This year Science Practice has been moonlighting in the world of social innovation and humanitarian aid through our work with the Humanitarian Innovation Fund (the HIF). We learned a lot about social innovation funding methods from our work with the HIF and want to understand if any of our learnings could translate to the domains of funding for science.
A brief tour of social innovation funding models
Social innovation is defined as a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, just, efficient or sustainable than current solutions. In other words, the value created should benefit society rather than individuals. With this definition in mind, many of the world’s most recognised foundations including the Rockerfeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have been using different funding models to facilitate innovation to best achieve their social aims. The dominant method of funding over the last 20 years is the strategic model, which is defined by a process of outlining clear goals and advocating for data-driven strategies, accountability and evaluation. The approach was developed to support funders to align their programs and grant-making with carefully designed theories of change to produce clear and quantifiable results. The strategic model aims to be strongly predictive of the end results. So, while the model works well to address clear cut problems (like building a hospital), it tends to fall short when addressing the complex problems (like population health, water shortages and food security) we are challenged with today.
To cover these shortcomings, a new “emergent approach” has surfaced. The use of the word “emergent” suggests that an organisation is actively learning what works in practice. In doing so, the approach promotes iteration, failure, learning and knowledge development. There is no pre-determined point of view or a dominant idea of an answer to a problem. Instead, emergence encourages the input from novel ideas, processes and people.
At Rockerfeller, this approach starts with applying the same rigor and critical thought to framing a problem area as it does to evaluating the success of a grant. The foundation’s “Search” function is a highly strategic, analytical process that involves the coordination of internal staff, consultants, and nearly 200 outside experts to help the foundation appropriately frame a problem space. This includes an understanding of interlinking and underlying issues that must be considered in order to find a solution. This process is not dissimilar to Science Practice’s own process of identifying Good Problems. To anyone at Rockerfeller who might be reading this, it would be good to share notes!
New models to fund social innovation are gaining traction. Venture philanthropy aims to build self-sustaining or even profitable enterprises in unlikely places such as disaster relief or drug addiction. Social Impact Bonds (SIB) channel private funding into social initiatives and are backed by the British government who pays interest that rises and falls with the success of the venture. If the initiative fails to fulfill its social aims, investors will simply pursue other opportunities.
What science funding can learn from social innovation
Social Innovation funders (like the HIF) generally have a very clear idea of what change they want to see in the world and apply funding to achieve that vision. In comparison, some science funders, work across a broad remit. With big aims like the Medical Research Council’s desire to “improve human health through world-class medical research”, it’s less clear how science funding is allocated to achieve such goals and objectives.
Since the publication of the Warry Report in 2006, UK science funders have worked to better understand the link between scientific research and economic and societal impact. Factors including political pressure, genuine need and increasing impatience with the pace of scientific discovery have encouraged a renewed focus on supporting research with “impact”. This has helped to shape a shift in trajectory of scientific funding towards translational research. Here, lessons from social innovation can help us to think differently about how science funding is allocated and its impact measured.
Considering that translational research is an area where the development timelines can be long, intermediate indicators of progress are needed. To do this, funders could support teams of researchers working to better coordinate knowledge across basic and translational research. Like the “emergent” approach in social innovation, funders could distribute monies, measure and evaluate the intermediate indicators and adjust future funding accordingly.
To do this effectively, funders would need to be much more opinionated about identifying specific research goals to target and be more strategic about how resources should be spent in achieving such aims. But looking at the Medical Research Council’s study on “Measuring the link between research and economic impact” it’s clear that funders might not have sufficient data to understand what proportion of translational output arises from strategic initiatives- ongoing funding schemes in specific areas- and how much is shaped by the “response mode”, a more flexible funding call. A better understanding of what works when it comes to shaping funding schemes and cycles in science research funding would be an excellent place to start (and something we would be really keen to explore).
Processes that are expected to accelerate translation include such things as a good collaborative culture. The more recent development of research sandpits- a facilitated workshop where participants from different disciplines, work in small groups to brainstorm and refine ideas for joint research projects- are being promoted across research councils, universities and big funders. Promoted as a new, innovative way to allocate funds, it’s unclear if the strategy is working and if not, there is little insight on how they could be improved. Better data on the effectiveness of collaborative processes in science and their ability to contribute to more impactful research are needed.
There has been renewed focus on the contribution of venture philanthropy in science R&D. The influence of nonprofits in shaping new models to allocate funds is of note. The Association of Medical Research Charities estimates that nonprofits contribute £1.3bn to the UK’s academic research base, a considerable chunk of change. But medical research charities are looking for new innovative and entrepreneurial models of funding research and are taking greater risks in hopes of discovering the next cure.
Taking a cue from their American sister organisation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the UK’s Cystic Fibrosis Trust, who used to place all its funds raised into academic research, are now seed-funding biopharma. Investment in biotechnology startups they admit, comes with significant risk, but potentially greater reward when aiming for a cure. The funding the Trust does allocate to academic research has been re-engineered to promote a larger pool of ideas and has established new way of collaborative working across their research base. The In addition, the Trust aims to take the money donated and amplify it with the establishment an Investment Fund to unlock additional sources of money to support scientific breakthroughs.
So, as funding for social innovation transitions to be more responsive to the needs presented by complex, global challenges it appears science funding is in a state of transition too. Each acknowledge that traditional grant making may be too rigid and are challenging the prescriptive allocation of funds with structures that support risk, investment in new business models and a more iterative, responsive approach to understand what’s working. How this shift in science challenges the support for blue skies research and discovery for discovery’s sake (which is something we really believe in) has yet to be fully measured and understood.
We are really interested to learn more about innovation in science research and social innovation funding. We are keen to collaborate with individuals and organisations who want to actively explore some of the ideas presented in this post.
