[SamLR_66]

Are the various proposed projects vetted at all? This seems like the sort of thing that would result in lots of pseudo science getting funded or is it buyer beware in that respect?

Also do you envisage any way of helping fund less glamorous projects?

[pgroves]

I'd actually be more concerned about trying to define "junk science" than having a bunch of psychics running experiments.

What is the harm in someone putting their own money into a pseudo-science experiment? It will fail if it's an incorrect hypothesis either way.

In fact, the feedback loop between a "believer", their money, and reality, seems like a feature not a bug.

[msalzberg]

Hi, Sam. This is Matt from petridish.

We are doing a first pass at vetting in the sense that we are looking for projects that we think the public will be excited about, run by researchers with good credentials / affiliations, and that don't include obvious "junk science."

Ultimately, though, our model puts the power to pick projects in the hands of the public!

[cing]

I'm not sure about Petridish but SciFund is implementing a "peer review" for their next round of science crowdfunding: http://scifund.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/adding-a-mild-review...