‘Philanthropy is No Substitute for Government Funding’

By Teresa Tritch (The New York Times) – There has been an upsurge in philanthropy for scientific research by America’s billionaires.  As documented by William J. Broad in a recent report for The Times, the sums are huge; the quests serious; the results impressive.  Still, in size and scope, philanthropy pales in comparison to public financing for science.

There has been an upsurge in philanthropy for scientific research by America’s billionaires. As documented by William J. Broad in a recent report for The Times, the sums are huge; the quests serious; the results impressive.

Still, in size and scope, philanthropy pales in comparison to public financing for science.

A quick look at some numbers bears this out: The Giving Pledge, a campaign started in 2010 by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, has so far signed up roughly 100 of America’s nearly 500 billionaires, who promise to give most of their fortunes to charity. Of them, about 40 have said they plan to donate to studies in science, health and the environment; if they gave away all their assets to those causes, which no one expects them to do, it would come to around $250 billion – about two years’ worth of federal financing for research and development in bad budget times, like the present, with public spending depressed by ill-advised austerity.

In the Times’ article, the importance of public science financing was emphasized by Robert W. Conn, president of the Kavli Foundation, which has committed nearly $250 million for science. “Philanthropy is no substitute for government funding,” said Mr. Conn. “You can’t say that loud enough.”

That comment led to a bright idea by Steven Clarke, a letter writer to The Times from Casa Grande, Ariz., who said that “all the high-profile billionaires mentioned in the article” should “make a public-service announcement” to promote public spending for science. “A small percentage of their philanthropic funds could be spent producing a video and paying for prominent ad placement,” wrote Mr. Clarke. “A tiny bit of their time could be spent appearing in the video themselves. That might make more of a contribution to science than the generous amounts they donate directly to research.”

So how about it, guys?

The projects you save may be your own: To make the most of the new philanthropy, the government may have to spend more on science, because a greater number of incremental advances could create a greater need to leverage those findings with resources that only the government can bring to bear. Case in point: The initial research to sequence DNA, which led to the mapping of the human genome, was privately funded — but the Human Genome Project itself required a $3.8 billion federal effort.

And unless philanthropists themselves speak up, the need for public science financing will get lost because the other story line — the one that contrasts the nimble, innovative private sector with the bureaucratic, meddling public sector — will drown it out.

That private versus public depiction is false in a lot of ways, but especially when it comes to innovation in science and technology, as I explored in a recent article. Many of the fields in which today’s billionaires made their fortunes – information technology, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals, to name a few – would not exist but for decades of path-breaking work by scientists employed and financed by the government.

But unless today’s philanthropic billionaires say that, loud and clear and repeatedly, the money may not be there when it’s time to turn their donations into the next Human Genome Project.

Link to article.