allows for detailed examination of the fascia's role in musculoskeletal health, its contribution to proprioception, and its involvement in various medical conditions. The project has provided critical insights into how fascia affects movement, stability, and overall physical health, thus influencing treatment approaches in physiotherapy, sports medicine, and surgery.
== Controversies and ethical considerations ==
Plastination, while groundbreaking, has not been without controversy. Ethical concerns have been raised regarding the sourcing of bodies for plastination and the display of human remains in public exhibitions. The Fascial Net Plastination Project however, adheres to strict ethical guidelines, ensuring that all specimens are sourced from legally and ethically approved donations, with explicit consent from donors or their families.
== Presentation and reception ==
The project was prominently featured at the 2021 Fascia Research Congress. This presentation included detailed discussions on the techniques used, the scientific findings from the plastinated specimens, and their applications in medical education and research. The project received considerable attention from the scientific community for its innovative approach to studying fascia and its potential to revolutionize anatomical science.
FR:EIA was officially unveiled on November 24, 2021, over a webinar with 1000+ participants as they unveiled its permanent display at the Body Worlds museum in Berlin, Germany.
== Impact and future directions ==
The Fascial Net Plastination Project has already made significant contributions to the field of fascia research. By providing a durable and detailed representation of the fascial network, it has enhanced the understanding of this critical component of human anatomy. Future directions for the project include expanding the range of specimens, refining plastination techniques, and fostering international collaborations to further explore the clinical implications of fascia.
== External links ==
The Plastination Project
FR:EIA at Body Worlds Museum
== References ==

27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_philosophy_of_science-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
---
title: "Feminist philosophy of science"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_philosophy_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:16.743651+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Feminist philosophy of science is a branch of feminist philosophy that seeks to understand how the acquirement of knowledge through scientific means has been influenced by notions of gender identity and gender roles in society. Feminist philosophers of science question how scientific research and scientific knowledge itself may be influenced and possibly compromised by the social and professional framework within which that research and knowledge is established and exists. The intersection of gender and science allows feminist philosophers to reexamine fundamental questions and truths in the field of science to reveal how gender biases may influence scientific outcomes. The feminist philosophy of science has been described as being located "at the intersections of the philosophy of science and feminist science scholarship" and has attracted considerable attention since the 1980s.
Feminist philosophers of science use feminist epistemology as a lens through which to analyze scientific methods, results, and analysis. This epistemology emphasizes "situated knowledge" that hinges on one's individual perspectives on a subject; feminist philosophers often highlight the under-representation of female scientists in academia and the resulting androcentric biases that exist in science. Feminist philosophers suggest that integrating feminine modes of thought and logic that are undervalued by current scientific theory will enable improvement and broadening of scientific perspectives. Advocates assert that inclusive epistemology via applying a feminist philosophy of science will allow for a field of science that is more accessible to public. Practitioners of feminist philosophy of science also seek to promote gender equality in scientific fields and greater recognition of the achievements of female scientists.
Critics have argued that the political commitments of advocates of feminist philosophy of science is incompatible with modern-day scientific objectivity, emphasizing the success of the scientific method due to its lauded objectivity and "value-free" methods of knowledge-making.
== History ==
The feminist philosophy of science was born out of feminist science studies in the 1960s, when female primatologists began to reevaluate stereotypes of male and female behavior in animals. However, feminist reform born from this branch of philosophy did not receive formal backing from the federal government until the late 1980s, after which its prominence as a philosophy of science grew. In 1986, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) instituted a requirement for both male and female subjects in medical and clinical research. In the early 1990s, the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health and $625 million in funding for the Women's Health Initiative represented drastic support for applications of the feminist philosophy of science in the public sphere.
These reforms coincided with the growth of the feminist philosophy of science in the academic realm. In August 1978, Catharine R. Stimpson and Joan Burstyn published an editorial in a special volume of Signs titled "Women, Science, and Society" highlighting the lack of female scholarship in science and its effects. Their article introduced three areas of scholarship: critiques of gender bias in science, a history of women in science, and social science data and public policy considerations on the status of women in the science.
In the 1980s, feminist science studies had become more philosophical, corresponding to a shift in many fields of academic feminism. Two main fields of thought emerged, creating a divide between scholarship on "women in science" and "feminist critiques of science". While both agreed on the existence of an androcentric bias in science, the former focused on an increase in funding and hiring of female scientists, while the latter called for an interrogation of the underlying assumptions and biases present in scientific theory and methods. The latter became the primary focus of feminist philosophers of science moving forward, and conflict arose between women who were actually involved in scientific research and those attempting a feminist critique of gender roles in science.
By the late nineties, feminist science studies had become well-established and had many prominent scholars within its field of study. Philosopher John Searle characterized feminism in 1993 as a "cause to be advanced" more so than a "domain to be studied", signaling the rise in the use of feminist philosophy as a lens through which to perform science.
== Feminist philosophy of science ==
=== Objectivity and values ===
Feminist philosophers of science state that, rather being purely objective, science is necessarily biased and not value free. This branch of feminist philosophy argues that full understanding and interpretation of scientific results requires an interrogation of how gender inequities influence the credibility of research methods.
Feminist philosophers of science argue that equity and inclusion can help create more robust research methods to alleviate gender bias and produce more thorough results. For example, a lack of female research subjects and perspectives in academic research undermines the "contextual empiricism" required by true neutrality". Thus, because science is affected by social, cultural, and political agendas via funding, feminist philosophers of science believe equitable funding is a critical first step in removing biases from research and increasing autonomy of science.
The values and criticisms of the feminist philosophy of science are more broadly categorized under the idea of "Socially Responsible Science (SRS)". Socially responsible science argues for an impartial evaluation that makes a distinction between facts and values, which is necessary for the creation of "good science". In "The Source and Status of Values for Socially Responsible Science," Matthew Brown discusses the lens of being socially engaged in science as a means of "craft[ing] better ethics codes for their professional societies." He believes this is done by emphasizing "Ethics and social and political philosophy at least as much as epistemology and metaphysics." Valuing the study of ethics, politics, and social studies in understanding the basis upon which research is performed, Brown argues that a new, impartial agenda for science can be developed.

