Changes At Pew Charitable Trusts: Good News For Scientists?

Scientists have taken over at the Pew Charitable Trusts. A year and a half ago, Thomas Langfltt, a former University of Pennsylvania neurosurgeon assumed the presidency, replacing Robert I. Smith, whose background was in accounting. Now, Rebecca Rimel, a former nurse and medical school faculty member, has been promoted to the post of executive director. She succeeds Fred Billups, a former oil company executive who had filled Pew's second highest post for 12 years. Is this good news for scientists? Key Role Rimel says she has no intention of changing the vast majority of the trusts' current initiatives. But with about $35 million being given out each year for grants in neuroscience, vaccine development, researcher fellowships, and science education, the Pew fund occupies a key role for medical scientists nationwide. Indeed, only the Ford, W. K. Kellogg, and MacArthur foundations have larger assets, and only the Ford Foundation gives out more money each year. So the ascension of scientists to the helm of Pew can't do any harm, and it might do a lot of good. The new leadership comes at a time of considerable change for the 40-year-old trusts. The first of the seven trusts was founded in 1948 by the descendants of Joseph N. Pew, founder of Sun Oil Co. During the last decade, the fund has been transformed from a wealthy but parochial organization with a reputation for giving away large grants to conservative groups, into a professionally managed foundation with a growing interest in national and international issues. Eight years ago it started a new pattern of giving: While in the past it was primarily a reactive body, passing judgment on proposals submitted to it, its board now aggressively earmarks multimillion-dollar allocations for specific purposes and then puts out calls for proposals in those areas. Last year, the seven individual trusts that constitute the $2.3 billion Pew Charitable Trusts awarded 473 grants totaling $130.4 million. Twenty-nine percent of that money-109 grants totaling $38.2 million-were in the health sciences. The rest of the money supported projects in education, human services, the arts, religion, public policy, and conservation. To determine what it could be-come under Langfltt and Rimel, The Scientist interviewed the new executive director. 'We see ourselves as a venture capital fund," says Rebecca Rimel, of the nation's fourth largest private foundation, which is headquartered in Philadelphia. 'We want innovative ideas. We want to take risks. But we invest in people with a proven track record." Overall, Rime! expects that the trusts will give away about $135 mlllion in grants in 1989, an amount similar to 1988's level. The stock market crash of October 1987 has had little impact upon the amount of money being given, she explains, since that total is based upon dividends, which were little affected by the market's sharp decline. Pew will give about 30% of its grants to institutions in the Philadelphia area, 60% to national organizations, and 10% to international groups. The focus of the grants will continue to include medical and science education and the health sciences. "The sciences are a major interest of our trustees," Rimel says. "I share in that interest as well." Despite this enthusiasm, indications are that Pew's board will expand its grantmaking in science outside the areas it currently funds. The health sciences as well as education in other sciences stand close to the interests of the founders, and the board has been loath to brush aside the tradition. Also, Pew staff members say they feel the trusts can have the most impact by concentrating grant making in a few areas. The trusts will still support efforts to help the mentally and physically disabled, minorities, the elderly, and refugees, Rime! says. The organization no longer provides money to combat specific diseases or build new hospital wings. Rimel says that Pew will try to be "catalytic." "We need to look at ways to leverage our investments to have the greatest impact," she says. "We must be willing to take some risks." An example of the organization's catalytic efforts, she points out, is the trusts' planned collaboration with the Robert Wood. Johnson Foundation, Princeton, to address the growing problem of the nation's nursing shortage. "As the number of nurses decreases, we need to look at how better to use their talents," she says. "No problem will have a greater impact on patient care than the nursing crisis." This effort will follow the other trust-initiated programs aimed at improving the nation's dental and veterinary schools, and supporting efforts to develop vaccines and prevent substance abuse. In fact, the largest biomedical and health science grants in recent years have involved trust-initiated projects. Among them have been $13,045,600 in 1984 and another $13,080,000 in 1988 to set up the Pew Biomedical Scholars Program, $8,270,000 to create the Pew Neuroscience Program in 1985, and $5,900,000 to set up the Pew National Nutrition Program in 1986. Rimel advises institutions that are interested in applying for funds to request a copy of the foundation's guidelines and, with these in mind, submit a two-page "letter of intent" to the trusts sketching out the proposal and establishing contact with a Pew staff member. The Pew employee will then work with the applicant to refine a detailed grant application. If the proposal is for a trust-initiated program, an advisory board of outside experts helps evaluate the proposal. Otherwise it's up to the program officer's discretion as to whether an outside expert reviews the plan. Once the proposal is in a form that appeals to the program officer, a Pew vice president presents it to the board for approval. Grants are awarded five times a year-in February, April, June, September, and December. Rimel says that the foundation responds favorably to about 10% of the grant applications that are submitted. 'We get far more good projects than we can possibly fund," she says. In evaluating proposals, the staff looks at the track record of the organization and its leadership, examines the institution's financial health, and seeks to determine the potential impact of the project on society. Indeed, creating impact seems to be very important to Pew's new administrators. And it will be interesting to see whether Rimel and Langfitt's sensitivity to the sciences allow Pew to increase its impact on the scientific community. Jim Detjen, a science writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, also teaches journalism at Drexel University. Recent Grants From Pew American Institute of Physics ($85,000) for a national forum on improving physics teaching. Bryn Mawr College ($700,000) for science program support and minority recruitment. Gustavus Adolphus College ($150,000) for equipment and renovations in the biology department. Reed Institute ($250,000) for equipment for the biology, chemistry, and physics departments. Hospital Research and Educational Trust ($250,000) for research on small rural hospitals. National Foundation for History of Chemistry ($370,000) for an archival study of the Pew Scholars Program. University of California, Berkeley, ($60,000) for a summer minority enrollment program at the School of Public Health. National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organizations ($240,000) for the Hispanic Health Leadership Program. Five schools as part of Pew's Neuroscience Program "to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration between the basic and clinical neurosciences" ($1.6 million total): Caltech, Columbia, MIT, Tufts, Princeton.

Changes At Pew Charitable Trusts: Good News For Scientists?

Key Role

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of