Philanthropic funders must work together

The cuts to US federal science funding are beginning to bite around the world. Now, more than ever, private funders, such as philanthropies, must make the most of their investments.

As the head of philanthropic funder The Kavli Foundation and a former Harvard University faculty member, I know that grants from philanthropies cannot replace those from public sources. However, I think private funders can bolster science by focusing on two intertwined goals. The first is to back early-stage, high-risk work with the potential to change the future of science and technology. The second is to work together, to maximize investment returns.

In 2021, institutions and privately run philanthropies funded US $24.7 billion worth of basic research in the United States - 38% of the funding total (see link). As such, they are well placed to be a source of 'venture capital' for fundamental science - supporting out-of-the-box ideas, which will yield some transformative work and some failures.

Other funders are less suited to filling this niche. Governments, beholden to their citizens, are often averse to risky investments. To avoid wasting taxpayer funds, a project needs to have a high probability of success — there must be a proof of principle, which can come from philanthropy-supported work. And although private firms can drive rapid scientific innovation, their focus is on developments that help them to bring applied science to market.

Moreover, philanthropies can often get money into researchers’ pockets faster than can governments. The process of evaluating a project and awarding public funding is often lengthy. By contrast, philanthropies can prescreen ideas and applications, define a narrow set of review criteria and expedite review, decision-making and funding.

However, further collaboration is needed, to increase the potential impact of investments. Although philanthropies collectively have vast resources, their money is disparately distributed. Many relatively modest pots of money are held by individual foundations and wealthy donors. Collaborations could boost the scale of investment in emerging areas and so increase the chances of breakthroughs.

Partnerships also help to mitigate an often-cited concern about philanthropies — that one wealthy individual or family can unduly influence the global research agenda.

The Kavli Foundation has been partnering with other donors since 2000, initially through the Kavli Institutes, and since 2021 by prioritizing building collaborations for risky projects - so I've seen the benefits of this approach. In 2024, for instance, we launched a partnership to develop innovative 3D quantum materials.

Such partnerships accelerate funding. The selection of grant recipients is streamlined — only one set of reviews is needed, instead of having one for each funder. Decision-making is better because the perspectives of several funders are combined. And by partnering, we can collectively invest more funds than any one of us would stake individually. At the same time, each organization can invest fewer resources than would be required when acting alone, thus reducing the individual risk.

Our quantum-materials project might not work out as intended. It might be impossible to make high-quality versions of any of the innovative materials tested. Regardless, this research should help to advance fundamental science and could lead, for example, to computing resources more energy-efficient and powerful than any currently available.

Other organizations are starting to collaborate, too. The Research Corporation for Science Advancement oversees the Scialog programme, which brings together several philanthropies to support research. The Science Philanthropy Alliance — a US organization helping new philanthropists to navigate giving — is also making connections.

Still, partnerships are not yet a systematic part of philanthropic funding. Ingraining them into the fabric of our work would take just a few simple steps.

Philanthropies should first create consortia centred around chosen scientific fields; organizations interested in funding that area could opt into the collective. Fields will be dictated mainly by overlap in funders’ missions.

Each consortium’s funders would then identify topics with breakthrough potential in these fields, through discussions with scientists, literature reviews and trend-spotting at conferences. This stage could be led by programmatic staff at the organizations involved — Kavli’s current model. Engagement with scientists at a variety of career stages and with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints is often the most likely to yield potentially transformative ideas.

Next, small-scale meetings between scientists in these and adjacent fields — to provide outside perspectives — and other private and public funders would enable the consortia to shape and organize a funding call.

Ultimately, government support will be required to develop the most promising endeavours further — and such backing could establish entire fields and technologies.

These changes will not alter the fact that public science funding is crucial. But if philanthropies systematically work together to fund risky research at scale, they can get the biggest bang for their buck. The time to do so is now.

For the original article on Nature, please see link here.