29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_philosophy_of_science-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
title: "Feminist philosophy of science"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_philosophy_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:16.743651+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Standpoint and knowledge ===
The feminist philosophy of science has traditionally been highly critical of the lack of access and opportunities for women in science, resulting in scientific results that have been "distorted by sexist values." Sharon Crasnow highlights how the "exclusion of women as researchers and subjects" in scientific research, studies and projects can lead to incomplete methods and methodologies and ultimately unreliable or inaccurate results. Some feminist philosophies of science question whether science can lay claim to "impartiality, neutrality, autonomy, and indifference to political positions and the values" when the "neutral" position is benchmarked against the values held by one culture (i.e. western patriarchy) among the multitude of cultures participating in modern science.
A complete Standpoint theory contains seven parts to fully understand the location of power one has, their "epistemic privilege". Anderson lays these out in her journal Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. The first point of the theory must state the social location of the authority. The second, how large is the grasp of this authority, what does it claim privilege over. Third, what aspect of the social location allows authority. Fourth, the grounds of the authority, what justifies their privilege. Fifth, the type of epistemic privilege it is claiming to have. Sixth, the other perspectives similar to its own. Lastly, access to this privilege, by occupying the social location is it sufficient to gain access to the perspective.
Relating to Objectivity, epistemology can give a fuller understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Feminist epistemology is one of a group of approaches in science studies that urges us to recognize the role of the social in the production of knowledge. Feminist epistemology directs people to consider features of themselves and culture as beings of knowledge that had been outside what was considered appropriate. The goals of researchers and the values that shape the choice of goals are relevant to the knowledge we arrive at. This has implications both for how we train scientists and for how we educate everyone about science. If science is seen as more connected to application, more related to human needs and desires, traditionally underrepresented groups will have greater motivation to succeed and persist in their science courses or pursue scientific careers. Motivation will be greater as members of underrepresented groups see how science can produce knowledge that has value to their concerns in ways that are consistent with good scientific methodology. Feminist epistemology urges a continued exploration of science in this way and so has much to offer science education.
=== Criticisms of feminist epistemology in science ===
External critics of the feminist philosophy of science find several flaws in its logic and values. Because feminist philosophers argue that scientific "facts" are necessarily biased by values, one major criticisms is scientists under this epistemological constraint will "impos[e] political constraints on the conclusions it will accept" and that "truths inconvenient to a feminist perspective will be censored." Moreover, some critics contend that while values are important in the interpretation of scientific results, attention to the values present in scientific inquiry does not displace the importance of scientific evidence. Some further argue that because of the "corrosive cynicism about science" suggested by feminist critique, feminist philosophers of science may support a wholly anti-science movement.
Another criticism commonly levied at the feminist philosophy of science is that it suggests all women have the same perspectives and that objective truths can be revealed by performing science in a "feminine" way, which creates multiple issues. By homogenizing the perspectives of women into one monolithic viewpoint, the feminist philosophy of science may valorize a certain female mode of thinking that can be used to diminish individual female perspectives. Furthermore, some critics worry that promoting a feminist epistemological lens through which to perform research will result in an intellectual ghetto for female scientists, who will be pigeonholed into particular fields where feminist theory is deemed more relevant.
=== Applications of the feminist philosophy of science ===
Many applications of the feminist philosophy of science exist in recent work, with feminist epistemology applied to research a variety of scientific fields.
Feminist epistemology is particularly relevant in the area of reproductive biology. Emily Martin describes how stereotypes of male and female behavior have affected descriptions of the human fertilization process. She argues that, due to various perceptions of women throughout history, biologists have mischaracterized the interaction between egg and sperm; Martin applies the feminist philosophy of science to call for an objective model of fertilization unbiased by societal gender roles and harmful perceptions of female behavior.
Further work regarding the application of the feminist philosophy of science in evolutionary biology has been explored. Historically, evolutionary biologists assumed that the female orgasm was assumed to assist in reproduction, since it was analogous to the male orgasm, despite clear evidence to the contrary However, recent accounts describe that these assumptions were largely incorrect. Elisabeth A. Lloyd's findings from extended case studies of the female orgasm illustrate that core beliefs developed solely through assumptions predicated on gender result in major flaws in scientific research, illustrating the importance of applying feminist philosophy in academic work.
Supporters also argue that the feminist philosophy of science should be applied to primary and secondary schooling. To combat the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and math, reforms should be implemented through a feminist philosophical viewpoint. Rather than combating gender biases in science by implementing feminist viewpoints into research and analysis, some suggest that encouraging girls to pursue STEM via educational reforms will intrinsically revert gender biases in scientific research.
== See also ==
Feminist technoscience
== References ==

31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeHAL-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
---
title: "FreeHAL"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeHAL"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:17.946429+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
FreeHAL was a volunteer computing project to build a self-learning chatbot. This project is no longer active.
Originally, the program was called JEliza referring to the chatbot ELIZA by Joseph Weizenbaum. The J stood for Java because JEliza has first been programmed in Java. In May 2008, the program has been renamed to FreeHAL because the programming language has changed. The name is related to the computer in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey.
FreeHAL uses a semantic network and technologies like pattern recognition, stemming, part of speech databases and Hidden Markov Models in order to imitate a human behaviour. FreeHAL learns autonomously. While communicating by keyboard, the program extends its database. Currently, English and German are supported.
By using the BOINC platform, new semantic networks for the program are built. FreeHAL@home appears to have terminated operations.
== Awards ==
In 2008, the program won the first prize in the category "Most Popular" at the Chatterbox Challenge, a yearly competition between different similar chatbots.
