We are social and behavioral scientists who produce and use science to improve lives—or, put another way, we aim to produce science as something useful to society. You may have come across our work without realizing it. When you participated in NPR’s “Stress Less” series during the contentious 2024 presidential election, you were using the evidence-based skills our team has developed to help people manage stress. If you’ve visited a pediatrician in Colorado, Illinois or Michigan and discussed gun safe storage, you’ve come across the safety program we’ve helped implement to reduce gun harm to children. And if your primary care team asks you about your alcohol use as often as they check your blood pressure, you’ve met our mission to make alcohol testing a simple, routine vital sign that opens the door to brief, supportive conversations and overall better health.
Eighteen months of disruption at the National Institutes of Health, marked by thousands of cut or frozen grants, sharp declines in new awards, and mounting delays, have made research funding more volatile and less predictable. On top of this disruption, the proposed new law would remove funding decisions from independent peer review by requiring political appointees to approve grants and allow agencies to cancel awards based on significant changes in government—thus completing the politicization of the scientific process.
We find ourselves at a crossroads. How do we continue to produce our science as a public good, while finding new ways to support and finance it? As researchers, we tend to look at problems from multiple angles, so we decided to put our skills to the test with this new problem.
We convened a group of entrepreneurs, investors, educators and non-profit and healthcare leaders from many industries and perspectives to help us rethink the current model. To be sure, there is no simple substitute for research funding: The figures involved are so large that no other source can truly replace them, especially for basic research without a clear commercialization approach. However, there may be a set of solutions that, when combined, begin to close the gap. We share those ideas below, ranked in order of least to most disturbing, in the hope of sparking discussion and action about new models of funding science as a public good.
- Traditional methods of diversification. A less disruptive approach is to spread funding across multiple sources instead of relying on just one (ie, the NIH). For example, scientists may seek support from foundations, donors who care deeply about a particular issue or contracts to test programs for state and local governments. These methods maintain educational practices and complement traditional development programs, but will likely only lead to increased impact.
- Selective intervention trading. This approach focuses on supporting scientists who develop programs or tools with clear potential to be delivered responsibly to the market, such as proven behavioral interventions, practical ways to deliver care or well-tested measurement tools, with part of the income they receive going back to support researchers and their departments. To make this work, universities will need to expand their thinking about marketing, look beyond drugs and medical devices to inform programs and services, and make it easier to protect and share these ideas. This approach can help scale up effective, evidence-based interventions that have a clear social impact while generating reinvestment funds, but will require careful safeguards to ensure that opportunities are allocated appropriately and remain focused on work that benefits society.
- Community registration and platform models. Think of the examples of “Netflix of Science” or “Costco membership” where sponsors, institutions and potential individuals purchase subscription access to social and behavioral science tools, content and expertise. Through a shared platform, subscribers can engage with selected evidence-based interventions, measurement tools, implementation resources and translation products developed by investigators. Funding can be structured not only as a nominal subscription, but also linked to milestones, usage or demonstrated results, allowing support to be measured by impact rather than volume alone.
To remain relevant to science as a public utility, such a platform would need to ensure that subscription revenue underwrites infrastructure and development, not exclusive access to discoveries. These types of methods depend on platform methods that fund community-based work or policy implementation, which have been previously tested.
- Integrated and industrial relations. This model will link evidence-based science and industry to help solve real-world problems, such as reducing fatigue in high-stress jobs or helping insurers reduce long-term health costs. It can also give companies an edge by helping them move quickly from idea to impact: For example, a wearable device company can stand out by pairing its products with proven, timely health interventions. For applied social and behavioral scientists, the strongest opportunities for these types of partnerships are likely to be with digital health startups and pharmaceutical companies.
Part of this approach is high income potential; disadvantages include a higher potential for conflict of interest and reputational risk. Independent governance, such as third-party ethics boards, will be needed. Additionally, strong firewalls, standardized contracts, disclosure requirements and clear limits on influencing research design, data ownership and copyrights will be essential to ensure that revenue generation does not compromise scientific integrity or equity.
- Business incubators. Academic units can open their doors and invite cooperation from startups and entrepreneurs to share their creativity as scientific experts, and they can follow many models including free, access fee or equity. This allows for a collaborative and mutually beneficial relationship between innovators and scientists, although the expectations of different times of science and innovation may need to be negotiated. Incubators are attractive for applied social and behavioral work, as they can protect good social goals while enabling technology transfer. However, most incubators are designed for intellectual property tasks—heavy technology; this exception focuses on social impact, not just measurement. A recent initiative from the Thrive Center at Georgetown University shows the power of such an approach.
- An affiliated institution or a new model university of higher education science. Currently, most research is funded through federal agencies such as the NIH, which provide funding to universities. Universities then transfer that funding to scientists and their teams to do the work. Because universities are not for profit, there are strict rules regarding working with industry, including restrictions intended to prevent conflicts of interest. Although these rules serve an important purpose, they can make it difficult to work with changing, new ways.
Another way would be to create independent institutions or institutions with different funding and governance structures. These groups will not be bound by the same constraints but can still focus on producing information that benefits the masses. They may answer big, real-world questions in the social and behavioral sciences, such as how advances in artificial intelligence will interact with human behavior, creativity and empathy. This type of model can make it easier for researchers to keep up with rapidly changing needs, although it may require careful planning and new ways of organizing and funding work.
A more ambitious option would be to rethink the system from the ground up. Instead of trying to fix the current model, we can create something new that removes the barriers that currently limit bold, transformative solutions. This would mean creating a new way of higher education that fully focuses on science and education as something that benefits society. While this approach offers greater freedom and alignment of work, it also comes with greater risk, cost and uncertainty.
We have no idea about the risks. We’re writing this in the midst of what feels like a perfect storm: Public trust in science is eroding, artificial intelligence is reshaping the way research is done and traditional funding methods are under political and economic pressure. Yet clinging to the current model, hoping to return to “normal,” is your own form of risk.
We believe that universities, funders and researchers need to look at the whole continuum from the usual variety to the most innovative structures and deliberately choose where to experiment. For presidents, provosts and deans, this likely means three things: making research and funding models a priority, creating space and incentives for faculty to explore new approaches, and building a legal and ethical infrastructure to maintain public trust as those experiments take place.
Science as a public good is too important to be left out of one fragile pipeline. If we want to survive and strengthen the system to withstand future disruptions, we must start thinking a little more like entrepreneurs, without losing sight of the community we serve.
The ideas shared here were made in collaboration with the aforementioned call, and the authors thank the participants of that event for their generosity of spirit and sense of collaboration.
