I don't get it. All of these people on the project would typically have amounts of money for research on whatever they want to do. Why do they need more money? I guess I am missing the point. I've heard of a bunch professors from friends that have huge research funds. They can even give portions of their research grants to students.
As an ex-academic type, your statement is both true and false. Some professors have large research grants, and indeed, their grants are what pay the salaries of grad students and post-docs.
Other professors (the vast majority) struggle to get appropriate funding. It's a horrible rat race to scrounge up enough money to continue your research. God forbid if you aren't tenured - your job literally depends on how much funding you can bring in (not enough papers = not enough funding = sacked for someone else).
That said, $25k is laughably small amount of money in research. At my old lab, I performed an experiment where I was easily blowing $1000 per week. And I was just a single technician in a lab. Hell, I spent more in supplies than I was paid in salary (probably by some multiple).
I agree about the $25K part. I fail to see how they plan to achieve anything when a single vial of ultra purified drug API or even dendrimer will see you back a few thousand dollars.
I mean their intentions are great but I get the feeling they're yet to experience the crushing and pessimistic realities of scientific and especially pharmaceutical/neurobiological research. It's a depressign world for us sometimes.
Edit: In review, I would be very interested to read about how they were given permission to experiment on mice. Filling out the paperwork just to get ethical approval alone is a daunting task.
$25k for a single experiment is possible. I've applied to the national science foundation for a single experiment and my budget (along with funds for me to present the data at a conference (~$1500) was around $12k as we had most of the stuff I needed already.
This lab is already established, they just need some extra funds to run this specific experiment (from what I've read).
Re: mouse work. I'm assuming they already have the facilities to run these experiments...especially at Princeton. If they don't, I'm sure a neighboring lab has the mice/protocols to run this experiment and they will/can cola berate. They write up an IACUC protocol, go through a few bouts of revisions and they should be able to run the experiment. This would be a simple protocol as they are just injecting mice with the drug, this isn't out of the ordinary by any means.
I just got a group leader position in the UK (currently a postdoc in the bayarea) and I am paying some attention to these experiments in crowdfunding for academic projects. In almost all group leader or faculty position, the research budget is covered by applying for grants. These are very competitive with typical rejection rates of 90%. This is an interesting alternative but there are many caveats. As someone has already noted in one of the comments, you would typically need to write a scientifically grounded proposal. One fear of crowdsourcing for science would be that many "unreasonable" or pseudo-science projects might attract funding if they are popular. This is slightly less of a concern with for-profit projects since popularity needed for the crowdsourcing might be correlated with financial success. The same is not true at all for academic success. The other issue that has already been hinted at is that the required funds are probably too high. A good grant might bring in on the order of 1 million so is it worth more fighting to improve your social networking and fundraising skills or getting more grants submitted ?
