Endorsements
After several years of development of IVS principles, an open letter describing the proposed Institute, shown below, was sent to colleagues for their consideration. Their endorsements follow the letter.
GERALD H. POLLACK, PhD
Professor of Bioengineering
University of Washington
FAX: 206-685-3300
Dear Colleague:
As an active and successful member of the scientific research community, I come to you with a bold plan for advancing the world’s interests: a new institute that will invest deeply in science with breakthrough potential.
The proposed institute would focus on high-risk, high-return research only. By investing in the numerous high-risk ideas that exist across the scientific disciplines, we have an opportunity to make giant leaps — leaps that can advance science and fuel the world’s economic engine.
People believe that recent progress in science has been substantial; yet, during recent decades breakthroughs have been few and far between. For example, the war on cancer was declared 40 years ago. At that time, available therapies for breast cancer were surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy; today, the therapies remain the same, with only incremental improvements. Breakthroughs of the magnitude of the polio vaccine, the laser, the antibiotic, or the transistor, are simply not coming — and there is a reason.
In past eras, breakthroughs were commonly made by scientists free to explore where their curiosity led. An unexpected observation could be followed through toward breakthrough — e.g., Fleming and penicillin. Today, a top-down bureaucracy increasingly constrains scientific efforts into acceptable niches (e.g., stem cells, nanotechnology, genomics). Administrators decide which areas of science are likely to bear fruit, and scientists hoping for solid support are obliged to work within those defined niches. They must then show steady progress within their respective niches to assure future funding. Deviating to pursue some unexpectedly interesting observation has become risky. With widespread risk aversion, it is no surprise that breakthroughs have become rare, while incremental science flourishes.
Also contributing to the dearth of breakthroughs is the vetting process itself. For the review of grant applications, administrators, not unreasonably, seek as reviewers the most established leaders in their disciplines. Those reviewers have a natural proclivity to support applicants whose views agree with their own. Applicants understand this; and as a result, they submit “safe” incremental proposals, while avoiding those that dare to challenge the status quo. Thus, the funding system inadvertently suppresses the very types of research that might bring the long-sought breakthroughs, leaving that untapped resource of promising ideas to languish in the shadows.
Science-agency administrators acknowledge these impediments. Seeking to address the issue, NIH leaders recently convened a workshop entitled “Fostering Innovation.” Highest-level directors attended, eager to hear the many suggestions for restoring innovation — including some that I, the main academic speaker offered.* Implementing a few of those- suggestions might patch some defects. However, crafting a comprehensive solution requires dealing with the elephant in the room: the reluctance of many scientific leaders to consider ideas that threaten their own well-funded efforts, which invariably represent the status quo.
Prominent scientists gain nothing from radical innovations. Yet, obtaining their consideration and their willingness to debate is a key step in bringing revolutionary advances to realization. Those scientists define the prevailing paradigms. If the ideas challenging the status quo are to emerge from the shadows, something must be done to leverage the reluctant majority’s attention.
The proposed institute is designed to do exactly that: to attract the reluctant attention of the opinion makers. Meaningful paradigm-challenging ideas in diverse fields currently exist in abundance. Investing handsomely in the best of them is a sound strategy for testing the merit of those new ideas. Such investment can build momentum enough to make ignoring the challenge no longer feasible: scientific leaders would be forced to debate the merits of the challenge. If the challenge paradigm is superior to the prevailing paradigm, then the challenge paradigm will prevail in fairly short order.
Investing in promising new science is like investing in a promising new product: By default, the public will stick with the old and familiar product. Any realistic hope of dominating an existing market must include a bold plan to develop and advertise the new product, for without a critical mass of public awareness the product will disappear. With enough exposure, the new product can be weighed against the old one.
