Philanthropy in the Landscape of Science Funding

A busy week of teaching and preparing for an upcoming trip to Quebec to witness the eclipse left little time for blogging. Nonetheless, I’ve been mulling over some discussion-worthy topics!

The different funding mechanisms for science, both in academia and elsewhere, have been on my mind lately. This reminded me of two insightful articles from late 2022 and early 2023 – one in Physics Today and another in the Careers Feature section of Nature. These articles delve into the role of philanthropy in supporting research (which I guess naturally plays a more significant part in science backed by academia or non-profit organizations, rather than in private institutions). The topic also resonates with the recent news of the super-wealthy’s request at Davos, asking to be more properly taxed. It seems plausible to me that this request stems from a situation where inequality grew so big that some wealthy individuals are struggling to even donate impactfully. But I digress.

The first article from Physics Today analyzes the growing influence of private donors on the physical sciences and contrasts this source with other traditional ways to fund science, namely federal grants. The article features an intriguing figure, which, with a bit of digging, can be traced back to the strategic planning of the Science Philanthropy Alliance organization. Since the document is public, I’ve reproduced the corresponding figure here:

The red curve represents sources of philanthropic origin via non-profit foundations and donations to higher education institutions (and their endowment funds). The contribution from philanthropic sources may be even higher, as this data excludes individual donors.

As the article suggests, this plot tells a story: historically, contributions from wealthy individuals to science were of central importance. In the US, names like Rockefeller and Carnegie are associated with several institutions of higher education. The Cold War years witnessed a sharp increase in government support for science, and private funders shifted their efforts elsewhere. However, public support for science has been decreasing proportionally, and philanthropic sources have correspondingly risen as donors turn their attention back to helping researchers as a way to give back to society.

Private donations can positively influence science in many ways. The process of spending resources can be less bureaucratic and more flexible. It can more easily allow pivoting research directions – something challenging to do mid-grant when specific deliverables are requested during project planning – and can provide a pathway for scientists to transition to new areas of focus. This reconversion is typically difficult to achieve, as public funds tend to require a prior reputation in a field for researchers to successfully obtain funding. The article also mentions how the flexibility of philanthropic funding can foster more risk-taking in science, a subject of intense discussion. Finally, private funds can complement other sources; for example, some sources can address only capital or infrastructure expenditures, while private funds tend to cover personnel and operations – a perfect match!

However, not everything is perfect and easy. The article gathers advice for caution from scientists previously successful at garnering donor funding. These include being mindful of

• money that is too restrictive,
• donors who expect too much recognition,
• and donors who feel they have the right to call the shots (like on hiring decisions).

Another issue I see: as the article mentions, securing philanthropic funds requires a good dose of personal touch and relationships. Access to the right communities and the type of engagement and relationships developed depend heavily on opportunities and culture. This may pose a barrier for individuals from minority groups and affect diversity, equity, and inclusion outcomes.

The second article provides different resources and information on the topic. It takes the position of interviewing scientists who successfully obtained donations for their research and shares their stories. The result is a good collection of advice on navigating the process. On a personal note, one of the interviewees tells some inspiring stories from his position as a researcher in Brazil and how different philanthropic organizations such as the Instituto Serra Pilheira – apparently the only foundation to support science with private donations in Brazil – helped him remain engaged with the global scientific community. If you’ve read my other blog entries, you’ll remember me mentioning the issues surrounding the Brazilian scientific diaspora caused by, among other reasons, the insecurity of funding for science in Brazil.

In summary, both articles agree: some hedging is advised. Researchers should try to view the ecosystem of funding alternatives holistically and not bet on a single direction, not overlooking traditional federal grants, but remembering that significant alternatives exist.

• 2024 7