Scientific administrators have to fundraise. This hasn’t always been
true–at least not true in the sense that it is today. Thirty years
ago, it was enough for an institute director to hire the right
people, knowing that they would succeed in writing the right grants
which would drive the machine forward: perpetual motion.
The fact is that grant awards alone can’t drive an institute–for a
whole slew of reasons ranging from timing of awards to restrictions
on what grants will actually support.
Hence, the need for administrators to persuade donors (individuals
and foundations) to provide the resources needed to “mind the gaps”.
Ultimately this sort of fundraising requires both the building of a
trust relationship with the donor, but also an implicit argument for
the gift, that is based upon a simple proposition: both the needs of
the donor and the institute will be satisfied. Notice that I put the
needs of the donor first. That is because ultimately the gift (or
award) is a voluntary choice of the donor. In general individuals
(and foundations) only make such voluntary choices when their needs
(which can be all over the map) are met.
There are two other factors at work here: the first has to do with
science credibility above and beyond the existence of a trusting
relationship. Science credibility is measurable by many metrics
(publications, awards, other grant awards etc. ) and in general
donors require some external validation of any argument for a gift.
The second factor has to do with the recognition that ideally, the
needs of the donor become identified closely with the needs of the
institute. This latter takes time.
So time–the time to build that mapping between the needs of the
donor and the institute (we call that relationship cultivation) is
very important. Great fundraising programs aren’t built overnight.
Part of that cultivation process is the making of a case–the case
that the science is both excellent and of use (if not directly for
the donor, that definitely for humanity writ large). The scientific
administrator must communicate his or her passion for the science–
which as far as I can tell can’t be faked. And that only can happen
with superb science.
Thus: a chicken and egg problem.
Which is solved early on in an institute’s life either by seed money
or support from a founding entity such as a university.
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 