Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Ed Boyden's blog

Ed Boyden is an assistant professor in the MIT Media Lab. His lab broadly invents new tools to engineer brain circuits, in order to treat intractable disorders, augment cognition, and better understand the nature of existence.

View Complete Bio
Email Me

Recent Posts

Links

Other essays

Recent Comments

  • joshuau : I'm wondering whether people reading...
  • bdas : I’ve become increasingly concerned at...
  • ... : a great idea, but not very realistic...
  • ... : Thanks for you thought, but my if...
  • nancyblake : Is the basic unit a physical entity,...
  • Ashar : Apparently you mentioned bloggers and...
  • ... : Some people are better at this than...
  • koohii : I agree that once we recognize how...
  • CountZ3ro : Great! Let's go paranoid! :)
  • ... : The Society for Amateur Scientists...
  • ahkc : "Community-based" science research is...
  • mkogrady : Ed - this is the first Blog I read of...

Recent Tags

Advertisement
Monday, September 24, 2007

Open Philanthropy

How you can steer the future of humanity.

How can you solve the problems that really matter to you? If you're like most people, among these problems are terrifying, often fatal diseases: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, stroke. Other problems you care about concern understanding and improving our humanity--understanding our consciousness, empowering citizens in democracies, and preserving dying languages, just to name a tiny few. One obvious way to focus resources on a problem you care about is to become rich and create or steer an institute--placing bets on specific researchers and on specific research agendas. But if you're like most people, you're not a billionaire. That means you have to be entrepreneurial about your idea, raising the funds through visionary leadership and strategic planning--a full-time job if there ever was one. Many such organizations are creatively tackling or rewarding efforts to cure diseases like ALS, cancer, and multiple sclerosis. But wouldn't it be great if you could focus your own resources--the ones you have right now--to solve the problems that you most care about?

One possibility is that if there were an open market for philanthropy, which would connect dollars with ideas, then you might be able to find researchers working on the problems you care most about, evaluate the investigators and their approaches, and empower them directly with funding. As resources pool, naturally, the most widespread and severe problems would receive the largest sums of money, providing a sort of free market for research philanthropy. Furthermore, your pool's funding members could vote to restrict the way your pool's money is used, adding in requirements to help you optimize the process, as you see fit. For example, your pool might decide to award cash only to scientists who agree to openly share data and samples with other awardees.

Such a system would also mean that you could solve the problems you care about earlier in your life, allowing you to benefit from them directly. You wouldn't have to wait until you're old and wealthy to start funding research to solve the Big Questions. Consider the following example. About 60 million Americans currently fit the criteria for obesity, which puts them at risk for diabetes (and dozens of other medical conditions). If 5 percent of these people desired to pool their resources to study ways of tackling metabolic impairments, and thereby improve health, and each contributed just $1.25 a month to researchers who focus exactly on the problems of most pressing interest, that would be $45 million a year. While that may not seem like much, note that the American Diabetes Association gave out about the same amount--$46.4 million--in research dollars in 2006.

What would this pooling system look like? Perhaps online microlending site Kiva could offer some inspiration. This site allows anyone browsing online to become a microlender--observing business plans of aspiring entrepreneurs around the world, evaluating the plans and gauging the risk involved, and then making loans--to specific individuals in countries from Honduras to Tajikistan. The lenders can monitor their investments over time (hopefully they return a profit), and they can provide feedback on the entrepreneurs, which modulates future investors' opinions. Individuals can lend an entrepreneur part of what he or she requests, or even distribute resources over many entrepreneurs. Perhaps it's time to start experimenting with a similar system for the channeling of funding to researchers. Research projects could be announced to the world on such a website, and anyone could donate as they see fit. By opening up the process to the world, not only would a market for philanthropy and discovery emerge, but people would take a greater interest in solving the problems they care most about. In this way, we can all start to steer the future of humanity from our own chairs, fixing the impossible and figuring out the unknowable.

Cite as: Boyden, E. S. "Open Philanthropy." Ed Boyden's Blog. Technology Review. 9/24/07. (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/boyden/21850/).

Advertisement

Comments

  • i don't understand
    i don't understand how this is different from what the American Diabetes Association does. could you explain more?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bshanks
    09/25/2007
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: i don't understand
      The theoretical perfect exchange is where all ideas are known and all capital is identified. So by having a central or several central repositories there would be better odds that the "best" solution to any given problem would survive.

      The current system where the one fund gives 46+ mil per year - you have one organization with a lot of power to dictate the direction of research - which has more disadvantages than advantages.

      SOme things work well with centralized control and some work better when all inputs have a chance.

      I hope that helps you understand.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      myfree
      09/25/2007
      Posts:1
  • Open Philanthropy
    I read with interest the concluding sentences: "By opening up the process to the world, not only would a market for philanthropy and discovery emerge, but people would take a greater interest in solving the problems they care most about. In this way, we can all start to steer the future of humanity from our own chairs, fixing the impossible and figuring out the unknowable".

