When a child says they want to be a scientist when they grow up, they don’t realize that instead of creating lifesaving solutions, they’ll spend about 60% of their time searching for funds. That they will be unsuccessful in over 90% of their grant applications, and that between 35%-100% of the funds they do achieve will need to go to their organization’s infrastructure.
How true is this? There is much data published about this, but we wanted to hear it from the scientists themselves. We selected 20 lead scientists that we are working with in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the US from renowned universities and private research laboratories and listened to the stories and reasons behind the data.
In appreciating the way in which these institutions provide value, there needs to be an understanding of what’s brought about this situation and why science needs our support if we want to experience the benefits—lives saved, suffering reduced, innovation made more accessible, and our planet set back on track.
Fundamentally, higher populations don’t equate to more money. They equate to more problems that drain traditional government and philanthropic resources. We know that economies, as yet unrecovered from COVID costs, have been hit by continual natural disasters on scales we’ve not seen before. And there are those hit with wars and other forms of destruction that create waves of issues. For each country, these are the issues that need resources right now, and governments face the devastating urgent-versus-important prioritization that we ourselves understand on a small scale in our own work and companies.
Outside of government research institutions, research is conducted by universities and private research laboratories. The universities do the heavy lifting, with multiple research projects across all areas of science, whereas private laboratories have fewer projects but can focus their selection on the impact of a specific field of science.
It was clear from talking to the scientists that the very different models of these two types of organizations lead to very different opportunities. Universities’ breadth increases the opportunity to have a research project accepted, and behind it is a machine of resources that, in turn, needs considerable financial support. Building the reputation that is the drawcard for new students—young and innovative—while retaining the long years of experience and reputation of accredited professors comes at a cost. The result for some is the revenue from IP sales and spinoffs that come out of the discoveries, while others seek less return on discovery in order to focus on building the learning capacity for the students in their care.
Private laboratories that work to a business model focus on results-based research solutions. It is product development as we know it in the commercial field, with cost/benefit analysis and go-to-market planning as in any other business. Their stand-alone model doesn’t limit their ability to collaborate with global research organizations but can mean they have less lobbying influence than the universities.
But the scientists we talked to told us it results in the same situation—there is heavy competition for the funding made available through grants, forcing scientists to compete for what are already narrowing funding channels. The amount of time spent is higher in universities at 60-65%, not including their contractual requirement to meet a publications quota, speak at conferences, and take on a tutoring portfolio. We heard about young talent altering their career plans and moving into other fields—a loss to science. Though some do take the bold step of moving into private laboratories so they can ‘focus on the science,’ as the private business models provide support through a marketing team who take the lead in fund generation.
Which brings us to what happens to successful funding raised. Globally, the percentage of a grant a university takes varies widely. Some take 35%, some 60%, and we found in some countries instances of 100%. The funding of support services and retention of accredited professionals, vital to the university and its science, nonetheless adds a layer of funding complexity for the scientist, who is essentially paying for the pool of knowledge rather than the resources they need for their project. Private laboratory infrastructure takes the form of overheads, like any commercial environment, enabling more direct impact costing to be devised and costed in collaborations for only those services and support the project needs.
The great leveller is failure. Generally speaking, 70% of research fails, but to understand this, we need first to determine what is failure—as in science, a ‘failure’ can open new pathways to different solutions that can succeed. As Edison said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” But failure, even complete failure, can be mitigated, which leads us back to the question of funding.
And as I write this article, the announcement was made in the US of the abrupt freeze on external communications from the Department of Health and Human Services, creating a cascade of issues that have resulted in scientists being unable to access their funding for all aspects of their work, even down to the ability to order materials for day-to-day lab work. Ultimately, however, is the issue of who is responsible for supporting research funding.
For too long, we have had the view that the government should pick up the tab for research, and if they don’t have enough, we have an almost entitled expectation that wealthy philanthropists will fill the gap. However, there are funding methods that enable and encourage others to contribute to, and even invest in, the output of scientific advances. Investors, whose profit orientation has been sniffed at in the past, deserve acknowledgment, for their funds could have been placed in other ventures. And the newly emerging philanthropic investor, who seeks a return on investment so as to plow it back into other research projects, widens the wheel of success and contribution to the world’s problems.
Science also provides viable opportunities for corporations, to whom tax benefits can be explored beyond just donation contributions. Another corporate opportunity is to ‘adopt’ a scientific project and have your team engage with the science team—following their planning and milestones, sharing the successes, and problem-solving in a unique team-building and culture-development program for your company.
Scientific research costs money, but we pay with our lives the cost of not doing it. Together, we need to become involved, appreciating and supporting those who do the science along with those who provide the funding.
In following articles, you will meet the scientists, learn their stories, and see how they are working to save lives. You will hear about the institutions that provide the resources for this work and the philanthropists and investors that create the funding to help make this happen. Join us on this mission to support our scientists—to take them away from their grant writing and put them back into the laboratory, where they can provide solutions to the problems we are experiencing.
We may not be able to make the world a better place, but we can do our best to help those who can.