Just when you thought it was safe to go into the water – a new development in the pro/anti science wars is heating things up. Yes, embryonic stem cell research is back in the news. And with this will come all the heated rhetoric — once again the vested interests on either side of the question will pit destroying life against saving lives. I have never been able to strongly support embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because I do not think stem cell research will produce cures for all the diseases for which promises are being made. SO, I think there is a serious ethical dilemma concerning stem cell research. But it differs from the one that garners all the talk. I think much of the resources spent on embryonic stem cells AS CURES – not as basic biological explorations – are being squandered. Putting too many eggs in the embryonic stem cell research basket steals attention, intellectual power, and financial support from approaches that could be much more useful and efficiacious. The wonderful thing that occured during the last decade of limited funding has been the diversity of cell types individuals have selected for study and the clever techniques that have emerged. I also think there is one sure-fired way to make certain most of the embryonic stem-cell research being done will never translate into medical treatments -let the NIH fund it. With private support – researchers promising cures will have their feet held to the fire. With hefty NIH support, stem cell research will go the way of most disease-specific experimental research carried out in vitro with cell culture and in vivo with rodent models. There are also serious ethical issues about the disconnect between what scientists promise (couched in the long inferential distances of the if, if, then, if, if, then… arguments) versus what patient groups hear and consequently expect. Private funders – particularly those that are no disease-specific charities – have a real role to play in bringing the important issues to the fore and refocusing the discussions on what really matters scientifically and practically.
For years, amongst my funding colleagues and in scientific settings I have questioned whether we needed a serious re-think about the Alzheimer Disease research dogma. Certain things about the amyloid hypothesis and the clinical disease just do not add up — and to my mind AD has become the classic example of the MODEL of the disease becoming the focus of research, in place of the actual disease. I also have long believed that once a system is tipped too far it can not recover. Recent news about AD drug discover is supporting these contentions. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/business/18lilly.html
The time has come for philanthropic organizations with an interest in neurological disease to start challenging the status quo.
If there is one overused idea voiced by foundations and charities supporting disease-related biomedical research it is that private funding should preferentially fund “the risky research.” I am never sure what this phrase means, particularly as I often hear it used to describe efforts to support ongoing work in fairly mainstream research questions.
In reality, I think any organization supporting disease-related biomedical research is already taking a certain kind of risk. The risks are not that the work will not get done, or that papers will not get published, or that the idea will turn out to be wrong. The risks are that the research will get done, the papers will be published, and the idea will just join the thousands of other unusable pieces of information biomedical research generates by the reams. The biggest risk of all is that we really do not learn anything new.
Questioning the status quo and funding the development of heterodox ideas is risky. There is the risk that the status quo is right. There is the risk that the orthodoxy is correct. To me taking this risk is worth it. You may actually generate a new idea. At the very least you may find out the new idea is not as good as the old idea. But at least you learn something.
The news that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are challenging their fellow billionaires to give generously is getting a lot of media attention. Much like the prior landmarks of the expansion of organized philanthropy (e.g. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others at the transition from the 19th to the 20th century) the transition from the 20th to the 21st Century will witness another HUGE expansion of philanthropic giving. Are we ready for it? Philanthropy can do much good. But it can also be opportunity squandered if the funds are not 1) seen as social capital invested for the common good, 2) aimed at identifying and solving root causes of problems, and 3) monitored carefully with respect to what can truly be accomplished. The infusion of large sums of philanthropic dollars can have a dramatic effect – skewing the interests and missions of the recipients of this largesse in ways that could take decades to recover. There are vast problems we need to be solving – and the funds can be extremely effective – or not. It will take bold leadership and it will take thoughtful, humble, leadership — these characteristics are actually not incompatible. Philanthropic leadership need to be bold enough to challenge the status quo and question deeply cherished assumptions. ANd, at the same time, philanthropic leadership must be humble enough to question its OWN cherished assumptions and deeply help beliefs. I wish the Billionaires CLub much success.
Recently I attended a small conference primarily focusing on issues at the intersections of science, science policy, and society. One aspect of the meeting that struck me as unrealistic is that much of the discussion focussed on how “we” could best solve some of the HUGE problems facing us such as global climate change, disparities between rich and poor nations, and governance of global resources.