    I think philonthropy needs self-awareness rather than marketting. It cannot be approached through a system but can be achieved if each one looks into him or herself materially and psychologically.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    kris.38
    09/26/2007
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • Costs and "Market Equilibriums"
    I'd love to see such a system. It seems like putting it together would be a major philanthropic undertaking in itself... I'd be interested to see a dollar figure on that, actually.

    I also wonder what sort of balances a "free market" philanthropy system would find on issues like what sorts of topics get funded, what type of researchers tend to get funded, what sorts of experimental/analytic approaches get funded, etc. I suspect it might be significantly different than the current government or foundation grant systems.

    Finally, just to toss something out there, here's my underfunded research idea.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    johnsonmx
    09/26/2007
    Posts:3
    • Re: Costs and "Market Equilibriums"
      I like the idea of a philanthropy broker/aggregator. I also think it's important that people be able to select which projects their philanthropy aggregates to. That's because funding tends to go to projects based on the current MAINSTREAM paradigm(s), but the best results often come from projects based on OTHER paradigms. For example, it is quite difficult to get funding for process-based land restoration, even though it is highly effective.

      Johnsonmx: Research on the gut flora of cattle fed their natural diet (pasture and hay) vs. unnatural feedlot diets (feeding cattle grain is like feeding a human on a diet of Twinkies) supports your research idea, which I consider excellent — and important. I've noticed for myself that when I make a radical change in what I eat, it takes about 2 weeks to adjust. I presume this happens because my gut flora has to adapt. (I couldn't comment on your blog because the comment form kept reloading [from Mac/Firefox].)
      Rate this comment: 12345

      WilmaKeppel
      10/03/2007
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Costs and "Market Equilibriums"
        WilmaKeppel,

        I'm getting back to you late, but hopefully the magic of the internet will get this message to you. Yes, I think gut flora is frighteningly under-studied. It's one of those Rumsfeldian "unknown unknowns"-- we really don't know what we're missing by not studying it. Though there are clues that it's important.

        My specific interest is in how gut flora might interact with the brain. There are plenty of possible vectors, but none proven.

        The new hypothesis about the appendix being a safehouse for 'good' gut flora is rather interesting in terms of the importance of gut flora.

        I'll investigate the blog comment situation, thanks.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        johnsonmx
        10/10/2007
        Posts:3
  • A marketplace of ideas...
    To create a free market for research funds...that's an awesome idea!

    If such a system were implemented, it would create new, diverse sources of funding and thereby reduce the dependence of science on government funding. 

    If it works it would also increase the general public's interest in science and provide incentives for scientists to come out of their basement labs, put their ideas and their findings in nice displays that can be understood by regular people. 

    So what do we have to do to get it started?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    telson
    09/26/2007
    Posts:1
  • Open Philanthropy
    I think Kiva is a good example of an organization that understands the breadth of current thinking on micro loans.  And, I think open philanthropy where each person contributes to a selected cause that others have also selected and collectively sends those donations to a collection agency/distributor like Kiva, and then that agency/distributor makes the group's funds available to a specific project outlined by the original funders desires.
    And, I think (www.kiva.org) is a good example of an organization that understands the breadth of current thinking on micro loans and is a good place to start. 

    But I have a few questions.

    Do we just assume the collection agency/distributor is a well oiled, highly functional organization full of workers with many years experience working with potential recipients?

    Once the funds are approved by the agency/distributor and the funding starts, could those funds, specific to causes of the donors, be diverted internally by the receiving agent to some other project?

    Would a massive bureaucracy arise whose sole purpose was to guarantee all funds were channeled to exactly what the original funders requested?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    tmason80
    09/26/2007
    Posts:1
  • Causes on FaceBook
    There is an application called Causes on Facebook that is launched by Project Agape(http://project-agape.com/) that is doing what you described.

    However, it does seem to lack the accountability that others have pointed out. Not sure where or who actually took the $35,000 donated to Breast Cancer for example.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lemms
    09/26/2007
    Posts:1
  • Philanthropy Advisory Service
    Ed introduces the idea of "...an open market for philanthropy, which would connect dollars with ideas..." Well, great minds think alike! FasterCures recognizes that the lack of a true information marketplace to facilitate informed philanthropic support reduces the efficiency and productivity of both the philanthropic investor and the nonprofit disease research organizations that depend on such support. To address this problem, our Philanthropy Advisory Service will identify and characterize opportunities to support nonprofit medical research and will provide that data to foundations, philanthropists, and their financial advisers through both publications and direct consulting services. We envision a service in which experienced market research analysts will develop a screening tool to create an “investment grade” level of information regarding the nature, potential impact, and probability of success of various disease research organizations’ efforts. For more information about the Philanthropy Advisory Service please access the following URL: http://www.fastercures.org/sec/meria.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mstevens
    10/01/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review July/August 2009

Current Issue

Search Me
Inside the launch of Stephen Wolfram’s new “computational knowledge engine.”
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.