Howard Hughes: Patron Of Science?

(CBS)  This story was originally broadcast on Nov. 23, 2003. It was updated on June 5, 2008.

Howard Hughes was once the richest man in the world-he was also one of the strangest, a complete recluse for the last 20 years of his life.

Hughes died more than a quarter-century ago, but, as correspondent Lesley Stahl first reported back in 2003, his vast fortune is still making a powerful impact on the world.

---

In suburban Washington, D.C., hidden behind trees so big and signs so small that even some neighbors don't know it's there, is the Howard Hughes Medical Institute - one of the richest and quietest charities ever created.

How large is the endowment? Tom Cech, the institute's president, says it's $11 billion, making the Hughes Institute the second-largest philanthropy in the country, behind Bill Gates' foundation.

The institute's mission: to unlock the secrets of life. Hughes funds hundreds of the best biologists and geneticists in America.

Some of its great discoveries include: the discovery of the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis; muscular dystrophy; a non-invasive test for colon cancer; a new drug that fights leukemia; breakthroughs in AIDS research; work that may lead to a cure for spinal cord injuries; and much more.

All of these discoveries were made by "Howard Hughes investigators." There are 303 in the U.S., and they're the cream of the scientific crop and include 12 Nobel Prize winners at the moment. Tom Cech won his own Nobel for his work on RNA.

How much does Howard Hughes spend a year funding all these projects? "It's about a million dollars per investigator per year. About $450 million a year," says Cech. "Who would have thought that the Howard Hughes fortune would end up supporting biomedical research?"

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page »

[npr_opoganda]

"typically used for building" NO. It is used for power acquisition. Harvard FAILS at following the spirit of those that donate. In light of the overwhelming need for wells in Africa, Harvard withholds, Harvard simply points the finger at others (the right). Harvard is an infestation of one point of view. Look at the Demography of the professors. Harvard is "arguably" the best University because it pays for the prestige, not for results. Founded as a Divinity School, Harvard now prides itself on developing the best ways to abort life and turn it into a product. Walking across the green (the mud) shows that they care very little for appearances, and looking at the broken sidewalks is more proof that they expect Cambridge to pay out, not them

[rational_1]

Harvard doesn''''t need it - it has 30 billion, but prefers to use it''''s wealth as political leverage as opposed to "pure" research. Why not paint the whole canvas? Why not disparage Harvard with equal enthusiasm as you rank on NIH?
Posted by NPR_OPOGANDA at 10:05 AM : Jun 09, 2008

University endowments are typically used for things such as buildings (infrastructure) and retention/recruitment packages for faculty, rather than yearly research costs. NIH isn''t going to pony up $100 million for a new biology building. The biomedical researchers are basically self-employed in a sense and are expected to compete for their research dollars at NIH (and other funding agencies) rather than expecting the universities to give it to them from their endowments. I think this is appropriate since all grant applications to NIH or NSF (for example) undergo rigorous peer-review, ensuring only the best proposals get funded (~10-15% these days). This wouldn''t happen if universities gave professors access to their endowments. So yes, Harvard is obscenely wealthy... but it also has a pretty good track record of accomplishment and is arguably the best university in the world.

[beehive21-2009]

Howard was an amazing pioneer, everyone loved Howard, and always will. He picked the Russians Atomic bomb off the ocean floor, no one else came close. He''s the only man ever licensed via the telephone , In Gaming. In the end, poor Howard was turned into a Zombie via drugs.

[npr_opoganda]

Secondly, and lastly, at the conclusion of the story there is a blurb about HHMI giving grant money to research how "Climate Change" affects Malarial and Choleral conditions worldwide. How politically and emotionally apropos! I would suggest that HHMI also fund research to FINALLY analyze the research that went into the manifesto "Silent Spring", and let the outcome speak for itself. We all should be aware that 6,000 children die of Malaria every day in Africa. We should also be aware that DDT and many of it''s cousins can stop these deaths. We have an immediate solution; but what we need now is the courage to truly and unemotionally evaluate it''s use and decide honestly whether it is better to let children die or to rely on the lack of proven science in the benchmark "Silent Spring". HHMI is political first, scientific, second; and nothing will change my opinion of that until it balances it''s research, just like 60 minutes should balance it''s rhetoric, if it is truly non-biased.

[npr_opoganda]

This story is unbalance rhetoric, creating a demon out of the NIH, but avoiding other enterprises that could easily fund research with ever more potency than HHMI. I speak specifically of Harvard''s endowment, which exceeds 30 Billion (as compared too HHMI''s 11 Billion). One of the researchers taking grants from HHMI works at Harvard, no? Why isn''t Harvard at the forefront? (To answer, because despite it''s vast wealth, it wants more and is willing to accept it from the NIH). Harvard doesn''t need it - it has 30 billion, but prefers to use it''s wealth as political leverage as opposed to "pure" research. Why not paint the whole canvas? Why not disparage Harvard with equal enthusiasm as you rank on NIH?