The Case for Crazy Philanthropy
13 days ago
- #philanthropy
- #science-funding
- #innovation
- Private philanthropy in science and medicine is at an unprecedented level, with major foundations like Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Gates Foundation leading the charge.
- Modern philanthropy has become bureaucratic, favoring traditional institutions and well-established scientists over unconventional ideas or outsiders.
- Examples of large donations include $900 million to Columbia University by Roy Vagelos and $300 million to Harvard by Ken Griffin, reinforcing the status quo.
- Historically, philanthropy was more eccentric and led to breakthroughs by funding unconventional ideas, such as Katalin Karikó's Nobel-winning research on mRNA vaccines.
- Current philanthropic efforts, even when innovative, often mimic existing institutions, like HHMI's Investigator program or collaborations with major universities.
- Institutional isomorphism explains why scientific organizations and universities look similar, driven by coercive, mimetic, and normative forces.
- Early 20th-century philanthropy, like Alfred Loomis's Tower House lab, fostered groundbreaking research in physics and biology, leading to radar and nuclear advancements.
- Today, figures like Nat Friedman (Vesuvius Challenge) and Gabe Newell (deep-sea research ship) exemplify 'crazy philanthropy' by funding unconventional projects.
- There is a need for more eccentric philanthropy to support outside-the-box ideas, such as human anatomy research or the search for extraterrestrial life.
- Bureaucratic funding systems crowd out oddball ideas, making individual philanthropists crucial for fostering unexpected breakthroughs.