i guess i don't like the idea of presenting the situation as a choice between public funding and crowd-sourcing, as i think the better idea is to use them together: crowd-sourcing cannot replace the state in terms of resource allocation, but that doesn't mean it might not be useful to fund certain kinds of research that the government might fear political repercussions around, or might not fund due to corporate capture. for small fundraising purposes, it might be easier to crowdsource than to agitate, but i would dissuade people from disengaging from agitating for further public funds; this can't be a solution to that problem.

in this particular situation, though, i might suggest that a guaranteed annual income might be what would most benefit this researcher, as it would narrow the field of candidates down to the ones that have an engaged interest in the topic. conversely, this is a good example of how i'd imagine a gai would work: people would be freer to participate in their intellectual pursuits, be they in the arts or the sciences or whatever else.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-crowdfund-science-research-1.4495632

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.