== Publications ==
There was an article about FreeHAL in the Linux Magazine, Issue 97 from December 2008. In the German magazine com!, the program was on the CD/DVD and in the list of the Top-10-Open-Source programs of the month.
== References ==
== External links ==
Website archive
Linux-Magazine Issue 97, p. 94f
com! Magazine, Issues 4/08 and 5/08 (in German)

22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_of_Science-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
---
title: "Frontiers of Science"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_of_Science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:19.150812+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Frontiers of Science was an illustrated comic strip created by Professor Stuart Butler of the School of Physics at the University of Sydney in collaboration with Robert Raymond, a documentary maker from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in 1961. The artist was Andrea Bresciani. After 1970 the comic was illustrated by David Emerson.
It explained scientific concepts and recent research and in a 3 or 4 panel illustrated strip in an accessible and easily comprehensible way. The strip was syndicated to over 200 newspapers around the world for 25 years, from 1961 to 1987. It was also published as soft cover books. As of 2011, it "retains the record of being the longest-running newspaper science comic strip in the world."
The strips are archived at Rare Books and Special Collections in Fisher Library at the University of Sydney. The entire series is available for viewing online.
== References ==
== External links ==
Drifting Through Inner Space Ocean deep exploration explained in 5 cartoon strips c late 1960s - at NASA website - Accessed July 2006.
University of Sydney Outreach projects, Frontiers of Science, - Accessed July 2006.
Frontiers of Science Digital Collections, University of Sydney - Accessed April 2019.

27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
---
title: "Funding of science"
chunk: 1/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:20.412055+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Research funding is a term that generally encompasses any funding for scientific research in the areas of natural science, technology, and social science. While different methods can be used to disburse funding, the term generally connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated, with only the most promising and economically viable receiving funding. Usually, it is measured through gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD). GERD includes R&D performed within a country and funded from abroad but excludes payments for R&D performed abroad.
The largest share of research funding comes from two major sources: corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies, often known as research councils). A smaller amount of scientific research is funded by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria, and AIDS.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government. Comparatively, in countries with a relatively lower national GDP, such as Portugal and Mexico, the industry contribution is significantly lower. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in the social sciences and humanities. In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialization possibilities rather than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion).
== History ==
Conducting research requires funds. The funding trend for research has gone from a closed patronage system, to which only a few could contribute, to an open system with multiple funding possibilities.
In the early Zhou dynasty (-c. 6th century to 221 BCE), government officials used their resources to fund schools of thought of which they were patrons. The bulk of their philosophies is still relevant today, including Confucianism, Legalism, and Taoism.
During the Mayan Empire (-c. 1200–1250), scientific research was funded for religious purposes. Research there developed a Venus Table, showing precise astronomical data about the position of Venus in the sky. In Cairo (-c. 1283), the Mamluk Sultan Qalawun funded a monumental hospital, patronizing the medical sciences over the religious sciences. Furthermore, Tycho Brahe was given an estate (-c. 1576 – 1580) by his royal patron King Frederik II, which was used to build Uraniborg, an early research institute.
=== The age of the academies ===
Between 1700 and 1799, scientific academies became central creators of scientific knowledge. Funded by state sponsorship, academic societies were free to manage scientific developments. Membership was exclusive in terms of gender, race, and class, but academies opened the world of research up beyond the traditional patronage system.
In 1799, French inventor and mechanical engineer Louis-Nicolas Robert patented the paper machine. When he quarreled over invention ownership, he sought financing from the Fourdrinier brothers. In 19th-century Europe, businessmen financed the application of science to industry.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the pace of technological progress increased before and during the Industrial Revolution, most scientific and technological research was carried out by individual inventors using their own funds. A system of patents was developed to allow inventors a period of time (often twenty years) to commercialize their inventions and recoup a profit, although in practice, many found this difficult.
The Manhattan Project (1942 – 1946) had cost $27 billion and employed 130,000 people, many of them scientists charged with producing the first nuclear weapons. In 1945, 70 scientists signed the Szilard petition, asking President Truman to make a demonstration of the power of the bomb before using it. Most of the signers lost their jobs in military research.
In the twentieth century, scientific and technological research became increasingly systematized, as corporations developed and discovered that continuous investment in research and development could be a key element of competitive success. It remained the case, however, that imitation by competitors - circumventing or simply flouting patents, especially those registered abroad - was often just as successful a strategy for companies focused on innovation in matters of organization and production technique, or even in marketing.
Nowadays, in 2025, a growing number of funders have decided to make research outcomes transparent and accessible in data repositories or Open-access. Moreover, some researchers turn to crowdfunding in search of new projects to fund. Private and public foundations, governments, and others sponsor opportunities for researchers. As new funding sources become available, the research community grows and becomes accessible to a wider and more diverse group of scientists.

33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
---
title: "Funding of science"
chunk: 2/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:20.412055+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Methodology to measure science funding ==
The guidelines for R&D data collections are laid down in the Frascati Manual published by the OECD. In the publication, R&D denotes three types of activities: basic research, applied research, and experimental development. This definition does not cover innovation, but it may feed into the innovative process. Additionally, the business sector innovation has a dedicated OECD manual.
The most frequently used measurement for R&D is gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD). GERD is often represented in GERD-to-GDP ratios, as it allows for easier comparisons between countries. The data collection for GERD is based on reporting by performers. GERD differentiates according to the funding sector (business, enterprise, government, higher education, private non-profit, rest of the world) and the sector of performance (all funding sectors with the exception of rest of the world, as GERD only measures activity within the territory of a country). The two may coincide, for example, when the government funds government-performed R&D.
