by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.
While Leonardo DaVinci worked on his many amazing inventions, his work was subsidized by patrons such as Ludovico Sforza, Cesare Borgia, and Giuliano de’Medici. Charles Montagu and Isaac Barrow supported Isaac Newton. Gardiner Hubbard supported the inventions of his future son-in-law, Alexander Graham Bell. The patron system permitted a wealthy family or individual to support an artist or natural philosopher (i.e. scientist) to pursue his (the supported were almost exclusively male) work. Being a patron was a civic duty and often was a way to pursue a personal passion that one lacked the time or expertise to pursue (or would have been looked down upon).
Since World War II, the U.S. federal government has paid for most big science in this country. Billions of dollars have been given to science in pursuit of innovation, exploration, and improving our world. The government has paid for the Manhattan Project, the space program, polio vaccine, and artificial organs. Through the federal grant system, generations of scientists have been trained, conducted researcher, and have the next generation of scientists. In 2009, $40 billion was allocated for basic science research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). But times, they are a’ changing.
In this new age of fiscal austerity, the federal government has shrunk the amount of the budget that is geared toward pursuit of science. By 2013, the federal budget for the NIH had shrunk to $29.15 billion—a 5.5% decrease. The National Science Foundation (NSF) saw a decrease of 2.1% to $6.88 billion. The result is the closing of labs, massive layoffs of scientists, and a new direction for federally funded research. A survey of 3,700 scientists found that 55% knew of colleagues who had or were about to join the unemployment lines. One researcher I spoke with said his lab is on the same floor as 4 other labs in a new university building. But his lab is the only one that is currently open—the others having closed, or never opened for lack of grant funding.
Some science training programs have cut the number of students they accept or are considering such a move. Even the National Institutes of Health is redirecting its emphasis away from basic science toward translational science where the goal is not to produce generalized knowledge but marketable products. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) is the newest NIH institute and has a goal to develop drugs, not to encourage basic discovery.
This perfect storm could herald an end to the United States as the leader of scientific discovery in the world. It could end the scientific enterprise that has driven our economy for most of the 20th and 21st century. Or it may not.
According to a recent article in The New York Times, the patronage system may be back. Writer William J. Broad in his March 15, 2014 article, “Billionaires with Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science,” points out that wealthy individuals are increasingly taking on the role of funding scientific discovery and scientists. For example Anousheh Ansari is a Texas engineer who made her fortune in telecommunications. With her passion for space travel, she funded a $10 million award to the first private craft that could safely send three people into space and back. The Ansari X Project was pursued by multiple companies at a time when NASA appears on life support: The prize was won in 2004 by Tier One. Ansari herself paid to visit the International Space Station in 2006.
According to Broad, nearly 20% of America’s billionaires have pledged to donate much of their estates to charity including 40% who are supporting work in science. The billionaires fund such work as medical research, environmental research, the search for extraterrestrial life, and new energy resources. Some are motivated by diseases they or their family members have, while others have passions of exploration or dreams of changing the world.
The result is a changing landscape for scientists who face stiffer competition for the decreasing number of federal grant dollars. The average age for receiving an R01 grant is over 40, fewer than 17% of all applications are funded, and the size of the awards is smaller. Scientists spend countless hours writing and rewriting grants in an often-futile attempt to fund a career and a project. The new method is to identify a potential patron (whether an individual, a family foundation, or a company) and develop an appealing idea. Patronage is based on developing close relationships and then pursuing ideas and producing scientific (and artistic) results that interest the patron.
The result is that the whims and desires of the country’s billionaires are deciding what research is done and who does it. Peer review, an excellent CV, and a strong science pedigree may not be what sells new science projects. Instead it is who you know, how well you align with their concerns, and whether you can woo them. The patrons, in general, are not interested in basic science where discoveries may be interesting but not world-changing or might not be understood and applied for decades. Patrons want to see results. They want to see change in their life times. They want an application that can improve their lives and those that they know. A scientist has to discover a cure, a new energy source, or a new way of doing something that has short term return.
The challenge for scientists is that funding is in many ways less assured than with the federal grant system. If a patron does not like what comes out of the lab, becomes disenchanted with a person, becomes interested in different issues, experiences a decrease in wealth, or is tired of waiting for results, the money can dry up over night.
The next chapter in how we fund science looks very similar to the first chapter of how we funded science. From patronage to government grants, to corporate sponsorship, and now back to patronage. Scientific funding is coming full circle. Rather than an investment in the common good, science becomes a plaything for the very wealthy. In one sense, I am pleased that those who have financially benefited most from our society and from science are giving back. That is a laudable service to a society that made available the means for these individuals to succeed. On the other hand, that the power to control the scientific agenda is in the hands of a few who often are not research scientists themselves is concerning. On top of that, the move away from basic science to translational means more benefits today but at the sacrifice of the discoveries that would have been the foundation of the wonders of tomorrow.