In reality, each of us – even if the “us” are US foundations with resources to expend – can only work on small pieces of some big problem. Most of us only have the ability to control our own decision making or, maybe, influence the decision-making of those close to us.
So rather than trying to devise things we want some other large and often unidentified “them” to do because that will solve the big problems (‘everyone’ must stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere) we should each try to contribute locally or within the small spheres in which our decisions matter. If every individual at a foundation decided
1) not to be swayed by group think but rather to question assertions and caarefully consider whether the current framing of a problem is correct before jumping on the bandwagon,
2) to carefully match goals to resources recognizing one can not cure cancer or solve the problems of world hunger for $100,000 – but that there are aspects of problems that can yield to modest investments,
3) to chose outcomes reflective of where an intervention is actually aimed – if your goal is to help farmers produce more locally consumed products don’t extrapolate the outcome to improving public health, and
4) beware of unintended consequences of even the best intentions.
If enough small things can be done well – maybe they can sum to alter the big things.
A letter to editor by me appeared last week in the WSJ. It is pasted below:
Anthony Paletta’s commentary on the left-leaning politicization of philanthropy and the focus on influencing policy is astute, but his observations do not cast light on something new but describe a staple feature of Council on Foundation meetings. Thankfully, there are many private foundations that apolitically adhere to the great traditions of American philanthropic giving, traditions that date back to the founding of this country.
Foundations provide an important source of a decentralized and diverse decision-making and, when effective, philanthropic giving can provide the much-needed funding required to question dogma, challenge common-wisdom assumptions and test alternative models. Without philanthropy, the primary source of such funds would not exist. Philanthropy is most successful when it remains an independent “third sector” and recognizes that it is neither business nor government. Philanthropy has an important role in advancing the common good by providing social venture capital for the purposes of knowledge acquisition and its responsible application. In many spheres such as science, education, global health and social services, it does just that for the benefit of many.
Susan M. Fitzpatrick,
James S. McDonnell Foundation
St. Louis
The Perpsective appearing in the current PLoS by Paul Ehrlich has me scratching my head a bit.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000330
I very much admire Paul. And I am particularly supportive of his efforts to make us take the issue of overpopulation seriously. But I do not understand these rants written by scientists and directed at some monolithic, intellectually underpowered “the public” failing to act on global climate change because we don’t understand (or believe) the science. I don’t see it. In my travels – I see great sensitivity to environmental concerns. Local farmer’s markets are mushrooming. More people are communting in energy efficient ways. I see people dialing down the thermostat in winter and opening windows more on warm days. Most people are willing to accept that the value of goods should reflect true prices – including the costs to the environment. Maybe they are not doing these things for the exact reason of global climate change – maybe their concerns are more local. But so what?
I can tell you that what “the public” is not seeing is scientists walking their talk. Scientists burn just as much carbon as they please – most senior scientists will tell you that they fly 100,000 + miles a year. They are happy to have houses in water- strapped areas like California or fragile ocean environments like Cape Cod. They have homes full of art, fine furniture, and energy-thirsty electronics. They live very comfortable upper-class lives. Many scientists have families – and most probably have a pet or two — all consuming what could be helping struggling families in the 3rd world. AND ALL SCIENTISTS DEPEND ON $ from the federal gov’t – often from taxes paid by the dreaded capitalist corporations (in fact many biomedical scientists would enjoy taking intellectual product to market and become dreaded capitalist company owners). Most scientists are also more than willing to take funds from Foundations – funds derived in large part by capitalist endeavors.
So we the public are waiting. When I see the international scientific community leading by example – and giving up travel, energy, and wealth – I will be more willing to listen to their hectoring. I often wonder what behavior it is exactly that they think needs to change? Doesn’t seem to be the behavior they have immediate control over – their own.
While the discussion over greed in financial institutions rages on – it might be worth it for grantmakers and grantseekers to take some time for introspection about our own tendency to be “greedy.”
For funders it often manifests as wanting too much for too little. In return for a relatively small investment we often want a return of measurable, tangible, meaningful progress on problems that have dogged mankind for centuries.
For grantseekers is manifests as promising alot for a little. I am both amused and annoyed when I read the grandiose claims in a proposal and then flip to the budget. Who knew that the reason we haven’t cured homelessness, cancer, or international warfare was the lack of 2 postdocs and a laptop?
