Balancing Purpose and Profit in Healthcare Research

Shahin Mohammadi

Abstract

For centuries, humanity has faced a false choice: whether to pursue profit or purpose; build sustainable businesses or build equitable societies; achieve financial returns or achieve social impact. The Helix Framework reveals this dichotomy as an illusion. Just as ancient Chinese philosophy recognized that yin and yang are not opposing forces but complementary aspects of a unified whole—each containing the seed of the other, each defining the other through their dance—profit and purpose are two strands of the same organizational DNA. Like light's wave-particle duality that revolutionized physics by proving the same phenomenon could be simultaneously two seemingly incompatible things, modern organizations can be both commercially viable and charitably transformative without contradiction. The Helix Framework introduces recipes to structure the future generation of hybrid organizations, where doing good and doing well are not parallel paths but intertwined strands of the same revolutionary DNA. Through a comprehensive analysis of existing innovation models, we learn what has worked, identify critical gaps, and propose alternative paths forward for mission-first, high-impact organizations. The Cytognosis Foundation serves as an instance of the Hellix Model, demonstrating practical application of these principles in creating mission-locked organizations that attract substantial capital while maintaining an unwavering commitment to global health equity.

![][image1]

1. Comparative Analysis of Existing Innovation Models

Timeline:

1.1 ARPA-Like Models: Empowering Visionary Program Managers

The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model, pioneered by DARPA in 1958, represents one of the most successful frameworks for driving breakthrough innovation. DARPA's approach—"shifting the impossible to the inevitable"—has yielded transformative technologies, ranging from the internet to GPS to mRNA vaccines. The model's core innovation lies not in the funding amount, but in its organizational structure and operational philosophy.

Core Principles of ARPA Models

DARPA operates through empowered program managers who possess extraordinary autonomy to define and pursue ambitious technical challenges. These managers, typically recruited from academia or industry for 3- to 5-year tours, control program budgets ranging from $10 million to $100 million without requiring multiple layers of bureaucratic approval. The flat organizational hierarchy, comprising just three levels —from director to program manager—enables rapid decision-making and course correction.

The agency embraces failure as a necessary component of breakthrough innovation. Programs are designed to test limits rather than guarantee success, recognizing that even failed programs generate valuable knowledge and insights. This risk tolerance, combined with active program management in which managers work closely with performers rather than simply monitoring progress, creates an environment where revolutionary advances are possible.

Private ARPA Initiatives

The success of government ARPA programs has inspired private sector adaptations. Private ARPA (PARPA) initiatives seek to replicate DARPA's innovation model outside government constraints. These organizations maintain the core ARPA principles—empowered program managers, ambitious goals, and risk tolerance—while adapting to private-sector contexts.

Key distinctions of private ARPA models (PARPAs) include flexible funding sources beyond congressional appropriations, the ability to retain equity or IP rights in developments, faster iteration cycles without procurement regulations, and direct pathways to commercialization. However, PARPAs face challenges in matching the scale of government, maintaining a long-term vision without quarterly pressures, and building legitimacy without government authority.

Variations and Evolution

ARPA-E (2009) adapted the model to address energy challenges, focusing on transitioning technology to the market. ARPA-H (2022) focuses on health breakthroughs, allocating an initial $2.5 billion across distributed hubs. IARPA pursues high-risk intelligence research. Each variant maintains core ARPA principles while adapting to domain-specific needs.

The model's strength lies in its program manager-centric approach, in which individual vision and expertise drive portfolio development. However, this dependence on exceptional individuals creates scalability challenges and institutional knowledge loss when managers rotate out of their positions.

1.2 Focused Research Organizations: Targeted Bottleneck Resolution

Focused Research Organizations (FROs) 1 have recently emerged to address a critical gap: research projects that are too large for academic labs but unsuitable for commercial ventures. FROs are time-limited nonprofits designed to solve specific technical bottlenecks through coordinated engineering efforts.

The FRO Model Architecture

FROs operate on three foundational principles. First, they pursue prespecified quantifiable milestones rather than open-ended research, ensuring clear success metrics. Second, they maintain finite 5-7 year durations to preserve focus and urgency. Third, they employ teams of 10-30+ full-time scientists and engineers with competitive compensation, recognizing that breakthrough innovation requires dedicated effort beyond that of graduate students.

![][image2]

Focused Research Organizations (FROs) bridge the gap between government funders and academic research for the public good and industry’s focused development practices, delivering humanity's mission-critical needs with a sense of urgency.

(This figure is adopted from the Convergent Research website and needs to be recreated.)

The model fills a crucial gap in the innovation ecosystem. Academic labs excel at discovery but often lack the resources necessary for sustained engineering efforts. Companies focus on profitable applications rather than foundational tools. Government labs operate within bureaucratic constraints. FROs provide an alternative: mission-driven organizations with startup-like execution pursuing public goods.

Convergent Research, founded by Adam Marblestone and others, serves as the primary incubator for FROs. They provide operational infrastructure, fundraising support, and shared learning across portfolio organizations. Since 2021, Convergent Research has launched multiple FROs, each with $20-50 million in funding from philanthropic sources, including Schmidt Futures, Open Philanthropy, and private donors.

Distinguishing Features from ARPA Models

While both FROs and ARPA programs pursue ambitious technical goals, fundamental differences distinguish these approaches. FROs operate as independent organizations rather than programs within agencies, enabling sustained focus on single problems rather than portfolio management. They emphasize organizational building over project funding, creating dedicated teams rather than coordinating external performers.

