May 31, 2007 | Read Time: 2 minutes
With a growing number of philanthropic dollars supporting medical research, some nonprofit officials argue that philanthropists and foundations have more success producing scientific breakthroughs and notable scientists than do corporations and governments, says Nature (May 17).
While there is no hard data on which source of funds has underwritten more accomplishments, the science journals says nonprofit organizations like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute argue they have a better track record than the National Institutes of Health, the primary biomedical researcher for the U.S. government. Howard Hughes says its scientists are 16 times more likely to win a Nobel prize in chemistry or medicine than ones backed by the NIH.
The article also says that philanthropists and charitable funds often fill in research gaps left by governments and business, and can move much more quickly than their counterparts to solve immediate health problems.
For instance, in 2001, after letters filled with anthrax were being sent via the U.S. Postal Service, the Ellison Medical Foundation, in Bethesda, Md., awarded a grant to study how much anthrax is normally found in post offices nationwide. The study produced findings in six months. A government grant would have taken two to three years to get out the door, says Richard L. Sprott, the Ellison fund’s executive director.
Of course, nonprofit grants to cure diseases, map human and animal genomes, and conduct other health research is quite small compared with what corporations and the U.S. government spend, which equals roughly $100-billion a year.
According to the Alerion Institute, a think tank in North Garden, Va., annual philanthropic support for biomedicine grew 36 percent between 1994 and 2003, to $2.5-billion. Today it may equal $5-billion, says Hamilton Moses, Alerion’s lead researcher.
Despite the disparity, Mr. Moses and others worry that donors have too much influence on biomedicine.
“They are concerned that too many important decisions with an impact on biomedicine will be made in boardrooms of foundations with little scientific expertise — and no public input or accountability,” says the weekly science journal.
The article is part of a series of stories in Nature on philanthropy and medical research. The articles are available for a fee on Nature’s Web site.
