An unexpected place for research impact
When we think about the impact of scientific research, we often point to citations, collaborations, or policy uptake. Yet, research sometimes appears in less visible but highly consequential arenas, such as courtrooms.
I recently encountered this firsthand. A paper I co-authored on the funding dynamics behind CRISPR innovation was cited in an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. federal case. The brief used the example of a genetically edited pig kidney transplant to argue that transformative medical breakthroughs depend on long-term, publicly funded research ecosystems.
From complex systems to legal arguments
Courts operate under constraints very different from academic or policy debates. They do not aim to capture the full complexity of innovation systems but to resolve specific legal questions. As a result, complex knowledge is translated into clear, defensible claims.
In this case, the argument takes the form of a causal chain:
public funding → basic research → enabling technology (CRISPR) → clinical breakthroughs → societal benefit
Within this chain, our paper anchors a critical link: the connection between public funding and foundational discovery. Much of the nuance central to academic debates is necessarily compressed. This is not a weakness, but a feature of legal reasoning.
The irreplaceable role of public funding
Even in this simplified narrative, an important insight emerges. Public funding is not simply one contributor among many, it plays a distinct and often irreplaceable role.
Early-stage scientific discovery involves high uncertainty, long time horizons, and unclear applications. These are conditions under which private and philanthropic actors are less likely to invest at scale. Instead, they tend to operate at later stages, where risks are lower and pathways to impact are clearer.
The development of CRISPR illustrates this dynamic. Foundational discoveries were largely sustained by public funding. Without it, the trajectory from discovery to application would likely have been very different, if it had occurred at all.
This challenges a common narrative: that public funding inhibits private initiative. In practice, public investment often enables it by absorbing early risks and creating the conditions for other actors to participate.
The invisible pathways of impact
What makes this experience particularly striking is how difficult it is to trace this kind of impact.
Tools such as Dimensions and PlumX have expanded our ability to track the societal influence of research, capturing references in policy documents, patents, and other outputs. Yet the use of scientific evidence in legal reasoning remains largely invisible. Court filings and legal briefs are not systematically tracked within these systems.
In my case, discovering the citation was a matter of chance. This suggests that many similar instances likely exist, where research quietly shapes decisions without being recognized as “impact” in formal metrics.
Evidence, funding, and freedom
At its core, the legal dispute in which this citation appears is not only about funding, but about the boundaries of freedom of expression in publicly supported institutions.
Governments may argue that public funding can be conditioned, particularly when public values are at stake. Universities and research institutions, in turn, may argue that such conditions risk undermining their autonomy and their ability to fulfill their societal role.
This is a delicate balance. Democratic governments must retain the ability to allocate public resources. But universities, teaching hospitals, and research centers are not ordinary actors. They are institutions selected, often through competitive processes, because of their capacity to generate knowledge and long-term public benefit.
Withdrawing support from them does not simply affect individual organizations. It risks weakening the broader system that produces innovation and societal value.
Who bears the risk, and who benefits?
This also raises a broader question. If society assumes the greatest risks in funding foundational research, what does it mean for society to benefit from its outcomes?
Public funding operates as the primary risk-bearing mechanism in the innovation system. Philanthropic and private actors play important roles, but they typically engage under conditions of reduced uncertainty. They are not structured to absorb the same level of risk.
This suggests that the outcomes of publicly funded research, whether technologies, treatments, or knowledge, carry an implicit social contract. The benefits of these investments should, in some form, return to society.
A broader view of research impact
The presence of scientific evidence in legal argumentation highlights something easy to overlook. Research does not remain confined to journals and conferences. It becomes part of the reasoning through which decisions are justified, contested, and made.
These pathways are often difficult to trace, but they are real. They suggest that the impact of research extends beyond what conventional metrics capture.
In this case, a study on CRISPR funding became part of a legal argument about the societal consequences of public investment. It did not resolve the case, but it helped substantiate a claim that is central to the debate: that public funding of research is not only beneficial, but foundational to the innovations on which societies depend.
References
Fajardo-Ortiz, D., Hornbostel, S., Montenegro de Wit, M., & Shattuck, A. (2022). Funding CRISPR: Understanding the role of government and philanthropic institutions in supporting academic research within the CRISPR innovation system. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(2), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00187
Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, Inc. (2025). Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. 1:25-cv-11048-ADB (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts).