6

Funding Chemical Research

In the United States, there is a wide variety of options for funding chemical research. Numerous federal agencies distribute funds in the form of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements to support basic and applied research, start-up endeavors, and education and training. In addition, the United States supports 17 Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, along with numerous other large collaborative laboratory facilities. These laboratories include a dozen that engage directly in chemical research and others that provide facilities, such as supercomputers and advanced analytical instrumentation, used extensively by chemists. In addition to federal support for chemical research, there has been an exemplary tradition of industrial labs developing breakthrough research, from Bell Labs to DuPont Central Research, among many others. Today,

chemical companies have expanded collaborations with academia and start-ups on fundamental research while continuing to invest in-house in applied research and development (R&D). Philanthropy makes significant targeted contributions supporting academia through gifts that are used to build centers for chemical research and training, fund endowed faculty positions, and support programs for training the next generation of chemists. One area in which philanthropy excels is by providing the money to create interdisciplinary centers of research that tackle many of the world’s most pressing problems, such as climate change. In this chapter, the report examines funding sources for chemical research, who receives these funds, and, broadly, how the funds are used. It also considers some of the difficulties in funding fundamental chemical research under the current system and highlights opportunities for supporting fundamental chemical research as the funding landscape evolves. This chapter is not meant to serve as an exhaustive list of funding opportunities for chemistry. Rather, it highlights some key funding mechanisms that enable fundamental chemical research to contribute to the chemical economy.

6.1 FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN CHEMICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Chemistry and related areas of research are funded by a diverse set of federal agencies, from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to the various mission-oriented agencies including the DOE, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Defense (DoD). This diversity of sources is regarded as a strength of the U.S. system for funding fundamental science, because the differing missions mean that the different agencies will have different criteria for what will be funded. Regardless of the agency, proposals for grants and contracts in the U.S. system are usually reviewed by experts, and awards are made on the basis of merit.

The United States has been making robust investments in chemical research for decades. In 2019, more than $3.4 billion was committed to basic and applied chemical research (Fleming and Basco, 2021), and from 1999 through 2019, federal obligations for basic research roughly doubled to $2 billion (Figure 6-1). Largely through its Divisions of Chemistry and Materials Research in the Math and Physical Sciences Directorate, NSF supports basic research and education in the chemical sciences. Other, more “mission-oriented” agencies of the federal government are charged with ensuring our national security (DoD), improving human health (NIH), preserving the environment (EPA), advancing measurement science (NIST), protecting food and agriculture (USDA), and providing the energy we need (DOE). Fulfilling these missions depends on advances in chemistry, providing a compelling rationale for sustained, large investment in chemistry research. But the ultimate missions of the federal agencies are likely to be executed, at least in part, by companies, including defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and energy companies, among others. These companies will employ chemists who are prepared to address the problems associated with mission-oriented agencies of the federal government. Thus, coupling advanced education and research is a critical part of the federal investment in fundamental research at academic institutions, which provide the talent pool needed by companies.

NSF’s FY 2021 budget was $8.5 billion, of which $589.5 million went to the Divisions of Chemistry and Material Sciences. NSF also provides significant support to STEM education from kindergarten through graduate school. It participates in the SBIR program funding approximately 400 start-up companies per year, and it supports collaborative research centers, such as the Centers for Chemical Innovation (CCI).

As with basic research, the federal government has appropriated substantial funds for STEM education. The federal government published a STEM education strategic plan in 2018, which set out a 5-year strategy based on a vision to provide high-quality STEM education to all Americans

throughout their lifetimes (NSTC, 2018). The responsibilities for supporting STEM education in the United States is spread over 17 departments and institutions, from DoD and DOE to NSF and the Smithsonian Institution. In FY 2021, the estimated federal budget for STEM education was $3.91 billion (Figure 6-2) (OSTP, 2021). This investment in STEM education is for 22 disciplines, of which about one-third are wholly or partially related to chemistry (OSTP, 2021).

6.1.1 Targeted Funding and Investigator-Initiated Research Funding

In general, federal agencies fund scientific research that is either investigator initiated or targeted to address specific research priorities of the agencies (Myers, 2020; NIMHD, 2021). NIH and NSF award the majority of research grants through investigator-initiated (also called unsolicited) awards, but the reverse may be true for other agencies, such as DOE’s ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) program,¹ that have research objectives that are of a more applied nature (Myers, 2020).

