philanthropists funding (rsc)

8/8/2019 Philanthropists Funding (RSC)

1/4

Alternative funding

Picking the pocketsof philanthropistsWith many government funding sources for scientific research being slashed,Justine Davies delves into the deep pockets of endowment charities to see what shecan find for todays cash-strapped scientists

www.chemistryworld.org 52 | Chemistry World | September 2010


2/4

www.chemistryworld.org Chemistry World | September 2010 | 53

Ask not what your country cando for you ask what you can dofor your country, are perhaps themost famous words spoken byJ F Kennedy during his inaugurationas US president in 1961. The wordsdid not stand in isolation. Theywere delivered against a historicalbackground of American peopleasking what they could do for theircountry. Historically for sciencethis US philosophy of philanthropyhas been a particular boon, withgenerous endowment charities, likethe Carnegie Institute for Scienceand the Rockefeller Foundation(founded in 1902 and 1913,respectively), funding much of theimportant, early scientific research.And the generous donations of theBill and Melinda Gates Foundation,amongst others, ensure that thetradition continues.

In general, the UK lags behind

the US in the amount of moneydonated by philanthropists.According to a May 2009 study forglobal personal wealth advisorsBarclays Wealth, compared withBritish counterparts of the samenet worth, wealthy individualsin the US donate three times theamount of time and four times theamount of resources to charitablecauses each month. Nevertheless,scientific research in the UK stillreceives considerable support fromphilanthropic organisations like theGatsby Charitable Foundation and

the Wellcome Trust. And with theUK government having to tightenthe purse strings due to the latestrecession, philanthropic funding may provide a lifeline for even morescientists than before. However,there is more to philanthropicfunding than filling in the gaps left bya cash-strapped government.

The road less travelledA UK Royal Society report, TheScientific Century, published inMarch 2010 stated that although theconventional approach to research

funding is to support pre-definedprojects, programmes and researchinstitutes, the benefits of researchare often serendipitous and may notmatch those envisaged in a grantproposal. Scientists need flexibilityto exploit the new opportunities andquestions that emerge from theirresearch. This flexibility is oftenthought to be lacking in governmentgrants and money given by non-endowed charities, because theseorganisations which are fundeddirectly or indirectly by the public have their hands tied by public

In short

Endowment charitieshave historicallygenerously fundedscientific research, moreso in the US than UK

This type of funding offers scientists morefreedom than researchcouncil grants

Philanthropists cashis even more appealing in an era of governmentfunding cuts

opinion. Having stakeholders toanswer to means that both thegovernment and non-endowedcharities have less flexibility to fundnon-directed research, explainsPeter Hesketh, chief executive of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.Philanthropic funding, which is notaccountable to the public purse hasmore ability to be innovative andfund research that might look a bitrisky, he says.

The Gatsby Charitable Foundationis a private foundation wholly fundedby Lord Sainsbury, an ex-UK scienceminister as well as famous grocer.Sainsbury has pledged to give at least1 billion in his lifetime to variousendeavours, all with a scientifictheme. Amongst other projects, theGatsby foundation currently fundsa world renowned centre for plantscience in Norwich, and has plansto build another plant centre in the

botanical gardens at the Universityof Cambridge, as well as help funda neuroscience centre at UniversityCollege London. At the Gatsbyfunded research hubs some of thebest minds in their fields are giventhe latitude they need to exploreideas, making it probably the mostwonderful type of funding youcould ever receive as a scientist,says David Baulcombe, professorof botany at the University of Cambridge.

Giving scientists freedom to followtheir noses is also an important part

of the US Carnegie Institute forSciences philosophy. Staff scientistsare appointed at Carnegies sixscientific departments based onexcellence and the promise that

that person will do really visionaryresearch, says Susanne Garvey,director of external affairs at theCarnegie Institute for Science. Welet that person do their thing anddecide where he or she wants to go,she says. In fact, Carnegie scientistsare given such a free rein that if theywant, they can completely changecourse, and some of their scientistshave taken a sabbatical from researchto learn an entirely new field. Fromthe beginning, we select people whohave a compulsion to do science,they just cant help it. So, their goalis to figure out the best way to usetheir talents they know best. We doeverything we can to help them andto help them grow, Garvey says.

