The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

Brad Schwartz, who plans to retire this year as chief executive officer of the Morgridge Institute for Research on the UW-Madison campus, believes “society’s biggest invention is the public research university.”

He also believes a threat to that invention is obsession with rankings that chart how much research funding is landed by major U.S. universities every year, the Madison campus included.

You’re allowed a puzzled “Huh?” if that sounds like a contradiction coming from the head of a research center that raises its money from a mix of mostly private sources.

It makes sense, however, if you follow Schwartz’s fear that some “extramural funding” – dollars dedicated for a specific use – can squeeze out basic research done quietly in laboratories simply in pursuit of knowledge.

That latter type of “curiosity research” may not pay short-term university bills, but it can produce discoveries that change lives and commerce over time. Schwartz cited annual research funding rankings as fostering a climate in which universities can lose sight of their core purpose.

“Over time, (public universities) have lost something because of funding rankings,” said Schwartz, also a professor in the university’s Department of Medicine. “The problem is that the funding metrics become the goal. They change behavior.”

“The mission (of a public university) is not to climb in the U.S. News & World Report rankings. It is to encourage discovery and pass along knowledge, even if the purposes of discovery may not be immediately known,” Schwartz added.

How does UW-Madison stack up in such rankings? In late 2025, the National Science Foundation reported the campus ranked fifth nationally at a record $1.93 billion for the year. That was according to NSF’s Higher Education Research and Development survey.

U.S. News & World Report began tracking research funding and spending in 1987, when the publication introduced quantitative data along with its original 1983 reputational surveys. Both metrics figure heavily into its annual “Best Colleges” and “Best Graduate Schools” evaluations, also reputation-based in part.

Schwartz is not alone in questioning such metrics, which other critics say turn universities into competitors for dollars over seekers of pure science. In contrast, supporters say research funding rankings are a reliable way to measure performance over time, especially in science-related graduate schools.

The debate has taken a new and potentially dangerous turn. The Trump administration has proposed rules that would give political appointees much more say over what kind of research is funded.

“Creating political litmus tests from either the left or right will hurt scientific performance and will severely obstruct the benefits society has come to expect from scientific research,” Schwartz said.

The Morgridge Institute for Research was created 20 years ago as a private, non-profit biomedical hub and an independent, curiosity-driven partner to UW-Madison. It encourages collaboration across medical research fields; conducts public outreach with adults and youth; and helps scientists pursue “high-risk science” that would be unlikely to receive traditional grant funding. Examples are:

  • Partnerships that have led to bioengineered arteries for possible bypass surgery; advances in eye disease research; and new ways to provide images of cells.
  • Outreach such as the Morgridge Summer Science Camp, which offers research experiences for students from rural Wisconsin. More than 700 high school students from 150-plus schools have taken part since 2007. Check online for 2027 application information.
  • An example of “high-risk science” cited by Schwartz was research into embryonic stem cells led by Jamie Thomson and other professors. That research began with a hunch it might help to preserve endangered wildlife; only later was it learned that human applications were possible, too.

An emerging priority for the Morgridge Institute is better science communication. Asked if scientists spend too much time talking among themselves versus the public, Schwartz replied: “Yes. Absolutely.” He described it as a side-effect of heavy focus on extramural research funding.

With a skeptical public, scientists must sometimes say more than “Trust us, we’re right.” Perhaps that begins by saying, “We don’t have all the answers … but we have some for you to consider.”

Still is past president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is an adviser to Competitive Wisconsin Inc., a non-profit policy group.