Are you galvanising your allies? Part 7: Philanthropy

CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) Kylie Walker walks us through the philanthropic landscape and how the research and philanthropy sectors can better work together.  

20th May 2025

Kylie Walker - CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering

Welcome to part 7 of my series on how to galvanise your allies. So far, I’ve explored; how to galvanise government on a sectoral level and on an individual level; and how to turn alumni and students into advocates and allies and how to galvanise industry (part I and part II). 

In this edition, I sat down with Kylie Walker to pick her brain on all things philanthropy and learn more about how the two sectors can effectively work together to supercharge their impact. 

Tell me a little bit about you and how your work intersects with philanthropy.

I’m CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), which is an independent organisation of Australia’s leaders in technology, applied science and engineering. 

We’re also a registered charity and the real strength of our independence and our convening power is that it allows us to support senior decision-makers with evidence-based expert advice to solve complex problems. The network of Fellows stretches across a very broad range of Australian economic sectors, so we can provide both deep and specific advice, and strategic big-picture perspectives. We also deliver a range of programs to educate, skill-up and shepherd thousands of young Australians into successful science-, technology- and engineering-based careers. 

Part of my remit is to advocate for appropriate investment in research and development—so, among other research investment leaders, I also work with and advise philanthropists.

What are the big landscape changes you are seeing that will impact funding of science? How will the widespread cuts to funding in the USA affect philanthropy or philanthropic funding of research globally?

Anti-science sentiment is dominating the US political landscape, and research budgets there have been slashed. The US has traditionally been one of the world’s major investors in research, so these cuts have also put more pressure on governments around the world to lift their investments in R&D. There’s also been some increased hostility reported towards science and scientists—this will also have a long-term impact on the ability of the US to attract and retain talent (which may prove to be a benefit to other countries, if they can offer attractive alternatives). We’re starting to see nations around the world mobilise to offer attractive relocation incentives to US research high-achievers—and of course they’ll bring their work with them.

US philanthropists have in recent years led the global charge in major giving, with a culture shift towards giving away significant fortunes to support ambitious, sweeping, evidence-based and impact-led research with the potential to make lasting change. This work is more urgent than ever. Philanthropy is the main game for the future of US science—and this pressure is likely to also incentivise philanthropists around the world to amplify their efforts. It’s important for the research sector to understand and adapt to this change in landscape.

How will these changes affect philanthropic funding in Australia? 

Successive Australian governments have taken a ‘just enough’ approach to R&D funding over the last decade. This is no longer enough. It’s time for us to be bold, and take a mission-informed approach to investing to achieve our R&D goals domestically, and collaborate internationally with front-runners. We’ve done some work to get ready for this: the recent review of Australian science priorities; the ongoing examination or government and private sector R&D funding; the re-set for the Australian Research Council. 

We now need to act boldly. There’s an opportunity for Australia to attract talent from the US, but only if we can offer a competitive alternative. 

Australian philanthropists can be game-changers in a number of ways—not just in terms of the impact-led research and development they’re supporting, but also leading systems change, nurturing a diverse R&D workforce, and modelling bold, visionary, long-term investment in research. 

Money always talks, so those giving the money (whether they’re philanthropists, companies or governments) can set requirements that drive changes in workforce. A strong example of this in Australia is the work Snow Medical has done to articulate, require and track genuine gender equity—not just in the teams that apply for grants, but also in the institutions that employ them. They’ve demonstrated that they have teeth, and will act when applicant organisations don’t make these changes. 

This means that philanthropists can create massive upsides for the longer term shape of research and development. I’d love to see the research sector taking this opportunity to create systemic, lasting change into account. 

Alongside changes to workforce, several major Australian givers are now turning their attention to creating legacies with lasting impact. In doing so, they’re less likely to support a narrowly focused research program, and more likely to favour interdisciplinary, big impact-focused R&D. In the research sector, there has also been an increasing focus on cross-domain, cross-discipline research, so there is good potential for collaboration here. But there is still a lot to be done to bring these two parallel ‘movements’ together. 

The game-changing sweet spot is when researchers and organisations that have an eye to new ways of working get together with philanthropists who get it—but there are still plenty of people and organisations on both sides of that ledger who haven’t yet come to this.

Are science and research in general increasingly reliant on philanthropy?