Targeted research is funded under “one-time competitions, which request proposals on specific” agency priorities (Myers, 2020). Chemistry-related targeted research sponsored by federal agencies, for example, might include research on materials for photovoltaic devices, or hydrogen and fuel systems at DOE; in situ resource utilization for missions to the Moon or Mars for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); or research on chemical toxicity for EPA. Although it is not a mission agency, NSF’s Division of Chemistry funds multidisciplinary targeted research in conjunction with NSF’s other units, such as the Sustainable Chemistry, Engineering, and Materials (SusChEM) program, which supports basic research in green chemistry.

___________________

¹ See https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId2b1605fb-a156-4d55-aa5b-b4c1a213c736.

6.1.2 Different Scales of Federally Funded Research

With the variety of sources available for federal funding, there are also a number of different opportunities for varying scales in funding opportunities. While federal funding discussions in the United States tend to center on individual labs, the past couple of decades have seen a growing discussion around mid- and large-scale collaborative opportunities. All of these different scales of research have played an important role in moving research forward, and chemical research is present at every level to help achieve the goals of all science-funding federal agencies.

6.1.2.1 Single-Investigator Research

Some of the examples in this report have focused on individual laboratories whose chemical research endeavors have led to Nobel Prizes or fundamental discoveries that were critically important to the economy, the environment, and society. Support for individual laboratories makes up a large portion of chemical research in the United States, and these individual laboratories take on the primary responsibility of mentoring and training the future chemical workforce, which was discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Based on the current system of research in the United States, in which primary training of scientists happens at universities at the undergraduate and graduate

levels, support of individual, principal investigator laboratories is critically important. Critical breakthroughs in the chemical sciences are frequently attributed to individual labs or small-team collaborations.

It is important to note that many studies have shown the inequities of research funding distributions in the United States. Recently, extensive work has focused on funding from NIH but reveals important data about how women (when compared to men) and all individuals of color (when compared to White individuals) are receiving proportionally less funding (Lauer and Roychowdhury, 2021). There is a call in the research community to fund Black scientists as there is an increase in hiring of Black individuals but not the proportional increase in funding (Stevens et al., 2021). Recently, NIH announced a program to fund “at-risk investigators from diverse backgrounds,” which is an important step to remedying the current discrepancy.² While many programs are starting to be put in place, further action and policy considerations would be a helpful step from the research funding community.

6.1.2.2 Mid- and Large-Scale Research Infrastructure and Collaboration

In 2016, NSF held two workshops to explore mid-scale research infrastructure needs in chemistry (NSF, 2016a,b; NSB, 2018). The main conclusions from the workshops noted the increasing complexity of the questions in the chemical sciences, and the need for broader approaches to measurement and synthesis. They noted the need for “large-scale, coordinated efforts of equipment and personnel of complementary capabilities and skills, which can only be made possible with mid-scale investment” (NSF, 2016b). The workshop participants also identified a wide range of chemistry questions that would benefit from mid-scale infrastructure, including work around understanding the dynamics of interactions and interfaces, and instrumentation for parallel operations such as synthesis and measurement (NSF, 2016b). The workshop was particularly encouraging about the need for mid-scale infrastructure for facilities and instrumentation that would exist to provide collaborative experiences for chemical researchers exploring complex questions. Additionally, the workshop participants emphasized the fact that mid-scale facilities “should not replace single-investigator grants” (NSF, 2016b).

Since this workshop in 2016, mid-scale research collaborations and facilities have been growing in popularity. In 2017, NSF made “mid-scale research infrastructure” one of its “10 Big Ideas” that would help move research forward. Since then, in response to a study from the National Science Board in 2018 that called mid-scale research infrastructure “underrepresented” in the NSF research portfolio, there have been several calls for projects in the $6 million to $70 million range. In looking through the awarded opportunities from NSF, many of them focus on chemical principles or require collaborations with chemists and chemical engineers to be successful. Although not an exhaustive list, some of the titles of chemistry-specific mid-scale infrastructure projects include

• NSF National EXtreme Ultrafast Science (NEXUS) Facility,
• Consortium: Biogeochemical-Agro: A global robotic network to observe changing ocean chemistry and biology,
• Atmospheric Science and Chemistry mEasurement NeTwork (ASCENT), and
• Grid-Connected Testing Infrastructure for Networked Control of Distributed Energy Resources.

___________________

² See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-22-181.html.