Government funded science may also be measured by the Government budget appropriations and outlays for R&D (GBAORD/ GBARD). GBARD is a funder-based method, it denotes what governments committed to R&D (even if final payment might be different). GERD-source of funding-government and GBARD are not directly comparable. On data collection, GERD is performer based, GBARD is funder. The level of government considered also differs: GERD may include spending by all levels of the government (federal – state – local), whereas GBARD excludes the local level and often lacks state level data. On geographic coverage, GERD takes into account performance within the territory of a country whereas GBARD also payments to the Rest of the world.
Furthermore, several comparisons on the effectiveness of both the different sources of funding and sectors of performance as well as their interplay have been made. The analysis often boils down to whether public and private finance show crowding-in or crowding-out patterns.
== Funding types: public and private ==
=== Public/State Funding ===
Public funding refers to activities financed by tax-payers money. This is primarily the case when the source of funds is channeled through government agencies. Higher education institutions are usually not completely publicly financed as they charge tuition fees and may receive funds from non-public sources.
==== Rationale for funding ====
R&D is a costly, and long-term investment to which disruptions are harmful.
The public sector has multiple reasons to fund science. The private sector is said to focus on the closer to the market stage of R&D policy, where appropriability hence private returns are high. Basic research is weak on appropriability and so remains risky and under-financed. Consequently, although governmental sponsorship of research may provide support across the R&D value chain, it is often characterized as a market failure induced intervention. Market incentives to invest in early-stage research are low. The theory of public goods seconds this argument. Publicly funded research often supports research fields where social rate of return may be higher than private rate of return. Appropriability potential is the potential for an entity to capture the value of an innovation or research outcome. The general free rider problem of public goods is a threat especially in case of global public goods such as climate change research, which may lower incentives to invest by both the private sector but also other governments.
In endogenous growth theories, R&D contributes to growth. Some have depicted this relationship in the inverse, claiming that growth drives innovation. As of 2013, science workers applying their (tacit) knowledge may be considered an economic driver. When this knowledge and/or human capital emigrates, countries face the so-called brain–drain. Science policy can assist to avoid this as large shares of governmental R&D is spent on researchers and supporting staff personnel salaries. In this sense, science funding is not only discretionary spending but also has elements of entitlement spending.
R&D funded and especially performed by the State may allow greater influence over its direction. This is particularly important in the case of R&D contributing to public goods. However, the ability of governments have been criticized over whether they are best positioned to pick winners and losers. In the EU, dedicated safeguards have been enacted under a dedicated form of competition law called State Aid. State Aid safeguards business activities from governmental interventions. This invention was largely driven by the German ordoliberal school as to eliminate state subsidies advocated by the French dirigiste. Threats to global public goods has refueled the debate on the role of governments beyond a mere market failure fixer, the so-called mission-driven policies.
==== Funding modalities ====
Governments may fund science through different instruments such as: direct subsidies, tax credits, loans, financial instruments, regulatory measures, public procurement etc. While direct subsidies have been the prominent instrument to fund business R&D, since the 2008 financial crisis a shift has taken place in OECD countries in the direction of tax breaks. The explanation seems to lay in the theoretical argument that firms know better, and in the practical benefit of lower administrative burden of such schemes. Depending on the funding type, different modalities to distribute the research funds may be used. For regulatory measures, often the competition/antitrust authorities will rule on exemptions. In case of block funding the funds may be directly allocated to given institutions such as higher education institutions with relative autonomy over their use. For competitive grants, governments are often assisted by research councils to distribute the funds. Research councils are (usually public) bodies that provide research funding in the form of research grants or scholarships. These include arts councils and research councils for the funding of science.
==== List of research councils ====
An incomplete list of national and international pan-disciplinary public research councils:

37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
title: "Funding of science"
chunk: 3/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:20.412055+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
==== Conditionality ====
In addition to project deliverables, funders also increasingly introduce new eligibility requirements alongside traditional ones such as research integrity/ethics.
The 2016 Open Science movement, tied funding increasingly tied to data management plans and making data FAIR. The Open Science requirement complements Open Access mandates which in 2025 are widespread.
The gender dimension also gained ground in recent years. The European Commission mandates research applicants to adopt gender equality plans across their organization. The UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund mandates a gender equality statement.
As of 2022, the European Commission also introduced a "Do No Significant Harm" principle to the Framework Program which aims to curb the environmental footprint of scientific projects. "Do No Significant Harm" has been criticized as coupled with other eligibility requirements it is often characterized as red-tape. Since 2020, European Commission has been trying to simplify the Framework Program with limited success. Simplification attempts were also taken by the UK Research and Innovation.
==== Process ====
Often scientists apply for research funding which a granting agency may (or may not) approve to financially support. These grants require a lengthy process as the granting agency can inquire about the researcher(s)'s background, the facilities used, the equipment needed, the time involved, and the overall potential of the scientific outcome. The process of grant writing and grant proposing is a somewhat delicate process for both the grantor and the grantee: the grantors want to choose the research that best fits their scientific principles, and the individual grantees want to apply for research in which they have the best chances but also in which they can build a body of work towards future scientific endeavors.
As of 2009, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in the United Kingdom devised an alternative method of fund-distribution: the sandpit.
Most universities have research administration offices to facilitate the interaction between the researcher and the granting agency. "Research administration is all about service—service to our faculty, to our academic units, to the institution, and to our sponsors. To be of service, we first have to know what our customers want and then determine whether or not we are meeting those needs and expectations."
In the United States of America, the National Council of University Research Administrators serves its members and advances the field of research administration through education and professional development programs, the sharing of knowledge and experience, and by fostering a professional, collegial, and respected community.
==== Hard money versus soft money ====
In academic contexts, hard money may refer to funding received from a government or other entity at regular intervals, thus providing a steady inflow of financial resources to the beneficiary. The antonym, soft money, refers to funding provided only through competitive research grants and the writing of grant proposals.
Hard money is usually issued by the government for the advancement of certain projects or for the benefit of specific agencies. Community healthcare, for instance, may be supported by the government by providing hard money. Since funds are disbursed regularly and continuously, the offices in charge of such projects are able to achieve their objectives more effectively than if they had been issued one-time grants.