Recognising the serendipitousadvantages brought about byresearcher freedom is one of thereasons that the Wellcome Trust,which is the UKs largest endowed

charity, has recently changed toawarding grants to individuals called investigator awards rather than funding projects andprogrammes. The Wellcome Trustis concerned that the short, threeyear, time scale of project grantscould be disadvantageous. It is reallydifficult to get any serious sciencedone in this time, says Alan Schafer,director of science funding at theWellcome Trust. You get the money,it takes you 6 or 8 months to get theproject up and running, you spenda year trying to get things to work,

you eventually get some results andthen you are worried about getting another source of funding whilsttrying to put together a publicationor presentation. I dont think that

A new plant-science

laboratory is being built at the Universityof Cambridge withfunds from the GatsbyCharitable Foundation


3/4


4/4

www.chemistryworld.org Chemistry World | September 2010 | 55

but there are many different waysin which they achieve this. Someorganisations, like Carnegie,generally fund independent researchinstitutions. This concentrateslots of like-minded people in oneenvironment, says Garvey. On theother hand, HHMI typically fundsindividuals within universities,an approach Dixon feels has manyadvantages. In particular, it reallyallows for a breadth and a range of expertise that probably would not bepossible if one had everyone withinone single institution. In addition,our funding is a real asset to theuniversities.

Philanthropically-fundedscientists can also apply for grantsfrom other sources. With Carnegiescientists receiving on averagehalf their funding from federalgrants. This is a change from 20years ago, says Garvey, when most

of the funding came from theinstitute. One reason is that manyyoung researchers have alreadybecome accustomed to applying forgovernment funding before gaining aplace at Carnegie. However, it is alsoa rebuttal to those who think thatscientists who receive philanthropicfunding are mollycoddled. It is a wayof proving to their peers that they arereally good, of validating themselvesand giving them a feather in theircap, says Garvey.

Despite this need to proveoneself through government

grants, obtaining philanthropicfunding is not the easy option.Many philanthropic organisations,like the Gates Foundation and theDr Hadwen Trust which fundsresearch towards limiting animalresearch have a rigorous grantapplication process. Others, likeWellcome and HHMI, have a highlycompetitive application processfor their investigator awards.Even organisations like the Gatsbyfoundation, who proactively seekout people that they want to workwith, do this in consultation with

a large range of experts in theparticular scientific arena, who areconstantly alert to and connectedwith those people doing greatthings, says Hesketh.

Thinking long termAnd once they secure philanthropicfunding, researchers cant sit back ontheir laurels. Scientists who receivea Wellcome Trust investigator awardwill enter into a close mentoring relationship with the trust. Thisis not designed to cut off funding midway through, says Schafer,

if we are saying that this is a long term project with flexibility thelast thing we want to be doing isto look at it in 4 years and say youhave only got one publication, weare cutting your money. Instituteslike Wellcomes Sanger go throughparticularly intensive reviews, saysParkhill, which involves writing upwhat we have been doing and whatwe are planning to do as if it were alarge grant application. It gets peerreviewed and we get site visited and astrategic review as well.

Other philanthropic organisationshave similarly rigorous reviewprocesses to ensure funds are usedappropriately. At the HHMI thesereviews are a bit stressful, admitsDixon. Approximately 20 per centof HHMI researchers contractsare not renewed, and they aregiven a two year period to findalternative funding to supporttheir work. Likewise atthe five yearly reviews of Carnegie researchers, if the fire in their belly hasgone, then they will be

asked to think aboutdoing something elsesomeplace else, saysGarvey.

Easy come, easy go?A common concern of individuals funded byphilanthropists is that theplug may suddenly be pulled onthe funding. Indeed, the WellcomeTrust has recently threatened tostop funding for University CollegeLondons centre for the historyof medicine and Gatsby has just

announced a gradual phasing outof their mental health arm. Nomatter what the source of funds,the potential of them drying up isalways a concern, says Parkhill,if you are spending money onscientific research you have tohave the ability to say no. It hasto be competitive on the highestlevel, otherwise you are not getting proper value for money. It is afoolish scientist who is convincedthat they are going to get their nextfunding application approved.

It is also easy to claim thatphilanthropists, who increasinglywant a say in where their money isspent, pursue whimsical, but notnecessarily scientifically valid ideas.From an outsider looking in, whatDavid [Sainsbury] chooses to fundmay appear curious, or incoherent,or non-strategic, says Hesketh,but the fact that it is accountableonly to itself means that the Gatsby

foundation, in consultation withscientific experts, is free toexplore ideas not necessarily

pursued by other funders. Philanthropic funding does

not normally lead to a wildgoose chase, and if HHMIscure for chronic myelogenousleukaemia is anything to goby, those geese could be laying

golden eggs. With governmentfunding likely to remain at best

static, no matter what charges arelaid at the door of philanthropy, it islikely to continue to be a vital force inmoulding our scientific landscape.

Justine Davies is a freelance journalist based in London, UK

The medical charityHHMI has fundedresearch into chronicmyelogenous leukemia

The Bill and MelindaGates Foundation fundsresearch into diseasesaffecting poorer parts ofthe world

philanthropists funding (rsc)

Documents