Globally, the figures are getting bigger. The Gates Foundation donated a record US$210 million to the University of Washington in 2017. In Australia, records have been set by the likes of financier Graham Tuckwell and his wife Louise Tuckwell, who set a record with a donation of A$200 million to ANU, or Andrew Forrest, who donated A$400 million to a range of causes (including higher education and research). 

Overall in Australia, government and business investment in R&D has slowly declined over the last decade or so, while (despite the record sums mentioned) philanthropic spending has remained steady. 

Most gifts are made in support of medical and biological sciences. Technologies to combat and withstand climate changes are increasingly of interest, however, with Minderoo leading investment on this front.

What are the most common mistakes you see when university leaders and researchers pitch to philanthropists, and what frustrations do philanthropists express?

While some philanthropists are motivated by red carpets and names on buildings, many are much more highly motivated by working in partnership with a skilled research team over the long term to solve a wicked problem. Many of them are excited by the ‘doing’ as much as they are about the potential long-term impact. When partnerships build shared success, everybody also shares in the delight of doing something good in the world.

But a lot of the time, organisations don’t take the desire for partnership into account. 

Instead, philanthropists grow frustrated with hefty admin price tags and red tape that keep them at arm’s length from the team doing the research. It’s also common to try to squeeze messaging on an existing research program to fit what research leaders believe the philanthropists may wish to fund, rather than asking the philanthropist what they’re hoping to achieve and then working together to make it happen. 

Working more closely with philanthropists, bringing them into conversations from the beginning—from what they’re interested in funding, to the impact they want to have—will improve the experience on both sides, and multiply the impact of your partnerships. 

Think about what motivates you to give to charity. Being asked for more and more isn’t likely to be well-received. Being invited to be part of the solutions-making may more frequently hit the mark.

What recurring questions do philanthropists have about supporting research?

Philanthropists want to know who the up-and-comers in research are as well as the established greats. They want to know how the work researchers are doing will make a difference, how it will be implemented, and how it will have broad impact; as well as how it’s addressing the problem they wish to solve. 

Philanthropists also want to know how their money will actually be spent and whether there will be opportunities to pivot and ensure that problem-solving remains front-of-mind (rather than driving a particular research outcome). And—I’ve said it before but it bears repeating—they’re often keen to peer behind the veil and learn more about how the research actually works.

The increased interest in partnership and impact are global trends. A 2018 report on global philanthropy from Harvard, shared that “an increasing number of foundations are recognizing the importance of partnerships to achieving their goals”; and that there is growing interest in “impact evaluation and outcome measurement.” 

How sophisticated are philanthropists when it comes to research? How has this changed over time?

Serious philanthropists are very sophisticated when it comes to research. They learn about how the system works, they’re scientifically literate and very discerning. Many of them take their gifts (and the results they’re driving towards) as seriously as their businesses, and are keen to act as a partner in the program’s success. This has been a major shift over time—in the past, givers were more likely to be hands-off.

There has also been an increasing focus on strategic investment and impact. The same Harvard report I referenced earlier adds that “Wealthy individuals, families, and corporations are looking to give more, to give more strategically, and to increase the impact of their social investments.” 

It continues: “There appears to be a growing belief that institutional philanthropy can encourage more strategic investment approaches; facilitate collaboration; serve as a role model for others; and, in sum, have greater impact on the economic and social challenges being addressed.” 

What sector-wide changes or initiatives would most effectively attract philanthropic support for research?

Learning how to pick and pair emerging leaders with multi-disciplinary teams to create new ways to tackle wicked problems—instead of trying to attract funding for single-stream existing research—is probably the biggest potential game-changer. 

Being open to collaborations across institutions, or even establishing new research centres with innovative governance models, and letting go of the need to control the outcomes. See the philanthropist as a partner, rather than a money tap.

And finally, learning how to communicate effectively—not just your track-record of impact, but also where the next big impacts will come from within your sphere of influence. This isn’t about publishing success or your ability to attract grant funding. It’s about the difference your work is making in the community.

What are your top tips for researchers seeking to improve their pitch to philanthropists?

Philanthropists’ motivations are as diverse as people are, so it’s hard to answer this with a one-size-fits-all response. In general terms I would advise research leaders to refrain from condescending—remember that philanthropists are a sophisticated audience. 

Talk less and listen more. See the philanthropist as a partner rather than a grant-funder. And keep working closely with the philanthropist as the research program unfolds.

Thanks for tuning in! Let me know if you have any thoughts—and see you next week for the next (and final) installment, how to galvanise the general public.