For 60 years, the RAND Corporation has addressed the critical issues facing our country and the world. At a time when public debate is often dominated by warring ideologies, RAND offers knowledge that can be trusted for its objectivity, comprehensiveness, and enduring value. By contributing, you will join a committed group of donors whose investments in RAND's work have had and will continue to have a major impact in helping policy and decisionmakers solve problems that will change people's lives. Please Donate Today.
Read what others say about RAND
From the President and CEO of RAND — James A. Thomson
Why We Need Philanthropic Support Now
RAND has always been dedicated to the public interest, and our clients have a long record of work in the public interest. What has changed to make philanthropy suddenly more pressing for RAND?
What has changed is the way the United States conceives of funding research. RAND was born at the end of World War II, when the federal government began seriously investing in scientific knowledge. In that period, the continued flow of new scientific knowledge was deemed essential to the prosperity, well-being, and progress of the entire nation. And the scientific community and government agreed that knowledge was best produced by "the free play of intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, and in the manner dictated by their curiosity for the exploration of the unknown."
Sponsors of research, whether private or public, set broad goals, took a long-term perspective on what questions were important, and made sure that budgets and deadlines didn't impinge on freedom of inquiry. This notion of research freedom spread to industrial settings as well, to institutions such as Bell Laboratories. This approach paid off handsomely for the United States and for the world.
The concept of research funding is different now. Federal funding for research is declining in real terms. The "Bell Laboratories" of the nation have shifted to customer-driven research. Both federal and industrial research are more directed and shorter-term.
Unfortunately, at the same time the federal government's appetite for long-term analyses is waning, policy decisions are becoming more complex. Simply stated, we need more creative, cross-cutting solutions at a time when the research environment favors more directed, focused work.
Research sponsors value intellectual curiosity and a long-term perspective. But the balance has shifted strongly in the direction of short-term goals. In my view, one cannot argue that long-term research is better than short-term, or that client-directed analysis is better than curiosity-driven research. America needs all of these. But if the nation is to benefit from long-term analyses of issues, that work will increasingly have to be funded by private philanthropy.
In the next decade, public and private decisionmakers will face dozens of issues vital to the nation's future. Addressing them will require a long-term perspective and an uncompromising analytic approach. Ironically, these characteristics, which make the issues strong candidates for RAND's attention, also suggest that they will not attract client-based funding.
That's why RAND must double the portion of our research activity supported by donations. Supplemented by other efforts, this increase will provide the critical edge we need to pursue research that promotes, in the words of our articles of incorporation, "the public welfare and security of the United States."
Can RAND's scholarly and policy contributions in our next half-century of public service match those of the past fifty years? I think the answer is unequivocally yes. With your help, we're ready to press ahead.
Top