The earliest of these mid-scale infrastructure projects started receiving funding in 2019, so it is difficult to assess their success, but the popularity of the program has led to several different requests for proposals by NSF.

In addition, NSF’s Divisions of Chemistry and Materials Research fund several chemistry-related centers: CCI, Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, and two Science and Technology Centers (NSF, 2021). These centers support interdisciplinary research bringing together the expertise of multiple laboratories. For example, CCI’s research includes

While NSF has been very explicit about its steps to fund mid-scale infrastructure, other federal funding agencies have also been funding collaborative infrastructure and facilities. For example, NIH has invested many millions of dollars in distributed facilities for cryogenic electron microscopy and cryogenic electron tomography. NIH also funds a number of large collaborative research centers with either a chemistry focus or a strong influence from chemical research. One such place is the “Discovery of Chemical Probes and Therapeutic Leads,” an NIH Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) at the University of Delaware.⁴ The COBRE awards are part of a congressionally mandated program of Institutional Development Awards that “build research capacity in states that historically have had low levels of NIH funding.”⁵ NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences is building out a platform designed to accelerate the development of therapeutics by transforming “chemistry from an individualized craft to a modern, information-based science.”⁶ While the focus of this platform, known as ASPIRE (A Specialized Platform for Innovative Research Exploration), is translational biomedical chemistry, the results will include the development of advanced tools in chemical automation and may lead to a greater understanding of reaction mechanisms, reaction kinetics, and biochemical catalysis.

DOE also has many investments in both mid- and large-scale infrastructure projects. Some of DOE’s mid-scale opportunities include the Energy Frontiers Research Centers (EFRCs), of which there are currently 46 around the county (DOE, 2019). They focus on cultivating multidisciplinary teams to solve diverse energy challenges and incorporate a large number of chemists and chemical engineers. In addition to the EFRCs, there are also Bioenergy Research Centers, which have a goal similar to the EFRCs’ but focus on research to harness and optimize the use of bioenergy (DOE Office of Science, 2020a). DOE has many other examples of mid-scale scientific infrastructure that include the advancement of fundamental chemistry, including the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis⁷ where they are looking to develop the science around artificial solar fuel generation.

In addition to these mid-scale facilities, there are also large-scale government-funded research and user facilities. Many of the arguments made during the 2016 NSF workshops advocating for mid-scale infrastructure apply to the building and maintaining of large-scale research infrastructure for chemistry. For example, the growing complexity of chemistry will require advanced instrumentation, much of which is available at these large-scale facilities. Many of the large-scale facilities are designated as federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs). While a number

___________________

³ See https://beta.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/centers-chemical-innovation-cci.

⁴ See https://sites.udel.edu/cobrediscovery/people/.

⁵ See https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/DRCB/IDeA/Pages/default.aspx.

⁶ See https://ncats.nih.gov/aspire/about.

⁷ See https://solarfuelshub.org/.

of government agencies run FFRDCs, the DOE’s national laboratory system is one of the most prominent for the chemical research community. The national laboratories provide important facilities and research opportunities to advance the chemical sciences, including the housing of x-ray synchrotron radiation light sources, neutron scattering facilities, and nanoscale science research centers. Additionally, there are computational user facilities such as Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) and the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) that give researchers the opportunity for supercomputing time. These facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.1, but it is important to note that a large percentage of the principal investigators who received computing time are chemical researchers.

The contributions of mid- and large-scale research infrastructure and collaboration to the chemical sciences are all unique and individually important. As the complexity of chemistry continues to increase, advanced instrumentation, facilities, and collaborations will become a more important complementary mechanism of research to the single-investigator research project.

6.1.3 SBIR and STTR Programs: Commercializing Fundamental Chemical Research

The SBIR and STTR programs encourage small U.S. businesses to engage in federal R&D with the “potential for commercialization. Through a competitive awards-based program, SBIR and STTR enable small businesses to explore their technological potential and provide the incentive to profit from its commercialization.”⁸ Since their inception, these two programs have played a pivotal role in the translation of fundamental research, including in the chemical sciences, into commercialized technology that has propelled the U.S. economy. The SBIR/STTR programs complement venture capital funds in specific strategic areas of R&D, and it is expected that they will continue to play important roles during the energy transition and the expected renovation of the chemical industry. According to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) website,

The SBIR program was established under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 with the purpose of “strengthen[ing] the role of the small, innovative firms in Federally-funded research and development” (U.S. Congress, 1982). Modeled after the SBIR program, STTR was established by the Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992 (U.S. Congress, 1992). According to Tuck and Moeinian (2017), “the goal of the STTR program is to facilitate the transfer

___________________

⁸ See https://www.sbir.gov/about.