Individual jobs at a research institute may be classified as "hard-money positions" or "soft-money positions"; the former are expected to provide job security because their funding is secure in the long term, whereas individual "soft-money" positions may come and go with fluctuations in the number of grants awarded to an institution.
=== Private funding: industrial/philanthropy/crowdfunding ===
Private funding for research comes from philanthropists, crowd-funding, private companies, non-profit foundations, and professional organizations. Philanthropists and foundations have been pouring millions of dollars into a wide variety of scientific investigations, including basic research discovery, disease cures, particle physics, astronomy, marine science, and the environment. Privately funded research has been adept at identifying important and transformative areas of scientific research. Many large technology companies spend billions of dollars on research and development each year to gain an innovative advantage over their competitors, though only about 42% of this funding goes towards projects that are considered substantially new, or capable of yielding radical breakthroughs. New scientific start-up companies initially seek funding from crowd-funding organizations, venture capitalists, and angel investors, gathering preliminary results using rented facilities, but aim to eventually become self-sufficient.
Europe and the United States have both reiterated the need for further private funding within universities. The European Commission highlights the need for private funding via research in policy areas such the European Green Deal and Europe's role in the digital age.
== Criticism of science funding ==
The source of funding may introduce conscious or unconscious biases into a researcher's work. This is highly problematic due to academic freedom in case of universities and regulatory capture in case of government-funded R&D.
=== Conflict of Interest ===

28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science-3.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
---
title: "Funding of science"
chunk: 4/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:20.412055+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (COIs) is used by journals to guarantee credibility and transparency of the scientific process. Conflict of interest disclosure, however, is not systematically nor consistently dealt with by journals that publish scientific research results.
When research is funded by the same agency that can be expected to gain from a favorable outcome there is a potential for biased results and research shows that results are indeed more favorable than would be expected from a more objective view of the evidence. A 2003 systematic review studied the scope and impact of industry sponsorship in biomedical research. The researchers found financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions widespread. Results showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions and concluded that "Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways." A British study found that a majority of the members on national and food policy committees receive funding from food companies.
In an effort to cut costs, the pharmaceutical industry has turned to the use of private, nonacademic research groups (i.e., contract research organizations [CROs]) which can do the work for less money than academic investigators. In 2001 CROs came under criticism when the editors of 12 major scientific journals issued a joint editorial, published in each journal, on the control over clinical trials exerted by sponsors, particularly targeting the use of contracts which allow sponsors to review the studies prior to publication and withhold publication of any studies in which their product did poorly. They further criticized the trial methodology stating that researchers are frequently restricted from contributing to the trial design, accessing the raw data, and interpreting the results.
The Cochrane Collaboration, a worldwide group that aims to provide compiled scientific evidence to aid well informed health care decisions, conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care interventions and tries to disseminate the results and conclusions derived from them. A few more recent reviews have also studied the results of non-randomized, observational studies. The systematic reviews are published in the Cochrane Library. A 2011 study done to disclose possible conflicts of interests in underlying research studies used for medical meta-analyses reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found that conflicts of interest in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were rarely disclosed. The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 318 trials reported funding sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 trials reported author disclosures of conflict of interest, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry financial ties with one or more authors. However, the information was seldom reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported funding sources and none reported author-industry ties. The authors concluded, "without acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers' understanding and appraisal of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised."
In 2003 researchers looked at the association between authors' published positions on the safety and efficacy in assisting with weight loss of olestra, a fat substitute manufactured by the Procter & Gamble (P&G), and their financial relationships with the food and beverage industry. They found that supportive authors were significantly more likely than critical or neutral authors to have financial relationships with P&G and all authors disclosing an affiliation with P&G were supportive. The authors of the study concluded: "Because authors' published opinions were associated with their financial relationships, obtaining noncommercial funding may be more essential to maintaining objectivity than disclosing personal financial interests."
A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.
=== Regulatory capture ===
Private funding may also be channeled to public funders. In 2022, a news story broke following the resignation of Eric Lander, former director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Biden administration, that the charity of former Google executive Eric Schmidt, Schmidt Futures, paid salaries of numerous OSTP employees. Eventually, ethics inquiries were initiated in the OSTP.
=== Efficiency of funding ===
The traditional measurement for efficiency of funding are publication output, citation impact, number of patents, number of PhDs awarded etc. However, the use of journal impact factor has generated a publish-or-perish culture and a theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly. Calls have been made to reform research assessment, most notably in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. The current system also has limitations to measure excellence in the Global South. Novel measurement systems such as the Research Quality Plus has been put forward to better emphasize local knowledge and contextualization in the evaluation of excellence. A wide range of interventions has been proposed to improve science funding. Open peer review can improve the quality of scholarly peer review. A systematic review found a scarcity of randomized controlled trials on peer review interventions.
Another question is how to allocate funds to different disciplines, institutions, or researchers. A recent study by Wayne Walsh found that "prestigious institutions had on average 65% higher grant application success rates and 50% larger award sizes, whereas less-prestigious institutions produced 65% more publications and had a 35% higher citation impact per dollar of funding."
== Trends ==
In endogenous growth theory, R&D investments contribute to the country's increase in economic growth. Therefore, countries have strong incentives to maintain R&D investments.

44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science-4.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
---
title: "Funding of science"
chunk: 5/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:20.412055+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== By country ===
Different countries spend vastly different amounts on research, in both absolute and relative terms. For instance, South Korea and Israel dedicate more than 4% of their national GDP to research and development, while numerous less developed countries allocate less than 1% of their national GDP to R&D. In developed economies, GERD is financed mainly by the business sector, whereas the government and the university sector dominate in less-developed economies. In some countries, funding from the major part of the international community represents up to 20-30% of total GERD, which is likely due to FDI and foreign aid; however, only in the case of Mali it is the main source of funding. Private non-profit is not the main source of funds in any country, but it reaches 10% of total GERD in Colombia and Honduras.
