Should External Funding Constraints Dictate What Problems We Dedicate Our Lives To Solving?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how much external funding availability should influence the problems we choose to dedicate our lives and careers to.

On the one hand, it seems natural to “follow the money.” If funders are supporting work in a particular area, then moving in that direction can help ensure sustainability, visibility, and a pathway to impact. On the other hand, some of the most neglected but urgent problems risk remaining neglected precisely because they don’t align with current funding priorities.

This raises a hard question: Should the availability of funds—or lack thereof—determine a person’s career trajectory?

To make this concrete: imagine someone working in an area that has the potential for extraordinary impact, such as developing new therapeutics for antimicrobial resistance. They believe their work could save lives and transform global health, but they repeatedly face the challenge of little to no funding, since the cause is not a current “priority area” for major funders.

• If they pivot toward a more fundable area, they may secure resources and recognition but risk leaving a vital neglected cause underexplored.
• If they persist, they may struggle to sustain their career, but could potentially generate outsized impact in the long run if they succeed.

So I’d love to hear the community’s thoughts:

1. Should external funding constraints dictate what problems we pursue in our careers?
2. How do we balance the need to survive and build a career with the desire to work on the world’s most neglected but impactful problems?
3. In the absence of funding, what’s your best advice to someone who still wants to make the highest possible impact in their field?

I’m curious about perspectives both from those who have successfully navigated this tension and from those who have struggled with it.