Funders can improve the situation by cleaning up our rhetoric – everything does not have to be novel, innovative, or ground-breaking. Sometimes validating the findings of others, revisiting questions where the common wisdom is actually rather shakily supported, or filling in the small gaps of our knowledge so we have a more seamless and complete understanding of something is enough.
For propspective grantees it might mean admiting that others are working on this same question (LOTS of others) but that your contribution will help – and the postdocs will get a valuable learning exeprience about how to shape and pursue a question – and a new laptop!
We can be less greedy in our expectations and in our promises – and maybe incrementally create a more honest, transparent, authentic style of communication.
Foundations often take a hit for investing in programs for limited periods of time and then moving on to “the next new thing.” In some ways this criticism is valid and in some ways not. Foundations can launch funding initiatives with the implicit, or even explicit, notion that their funds will launch new initiatives that will then be sustained by others. For foundations that support scientific research the “others” are usually federal science funders. Of course there is no guarantee that what any one private funder thinks is a great idea will gain widespread acceptance and generous federal support. On the other hand – if it does, that the foundation, usually with limited resources, has little choice but to look for new opportunities. After a period of time, and the rule of thumb decade turns out to not be a terribly bad estimate, the day comes when you re-evaluate the program and its objectives. If there has been little growth or outside interest in the are of scholarship one is trying to stimulate — it might be time to take a hard look at why and decide what continued investment will yield. If the ideas have caught on and funding from multiple sources is available it is not uncommon to see the proposals submitted to a program RFA become more numerous, more duplicative, and more iterative. And when that happens it is time to move on.
While listening to NPR on my work commute recently I heard the most astounding report. A young man had gone to visit some of the residential camps for earthquake victims in Haiti and mentioned that he had expected that individuals living in such camps spend most of their time waiting in lines for provisions or “lying around.” I almost put the brake pedal through the floor! What he said next may have come as a huge surprise to him – but not to anyone who has witnessed human resilience. Turns out, the camps were alive with entreprenurial economic activity! Camp residents had, in many cases used their prior skills to create shops selling needed goods, beauty salons , there was even a guy with the clever idea to create a place where people could charge cell phones while watching a DVD movie. The Haitians did not find this unusual – there is a strong urge among resilient people to get on with life. I do not want to minimize the terrible tragedy the people of Haiti have suffered – but life in Haiti has never been easy and the people who live there have learned to be resilient and to find a joy in living despite hardship. This isn’t the first time I have heard such reporting on NPR – it seems the correspondents who work there are continually amazed by people who can grow their own food, sweep their own sidewalks, recover from bad luck. Why is it that there seems to be a subset of Americans, particularly well-educated, well paid Americans whose reaction to resilience is AMAZEMENT? One has to wonder – what do these individuals do during temporary crisis like the recent heavy snowfalls, or wildfires? What would they do if they ever had to live somewhere with seasonal floods? I get the sense that these are the people – who finding themselves in any kind of a difficult situation – think the cell phone is the solution. Call someone and whine. You can almost hear them in the midst of a disaster: the power is out and I can’t get a latte. Somebody (some anonymous less important somebody) has to do something. But they wouldn’t know what do do themselves – because the people who make up this group, particularly the blabb-erati, do not know how to do anything but blab. There is a message here for those of us who work for foundations and charitable organizations. We tend to be under the sway of the blabbocrats. Those with keyboards and microphones tend to cast blame and get us riled up and we rush to respond in our self-righteousness. We are all increasingly ready to believe that humans are fragile, not resilient. We should be careful as we swoop in with money, and cameras, and outrage at the slowness of the responses by the “somebodies” that we do not undermine the most important attribute we humans have to help us recover from whatever life and nature bring to bear – resilience. The ability to go on, to continue to see the good in the world, and to hope for the future. By all means, we should be responsive, we who have been lucky this time should do all we can to help. BUT we should not turn resilient survivors into victims because it might suit our own agendas. We should not be surprised that individuals are willing to pick up, dust off, and go on – we should not expect to see people “lying around” — and whatever assistance we provide should be offered in the spirit of helping – not furthering helplessness.