When comparing annual GERD and GDP Growth, it can be seen that countries with lower GERD are often growing faster. However, as most of these countries are developing, their growth is probably driven by other factors of production. On the other hand, developed countries with a higher share of GERD are usually also the ones that produce positive growth rates. GERD in these countries has a more substantial contribution to growth rate.
=== Recessions ===
In times of crisis, business R&D tends to act in a procyclical way. Considering that R&D falls under long-term investments, disruptions should ideally be avoided. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, there was a significant public advocacy for the implementation of Keynesian countercyclical reactions; however, this was relatively difficult to achieve for some countries. Due to the nature of Coronavirus disease 2019, the subsequent worldwide pandemic significantly accelerated publicly funded R&D spending in 2020, primarily in the pharmaceutical industry. While a slight decrease in spending was recorded in 2021, it nevertheless remained considerably above the pre-2020 levels. The pandemic made health research and sectors with strategic value-chain dependencies the main target of science funding.
== See also ==
Adversary evaluation
Scientific funding advisory bodies (category)
Funding bias
Industry funding of academic research
Intellectual inbreeding
Metascience
Science policy
Scientific pluralism
Self-Organized Funding Allocation
Tertiary education#Statistics
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Eisfeld-Reschke, Jörg, Herb, Ulrich, & Wenzlaff, Karsten (2014). Research Funding in Open Science. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science (pp. 237–253). Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_16
Herb, Ulrich (2014-07-31). "Open science's final frontier". Research Europe Magazine. Archived from the original on 2014-09-03. Retrieved 2014-08-30.
Martinson, Brian C.; De Vries, Raymond; et al. (2005). "Scientists behaving badly". Nature. 435 (7043): 737–738. Bibcode:2005Natur.435..737M. doi:10.1038/435737a. PMID 15944677. S2CID 4341622.
Mello, Michelle M.; et al. (2005). "Academic Medical Centers' Standards for Clinical-Trial Agreements with Industry". New England Journal of Medicine. 352 (21): 2202–2210. doi:10.1056/nejmsa044115. PMID 15917385. S2CID 8283797.
Odlyzko, Andrew (1995-10-04). "The Decline of Unfettered Research". Retrieved 2007-11-02.
== External links ==
Where to Search for Funding | Science | AAAS, from Science Careers, from the Journal Science.
ResearchCrossroads Aggregated funding data from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, NSF, private foundations and the European Union
Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) The European Unions's programme for funding and promoting research at the European level
CORDIS - the official website of the European Unions's programme for funding and promoting research This website contains comprehensive information on research projects already funded.
Research Councils UK The portal for the UK-based Research Councils.

34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPUGRID.net-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
---
title: "GPUGRID.net"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPUGRID.net"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:22.723877+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
GPUGRID is a volunteer computing project hosted by Pompeu Fabra University and running on the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) software platform. It performs full-atom molecular biology simulations that are designed to run on Nvidia's CUDA-compatible graphics processing units.
== Former support for PS3s ==
Support for the PS3's Cell microprocessor and the subsequent PS3GRID project was dropped in 2009 due to updated firmware preventing the installation of required third-party software. This included Linux distributions that are required to run BOINC. The massive throughput of Nvidia GPUs has also made the PS3 client largely redundant. As of September 2009, a mid-range Nvidia GPU ran GPUGRID applications approximately five times faster than the Cell microprocessor.
== See also ==
List of volunteer computing projects
Molecular dynamics
GPGPU
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Research topics in GPUGRID website's science sections
GPUGRID's about us Archived 2016-11-04 at the Wayback Machine section
== External links ==
Official website
Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC)

38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Science_Fair-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
---
title: "Google Science Fair"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Science_Fair"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:21.584851+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Google Science Fair was a worldwide (excluding Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Myanmar/Burma, Syria, Zimbabwe and any other U.S. sanctioned country) online science competition sponsored by Google, Lego, Virgin Galactic, National Geographic and Scientific American. It was an annual event from 2011 to 2018.
The first Google Science Fair was announced in January 2011; entries were due on April 7, 2011, and judging occurred in July 2011. The competition is open to 13- to 18-year-old students around the globe, who formulate a hypothesis, perform an experiment, and present their results. All students had to have an internet connection and a Google Account to participate, and the projects had to be in English, German, Italian, Spanish, or French. The final submission had to include ten sections, which were the summary, an "About Me" page, the steps of the project, and a works cited page.
Entries were judged on the student's presentation, question, hypothesis, research, experiment, data, observations, and conclusion. Prizes were awarded to three finalists. The grand prize included a National Geographic trip to the Galapagos Islands, and a US$50,000 scholarship; finalists received a US$15,000 scholarship and assorted packages from sponsoring organizations.
== Guest interviews ==
The on-line site also contains a number of highlighted guest interviews with selected individuals, each well established and prominent in their field of science, with the aim being for them to act as inspiration to young students. The individuals chosen include Mitch Resnick, Spencer Wells, Kevin Warwick, and Mariette DiChristina.
== 2011 Winners ==
Shree Bose, a 17-year-old girl from Fort Worth, Texas, won the grand prize and $50,000 for her research on the chemotherapy drug, cisplatin, that is commonly taken by women with ovarian cancer, tackling the problem of cancer cells growing resistant to cisplatin over time.
Naomi Shah of Portland, OR, won the age 15–16 category with a study of the effects of air quality on lungs, particularly for people who have asthma. Ms. Shah recruited 103 test subjects, performed 24-hour air quality measurements at their homes and workplaces and had each blow into a device that measured the force of their breath.
Lauren Hodge of York, PA, won the age 13–14 category for research on whether marinades reduce the amount of cancer-causing compounds produced by the grilling of meat. She found that lemon juice and brown sugar cut the level of carcinogens sharply, while soy sauce increased them.
