Who Should Fund Biomedical Research?

At Experimental Biology 2015 the Public Affairs Advisory Committee for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology held a panel discussion titled Who Should Fund Biomedical Research?

The three-member panel, which included Harvard’s Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Ph.D., offered up insights on alternatives, from private investment to crowd-funding. One common mantra was the need to get the public engaged and understand why biomedical research is so important. Moderator Benjamin Corb, director of public affairs for ASBMB suggested a change in language, for example changing the term ‘basic research’ (research that advances fundamental knowledge about the world) to ‘discovery’ or ‘foundation’ research. He noted that some Americans have said they did not support ‘basic’ research because they believed we should be doing ‘advanced’ research.

Panelist Jai Ranganathan Ph.D., suggested using a model that he said NPR does well – consistently putting out interesting, quality content to cultivate an engaged audience. Ranganathan talked about crowd-funding, an idea that he helps promote through SciFund Challenge, a nonprofit that helps train scientists on how to connect to the public and create a more science engaged world. He doesn’t suggest throwing an idea on Kickstarter and expecting random people to give money – the audience has to care and in order to care they have to make a connection, so long term public outreach is essential. Ranganathan pointed out that an added benefit of crowdfunded science is that there are no strings attached. A recent paper on the nonprofit’s website was titled “Moving Beyond a Social-Networks-Only Picture of Science Crowdfunding,” and it talked about how researchers can’t expect to raise substantial or consistent funds if they only reach out to their personal networks. It promoted journalists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as important resources. The organization hosted its own panel discussion “Using Social Media Without Blowing Up Your Scientific Career.”

Claire Pomeroy, M.D., of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation said there has been a 20 percent loss of the NIH-funded research budget and a growing complacency among the public that scientific breakthroughs will continue despite cuts in funding. Pomeroy cited results from a Pew research study that shows 61 percent of U.S. adults say government investment is essential for scientific progress, while 34 percent said private investment will be enough even without help from the government. Not so, said Pomeroy, while private foundations play a key role in funding, they are not able to fill the gap alone. She thinks researchers need to come together to urge increased funding from all sources, be it industry, government, academia, or philanthropy – “grow the whole pie” for funding instead of dividing it.

The panelists agreed that research is a societal good, and that scientists need to do a better job at conveying both what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done.

At the wrap-up each panelist was asked to describe the current state of biomedical funding in one word. The answers were telling: “poor,” “inadequate,” and “a tragedy.”

Establish your company as a technology leader. For 50 years, the R&D; 100 Awards, widely recognized as the “Oscars of Invention,” have showcased products of technological significance. Learn more.