High-Risk Science: How Philanthropy De-Risks Discovery and Supports Early-Career Researchers

Introduction

Scientific breakthroughs often begin as bold ideas lacking immediate evidence. Traditional federal funding mechanisms tend to favor lower-risk, incremental research because review committees must steward taxpayer dollars responsibly. Philanthropic foundations, by contrast, possess greater latitude to invest in speculative projects and in the researchers pursuing them.

In 2023, private giving accounted for approximately 15 percent of funding for basic and applied research at U.S. universities, rising to about 21 percent when legacy philanthropy is included.¹ Foundations increasingly deploy these resources to de-risk high-impact scientific ideas and to support early-career researchers who might otherwise exit academia.¹

This article examines how philanthropy de-risks discovery, highlights examples of targeted interventions, and offers guidance to laboratories seeking philanthropic partnership.

Why High-Risk Science Needs Philanthropy

Public Funding Favors Proven Concepts

Peer-reviewed federal grants prioritize feasibility and track record. High-risk ideas that lack preliminary data or challenge established paradigms often struggle to secure government funding.

The Science Philanthropy Indicators Report shows that federal funding still provides approximately 51 percent of university research support.² However, this share has declined significantly since the mid-20th century, while competition for grants has intensified.

Even large federal initiatives, such as transformative infrastructure or exploratory research projects, frequently rely on early philanthropic support before scaling to public funding.

Philanthropy Fills the Innovation Gap

Science philanthropy leaders—including those at the Kavli Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation—describe their role as funding research that would not otherwise receive support.¹ Private donors can respond more quickly than federal agencies, provide flexible multi-year grants, and extend funding beyond traditional cycles.

A recent survey found that nearly 80 percent of philanthropic organizations reported altering or considering alterations to their grantmaking strategies in response to federal funding shifts.¹ Many have expanded seed grants, research competitions, and early-career fellowships designed to ignite new lines of inquiry.

Philanthropy’s share of total research funding remains comparatively small, but its flexibility allows it to act as catalytic capital.

Supporting Early-Career Researchers

The Leaky Pipeline Problem

Early-career scientists face structural precarity: short-term contracts, declining grant success rates, and volatile funding environments. When federal agencies delay or terminate grants—as occurred in 2025 during policy shifts affecting DEI and climate research—early-career researchers are often disproportionately impacted.³ Projects are dissolved, and postdoctoral researchers must scramble to secure salary support.¹

Without intervention, many promising scientists leave academia or pivot toward lower-risk, more fundable research topics.

Philanthropic Fellowships and Bridge Funding

In response, foundations have created targeted mechanisms for talent retention and risk absorption.

Simons Foundation Faculty Fellows provide multi-year salary support to universities in New York State, covering junior faculty salaries for up to three years to alleviate hiring freezes and stabilize early careers.¹

Kavli Foundation Frontiers Initiatives offer seed grants for high-risk projects in astrophysics, nanoscience, and neuroscience, allowing researchers to gather preliminary data for subsequent federal proposals.

Climate Fellowships and Research Chairs have expanded significantly, particularly as foundation funding for climate change mitigation has more than tripled since 2015.⁴

Bridge funding is another critical mechanism. During federal grant delays, philanthropies provide stopgap support to maintain laboratory operations and prevent staff attrition. As reported in Physics Today, foundations are “filling gaps, not gulfs,” extending support for postdocs and graduate students during funding interruptions.¹

These interventions preserve continuity and protect institutional knowledge.

Mentorship and Training Investments

Beyond financial capital, philanthropies increasingly invest in mentorship and professional development. Programs such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Gilliam Fellowships combine financial support with structured mentorship to strengthen lab culture and career progression.

Other philanthropic initiatives fund leadership training, communication development, and networking opportunities. These investments recognize that de-risking science often requires de-risking scientific careers.

Case Illustration: De-Risking a Quantum Materials Project

Consider a university laboratory investigating quantum materials with potential applications in energy transmission and computing. A hypothesis involving a novel crystal structure suggests unprecedented superconductivity, but early data are inconclusive.

Federal reviewers deem the project too speculative.

A philanthropic foundation provides a two-year, $500,000 seed grant. The laboratory acquires specialized equipment and hires a postdoctoral researcher. Within 18 months, proof of concept is achieved, enabling the team to secure a multi-million-dollar federal award.

The philanthropic grant did not replace federal funding. It enabled it.

This multiplier effect is central to science philanthropy’s strategic value.

Recommendations for Laboratories Seeking High-Risk Funding

1. Craft Visionary Proposals with Milestones

High-risk proposals must combine ambition with structured execution. Articulate a bold hypothesis while defining measurable milestones, fallback plans, and adaptive pathways.

Philanthropies seek transformative ideas, but they also value disciplined progress tracking.

2. Emphasize Multiplier Effects

Demonstrate how philanthropic investment will unlock additional funding streams—federal grants, industry partnerships, or larger foundation awards. Provide timelines for downstream applications.

Catalytic leverage strengthens donor confidence.

3. Highlight the People Behind the Science

Philanthropic donors frequently invest in researchers as much as in research. Introduce early-career investigators, articulate their trajectories, and describe how funding enables their retention and development.

Human narratives deepen engagement.

4. Demonstrate Societal Relevance

Even highly abstract basic research often yields downstream societal benefits. Communicate potential applications in accessible language.

For example, the artificial intelligence sector is projected to grow 40–50 percent annually, reaching an estimated $780–990 billion by 2027.⁵ Situating research within broader technological or economic trends reinforces relevance.

5. Provide Transparent Budgets and Accountability

Although philanthropic reporting requirements may be more flexible than federal grants, transparency strengthens trust. Provide detailed budgets, define impact metrics, and use open-science platforms to demonstrate accountability.

Building Long-Term Partnerships

High-risk science rarely succeeds on the first attempt. Laboratories that cultivate long-term donor relationships are better positioned to navigate uncertainty.

Recommended practices include:

Hosting lab tours and research briefings
Sharing challenges as well as successes
Connecting projects to global scientific trends

Philanthropy functions best when it supports iterative discovery rather than one-time transactions.

Conclusion

Philanthropic funding plays a pivotal role in advancing high-risk science and stabilizing early-career researchers. Foundations can act quickly and accept greater uncertainty than public agencies, enabling them to invest in transformative ideas and emerging talent.

Yet philanthropy remains a minority share of total research funding.¹ It cannot sustain the entire scientific enterprise alone.

The most successful laboratories treat philanthropy as catalytic capital: structuring visionary yet disciplined proposals, emphasizing multiplier effects, and cultivating durable partnerships.

In doing so, they de-risk discovery while strengthening the long-term resilience of the research ecosystem.

References

Toni Feder. “Philanthropies Selectively Mitigate Damage from Lost Federal Science Funding.” Physics Today, February 10, 2026.
https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/philanthropies-selectively-mitigate-damage-from-lost-federal-science-funding
Science Philanthropy Alliance. Science Philanthropy Indicators Report 2025 – Introduction & Key Findings.
https://indicators.sciphil.org/key-findings
Inside Higher Ed. “How 2025 Changed Research and What’s Ahead.” December 19, 2025.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2025/12/19/how-2025-changed-research-and-whats-ahead
ClimateWorks Foundation. Funding Trends 2022: Climate Change Mitigation Philanthropy.
https://www.climateworks.org/report/funding-trends-2022/
Johnson Center for Philanthropy. “Weighing the Power of AI Against Its Impact.” January 14, 2026.
https://johnsoncenter.org/blog/weighing-the-power-of-ai-against-its-impact/