In the rapidly evolving landscape of life sciences, biodata resources are indispensable. They underpin research across disciplines, providing essential data that drives innovation and discovery. However, the sustainability of these resources is a growing concern. Traditional funding mechanisms, often reliant on short-term grants, are proving inadequate for the long-term maintenance and development of these critical data resources. To address this, the Global Biodata Coalition (GBC) is working with its community of funders and resource managers, as well as tapping into new thinking from other sector experts, including economists and technology specialists, to explore innovative funding models that have the potential to support a sustainable future for biodata.
Our White Paper, Working Cooperatively for Biodata Resource Sustainability emphasises the need to develop and pilot a range of cooperative funding approaches. It highlights the need to develop approaches that build on existing funding models and could be implemented in the relatively near term – such as distributed service and pooled funding approaches – whilst working in parallel to explore more transformative approaches that would take longer to implement but be more impactful in achieving a sustainable biodata infrastructure in the longer term.
There is some support for a pooled funding approach in which funding agencies allocate a fixed percentage of their research grant budgets to an agreed set of core data resources. These funds would be distributed based on well-defined criteria, ensuring that essential databases receive consistent support. A 2018 paper by researchers at the SIB Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics proposes a mechanism of this type (which it terms the Infrastructural Model) and estimates that it would require less than 1% of the total amount dedicated to life science research grants to cover the costs of funding core data resources worldwide.
In practice, the challenges of establishing such a fund would however be considerable. With the growing volume of research data and rapid rise of AI and data science technologies, such approaches may still not scale. We need to cast the net wider and also consider other innovative models and ideas.
In a recent pre-print entitled The Biological Data Sustainability Paradox, Johnson and Bourne discuss the application of a cap-and-trade model to biodata funding. Traditionally used in environmental policy to control pollution by providing economic incentives, a cap-and-trade system has the potential to be adapted to allocate funding responsibilities among stakeholders. In this context, organisations would have a capped obligation to support biodata resources but could trade these obligations, creating a market-driven approach to funding distribution. This model aims to balance the funding landscape, ensuring that all beneficiaries of biodata resources contribute to their sustainability. The model takes us a very long way from where we are now – likely too far for many – and challenges some long-established values around open and free access to data, yet it argues that radical re-thinking will be required.
Securing a sustainable future for biodata requires reimagining traditional funding approaches. By working cooperatively to explore a range of models – from pooled funding approaches to more novel approaches such as cap-and-trade, we can build a robust and enduring funding ecosystem for the biodata resources that are vital to scientific progress. The GBC is committed to driving this charge, fostering collaboration among international funders and stakeholders to ensure that essential biodata resources remain available to researchers worldwide for generations to come.