People around the world (90 countries) had the opportunity to vote for their favorite projects in Google's online voting gallery. Google has had more than 100,000 votes and the competition was highly competitive. Among the 60 semi-finalists, Nimal Subramanian received the highest number of votes and was awarded the People’s Choice Award. His project, Cancer Busters, received significant public support. As a result of this achievement, he was awarded a $10,000 scholarship.
== 2012 Winners ==
Brittany Wenger, who was 17, won the grand prize with her "Global Neural Network Cloud Service for Breast Cancer". Designed to noninvasively diagnose malignant cancerous tumors, it successfully detected over 99% of malignant breast tumors in a test set. She received $50,000, a trip to the Galapagos Islands, mentoring and internship opportunities for winning the competition.
Iván Hervías Rodríguez, Marcos Ochoa, and Sergio Pascual, all of Spain, won the 15–16 age group using microscopy to examine microscopic creatures in aquatic ecosystems.
Jonah Kohn won the age 13–14 group by designing and building a device designed to enhance the listening experience of those with hearing loss. His device attached to different parts of the body, translating sound into tactile stimulation.
== 2013 Winners ==
The winners of the 2013 Google Science Fair were:
13–14 age category: Viney Kumar (Australia) — The PART (Police and Ambulances Regulating Traffic) Program. Viney's project looked for new ways to provide drivers with more notice when an emergency vehicle is approaching, so they can take evasive action to get out of the emergency vehicle's way.
15–16 age category: Ann Makosinski (Canada) — The Hollow Flashlight. Using Peltier tiles and the temperature difference between the palm of the hand and ambient air, Ann designed a flashlight that provides bright light without batteries or moving parts.
17–18 age category Grand Prize Winner: Eric Chen (USA) — Computer-aided Discovery of Novel Influenza Endonuclease Inhibitors to Combat Flu Pandemic. Combining computer modeling and biological studies, Eric's project looks at influenza endonuclease inhibitors as leads for a new type of anti-flu medicine, effective against all influenza viruses including pandemic strains.
== 2014 Winners ==
The 2014 Google Science Fair started accepting entries on February 12, 2014, and the entries closed on May 13, 2014. And the results for the local, regional and Science in Action award nominees were declared. The Grand Prize was won by three girls from Ireland, Ciara Judge (16), Emer Hickey (16) and Sophie Healy-Thow (17). They were the first group winners of the competition and the youngest winners to date (they also won the 15–16 age category prize). Their project was entitled 'Combating the Global Food Crisis: Diazotroph Bacteria as a Cereal Crop Growth Promoter.'
The 13–14 age category was won by Mihir Garimella (14) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a project titled 'Fruit-fly Inspired Robots.' Hayley Todesco (17) of Canada won the 17–18 age category with her project titled 'Cleaning up Oil Sands Waste.'
Along with the overall prizes for each category, a number of special awards were also announced. Kenneth Shinozuka (15) was declared as the Science In Action Award winner in recognition of the practical potential of his project 'Wearable Sensors for Aging Society.' Arsh Shah Dilbagi (16) from India won the Voter's Choice Award for creating an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device that converts breath into words, enabling mute people to speak. Local Award winners included Shannon Tan (18), who won the award in Singapore for his research on using treated materials from crustacean shells to purify wastewater from heavy industries.

64
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Science_Fair-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
---
title: "Google Science Fair"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Science_Fair"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:21.584851+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== 2015 Winners ==
The 2015 Google Science Fair closed for entries on May 18, 2015, with regional finalists announced in London on July 7, 2015. These included Lauren McKenzie (14) who built an automatic soil watering system, Shadab Karnachi (14) who designed a low-cost gaming device for people with visual impairments, Nishanth Kumar (16) who designed a low-cost 'hands-free' mouse for use by people with developmental disabilities, and Peter He (14) who developed an innovative wireless virtual reality system.
The global finalists representing 10 countries were announced on August 4, 2015, and were as follows:
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Anela Arifi and Ilda Ismaili – A system for alternative fuel production and storage using chicken feathers
Canada
Isabella O'Brien – Trouble in Paradise: Recycling shell waste to reduce ocean acidification
Calvin Rieder – Extracting clean water from air: solar-powered solution for providing potable water
France
Eliott Sarrey – Bot2Karot: gardening through a smartphone-activated robot
India
Lalita Prasida Sripada Srisai – Absorbing water pollutants with corn cobs
Lithuania
Laura Steponavičiūtė – Detecting the environmental dangers of nanomaterials
Russia
Alexey Tarasov - Using ternary logic on current electronics
Singapore
Girish Kumar – RevUp: improving learning through auto-generated study questions
Zhilin Wang – Zinc air batteries for affordable, renewable energy storage
Taiwan
Wei-Tung Chen – Calculating the 3D position of an object from a single source
Yo Hsu and Jing-Tong Wang – Knock on fuel: detecting impurities in gasoline with sound pattern analysis
United Kingdom
Krtin Nithiyanandam – Improving diagnosis and treatment for Alzheimer's with new molecular "Trojan Horse"
Matthew Reid – The ArduOrbiter: a lightweight, open source satellite
United States
Anika Cheerla – Automated and accurate early-diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease
Anurudh Ganesan – VAXXWAGON: a reliable way to store and transport vaccines
Olivia Hallisey [WINNER] – Temperature-independent, inexpensive and rapid detection of Ebola
Deepika Kurup – Solar powered silver combating bacteria in drinking water
Pranav Sivakumar – Automated search for gravitationally lensed quasars
Adriel Sumathipala – Creating a simple diagnostic tool for earlier detection of cardiac disease
Tanay Tandon – Delivering rapid, portable and automated blood morphology tests
The winners were announced on September 21, 2015. The Grand Prize was won by Olivia Hallisey (16) with her project ‘Temperature-Independent, Portable, and Rapid Field Detection of Ebola via a Silk-Derived Lateral-Flow System’. The Google Technologist Award was won by Girish Kumar (17) for his project ‘Revup: Automatically Generating Questions from Educational Texts’ and the Incubator Award was won by Elliott Sarrey (14) with his project ‘Bot2karot: Manage Your Vegetable Garden via Your Smartphone’. The Lego Education Builder Award won by Anurudh Ganesan (15), the Virgin Galactic Pioneer Award won by Pranav Sivakumar (15), the Scientific American Innovator Award won by Krtin Nithiyanandam (15), the National Geographic Explorer Award won by Deepika Kurup (17) and the Community Impact Award won by Lalita Prasida.
