In Episode 4 of The Week in Science, Scott Turner, Director of Science Programs at the National Association of Scholars, asks whether private philanthropy can rescue science from declining federal support.
Before 1950, most scientific research was funded by private donors—not the government. That changed after WWII, when federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation took over, now supplying up to 90 percent of research dollars at some universities. But as the Trump administration pulls back this support, rightly so, some scientists are eyeing a return to the old model.
Turner discusses a Nature essay by Kavli Foundation president Cynthia Friend, who argues that philanthropic funding is often faster, more flexible, and more willing to take risks than the bureaucratic federal system. She proposes consortia of donors to avoid undue influence and build a more stable science ecosystem.
But are we even getting results from today’s $200 billion in federal spending? A new study suggests not. Two years ago, researchers used a “Consolidation-Disruption Index” to measure innovation across 45 million academic papers and found that disruptive discoveries are declining, despite the surge in funding. An article in Nature affirms their findings.
Science isn’t totally dead, however. This week, paleontologists uncovered a Late Cretaceous fossil bed in Alberta that’s reshaping our understanding of dinosaur-era ecosystems.
Finally, Turner critiques the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP), mandated by the Paris Climate Accords. He argues that the annual ritual has become more theatrical than scientific, prioritizing symbolism over substance.
Watch the full video below or on YouTube:
Follow Scott Turner on X and visit our Minding the Science column for in-depth analysis on topics ranging from wokeism in STEM, scientific ethics, and research funding to climate science, scientific organizations, and much more.
Image: “COP 29 Presidency and UN Climate Change – TBC” by UNclimatechange on Flickr
“Two years ago, researchers used a “Consolidation-Disruption Index” to measure innovation across 45 million academic papers and found that disruptive discoveries are declining, despite the surge in funding.”
The issue I have is more the replicability crisis — how few experiments are actually replicable by other scientists in the same field. This is the basis of the scientific method, and if someone else does the same thing the same way, they should get the same results, and they’re not..