⁹ See https://solarfuelshub.org/.

of technology developed by a research institution through the entrepreneurship of a small business concern.” As noted by the New York State Small Business Development Center, the STTR program requires “the small business to formally collaborate with a research institution in Phase I and Phase II. STTR’s most important role is to bridge the gap between performance of basic science and commercialization of resulting innovations. The mission of the [SBIR and] STTR program[s] is to support scientific excellence and technological innovation through the investment of Federal research funds in critical American priorities to build a strong national economy.”¹⁰

Currently, the general criteria for agencies that support SBIR and STTR programs are outlined on the SBA website:

Three examples of SBIR/STTR programs are provided to highlight the significant impacts of these federal programs in the commercialization of technologies that otherwise would have taken longer to transfer to the chemical industry or perhaps would never have been commercialized.

___________________

¹⁰ See https://sbtdc.org/services/programs/tech/sbirsttr/sttr-facts/.

A Phase I SBIR grant in 2012 from NSF supported Mango Materials, a company that first discovered that methane gas could be used to produce a naturally occurring biopolymer that could compete with conventional oil-based plastics.¹¹ Mango Materials focused on methane derived from wastewater treatment plants. As the SBA website notes, “They ran the system for 200 days and proved the process could succeed even in the most non-sterile of environments. With a follow-on Phase II and Phase IIB award, the company scaled the technology, and started producing 10 pounds of their polymer each week” (SBIR, 2017b). Expanding on their technology, Mango Materials is currently embarking on a Phase II STTR with NASA in hopes that their material can eventually be manufactured in a microgravity environment.

Another example comes from Exelus,¹² a company that leveraged SBIR grants from NSF and DOE to develop ExSact—an engineered solid-acid catalyst-based alkylation process, which is now being licensed worldwide, generating $11 million in licensing fees (SBIR, 2017a). The ExSact technology produces high-octane alkylate from a variety of feedstocks including fluid catalytically cracked (FCC) olefins, methyl tertiary-butyl ether raffinate, FCC off-gas, or olefins derived from natural gas or biomass. The SBA website notes that “the company recently aligned with KBR and has sold two licenses for the technology. Exelus and KBR are currently negotiating with several US refiners to revamp existing alkylation units to replace liquid acids with the ExSact catalyst” (SBIR, 2017a).

Instrumental Polymer Technologies, LLC (iptech) is developing environmentally friendly, low-cost polymers by imitating nature’s primary production processes.¹³ It is mimicking nature’s process using the reversible reactivity of aliphatic polycarbonates, mainly polycarbonate and polyurethane. The company plans to offer its reactive intermediate to other companies, who can extend the intermediate with other molecules to form polymers and plastics to meet their specific needs. Ultimately, these polycarbonate and polyurethane plastics can be digested back into the reactive intermediate by refluxing with alcohol. EPA and NSF SBIR Phase I and II awards supported the development and commercialization of these technologies and polymers. For example, SBIR funding is facilitating iptech’s advancement of a sustainable and biodegradable thermoset plastic that can be processed and recycled like a thermoplastic and can be used in the production of biodegradable polymer concrete.

6.2 CORPORATE FUNDING OF CHEMICAL RESEARCH

Organized and large-scale corporate investments in fundamental chemical research began in the United States in the early 20th century and reached their heyday from the 1950s through the 1990s. One of the most revered corporate research centers was DuPont Central Research and Development, which was established in 1957, though its roots date back to 1903 (Tullo, 2016). Dupont announced the closing of these labs in 2015 (Tullo, 2016). Relatedly, for a variety of financial and strategic reasons, chemical companies now rely largely on academic labs to perform the fundamental research that the companies can then feed into their in-house applied R&D programs.

6.2.1 Investments in R&D by Chemical Corporations

Chemical companies spend, on average, 2% to 3% of their annual sales on R&D. Notably, the chemical industry (excluding pharmaceuticals) receives little government money for research that it conducts. In 2020, chemical companies spent $10.1 billion in R&D, of which about 9%

___________________

¹¹ See https://www.mangomaterials.com/.

