Leading the Way in Life Science Technologies

GEN Exclusives

More »

Feature Articles

More »
Oct 1, 2009 (Vol. 29, No. 17)

Venture Philanthropy Bets on Risky Projects

Research-Funding Model Being Used to Bankroll Potential Breakthrough Discoveries

  • In healthcare reform, policymakers need to appreciate that true cost savings can be best achieved through accelerated research that ultimately allows us to cure more and treat less. It is time for a careful examination of the institutions and the processes that allocate resources for medical research, with the aim of giving greater emphasis, and more funding, to research that can deliver better patient outcomes.

    One problem inherent in government-funding mechanisms in place today is the tendency to promote only the safer projects and not the more risky research projects that could lead to new approaches to prevention, treatment, and, ultimately, a cure.

    We believe that a well-proven mechanism already exists in a venture philanthropy model pioneered at the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) and adopted with demonstrable success by other philanthropic organizations supporting research including the Lance Armstrong Foundation (testicular cancer), the Michael J. Fox Foundation (Parkinson’s disease), The Multiple Myeloma Foundation, the Melanoma Alliance, and others. Applying the principles of venture philanthropy more broadly—preferably (and most expediently) through extant organizations—should maximize the value returned on our research investments.

  • Principles

    Perhaps the first principle of venture philanthropy is that there are no universal rules. Venture philanthropy has its roots in the worlds of business and finance, where success depends on the ability to spot the opportunity that others have overlooked. Each situation is unique and must be approached without preconceived solutions.

    Leverage has gone from darling to pariah in financial circles, but it remains essential to success in venture philanthropy. In this context, success requires finding ways to encourage innovation and avoid inertial and negative thinking by leveraging the specialized knowledge of a motivated community of interest.

    Notwithstanding the first principle stated above, that there are no universal rules for judging innovation, certain patterns have emerged in the 16 years we have practiced venture philanthropy that seem to have general applicability, at least as a framework for analysis. We have explicitly followed six principles in the funding programs we have created:

    • Eliminate the endowment model: rather than building interest equity, build urgent discovery equity. A cash in, cash out model puts resources where they are most needed for patients, with the most valuable return on investment—progress.  The PCF is in business of putting itself out of business, not building a self-perpetuating organization.
    • Streamline the funding application process: time is money. Traditional grant applications can be hundreds of pages long and their preparation often consumes an unjustifiable amount of researchers’ time. As William Strunk Jr. stated in The Elements of Style, vigorous writing is concise. A cogent research plan can be evaluated in five pages or less. Thus, our applications are strictly limited to a five page maximum. We take no more than 30 days for review and approval, and we make funds available within 60 days of approval.
    • Demand information sharing and encourage collaboration: the traditional process of peer review and publication, while fulfilling an absolutely vital role in the scientific process, can impede the free flow of information and slow progress toward vital new discoveries. All researchers receiving funds from the Prostate Cancer Foundation must agree to share their results freely within one year of funding at our annual scientific meeting, regardless of publication status.
    • Actively recruit the best and brightest young minds into the field: talented young scientists must be attracted to a field of research early in their careers when they are making choices that typically last a lifetime.
    • Encourage flexibility and mid-course adjustments: it is fundamental to the discovery process that new results suggest new directions for investigation. Use of funds in exploration of promising new leads should not be delayed by requirements for re-review and approval. If we approved the original application, we should trust the scientific judgment of the investigator and not waste time with reapplication for changes suggested by new findings.
    • Encourage and reward game-changing hypotheses and innovative new research methods: large institutional and government funding programs are well-suited to supporting advances that ultimately constitute the vital aspects of incremental scientific progress. However, they may not be the best way to liberate breakout ideas, discoveries that can transform a field and generate new therapies and cures that can make an urgent impact in the lives of so many.

Related content

Be sure to take the GEN Poll

Cancer vs. Zika: What Worries You Most?

While Zika continues to garner a lot of news coverage, a Mayo Clinic survey reveals that Americans believe the country’s most significant healthcare challenge is cancer. Compared to other diseases, does the possibility of developing cancer worry you the most?

More »