Forbes has an article on billionaires who oppose the stem cell ban (free reg required): the subtitle is "Billionaire cash has kept embryonic stem-cell research alive—just barely," which really says it all. It discusses the extremely generous gifts private donors (and also some state funding by referendum) that have kept stem cell research afloat in the world of GW Bush and the religious right. There's quite a bit of money flying around out there.
Michael Bloomberg: A reported $100 million gift to alma mater Johns Hopkins included cash for its stem-cell institute. At a speech there, he lambasted the feds for not funding the research.
Eli Broad: Gave $25 million to build a stem-cell building at USC. More gifts could be coming. A big supporter of the California proposition that could give researchers $3 billion.
Ray Dolby: With wife Dagmar gave $16 million to UCSF to help build a new stem-cell research center. Has remained quiet about his gift.
Larry Ellison: Through his medical foundation, has given almost $4 million to various embryonic stem-cell projects.
Bill Gates: He and wife Melinda donated $400,000 to the campaign to support California embryonic stem-cell proposition. Their foundation has given a $1.9 million grant to AIDS research at China's Peking University that uses human embryonic stem cells.
Pierre Omidyar: He and wife Pamela donated a combined $1 million to the campaign supporting the California ballot proposition.
It's both wonderful and troubling. Largesse from wealthy patrons is a good thing that will help keep the research infrastructure and personnel in this field from disappearing until we can get more sensible leadership. There's much that I worry about, though.
- The amount we can get from private donors is not enough to maintain world-class leadership in a discipline. This is a stopgap (as the article makes clear), but there will be people who think this is a reason to shut down federal funding and privatize science. That won't work.
- How long can even a billionaire hand out $100 million? (I know, some multiple of ten times.) Billionaires don't become billionaires by maintaining that level of charity.
- We don't really want a few fantastically wealthy individuals dictating which subjects will be funded. This is a phenomenon that undermines peer review.
- The reason stem cell research is being funded is the promise of near-term medical applications. That gives short shrift to the basic research that is a more pressing concern in the field right now. Will the money dry up if the researchers discover some wonderfully informative details about how cell fates are specified, but don't come up with a cure for Alzheimers, spinal injuries, or heart repair on time?
- The source reinforces funding inequities in research. These billionaires will end up usually giving their money to high-profile institutions or the superstars of science, because that's where their money will get the most attention. You won't see any of them giving $10,000 to each of 10,000 scientists—while that would be a huge benefit to those of us at small institutions with tiny budgets, it wouldn't have the glamor of a more concentrated grant.
I think we can be immensely grateful to these people for helping science in its time of need, but let's be aware that this is a pathological and desperate situation, and the sooner we can correct the problem at the top, the better off we'll be.
- Log in to post comments
PZ - I support stem cell research. I also support truth in advertising. To what "ban" do you refer in your opening sentence?
Stem Cell research needs more corporate sponsorship I think. How about an X-Prize-ish kind of thing, where research groups submit research plans and money is distributed to the groups, with bigger amounts promised for those who get some independently verifiable breakthroughs? It could be sponsored by big pharma or by big insurance companies.
I dunno about pharma, but insurance companies would surely love to fund research that will lead to a reduction in their claims payout. I should know, because I work for one.
bob, I'm guessing that the word "ban" references Bush's prohibition on federal funding for research that involves new stem cell lines. Your point?
My point is simply to reinforce the close connection between accuracy and truthfulness.
You'd really have to be living under a rock on Mars to not know what the word "ban" in the post refers to.
You'd really have to be living under a rock on Mars to not know that the word 'ban' is often used misleadingly in the stem cell debates.
Anyone else think the "ban" is not for prevention of actual stem-cell research, but instead to give private organizations TIME to lock up the most profitable research and methods, for sale after their patents are secured?
If this had anything to do with saving embryos, one would think they might go after the fertility clinics...
Well, that's true, sometimes Republicans argue, misleadingly, that it's not a ban.
"Anyone else think the "ban" is not for prevention of actual stem-cell research, but instead to give private organizations TIME to lock up the most profitable research and methods, for sale after their patents are secured?"
No. Industry focuses on research further down the lifecycle. Much of embryonic stem cell research is still basic, and it's too early to know where it will lead to business opportunities.
"Stem Cell research needs more corporate sponsorship I think. How about an X-Prize-ish kind of thing, where research groups submit research plans and money is distributed to the groups, with bigger amounts promised for those who get some independently verifiable breakthroughs?"