¹² See http://www.exelusinc.com/.

¹³ See https://instrumentalpolymer.com/.

($900 million) went to basic research (Figure 6-4) (ACC, 2021). The U.S. pharmaceutical industry invested approximately $72.8 billion into R&D in 2020 (Mikulic, 2021).

Although the chemical industry spends far less in-house on fundamental research, it continues to spend heavily on applied R&D, so it is fair to say that the chemical industry remains an innovation-intensive industry. NSF data on innovation categorized by companies indicate that more than two-thirds of the companies in the chemical industry (including pharmaceuticals) reported introducing product, process, marketing, or organizational innovation. In the economy as a whole, only 43% of companies reported introducing an innovation. The 67% rate of innovation by chemical companies is only slightly lower than that reported for industries such as data processing (69%), although it is lower than computers and electronic products (72%) and software (79%) (Table 6-1). It is important to note that for this survey, the R&D might not have come directly from the company, and there could be funding from the company that is used at an outside institution.

The U.S. chemical industry expenditure of $10.1 billion in 2020, while large, is its lowest level of R&D spending in many years (Figure 6-5). Notably, though, investment in fundamental research in most corporate laboratories is modest compared to an earlier era where many of the largest chemical companies made substantial investments in fundamental research. The decline of fundamental chemical research in corporate laboratories along with the growth of big data, automation, and artificial intelligence is increasing the number of partnerships being formed between universities and companies. These have the potential to drive changes in research and education taking place at academic institutions, as discussed in the next section.

The NSF surveys are further broken down into “Product innovation” and “Process innovation.” When looking specifically at product innovations between 2015 and 2017, the leading industries are computers, electrical equipment, software, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and scientific services. All of these innovation-heavy industries, and the products they produce, are dependent on the chemical industry, and some of the research likely includes chemical and materials research. Within the chemical industry, the rate of product R&D is around 83%. Within the category of Chemicals, pharmaceuticals and medicines have rates of product innovation around 90%, while soaps and cleaning products and other chemicals have rates of product innovation of more than 80%. Similarly, nearly 80% of companies in the rubbers and plastics industry report R&D-based product innovation.

These figures are consistent with an R&D-intensive chemical industry that is now maturing. The focus of its innovation nowadays is often improvements in operating efficiency rather than

fundamental or transformative discoveries. This idea is consistent with the relatively slow growth in output of chemical and related industries. It is important to note here that the pharmaceutical sector is a clear exception. As noted above, the pharmaceutical industry invests a significant amount in research and is directly reliant on advances in chemical knowledge, or at the very least, dependent on other parts of the chemical industry.

6.2.2 University–Industry Research Partnerships

Collaborations between universities and industry provide unique opportunities to advance fundamental research, though negotiating the details of a collaboration can come with challenges. For universities, corporate collaborations provide a fresh stream of money to support research; offer a chance to work with people who have the knowledge and resources to scale up research efforts and move those ideas into development and perhaps commercialization; and expand mentorship, internship, and employment opportunities for students and postdocs. All of these benefits are true for departments of chemistry and related sciences.

Universities are hotbeds for start-ups. Between 1995 and 2015, approximately 11,000 start-ups were formed at U.S. universities (autm, n.d.). By forming partnerships with universities, companies have early access to these innovative start-ups. Companies also get the benefit of working with academic research scientists, who may think differently about research problems, providing opportunities for synergy. Companies reduce the risk of their research investment by funding academic research and often get significant leverage from these research dollars. The NSF’s Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers program has calculated that through its program, every dollar invested leverages $41 more in research funding. And, as mentioned, companies get to assist in mentoring and working with students and postdocs, some of whom could be their next employees. Students that participate in corporate-sponsored research receive training and practical knowledge that makes them well prepared to transition into industrial jobs.

These benefits are substantial for all involved, but there can be difficulties in establishing and maintaining a university–industry collaboration. The primary reason appears to be that corporate culture fails to map well onto university culture (Frølund et al., 2017). In addition, arrangements have to be made to address intellectual property and nondisclosure agreements. These two topics

TABLE 6-1 Innovating Companies, by Industry: 2015–2017

SOURCE: NCSES, 2020a, Table 43.

are important points of discussion in collaborations between universities and corporations, even for early-stage research. The potential financial success of some of those collaborations motivates the negotiations, but unfortunately, sometimes lengthy negotiations slow down or prevent university–corporate research partnerships. Other challenges include the propensity for these programs to focus on large research institutions, and to frequently not distribute funding to places with fewer resources. There is a concerted effort in some companies to fix this, but more partnerships with institutions, especially those that have proven that they can help to increase diversity and equity in the chemical workforces, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions such as Hispanic-Serving Institutions, would be a helpful change.