FROs prioritize open science and tool development over classified or proprietary outcomes. Their nonprofit structure ensures public benefit orientation, while finite timelines prevent mission drift. However, FROs face challenges in talent retention without equity compensation, difficulty transitioning from research to deployment phases, and sustainability questions as the conclusion approaches.

The FRO model excels at concentrated efforts on well-defined problems but struggles with scope expansion and long-term institutional building. The time-bound nature that ensures focus also creates instability as projects near completion.

1.3 Wellcome Leap: Global Health Moonshots

Wellcome Leap, launched in 2020 with initial funding from Wellcome Trust's £36.7 billion endowment, represents an ambitious adaptation of the DARPA model for global health challenges. Led by former DARPA Director Regina Dugan and former White House Science Advisor Kareen Gabriel, Wellcome Leap pursues "moonshot" programs to advance breakthrough health outcomes with 5- to 10-year horizons.

Innovation Model and Pasteur's Quadrant

Wellcome Leap operates in "Pasteur's Quadrant"—pursuing research that advances fundamental understanding while solving practical problems. This positioning distinguishes it from pure basic research (Bohr's Quadrant) or pure applied research (Edison's Quadrant). Programs must demonstrate both scientific breakthrough potential and clear paths to global health impact.

The organization's innovation model centers on program-driven research, where bold hypotheses define success, rather than incremental progress. Programs begin with aspirational goals—like creating bioengineered organs or developing global vaccine manufacturing capacity—then work backward to identify critical challenges and technical milestones. This "moonshot first" approach drives ambition beyond typical grant-making.

![][image3]

Illustration of Pasteur’s Quadrant 2, the driving force of innovation in APRA-like models and the core of the Wellcome Leap’s Innovation Model.

Active program management ensures rapid iteration and course correction. Program directors—recruited globally for three-year terms—maintain close relationships with performers, adjusting milestones and resources in response to emerging results. This hands-on approach contrasts with traditional "fire and forget" grant-making, where funders provide money but limited ongoing engagement.

Implementation Through HBNet and Funding Agreements

Wellcome Leap's Health Breakthrough Network (HBNet) creates a global ecosystem of performers, partners, and capabilities. Rather than building centralized facilities, HBNet leverages distributed resources across academic, commercial, and government organizations worldwide. This network approach enables rapid scaling and geographic diversity while minimizing infrastructure overhead.

The Master Academic Research Funding Agreement (MARFA) and the Commercial Research Funding Agreement (CORFA) provide standardized frameworks that balance open science with commercialization potential. Key provisions include:

  • Background and foreground IP distinctions protecting prior innovations while ensuring program advances
  • Publication rights with embargo periods for patent filing
  • Step-in rights ensuring Wellcome Leap can advance technologies if performers don't pursue commercialization
  • Milestone-based extensions beyond initial terms based on progress
  • Clear commercialization pathways with predetermined terms

These agreements address a critical challenge: ensuring that breakthrough innovations reach global deployment, regardless of the performer's decisions. The step-in rights and commercialization provisions prevent technologies from languishing unused while respecting performers' contributions and incentives.

Programs launched to date demonstrate an ambitious scope, with investments of $50 million each in bioengineered organ development, distributed vaccine biofoundries, infant brain development tools, and women's health initiatives, totaling $150 million. Each program brings together multiple performers from different countries, creating collaborative rather than competitive dynamics.

1.4 Alternative Innovation Models

Beyond ARPA-like programs, FROs, and Wellcome Leap, several alternative models address innovation challenges through different approaches.

Science Philanthropy Initiatives

Organizations such as Schmidt Futures, Open Philanthropy, and Arnold Ventures deploy billions of dollars in strategic scientific funding. These philanthropies operate between traditional foundations and venture capital, providing patient capital for high-risk research while expecting measurable impact. Their flexibility enables support for unconventional approaches, institutional experiments, and long-term capacity building.

Public-Private Partnerships

Initiatives such as the Cancer Moonshot, the Partnership for AI, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) leverage government, industry, and philanthropic resources. These partnerships leverage diverse capabilities while sharing risks and rewards; however, the complexity of coordination and conflicting incentives often hinders progress.

Innovation Institutes

The MIT Media Lab, the Santa Fe Institute, and the Allen Institute for AI pursue interdisciplinary research through permanent institutional structures. These organizations provide stable environments for long-term investigation while maintaining flexibility to pursue emerging opportunities. Their challenge lies in striking a balance between institutional sustainability and the freedom of research.

Venture Philanthropy

Organizations like New Science and Actuate blur boundaries between investment and philanthropy. They provide funding at below-market returns, enabling support for ventures with significant public benefit but limited commercial potential. This model attracts mission-aligned capital while maintaining some sustainability mechanisms.

Each alternative model offers unique advantages but also faces limitations. Science philanthropy relies on the continued commitment of wealthy individuals. Public-private partnerships struggle with bureaucracy. Innovation institutes risk institutional sclerosis. Venture philanthropy faces scale constraints. Understanding these trade-offs informs the development of new frameworks combining strengths while addressing weaknesses.

[!NOTE] This is Part 1 of a multi-part series introducing The Helix Framework. It is currently under construction. Subsequent sections will detail organizational architecture and deployment strategies.