The federal government became the majority funder of basic science research at universities and nonprofit research institutes in the post-World War II era. Rockefeller, who wanted to reimagine the institutions of science in the 1910s, '20s and '30s.
He sees parallels between today's donors and Andrew Carnegie and John D. "There is a sort of 'back to the future' element to what these guys are doing," says Eric John Abrahamson, a historian at work on a book about science philanthropy.
Private donors have long played a role in shaping science in the United States-from the creation of the modern research universities to the independent research institutions of the early 20th century and beyond. Others question the societal implications when more science research is driven by a handful of tech elites motivated by the "move fast and break things" ethos. Many of the experiments are similar to approaches already backed by government, leading some to question whether small-scale funding experiments in science are money well spent. While these contributions are just a drop in the bucket compared with the nearly $50 billion the NIH spends on research each year, they've been met with both applause and ambivalence from scientists and philanthropy observers. They argue that scientists spend too much time seeking funding for grants that are too restrictive and see a need to support high-potential young scientists and risky or speculative projects that are often overlooked or underfunded.Ĭollison, along with Vitalik Buterin, creator of the Ethereum blockchain platform, and other donors, pledged more than half a billion dollars to the Arc Institute, a new biomedical research nonprofit that wants scientists to focus on science, not chasing grants.Įric and Wendy Schmidt spun off Convergent Research, a nonprofit helping to incubate independent organizations to develop research tools and niche or underfunded areas of science. Donors have channeled hundreds of millions of dollars into research labs and nonprofits to address what they view as problems with how government agencies and institutional philanthropies fund science.
By January 2022, all the money had gone out the door to more than 260 projects.įast Grants is one of many science improvement projects launched or backed by Silicon Valley billionaires since the pandemic began. Grants of $10,000 to $500,000 backed early efforts to sequence new coronavirus variants, clinical trials for drugs that could potentially be repurposed, and a simple and reliable saliva-based COVID-19 test. The first round of grants went out in 48 hours, and later rounds were distributed within two weeks, a drastic difference from the hundreds of days a scientist typically waits to hear from the NIH. Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy.
"It was a bit like put up or shut up."Ĭollison and his brother, John-a Stripe co-founder-contributed and along with Cowen raised more than $50 million from some of the biggest names in tech: Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel. "We thought: Let's just do this," Cowen recalls. Collison and Cowen worried that the National Institutes of Health wasn't moving quickly enough, so they launched Fast Grants to get emergency research dollars to virologists, coronavirus experts, and other scientists rapidly. As the first pandemic lockdowns went into effect, researchers were in a holding pattern, waiting to hear if they could redirect their federal grants to COVID-related work. Patrick Collison, the now 34-year-old billionaire CEO of the online payments company Stripe, and economist Tyler Cowen were chewing over a shared concern: Scientific progress seemed to be slowing down.
0 kommentar(er)