6.3 PHILANTHROPIC FUNDING OF CHEMICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Over the past 100 years, many foundations have been formed by individuals and corporations, including corporations associated with the chemical industry. Some foundations are focused on supporting university research programs in fundamental science and university professors of science. A small number of foundations support chemistry exclusively, including the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, the Robert A. Welch Foundation, and the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation. Many other foundations such as the Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, the W.M. Keck Foundation, and the David & Lucile Packard Foundation support scientists more broadly, including chemists. None of these foundations support chemistry at an annual level competitive with the federal government, but as these foundations grow through investment success and other foundations are formed, there is a significant opportunity for them to contribute to the advancement of fundamental chemistry and its application to solve major problems of importance to the nation and to the world.

The Robert A. Welch Foundation, for example, focuses its philanthropy on chemical research and education within the state of Texas. Their support has established 48 endowed professorships in 21 institutions, research grant awards totaling more than $20 million per year, and the recent commitment of $100 million to Rice University to establish the Welch Institute for Advanced Materials (Kuspa, 2021). The foundation also provides undergraduate scholarships and grants to chemistry departments to promote experiential opportunities in the chemical sciences and funds a summer laboratory experience for high school students, pairing them with practicing research chemists.¹⁴ The foundation has chosen to focus much of its support on small- and mid-size Texas schools and has thus been able to support and attract many minority and first-generation college students to study the chemical sciences.

During its initial 10 years, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation made significant gifts to establish Beckman Institutes at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Stanford University, City of Hope Medical Center, and the University of California, Irvine (and the Beckman Center for the National Academies).¹⁵ The five research centers are each designed to foster collaboration, inspire bold scientific risk taking, and nurture disruptive ideas. The Beckman Institutes are a part of the research infrastructure needed for forefront chemistry and allied areas, the programmatic focus of the Beckman Foundation. The foundation also funds promising young researchers in the chemical sciences by supporting undergraduates, postdoctoral fellows, new faculty, and special research areas, such as cryogenic electron microscopy.

According to the home page of The Giving Pledge,¹⁶ “In August 2010, 40 of America’s wealthiest people made a commitment to give the majority of their wealth to address some of

___________________

¹⁴ See https://welch1.org/.

¹⁵ See https://www.beckman-foundation.org/.

¹⁶ See givingpledge.org.

society’s most pressing problems.” Today, that number has grown sixfold and includes people from 28 countries. The list includes people who have made major gifts to research universities to support sciences and engineering associated with the challenges that chemists can participate in addressing. Among these is Michael Bloomberg, with substantial support to address climate change, and Gordon and Betty Moore. Gordon Moore graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a Ph.D. in chemistry, and individually and through the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, made a total gift of $600 million to Caltech. Founded in 2000, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has already given more than $1.7 billion to important scientific programs.¹⁷ For example, they provided $6 million dollars over 10 years to support research on the photooxidation of water to make fuels via artificial photosynthesis.

The wealth created through technological advances in the past few decades is fueling the development of foundations and other philanthropic actions that present exciting opportunities to advance fundamental chemistry to solve major problems. Problems such as the need for abundant, affordable energy, chemicals, and fuels that do not degrade the environment or contribute to climate change; improvements in agricultural productivity; and the need for access to clean water are all areas where chemistry will play an important role. For example, in 2019, Stewart and Lynda Resnick gave $750 million to Caltech to support environmental sustainability research, which will be used to build a sustainability research institute, create a permanent endowment to support this research, and fund “bold creativity,” to use Stewart Resnick’s words (Svitil, 2019).

While more than 80% of the funding for research in academia comes from the federal government and corporations (CRS, 2021), that money typically funds research that is either applied or basic but to some degree targeted. Philanthropic support, on the other hand, has the flexibility to support scientists pursuing bold transformative ideas and working in collaborative interdisciplinary environments. Thus, it is a realistic prospect for academic institutions to excite the interest of these philanthropists to provide critical support for infrastructure, innovations, training, and faculty in the pursuit of advancing science and improving society.

