Among the threads of feedback here are specific suggestions about the program work Article 27 could and should do to support people making discoveries. I want to capture a couple of points in a summary, with some comment. It's still early in the discussion, and these aren't "the answers" but there's so much of value in these suggestions that they deserve an efficient recap.
10 Million Discoveries: How Will We Know?
Camille asks how we can measure our success. And this is a good point: It's not just that we want 10 million discoveries, we want 10 million discoveries shared. In the academic and medical health discovery system, this occurs through publication. We also have a form of publication: the Show&Tell talk. The Show&Tell talk has some key virtues: It is a first person account that focused directly on what's been learned by the individual, answering the three questions: What did you do, how did you do it, what did you learn? If the discoveries we facilitate are shared in a format that conformed to this template, we can count them. However, the specific Show&Tell format we currently use has some features which prevent it from scaling: The talks are given at live events, documentation is sparse except at the international conferences, and the people who do the projects don't have an easy way to update them publicly (after they share them) or to get help along the way (before they share them). We need to have a "unit of production" that scales more easily than the live show&tell talk given at a meetup. As we work on developing this, we have an advantage: The non-scalable, handcrafted version is already working. And we can definitely grow it. We can go from 100 to 200, and in fact quite a bit further, until we are absolutely maxed out on show&tell talks. Along the way, we can experiment with other forms. This is definitely a 2-3 year process that we should approach with sparse assumptions. It would be fatal to just think: "YouTube for Everyday Science" or something like that, and charge ahead, with money flying out of our pockets in all directions. The opposite approach is actually more exciting and promising: go from 100 to 200, and then double again, and learn, learn, learn.
QS Institute/Train the Trainers/Certification
@Sara mentions the form of an institute. This is such a different approach than a typical startup strategy that it deserves being underlined. We actually have some experience with this model: The QS Institute at Hanze Technical University in Groningen, founded by Martijn de Groot. Martijn, whom many of you know, managed to fund and develop a very successful group at QSI that launched an undergraduate major in "Quantified Self and Global Health" and also a summer continuing education program in Quantified Self for health care allied professionals. (These were mainly nurses.) I visited the program several times and met students, who were working on their own self-tracking projects as a way to more deeply understand how to help patients. They selected instrumentation, formed their own questions, analyzed the data, and did a "show&tell" poster. Martijn is now the director of the ReShape health innovation center at Radbaud Medical University, where he has, among other responsibilities, a specific charge to develop approaches to teaching Quantified Self to medical professionals. This collaboration gives us a chance to develop curricula that could be shared, sold, or licensed broadly within health care, including the kinds of certifications that @sprague and @QuantifiedBob point to as a powerful component of influencing professional activity in health.
Please keep your comments coming. They are very important and will condition our fundraising and program development, which we hope will feed directly back into the community to spur the kind of work that's needed.