Sir

What is being called 'venture philanthropy' in your News feature 'Biomedical philanthropy, Silicon Valley style' (Nature 410, 140–143; 2001) is hardly a new concept — it is an example of what has traditionally characterized 'thoughtful philanthropy'. In fact, it is very like the 'old' strategic philanthropy envisioned and practised by many private foundations established at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Robert Kohler's book Partners in Science (Univ. Chicago Press, 1991) provides many examples of the essential role private funders played in the development of modern molecular biology, genetics, public health and other biomedical research fields. The Silicon Valley entrepreneurs interviewed in your feature are following a tradition long established by private funders who viewed their money as providing venture capital for the common good and who long held the view that philanthropy should invest in the acquisition of new knowledge and in its responsible application. Further, the staff of the new foundations are following in the footsteps of a profession first defined by the Rockefeller Foundation 'circuit riders' — programme officers knowledgeable in their fields, actively seeking out promising research projects needing support.

I do not intend to detract from the laudable efforts of these new philanthropists to pursue thoughtful giving that takes risks and invests in new ideas with a minimum of hassle and red tape. But I do not see why they need to be flattered into thinking they are inventing something new — or that, as some of them seem to believe, they have a new model that needs to be emulated by all funders. Just as there is a certain dishonesty in the communication between researchers and government funders (the 'proposal' describing work already completed), there is a growing risk of dishonest dialogue between scientists and some of the philanthropists identified by the anecdotes Trisha Gura relates ('No one but you has the keen insight to recognize my brilliant idea').

The number of projects and researchers supported by private philanthropy will remain small compared with those receiving government support, and private funding relies on its partnership with public dollars. Peer review may not be perfect, but neither is investing in whoever grabs someone's attention or ear.

The true richness of private philanthropy is found in its diversity of approaches and its distributed decision-making processes that allow many different points of view — and many different grant-making approaches — to flourish.