The changing face of science philanthropy

Science published an editorial earlier this month on the changing priorities and methods of science philanthropy: New goals for science philanthropy.

The article discusses how growing priorities among donors are to work with public institutes and funding agencies to identify research areas where philanthropy can make the most impact, and to support researchers underrepresented in funding allocations from traditional sources. It is estimated that a staggering 42% of funding for basic science at US institutes is funded by philanthropy.

Each month NUS circulates a list of grant opportunities. Most private sources of funding are focused on the life sciences, particularly research into various diseases. 

How can the physical sciences attract more philanthropic funding? Two observations:

First, donors want to see meaningful impact in their lifetime. This is particularly challenging for physics, where most basic research does not lead to real world applications, and if it does it may take decades. For example, fusion power has been only 10-20 years away since the 1950s. Unfortunately it is impossible to control the impact of a specific research project.

Second, donors prefer to fund areas to which they have a personal connection. The biggest donors to the physical sciences are from those with experience in this area. For example, after obtaining a PhD in mathematics Jim Simons spent a decade in academia before turning to finance and making his fortune. Similarly, Fred Kavli had a background in engineering and Yuri Milner (founder of the Breakthrough Prize) originally worked as a physicist.

One way forward discussed in the article is to provide opportunities for research beyond traditional venues, for example by setting up independent research centres such as the Flatiron Institute. This not only avoids the entranched bureaucracy and overheadss of high-profile universities, but also gives the donor more control over the culture and expenditure of the centre. This seems a better alternative to funding lavish prizes that are more about recognising existing research impact than bringing about tomorrow's research breakthroughs.