6.4 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS IN SUPPORTING RESEARCH

Academic institutions play a central role in the chemical economy. They perform about half of all basic chemical research, and they are sites for mentoring, educating, and training the next generation of chemical scientists. Support for academic research and education in chemistry comes almost entirely from the government, industry, and philanthropy. But there are additional needs, which have to be covered by the academic institutions.

Chemistry departments at colleges and universities, like all departments that fall under STEM, are charged with teaching and mentoring undergraduates; in some schools, training and mentoring graduate students; and at research institutions, mentoring postdocs. Carrying out these responsibilities is an essential part of enhancing the U.S. chemical economy because (1) these scientists are the next generation of chemists, entrepreneurs, and leaders; and (2) in institutions where research is the priority, undergraduates, grad students, and postdocs make up most of the laboratory workforce. Teaching, training, and mentoring are covered in Chapter 5. This current section looks briefly at some of the financial responsibilities that academic institutions have for maintaining chemistry research programs.

Colleges and universities that conduct research rely primarily on federal dollars to support their research programs. But these institutions must also make substantial financial commitments. Academic institutions are typically responsible for the financial resources needed to launch the

___________________

¹⁷ See https://www.moore.org/programs/science.

career of a junior professor. These funds are used to acquire instrumentation, prepare laboratory facilities, and provide support for technicians and postdoctoral associates. At universities and at colleges where research is important, but the primary focus is on teaching, start-up funds (minus an assistant professor’s salary) range from $20,000 to $100,000 (Argonne Today, 2013). As noted above, some small to mid-size schools have received funding from philanthropic organizations (e.g., the Robert A. Welch foundation) that offset or cover these start-up funds.

Academic institutions are almost completely responsible for facilities development and redevelopment, and significant capital is needed for renovating or establishing facilities for chemistry. Public universities can expect to receive some capital from state governments, but private universities typically rely on philanthropic support for building construction and major renovations. The needs for a department in the chemical sciences to support research vary depending on how much research is prioritized and the aspirations of the institution as described in its strategic plan. All institutions must support teaching laboratories for undergraduates. This requires laboratory space, supporting infrastructure (heat, electric, ventilation, gas, water, and vacuum lines), fume hoods, safety equipment, basic equipment, chemicals, and supplies, as well as support staff.

The costs of running chemical research labs vary considerably depending on the individual needs of the faculty and the expectations of the department. The challenge for most schools is supporting their faculty administratively and financially to maximize opportunities for faculty to obtain sufficient funding from all of the possible sources—in-house, federal, corporate, and philanthropic.

In addition to the start-up costs and capital needs associated with major university chemistry programs, there are ongoing expenses such as research libraries, information technology infrastructure, facilities costs (e.g., electrical energy), safety and environmental health programs, and compliance programs. Universities cover much of the costs of these support services. In the context of scientific research in academia, the expenses for support services and infrastructure are often referred to as “indirect costs” (see Box 6-1). A major problem with the federal system of research support is that the total grant or contract to a university typically does not cover the full costs of the research, because it fails to fully cover the indirect costs.

6.5 CONCLUSIONS

Chemistry funding comes from a diversity of sources in order to fund projects at many different scales. Although it is impossible to assess every funding source for chemistry, this chapter described a number of different funding sources that are critical to advancing the chemical economy and addressed some of their advantages and disadvantages. There are some important facets of funding that the committee wanted to highlight in this chapter.

Conclusion 6-1: Investment in the infrastructure at research universities is not well supported. This diminishes the opportunities for many talented chemical researchers to use the newest tools, technologies, and instrumentation and prevents trainees from having access to the newest technologies being used in the chemical workforce.

Conclusion 6-2: Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs have proven to be an important mechanism for advancing the chemical enterprise. There are many examples of fundamental chemical research being further pursued as a marketable product or process to contribute to the chemical economy through SBIR/STTR programs, and these programs also foster an emerging area of the chemical workforce where university researchers create and work in these small start-ups that are based on the grants from these programs.

Conclusion 6-3: Partnerships between industry and government as well as those between industry and academia continue to be an important source of funding that provides money for chemical innovation that is necessary to advance fundamental research as well as environmental sustainability in industry.

Conclusion 6-4: In the near term, foundation and individual philanthropic support is likely to grow as a resource for innovations in chemistry. This support provides an important opportunity to use scientific evidence and exploration to address challenges that will benefit all of society, such as climate change and human health.