The steady-state budget is considered first, and then the budget for the ramp-up period that precedes the steady state.

 

A. Steady-State Budget

 

Regarding the amount, a simple algorithm to consider is that the budget for status-quo-challenging approaches should be a meaningful fraction of the budget for the more traditional approaches. A minimum fraction might be 1%. If so, then, considering the annual budget of NSF + NIH, on the order of $40B, plus annual budgets of EU, Asia, and other countries, the total is probably $100B. If DoE and other defense agencies are included, then the figure would be higher. The 1% formula should amount to approximately $1B annually.

 

Another way of computing a sensible steady-state budget is to estimate the number of thematic challenges that might merit funding. Any such projection is obviously fraught with hazard, for the number is not easy to estimate. Even in their own fields scientists are sometimes unaware of meaningful challenges — the reason being that the fields' leaders have little motivation to advertise them. Thus, challenges are usually well-kept secrets. Even working scientists harboring their own challenges to the status quo will often “come out of the closet” only after retirement because of the present threatening climate.

 

The main author of this document is aware of several dozen serious challenges to convention in the fields known to him, and these must represent a small fraction of those in science’s many diverse fields.  A reasonable guess might be on the order of several hundred, currently. $1B annually, at $10 M annually per theme (each theme involving, say, ten groups), could fund 100 themes in the steady state.

 

The budget must include administrative costs, which should be relatively modest compared to the amounts awarded. Detailed estimates can be provided, but a rough estimate of steady-state running costs including facilities, personnel, equipment and supplies is 3 to 5% of the grant budget. NSF administrative costs run at 5%.

 

This budget will be drawn from interest from a permanent endowment. The annual amount drawn for spending should ensure no diminution of the principal, so that the IVS can continue in perpetuity. Hence, the amount spent may vary somewhat from year to year.

 

 

B. Ramp-up Period

 

The duration of the ramp-up period will depend on the amount of money available to spend during the course of that period. It is understood that the principal will build in stages, and that it may be prudent to use some of the accruing principal to fund operations early on. Here we provide an illustrative example of five-year ramp-up plan, emphasizing that the plan is merely illustrative.

 

Year 01: Initial quarter: hiring personnel, setting up facilities, implementing strategies for disseminating grant opportunities and for reviewing. Second quarter: advertising opportunities, hiring additional staff, preparing for first round of review; Third and fourth quarters: receiving and reviewing proposals, with the goal of funding 40 themes by the end of the year. Estimated budget includes administrative costs, up-front costs such as equipment and supplies, and one quarter’s funding of 40 x $10M grants=$100 M.

 

Thus, reasonable budget for year 01, including administrative and startup costs, is $200M.

 

Year 02: Continue funding of first 40 grants, as well as review and funding of 30 additional proposals over the course of the year. Thus, 40 grants funded for a full year ($400M), plus 30 funded for, say, on average, one-half year ($150M), plus modest administrative costs, or slightly more than $600M.

 

Year 03: Continue funding 70 themes ($700M) and add half-year cost of another 10, yielding approximately $750M.

 

Year 04:  Add another 10 themes, yielding $850M.

 

Year 05: Add another 10 themes, yielding $950M, plus full complement of administrative costs=$1B.  This is the steady-state budget.

 

Additional years: Replace expired grants with combination of renewals and new grants.

 

Maintain budget of $1B, and perhaps seek additional investments if the Foundation’s program is shown to be particularly effective.