By Rose-Marie Brandwein
Science Philanthropy Alliance members are often at the vanguard of science discovery, funding unique programs and fields that have great potential for finding cures or addressing societal ills. One such member is the Dana Foundation, founded in 1950 with a focus on supporting higher education and health research. Most notable among its early health research grants was support for the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, today a recognized leader in cancer research and consistently ranked in the top 10 of America’s best hospitals.
In the 1990s, the Foundation shifted its focus to neuroscience, offering grants to advance research and public education about the brain, and initiated Brain Awareness Week, which has gained international recognition. After nearly three decades of supporting neuroscience, the Foundation observed that the field had entered a renaissance, marked by new needs and opportunities. While funding and discoveries in neuroscience flourished, many breakthroughs advanced without adequate consideration of their societal implications, risks, and potential misuses. Recognizing the importance of addressing these issues, the Foundation’s Board decided to refocus its efforts in 2019 on the intersection of neuroscience and society. This strategic shift aims to ensure that neuroscience progress aligns with societal goals and human values. Through grantmaking and field building, the Foundation fosters cross-disciplinary collaboration in neuroscience, and facilitates engagement to embed diverse public perspectives in this work.
The Foundation recently announced the launch of the Dana Center Initiative for Neuroscience & Society. This multi-million-dollar initiative brings together the best and brightest—leading academic institutions, neuroscientists, scholars from humanities and social sciences, and the communities they serve to co-create the future of neuroscience. The Dana Center Initiative will connect neuroscientists with non-STEM disciplines while engaging communities to learn, exchange ideas, and forge collaborations. The initiative will also develop training programs that will enable a new generation of experts to help steward neuroscience for a better world.
“Nearly all scientific disciplines are rapidly evolving, but none so quickly or with such great influence on people’s lives as neuroscience—from the impact of urban noise on mental health to the proliferation of neurotechnology that can read and write our brain activity,” said Caroline Montojo, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Dana Foundation. “The Dana Center Initiative is about bringing new talent into the field while facilitating exchange with the public. Where do we want neuroscience to take us, how far is too far, and where can it most benefit our lives?”
We spoke with Dr. Caroline Montojo to learn more about this new initiative, why it is so crucial for neuroscience’s positive impact on society, and what future goals are for the initiative.
RMB: Tell us more about the impetus behind creating this initiative?
The Dana Center Initiative was established in response to the rapid advancements in neuroscience and neurotechnology. These developments hold immense potential for new scientific discoveries and benefits across health, the workforce, and the economy. However, in areas like brain-computer interfaces, neural organoids, and psychedelic science, progress is moving so quickly that it often surpasses the pace of community engagement and discussions about potential applications and risks. To address this gap, the Dana Foundation created the Dana Center Initiative to cultivate a new generation of interdisciplinary scholars and community partners, who are exploring how best to work together to ensure that advancements are pursued responsibly and thoughtfully.
RMB: Steven Hyman, chairman of the board at the Dana Foundation, has stated that this initiative changes the paradigm of how neuroscience research happens. Can you elaborate on that and how this approach could help neuroscience to benefit society?
The Dana Center Initiative is redefining the approach to neuroscience research by expanding its focus beyond traditional scientific disciplines. It integrates perspectives from ethics, law, humanities, and social sciences, areas often not closely associated with science. Additionally, the Dana Center Initiative actively engages with communities beyond the confines of academia. We believe that by incorporating diverse viewpoints from various disciplines and directly involving those who may be impacted by scientific advancements, we can enrich the research process and enhance the societal impact of our work.
RMB: What are the outcomes you are hoping to see in the next five years?
Firstly, I envision a new generation of multidisciplinary experts trained to integrate ethical and societal considerations into their research. Secondly, I hope the Dana Centers will establish innovative models for involving communities—such as patients and local neighborhoods—in neuroscience research and technology development.
A compelling example of this approach is the community-engaged research conducted by the Dana Center at the University of California, Los Angeles and Charles Drew University. Their leaders organized an idea salon with South LA community members to discuss local issues and explore how neuroscience could address them. The community expressed concerns about low-flying helicopter noise and its potential impact on brain function and sleep quality. In response, researchers at UCLA and CDU conducted experiments using recorded helicopter noise with fruit flies, discovering effects on brain activity. This research is poised to influence LA city policy regarding helicopter use.
In the long term, I hope the Dana Center model will drive a cultural shift in academic science, encouraging universities to value cross-disciplinary collaboration and engage more deeply with neighboring communities. Ultimately, I aspire for this approach to enhance the benefits of neuroscience for individuals and society by incorporating a broader range of perspectives into scientific and technological advancements.
RMB: Even though your initiative is still in its early stages, what lessons have you learned that could influence or assist other philanthropic funders in engaging in a similar initiative?
For organizations funding scientific research or technology development, consider including criteria in your application evaluations that assess how research teams address potential ethical or societal issues. Evaluate how teams plan to explore or address these issues in collaboration with ethicists or by incorporating perspectives from relevant communities. While this might resemble the broader impacts statement found in federal funding proposals, the goal is to move beyond general statements and substantively consider how the work may impact or benefit individuals, communities, and society, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Additionally, funders should consider supporting early career scientists in their education on ethical, legal, and societal issues related to science. This education should cover current scientific debates as well as historical cases (such as nuclear fission, recombinant DNA, and gene editing). Such training will provide a broader context for understanding science and encourage a more integrated approach to research.
Finally, allocate a portion of your science funding—even as little as 5%—to enable scientists to collaborate with experts from fields like ethics, law, humanities, and social sciences. This funding could also support engagement with local communities, potentially enriching the research and inspiring new questions or approaches.
RMB: What appears most intriguing is that your initiative draws in scholars not only from the neurosciences but also from the humanities and social sciences. What can research scientists glean from interacting with scholars in these fields and how will society benefit?
Neuroscience research stands to gain significantly from the perspectives and methodologies of experts in fields such as ethics, law, humanities, social sciences, and public engagement. For example, a neuroscientist working on neural organoids—3D models to study brain function in health and disease—could collaborate with an ethicist to explore whether these increasingly complex structures might exhibit capacities of moral significance, such as sentience. Similarly, a neuroscientist developing genetic or endophenotypic predictors for neurological disorders could work with social scientists and public engagement experts to assess how their research might impact individuals within patient communities. A neuroengineer creating technology to translate neural activity related to imagined speech into audible language might benefit from partnering with a legal scholar to examine potential judicial applications of these advancements. These collaborations demonstrate how integrating insights from diverse disciplines and communities can enhance neuroscience research and ensure that discoveries and technologies yield greater benefits for society.
Science Philanthropy in neurosciences, if done intentionally not only contributes enormously to our understanding of this complex field but also creates a lasting beneficial effect on society. The Alliance commends the work of the Dana Foundation in undertaking this important initiative which incorporates so many perspectives and methodologies from leading experts representing a multitude of disciplines. We also encourage interested members and others to reach out to Dr. Montojo and her staff should they wish to learn more at info@danafoundation.org.