To effect the needed action, I propose an institute chartered expressly to invest in creative, “out-of-the box” ideas that challenge conventional views. The new institute would be charged with identifying promising status-quo-challenging ideas in all areas of science. The institute would receive proposals. Scientists from outside the respective proposals’ area will review the proposals, in order to minimize bias. A pool of the most highly rated proposals would receive substantial funding.
A key aspect is that the institute will be funding the idea, not just the person. Once a proposed idea is highly rated, the institute will fund not only the applicant, but also a number of other groups around the world pursuing the same general idea, perhaps using different approaches. A dozen research groups pursuing the same potentially earth-shaking idea cannot be ignored. Orthodoxy and challenger would compete on equal footing, and the better of the two approaches would soon win. Were a challenger to win, this strategy will have brought about a realized revolution of potentially large magnitude — a cure for cancer, a solution for AIDS, a reliable predictor of earthquakes, a cheap form of clean energy,etc.
This new institute, called the “Institute of Venture Science” because of its high-risk orientation, could accomplish this goal with a budget of about $1 billion per year (roughly two percent of the annual combined NIH and NSF budgets). To ensure continuity, the IVS would be funded from a permanent endowment of $10 billion. If it succeeds, as some of us think inevitable, then it will have restored science to the richly bountiful enterprise it was before the funding agencies began imposing top-down management and inviting mainstream scientists to judge their challengers. With proper investment in the most promising and far-reaching ideas, scientific breakthroughs should once again revolutionize human existence.
While the IVS should invest in science alone, any investments in high-risk, high-return science will inevitably bring the technological advances that follow scientific breakthroughs. Think of the laser, the transistor, the Xerox machine, the Internet, all based on revolutionary science — but from scientific findings that came more than 30 years ago.
Bold new scientific breakthroughs cannot help but bring more such astounding technologies. These technologies in turn can restore the world’s stalled economic engine.
Much more can be said, especially about potential health benefits. This letter’s purpose is to test your interest in exploring a high-risk, high-return investment strategy for achieving long-sought scientific breakthroughs. To assist with your consideration, I have appended a document outlining the possible workings of the proposed institute.
Sincerely,
Gerald H. Pollack, PhD
We, the undersigned, concur that the issues brought forth in this letter are serious, and endorse the suggested approach toward resolution:
Mikel Aicken, PhD, Research Professor, Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson.
G. Graham Allan, PhD, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Forest Resources, Univ. of Washington.
Hakima Amri, PhD, Assistant Professor, Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University.
David Anick, MD, PhD, Research Associate, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
Gustavo V. Barbosa-Canovas, PhD, Director, Center for Nonthermal Processing of Food, Washington State University.
Henry Bauer, PhD, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.
Robert Root-Bernstein, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University; MacArthur Fellow.
Thomas Bonnicksen, PhD, Professor & Chair Emeritus, Forest Science, Texas A&M University; VisitingScholar, Forest Foundation.
Dorothy Bowers, BA, BS, former Chair, National Advisory Council for Environmental Science and Technology; former Vice President, Environmental Policy, Merck & Co.
Guozhong Cao, PhD, Professor of Materials Science, University of Washington.
Robert L. Carneiro, PhD, Curator of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University. Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Wei-Chun Chin, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of California, Merced.
James Clegg, PhD, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology, former Director, Bodega Bay Laboratory, University of California, Davis.
L Eric Cross, PhD, Evan Hugh Professor of Electrical Engineering Emeritus, Penn State University.
Diana Darnell, PhD, Research Assistant Professor, Cell Biology and Anatomy, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Tucson.
William Denevan, PhD, Carl O. Sauer Professor Emeritus, Dept of Geography, Univ. of Wisconsin.
Allan Dobbins, PhD, Associate Professor, Vision Science Center, University of Alabama.
Michael E. Dubrasich, PhD, Executive Director, Western Institute for Study of the Environment.
Pat Frank, PhD, Staff Scientist, SLAC, Stanford University.
Jeff Fredberg, PhD, Professor of Bioengineering and Physiology, Harvard University.
