Interview With Dr. Arash Rafii Tabriz – Founder at ScieNFT by Shauli Zacks
Shauli Zacks
Published on: May 6, 2025
Dr. Arash Rafii Tabrizi, a former professor of OBGYN and genetic medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, is no stranger to innovation in science. But instead of sticking with the traditional academic track, he stepped away from the lab and lecture hall to launch ScieNFT—a groundbreaking platform using blockchain and NFTs to transform how scientific research is published, shared, and credited. In this SafetyDetectives interview, Dr. Rafii explains the challenges of breaking into a deeply entrenched industry, how decentralized publishing can open new doors for scientists, and why transparency and speed matter when it comes to knowledge that could save lives.
What inspired you to create ScieNFT, and what problem does it aim to solve in the scientific community?
So, I’m Dr. Arash Rafii. I was a professor of OBGYN and genetic medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine. I basically resigned from academia three years ago to launch a platform that uses blockchain technology—particularly NFT technology—for the scientific world, for institutions, IP, and licensing of technologies.
The real goal is to free the publication system from the whole publishing industry. Right now, it’s almost impossible for you to read science because it’s behind paywalls, and scientific publication is delayed because of the review process. Blockchain offered a great opportunity to break that cycle.
How does ScieNFT use blockchain and NFTs to improve research transparency and authorship?
We allow every scientist—or author like yourself—to go on ScieNFT and create an account that’s linked to your profile. It’s the first platform that allows scientists to have their own verified profile. We know who you are, which institution you’re affiliated with, and that affiliation can be verified. There’s traceability on the blockchain showing you’re part of that institution.
For any publication you make, you’re going to create an NFT. The NFT isn’t the point—it’s just a way to embed the scientific publication. We even have journalists uploading their articles to the platform. The NFT includes several pieces of information: the co-authors (each appears as a creator of the NFT), the promoters (for example, Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford—multiple promoters can be listed), and the beneficiaries (who receives a share if there’s a transaction).
The advantage is that blockchain allows immediate publication. You decide when to publish—not an editor. And it’s all transparent. There’s no black box, no political or peer-review bias. You publish, and two minutes later, it’s online. The community can immediately react, and their reviews are public.
Let’s say you publish a great paper. I review it, and people can judge if I did a fair review. That removes the bias or disputes between competing scientists. Another huge thing is that you can now publish more than just successful results. If you did an experiment and it didn’t work, that’s still valuable. You can share the figure and say, “Hey, I tried this—it failed. Maybe you can improve it or at least not repeat my mistake.”
You can also publish hypotheses. Maybe you have an idea but can’t do the experiment. That’s how physics worked for years—people published ideas that were only proven 20 years later. Now, others can do the same. You can even publish patents or anything else. It gives a lot of freedom with the transparency of blockchain.
What are the biggest challenges in integrating blockchain into scientific publishing?
When I started this project three years ago, even people at the dean level didn’t know what an NFT was. They’d write it on a Post-it to look up later. Four years ago, NFT and blockchain tech were known in fintech and the art scene—but completely unknown in science. That was the first challenge.
Now, creating an account on ScieNFT takes two minutes. We have a custodial wallet, so users don’t even interact with the blockchain unless they want to. We abstract that complexity for scientists.
The second challenge is public perception. There’s this drama around blockchain and NFTs being scams. People say, “Crypto is used to buy drugs or weapons.” I say, “Yeah, so is real money—and you’re still using that.”
In gaming and fintech, people understand how robust the technology is. The misuse is marginal compared to the benefits. But in science, it was totally foreign a few years ago.
Scientists are also shy about using technology for funding. They’ve been giving their work to publishers forever. One of our goals at ScieNFT is to return value to researchers. If your NFT has a lot of interactions, its value rises—you can sell it to collectors or use it for crowdfunding.
Let’s say a scientist is researching a rare disease. They can mint 1,000 NFTs, each at $1,000, and sell them to patient families or communities to raise money. But most scientists aren’t used to monetizing their work this way.
What impact do you see decentralized publishing having on traditional academic journals?
I’ll be honest—there’s a mafia in publishing. The industry is huge. I think it’s worth something like $50 billion, almost as big as the music streaming industry. Their margins are higher than Apple or Google. Scientific publishers like Elsevier don’t produce science—they just format articles and do some editorial work. The real cost is in producing the research, which they don’t do.
They’re monopolizing human knowledge, and it affects all of us. Let’s say a scientist discovers something that could help treat a disease affecting one of my kids. That paper might sit in review for 6–12 months. That delay could prevent someone from accessing life-saving information.
This whole system—journals, impact factors, peer review—was created by an English guy named Maxwell. It’s built so scientists feel like they have to publish in a journal with a high impact factor. But high-impact journals have published terrible articles that were never replicated.
There’s a lot of bias. Scientists think publishing in a top journal validates their work, but that’s not always true. The DeSci (Decentralized Science) community is trying to fix this. They’re doing great work in improving communication and funding.
We raised $1.5 million for ScieNFT from great investors, but we’re competing with a $9–10 billion industry. It’s hard. It’ll take a movement—scientists need to say, “This process is broken.” But they’re conservative and cautious. Right now, I’d say DeSci’s impact on traditional publishing is still low.
What’s next for ScieNFT, and how do you see blockchain evolving in scientific research?
I see a clear evolution. One mistake I made early on was trying to convince individual scientists and institutions directly. We got a lot of scientists—around 1,000—who signed up and uploaded papers. But we realized we had to abstract the blockchain and NFT part, because that’s not what they care about or understand.
Now we’re focusing on offering a solution. We say, “You can publish anything, instantly, and it’s traceable by design.” That’s what matters to them.
We’re also talking to governments and ministries of health and education—especially in the GCC region—about using NFTs for diplomas. Right now, if someone sends me a resume from a University, I have no idea if it’s legit. I have to call and verify. If diplomas were NFTs, I could instantly see who issued it and when. No need for a background check.
Another big area is IP and patents. Let’s say you did amazing research. Instead of going through the long and expensive patent process, you could NFT it. Whoever wants to use it can buy the NFT and benefit from the rights. We’re trying to build that system, but it requires serious institutional and governmental support.
It’s easier if you convince a minister or a whole cabinet—then an entire country might adopt the approach. But those are high-level conversations, and that’s where we’re heading.
