G. Burtt Holmes: The Chairman’s Statement

It has been more than three years since The Whitaker Foundation Governing Committee decided to terminate the foundation in the year 2006. In the meantime, we have continued to receive questions about the reason for this decision, along with expressions of concern about the future of biomedical engineering once the foundation has closed its doors.

There were many reasons for the decision to terminate. To fully understand them, some background is necessary. First, the trust instrument that created the foundation did not specify any program areas. Uncas A. Whitaker did not want to tie the hands of the Foundation Governing Committee (the Committee); therefore, he gave it wide latitude in determining program areas.

When the foundation began operation in 1976, the original Committee selected biomedical engineering as its principal focus. This choice was based on Mr. Whitaker’s prior interest in collaborative research involving engineers, scientists and physicians, together with the conclusion of the foundation’s Advisory Committee that young biomedical engineering investigators were experiencing difficulty securing grants to support their research. The Committee could just as well have selected another focus unrelated to medical science and, if it were so inclined, could change that focus today.

Mr. Whitaker created the foundation in the hope that it would accomplish something worthwhile that would benefit mankind; he was not inclined to create an institution that would perpetually honor his name. Furthermore, he was concerned that private foundations often continue after they have achieved their purpose, principally to maintain their bureaucracy. As a result, he inserted into the trust instrument a provision strongly suggesting that the foundation have a finite life.

The fact that the focus of the foundation could be changed by succeeding Committees and that Mr. Whitaker was concerned about excessive longevity were important factors in the decision to terminate the foundation. They were not, however, the only factors. Private foundations as a group represent only about 6 percent of the charitable giving in the United States. Foundations, however, are important because of the impact they can have on relatively narrow areas. They make their greatest contribution as innovators and risk-takers. Most foundations, however, simply lack the resources to support any field indefinitely whether it be medical research or social or cultural endeavors. Sustained funding must come from other sources such as the government, industry, the community, or program-generated income. With this background, the Committee had to decide the future course for The Whitaker Foundation. At the time of the decision, all of the members of the Committee, with one exception, were personally acquainted with Mr. Whitaker. The Committee members had become more enthusiastic about the future potential of biomedical engineering while recognizing that there were few sources for external funding to support its expansion. They did not simply want to sustain the field at its then present level, but rather, wanted to be a catalyst in the development of this relatively new discipline.

The Committee members decided to increase support for biomedical engineering and to utilize both income and principal to enhance the field. They still had to decide when to increase the funding, at what level, and for what period of time. Timing would be critical since the foundation wanted to motivate and support change, but did not want to force change before academic institutions recognized the need to expand their biomedical engineering programs, faculty understood the increased research opportunities, and the field of biomedical engineering was poised to expand into new areas. Premature support by the foundation would not achieve the desired results and would miss the opportunity to make the greatest contribution.

Fortunately, it appears that the Committee’s timing was right. Biomedical engineering is experiencing significant expansion in academic institutions and in industry while the scope of the discipline is now being redefined. Students are excited about the opportunity to participate in this rapidly evolving discipline and faculty investigators recognize the opportunity to advance medical science in ways not considered possible only a few years ago. Grant applications received by the foundation under the Biomedical Engineering Development Awards program and the Special Opportunity Awards program attest to the significant increase occurring in both undergraduate and graduate biomedical engineering education.

The theme for this year’s annual report illustrates the rapidly expanding scope of biomedical engineering. Tissue engineering combines recent developments in cellular biology, protein chemistry and bioengineering to create substitute tissues, such as skin and blood vessels and artificial organs. The term “tissue engineering” did not even exist before the late 1980s. According to a recent report issued by the Committee on Bioengineering National Needs Assessment of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering, 92 percent of the directors of biomedical engineering programs felt that cellular and tissue engineering would grow in importance. Grant applications received by The Whitaker Foundation under the Biomedical Engineering Development Awards program appear to corroborate the study’s conclusion.

In order for tissue engineering and other new fields of biomedical engineering to flourish, academic institutions must develop both research and educational programs staffed by well-trained faculty members with broad engineering and biological expertise. These programs must train the next generation of biomedical engineering teachers and researchers.

The foundation is currently supporting some of the needed educational programs, and we expect to support additional programs under both the Biomedical Engineering Development Awards program and the Special Opportunity Awards program. These programs should train students for future academic positions and for positions in the developing biomedical engineering industry. Ultimately, the importance of tissue engineering and other areas of biomedical engineering will be measured by the significance of the medical products that result from both research and development in the field.

While there is currently a great deal of interest in tissue engineering, it is only one of the sub-fields of biomedical engineering that is growing in importance. Other areas include biosensors, controlled drug delivery, implantable materials, and neuro-engineering. Meanwhile, traditional areas such as biomechanics, medical instrumentation, and medical imaging will continue to make immense contributions to medical diagnosis and treatment. The decision by the foundation to expand its grant programs will enable it to provide support to these established areas as well as the new biomedical engineering fields.

History will determine whether the decision of the foundation to increase its commitment to biomedical engineering at this time was correct. The increasing interest among students; the development of new fields, such as tissue engineering; and the plans at many universities to create new undergraduate and graduate departments suggest that the foundation would have missed a rare opportunity if it failed to support the field at this time.

Without the decision to utilize both principal and income, the foundation could not provide its current level of support for biomedical engineering, particularly in the area of academic infrastructure development. At prior spending levels, the foundation would not have been able to fulfill one of the principal roles for private foundations, to be an agent for systemic change. If, with the foundation’s support, biomedical engineering continues to evolve and gain acceptance at universities and in industry at its current pace, it is our hope and expectation that by 2006 the discipline will have matured to the point that it no longer requires supplemental funding. When this occurs, The Whitaker Foundation will have accomplished its goals and completed its mission.

G. Burtt Holmes
Chairman
Foundation Governing Committee