Laurence Fredrick, PhD, Research Professor, Dept of Astronomy, University of Virginia.
Chaim Frenkel, PhD, Professor of Plant Physiology and Pathology, Rutgers University.
Csaba Galambos, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh.
Warren Guntheroth, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Washington.
Boyd Haley, PhD, Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky.
Arie Horowitz, ScD, Assistant Professor, Molecular Cardiology, Case Western Reserve University.
Eileen Jaffe, PhD, Senior Member, Fox Chase Cancer Center.
Tomas Jilling, MD, Research Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Medicine.
Carl Johannessen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon.
Pete Jumars, PhD, Director, School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine.
Charles Kay, PhD, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, Utah State University.
Vinod Khosla, MS, MBA, Founding CEO, Sun Microsystems; co-founder, Daisy Systems; Founder, Khosla
A. Denny Kirwan, PhD, Mary A. S. Lighthipe Chair of Marine Studies, University of Delaware.
T. Fettah Kosar, PhD, Principal Scientist and Nanotech Facility Manager, Harvard University.
Robert Lee, PhD, Professor Emeritus, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington.
Michael Levin, PhD, Director, Forsyth Institute, Harvard University.
Subhash Mahajan, PhD. Director, School of Materials, Arizona State University.
Donald Miller, MD, Professor of Surgery, Former Chief, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Washington.
Garret Moddel, PhD, Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Colorado.
Howard Moskowitz, PhD, President and CEO, Moskowitz Jacobs Inc.
Michael Mross, PhD, President, Vermont Photonics Technologies Corp.
Amar Neogi, PhD, Director, Renewal Research, Weyerhauser Co.
Michael Newton, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University.
Wm. Ogle, PhD, Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida.
Charles Ordahl, PhD, Professor of Anatomy, University of California, San Francisco.
Mόnica V. Orellana, Ph.D, Senior Research Scientist, Institute for Systems Biology
Eric Posmentier, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Department of Mathematics, Long Island University; Visiting Professor, Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College.
William Reif, President, Wausau Coated Products.
R. Michael Roberts, PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Oral Biology, University of Missouri. Member, National Academy of Science.
Catherine M. Roberts, Co-Founder, Rutherford B.H. Yates Museum Inc.
Scott Roberts, PhD, former Vice President, Shell Oil Co.
David Rosen, PhD, Vice President, Applied Optics, Physical Sciences, Inc.
Rustum Roy, PhD, Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State Emeritus, Professor of Geochemistry Emeritus, Professor of Science, Technology, and Society Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University; Visiting Distinguished Professor of Materials, Arizona State University.
Morton Satin, PhD, Founder and President, FoodAdviz LLC.
George Seidel, PhD, University Distinguished Professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University. Member, National Academy of Science.
Norman Singer, PhD, former Director of R&D, NutraSweet.
Lee Smolin, PhD, Faculty, Perimeter Institute, and Author “The Trouble with Physics.”
Peter Stark, MS, Research Associate, Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School.
Brent Stewart, PhD, Professor of Radiology, University of Washington.
Ernest Stokely, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Emeritus Associate Dean of Engineering, University of Alabama.
George Sugihara, PhD, McQuown Chair of Natural Science Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego.
Yolene Thomas, PhD, former Assistant Professor of Medicine and Microbiology, Columbia University (now: Research Director, CNRS, Univ. Paris).
James Tucker, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia Health
Donald Twieg, PhD, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alabama.
D. Eric Walters, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Rosalind Franklin
University of Medicine and Science.
William Woods, PhD, Professor of Geography, Courtesy Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas.
Garret L. Yount, PhD, Scientist, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute.
Robert Zyback, PhD, Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watershed Project.
* see: National Institute of Health video cast here especially beginning at 1:17.
We asked a friend to conduct interviews with leading scientists to solicit their opinions of the IVS plan. A compilation of capsule comments can be found here.
