Going Beyond Science: An Action Oriented Approach to Funding Catalytic Research - A Q&A With Yuta Masuda, Director of Science

This is part one of our Future of Funding series, where we dive into the Paul G. Family Foundation’s work from the perspectives of our leaders who are guiding how we invest in critical work in the environment, arts, and communities.??

Our planet is facing significant challenges. Biodiversity loss, climate change, and ecosystem collapse - all these changes to the natural world also impact human well-being. We asked Yuta Masuda, the foundation’s Director of Science, for his perspective. Here’s what he said about the power of partnerships, leveraging scientific research for meaningful engagement and impact, and how to prioritize nature while centering human communities and needs.?

What are the most pressing issues in environmental philanthropy??

We must address climate change in a very deliberate, integrated, and pragmatic way. It is entirely possible that we overshoot global commitments to limit global warming to1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, so we need to start asking: ‘What does it mean for society to adapt to that reality of a changing climate, and what does that mean for nature?’ We need to invest in it now, not in the future when it’s too late. But this is where the conversation gets especially interesting, and hopeful. The environmental impacts, like biodiversity loss, are becoming increasingly obvious and widespread, and I believe the majority of the world does recognize that climate change is a fact, and that it is human driven. This means there has never been a better moment to make environmental concerns more immediate to people by sharing research and data.??

When it comes to funding scientific research projects that examine our environment, what do you think is the most important consideration??

The environment must be made more proximate to people because it is inextricably linked to the well-being of society. Consider that the environment has had historic under-investment from philanthropy compared to human health, but planetary health directly impacts our own health. We can’t divorce those two. Funding needs to be an investment in the connection between human well-being and the well-being of nature. Scientific research can illuminate new connections, rigorously reinforce connections we thought we knew, and broaden people’s understanding for why a healthy planet is central to their lives. To be a successful advocate for something you need to engage people with facts while meeting them where they are.?

How does investment in environmental research improve environmental advocacy??

Sound science is what helps advocacy succeed. It has been great to see more experts across disciplines – atmospheric sciences, ecology, economics, sociology, conservation, public health - there are deep pockets of creativity that environmental research has increasingly drawn from that has helped better understand problems and solutions to incredibly complex environmental challenges. Investments in environmental research that are pulled from diverse disciplines give us powerful insights to engage different audiences – science becomes a platform for advocacy and engagement.???

How does your work at the foundation reflect this connection between research, applied science, and advocacy??

My belief is that we need to do better to make the research relevant, to make the causes and the solutions much more proximate to the people who are most impacted. That’s what the grantees from our partnership with the National Science Foundation (NSF) are doing. It's not just about research for research’s sake. It’s about applied science; working with practitioners, leveraging findings for outreach, communication, and action.??

We are also really focused on how partnerships allow us to make the kind of sizeable investments needed for the scale of the problems at hand. The way you get it done is you think about it at a regional, national, and global scale with partnerships every step of the way.??

Our work at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is a reflection of how bigger impacts are possible through partnerships. We had a great partner in the Wildlife Conservation Society, and together with research partners, place-based practitioners and decision makers, and others key research and data was used to rally all these different stakeholder groups across the world to get almost 90% of shark species protected. But more importantly, the partnerships continue to evolve and now there’s an implementation plan for countries where the shark trade is most prevalent. So, it’s not just that all these stakeholders are agreeing ‘yes, we want to protect sharks,’ but that they are going out and saying, ‘This is how we can help you protect sharks, and this is why it matters.’ It’s thinking about all the components of the system and who is impacted to reach our goals.?

What’s next for you and the foundation??

Something that I find very exciting in a proposal is looking at whether it’s strongly positioned to make an impact based on whether they have the right partners to make that difference.??

Oftentimes with research projects, there is room for greater impact by being more intentional and broader about who else in a community knows what you’re doing or why you’re there. You need to have buy-in and create diverse coalitions. Those kinds of things provide a ton of momentum and credibility and open the space for science to form a dialogue.??

Our project with the Home Range Wildlife Research team comes to mind. They are a small, local organization doing ecological research in the Methow Valley in Washington. The project is trying to understand the factors impacting the Canada Lynx population, a threatened species. The project is doing a really great job of community outreach to make the issue a lot more proximate to the folks in the area. They’re linking an emerging and contemporary topic of interest in the region (increasing megafires and climate change) to both people and nature—using Lynx to understand the broader ecology and educate the broader public as well.??

As for what’s next, I think we need to emphasize three things with our grantmaking: 1) understand the natural world—gather data to know what is going on, 2) contextualize the data and what it means for both humans and the planet, and 3) take an action-oriented approach to overcoming the problem with applied science. When we do that, we open the door to integrating different disciplines into environmental projects. Expanding the umbrella for environmental conservation allows us to see what kind of magic can happen—especially when we center humans alongside nature in our approach.?

To learn more about the foundation’s work in the environmental sector, visit https://pgafamilyfoundation.org/programs/environment??