Off-topic question for the professional scientists in the room.
The OP reports individual donors contributing in excess of $100 million to particular causes. We've spoken often here about the various inefficiencies in the current research structures: top scientists spending too much time writing grants; disincentives for the curiosity-driven research that often leads to breakthroughs, etc.
So the question: is investment on the order of $100M+ sufficient to set up a private research facility with research "done right"? (By which I mean, of course, the way I would do it. :) ) It's easy to imagine a private facility that recruits top-notch but frustrated scientists from various schools, sets some important problems for them, and sets them free from grant writing, publishing pressures, etc.
The obvious objection is that the donor would call the shots and subvert the research... but on the other hand these sorts of donors are already willing to just fund research with no personal input into process.
It was an initial donation of $100M in 2000, followed up by $50M in 2008. I believe Lazaridis' financial support has ended with the difficulties at RIM, but PI is by now self-sufficient and supported by the Canadian government.
The place is well known for hosting some pretty crazy and speculative research. It is the only institution I know of that has a Quantum Foundations department. But they have enough money that they have been able to attract some big names to lend significant degree of respectability to the place.
(I'm starting a postdoc at PI in the fall, and the complete freedom available there was a big part of the attraction.)
To add to jessriedel's comment [1], the recently established Simons Institute at Berkeley [2] is another example of what is soon becoming a top research institute in CS theory, seeded with 'just' $60 million. There are also the Kavli institutes [3], but I'm not familiar enough with them to judge. (Warning: personal opinion ahead) And then you have, on the other hand, the chronically-underfunded and academically controversial Santa Fe Institute [4].
The key, it seems, is to keep the institute mostly private and independent, but with enough links to some established research university to lend it credibility, resources, academic/peer feedback, and long-term sustainability.
See also Calico, which is essentially what you describe. I think they have more than 100M.
In my estimation 100M is enough to set up and fund a large-scale research enterprise for 5 years. It's harder to get critical mass if you spread it out longer than that, and it's certainly not enough to establish an endowment for a research institute.
Purely theoretical or software research is cheaper.
The OP reports individual donors contributing in excess of $100 million to particular causes. We've spoken often here about the various inefficiencies in the current research structures: top scientists spending too much time writing grants; disincentives for the curiosity-driven research that often leads to breakthroughs, etc.
So the question: is investment on the order of $100M+ sufficient to set up a private research facility with research "done right"? (By which I mean, of course, the way I would do it. :) ) It's easy to imagine a private facility that recruits top-notch but frustrated scientists from various schools, sets some important problems for them, and sets them free from grant writing, publishing pressures, etc.
The obvious objection is that the donor would call the shots and subvert the research... but on the other hand these sorts of donors are already willing to just fund research with no personal input into process.