The private sector—alternative to federal funding of biomedical research
1
EDITORIAL; THE PRIVATE SECTOR- ALTERNATIVE TO FEDERAL FUNDING OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH Like a desert spring in the summer, Federal sources of funds for research in some fields seem to be drying up, or at least sufferingfrom lack of replenishment. This is understandable in the light of taxpayer unrest, although it would appear that tax savings could be affected more profitably elsewhere. One readily calls to mind the $1 billion-plus commitment for the Super-sonic Trans- port; hardly a budgetary item to be listed in the “bare bones” category. It is difficult to think of anything less essential to human welfare than trimming two hours from the flight time between Paris and New York, perhaps to spend that same two hours stacked up over the airport. Little advantage can be gained from advancing arguments such as this at so late a date; the die is already cast. Yet most of us realize that the potential benefits for mankind make it impera- tive that research in biomedical fields receives continuing support in adequate amounts. Since the funding route by way of Federal grants is, at least for the present, constricted, is there a feasible alternative? The answer is a most reassuring “Yes.” We are left with a highly capable source for financing biomedical research: the private sector. And it is here that the great foundations can fill a vital role. While many private foun- dations are at present under serious attack, this stems from a suspected tendency to dabble in political and other matters prohibited under the Internal Revenue code governing their tax exemptions, and not from their role as supporters of research, per se. Representative Wright Patman, of Texas, Chairman of a subcommittee investigating foun- dations, issued a report on February 18, 1969, in which he said: “Put most bluntly, philanthropy . . . one of mankind’s more noble instincts . . . has been perverted into a vehicle for institu- tionalized, deliberate evasion of fiscal and moral responsibility to the nation. . . . I do not seek to destroy foundations, but to reform them.” In view of this reform drive in Congress, it is entirely possible that the foundations will, at least for the next few years, be even more receptive to grant applications in the medical and psychobiological sciences than in the past. Many major foundations have long backed biomedical research projects, and continue to do so. Of these, Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie readily come to mind. If we look briefly at the giant among them, the Ford foundation, we find that its latest statement shows international and domestic applicants receiving an average of some $150 million annually, with a balance of $3.9 billion! The Ford Foundation has been particularly generous in the field of mental health and the behavioral sciences. In support of the latter alone, it founded the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University in 1952. From that time until 1958, when the Foundation terminated its support, its grants to the Center totaled $10.3 million. An additional $28.5 million was granted to other schools and organizations doing similar work. Ford has now re-entered the field with a recent grant of $6 million to the Center, and has also begun making other awards in the behavioral sciences. Worthy projects should not be shelved indefinitely to await a change in federal policy. Energetic pursuit of non-government sources can well yield rewarding results. GRANT NEWTON Developmental Psychobiology, Z(2): 55 55
-
Upload
grant-newton -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of The private sector—alternative to federal funding of biomedical research
EDITORIAL; THE PRIVATE SECTOR- ALTERNATIVE TO FEDERAL FUNDING OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
Like a desert spring in the summer, Federal sources of funds for research in some fields seem to be drying up, or at least suffering from lack of replenishment. This is understandable in the light of taxpayer unrest, although it would appear that tax savings could be affected more profitably elsewhere. One readily calls to mind the $1 billion-plus commitment for the Super-sonic Trans- port; hardly a budgetary item to be listed in the “bare bones” category. It is difficult to think of anything less essential to human welfare than trimming two hours from the flight time between Paris and New York, perhaps to spend that same two hours stacked up over the airport.
Little advantage can be gained from advancing arguments such as this a t so late a date; the die is already cast. Yet most of us realize that the potential benefits for mankind make it impera- tive that research in biomedical fields receives continuing support in adequate amounts. Since the funding route by way of Federal grants is, at least for the present, constricted, is there a feasible alternative? The answer is a most reassuring “Yes.”
We are left with a highly capable source for financing biomedical research: the private sector. And it is here that the great foundations can fill a vital role. While many private foun- dations are at present under serious attack, this stems from a suspected tendency to dabble in political and other matters prohibited under the Internal Revenue code governing their tax exemptions, and not from their role as supporters of research, per se.
Representative Wright Patman, of Texas, Chairman of a subcommittee investigating foun- dations, issued a report on February 18, 1969, in which he said: “Put most bluntly, philanthropy . . . one of mankind’s more noble instincts . . . has been perverted into a vehicle for institu- tionalized, deliberate evasion of fiscal and moral responsibility to the nation. . . . I do not seek to destroy foundations, but to reform them.”
In view of this reform drive in Congress, it is entirely possible that the foundations will, at least for the next few years, be even more receptive to grant applications in the medical and psychobiological sciences than in the past.
Many major foundations have long backed biomedical research projects, and continue to do so. Of these, Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie readily come to mind. If we look briefly at the giant among them, the Ford foundation, we find that its latest statement shows international and domestic applicants receiving an average of some $150 million annually, with a balance of $3.9 billion!
The Ford Foundation has been particularly generous in the field of mental health and the behavioral sciences. In support of the latter alone, it founded the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University in 1952. From that time until 1958, when the Foundation terminated its support, its grants to the Center totaled $10.3 million. An additional $28.5 million was granted to other schools and organizations doing similar work. Ford has now re-entered the field with a recent grant of $6 million to the Center, and has also begun making other awards in the behavioral sciences.
Worthy projects should not be shelved indefinitely to await a change in federal policy. Energetic pursuit of non-government sources can well yield rewarding results.
GRANT NEWTON
Developmental Psychobiology, Z(2): 55 55