== 2016 Winners ==
The 2016 Google Science Fair closed its entries on May 17, 2016, the Global 16 Finalist were announced on August 11, 2016. The final event took place during 24 to 27 September 2016 at Mountain View, California. Sixteen finalists competed for top five awards. The first two rounds had two age groups 13–15 and 16–18. However, unlike previous years, top awards during the finalist event did not distinguish between the two age groups of the previous rounds, thus making it particularly challenging event for the contestant compared to all previous years.
The Grand Prize was won by Kiara Nirghin (16) of South Africa for her project 'Fighting Drought with Fruit'. The Lego Education Builder award was won by Anushka Naiknaware (13) of United States, the youngest contestant to win a top award ever, for 'Smart Wound Care for the Future'. The National Geographic Explorer award was won by Mphatso Simbao (18) of Zambia. The Scientific Innovator Award was won by a team of three for 'Fighting Foam Waste with Recycled Filters' from the United States [Ashton Cofer (14), Luke Clay (14) and Julie Bray (14)]. The Virgin Galactic Pioneer award was won by Charlie Fenske (16) for 'Making Rockets more Efficient', also from the United States.
== 2017 Winners ==
The competition did not begin as usual in May, 2017. Starting from the late summer, the official website stated that "We're conducting some experiments" and "Coming Fall 2017". The submissions of competition in 2018 began on 13 September 2018.
== 2018 Winners ==
The Google Science Fair returned with 179 different prizes available for 2018–19. It opened for entries on September 13, 2018, and closed its entries on December 12, 2018. State award winners were announced in March 2019, regional award winners in April 2019, and global finalists in May 2019. On July 29, 2019, the top five awards were issued for students and one for an inspiring educator. The Google Grand Prize, featuring an award of a $50,000 educational scholarship, went to Fionn Ferreira, of Ireland. His project was titled "An investigation into the removal of microplastics from water using ferrofluids." The National Geographic Explorer award was won by A U Nachiketh Kumar and Aman K A, of India, for finding an eco-friendly way to coagulate rubber. The Lego Education Award was won by Daniel Kazantsev of the Russian Federation, who wanted to find a better way to help those who are hearing impaired to communicate with the world around them. The Scientific American Award was won by Tuan Dolmen of Turkey, who found a way to harness energy from tree vibrations. The Galactic Pioneer Award was won by Celestine Wenardy of Indonesia, for creating a low-cost and non-invasive glucose meter.
== See also ==
Science fair
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website
Previous Winners

37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GridRepublic-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
title: "GridRepublic"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GridRepublic"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:23.832838+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
GridRepublic is a BOINC Account Manager. It focuses on creating a clean and simple way to join and interact with BOINC. GridRepublic was started with a mission to raise public awareness and participation in volunteer computing with BOINC. GridRepublic was formed in 2004 by Matthew Blumberg as a mechanism to control the multiple projects from one place. The code for the BOINC software had to be redesigned to allow for the Account Manager system to be implemented.
GridRepublic's website has won numerous awards including being named finalist at the 2007 SXSW Interactive Festival and the 2008 Stockholm Challenge. GridRepublic has also been the recipients of a Google Grant allowing for advertising through Google.
== Projects ==
GridRepublic supports a wide range of the BOINC projects. The list of supported projects and the development status of projects are periodically updated.
Some of its popular projects include:
Climateprediction.net
Climate change modeling on personal computers
Einstein@home
Pulsar stars from LIGO and GEO data
Rosetta@home
Protein folding research
SETI@home
Searching radio and light data for signs of intelligent life
== Software ==
GridRepublic is a non-profit organisation, an online application, and software. The software is open source and a customized version of BOINC.
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HashClash-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
---
title: "HashClash"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HashClash"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:24.979754+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
HashClash was a volunteer computing project running on the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) software platform to find collisions in the MD5 hash algorithm. It was based at Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at the Eindhoven University of Technology, and Marc Stevens initiated the project as part of his master's degree thesis.
The project ended after Stevens defended his M.Sc. thesis in June 2007. However, SHA1 was added later, and the code repository was ported to git in 2017.
The project was used to create a rogue certificate authority certificate in 2009.
== See also ==
Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC)
List of volunteer computing projects
== References ==
== External links ==
HashClash
HashClash at Stevens' home page
Create your own MD5 collisions on AWS, Nat McHugh's blog

28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_Conquer_Cancer-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
---
title: "Help Conquer Cancer"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_Conquer_Cancer"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T02:57:26.171086+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Help Conquer Cancer is a volunteer computing project that runs on the BOINC platform. It is a joint project of the Ontario Cancer Institute and the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute. It is also the first project under World Community Grid to run with a GPU counterpart.
== Project Purpose ==
The goal is to enhance the efficiency of protein X-ray crystallography, which will enable researchers to determine the structure of many cancer-related proteins faster. This will lead to improving the understanding of the function of these proteins, and accelerate the development of new pharmaceutical drugs.
== See also ==
BOINC
List of volunteer computing projects
World Community Grid
== References ==
== External links ==
Help Conquer Cancer Archived 2010-01-17 at the Wayback Machine