Grants-by-outcome are rare today, but not unknown. Part of what made Mary Lasker’s cancer philanthropy so effective was that she insisted cancer researchers be paid based on outcome, not grant application.
Prizes, outcome-based grants, and bringing IP to market are all possible, and I think have advantages relative to grants.
I think a research syndicate would work best in collaboration with a highly outcome-oriented donor who’s interested in “hits-based giving” (in OPP’s words) but for science. These people exist—any wealthy donor who’s interested in curing a disease is going to want to fund science the same way he invests in companies.
I think that a funder who wants to fund a research syndicate to go after an important goal wants researchers who work together instead of disparate researchers.
Grants-by-outcome are rare today, but not unknown. Part of what made Mary Lasker’s cancer philanthropy so effective was that she insisted cancer researchers be paid based on outcome, not grant application.
Prizes, outcome-based grants, and bringing IP to market are all possible, and I think have advantages relative to grants.
I think a research syndicate would work best in collaboration with a highly outcome-oriented donor who’s interested in “hits-based giving” (in OPP’s words) but for science. These people exist—any wealthy donor who’s interested in curing a disease is going to want to fund science the same way he invests in companies.
I think that a funder who wants to fund a research syndicate to go after an important goal wants researchers who work together instead of disparate researchers.