There is an X-Prize like fund for biology, but it is not specificly for stem cells. It is for aging in general. It is the Methuselah Mouse Prize and it already has $3.6 million in pledges and is growing faster then the X-Prise did.
http://www.mprize.org/
Hmm, stealing my wind are we PZ? :)
http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2006/08/dear_billionaires_thanks…
New cool evo-devo paper...
We don't really want a few fantastically wealthy individuals dictating which subjects will be funded. This is a phenomenon that undermines peer review.
Many of these gifts are for infrastructure, not for grant funding. Rich people give money for buildings to US universities all the time, which is one of the reasons US science is in better shape than elsewhere. I don't think large gifts for infrastructure should be peer-reviewed.
You also have to remember that this is extra money - it isn't diverting money from programs that are already in place. It is possible that in future, the US government will give less money to the NIH as a result of such gifts, but it's unlikely.
Personally, I don't care if some billionaire wants to dump their cash into a pet project. Obviously it would be nicer if they made an informed decision, but since peer-review of grants in the US is something of a lottery anyway, I don't think it's a serious problem.
Let me clarify: that philanthropists are stepping up to fill in a gap is nothing but a good thing. My concern is only if that becomes the norm, rather than a response to an exceptional situation. I don't want people to get the impression that the federal government can start cutting out stuff that some people find objectionable and expect Bill Gates to take care of the shortfall.
And yeah, billionaires helping out pet projects is good, too (UMM could use a substantial contribution to the university endowment any time...any tycoons online here?). It's just not a substitute for peer reviewed disbursement.
If you're a liberal of the traditional stripe, the sort who believes in freedom of conscience, then there's a problem in relying on tax dollars to support ethically contentious research -- even if you happen not to agree with the moral qualms of others. The traditional liberal line is that in order to trump such moral objections, you have to show that extracting support from dissenters is necessary to the maintenance of a well-ordered society, that society would suffer irreparable harm if moral dissenters were exempted from supporting activities to which they object (BTW, even if, like me, you find the arguments unpersuasive, it's by appeal to the requirements for a well-ordered society that some liberals try to justify war taxes). That's from Liberalism 101.
Traditional liberalism also supports freedom of inquiry and freedom of association. So if we're living in a liberal society, there's nothing to prevent those of us who do support ESCR from contributing to this activity. That's what the wealthy people reported on have been doing, and that's what the rest of us can do, too. And there's no reason that voluntary contributors to ESCR cannot require careful review of proposals and their implementation -- at least as effective as what's done by government funding agencies (but we needn't set our sights so low).
If this had anything to do with saving embryos, one would think they might go after the fertility clinics...
Oh man, thank you. This is something I've often wondered. My understanding is that the IVF process creates multiple embryos in the hope that one will implant successfully, and the overall success rate is only about 20-30%-- which means that inevitably, several of those embryos ain't gonna make it. I have heard some Catholic objections to the process, but none from "life begins at conception!"-type fundamentalists. Anyone else?
This is on point for the topic, and close to (your old) home, as well, PZ.
I have heard some Catholic objections to the process, but none from "life begins at conception!"-type fundamentalists
I think they'll support anything that results in their wives having 12 children and staying at home being submissive to their husbands. Even if it directly causes something they claim is an abomination.
Another way of putting it: supporting sciences by private donations generally leads to market failure, where the resources aren't going to where they might achieve the most good.
On the other hand, I don't trust the current Administration to allocate resources effectively, either. But that's just got to change sooner or later... doesn't it?
Kayla:
Fixed your typo. ;)
Bob, your argument makes no sense.
@ Koepp: I would contend that there is no such thing as a camp of 'moral dissenters' to stem cell research. The only 'moral dissent' I've heard has come from immoral idiots, like the Roman Catholic Church or Focus on Family - people who are chronic liars and frauds.
In my world an 'ethical controversy' requires that there are ethical people promoting contradictory, but ethically and intellectually coherent, arguments or positions. The religious fuckwits who oppose ESCR are among the most unethical assholes this side of Vlad the Impaler, and their reasons are neither coherent, ethical, or intellectual.
Troll-Be-Gone: While there are indeed ethical people arguing that ESCR (or, more often, parts of specific programs or practices related to ESCR) is questionable practice, and while such people can occasionally be seen using real arguments and making valid points, these are by far the minority and they are neither the ones causing the phony 'controversy,' nor are they the ones pimping it for political gain.
- JS