Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
61. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:58 AM
Apr 2012

Background
Established in 2000 in CA.

Founded by Gordon and Betty Moore. Dr. Moore is co-founder of Intel Corporation and is most widely known for his 1965 prediction that the number of transistors the semi-conductor industry would be able to place on a computer chip would double every 12 months. What was intended as a rule of thumb quickly became known as "Moore's Law" and a guiding principle for the delivery of ever more powerful computer chips at proportionately lower costs.

The foundation seeks to advance environmental conservation and scientific research around the world and improve the quality of life in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Purpose and Activities
As responsible stewards of the resources entrusted to them, the foundation forms and invests in partnerships to achieve significant, lasting and measurable results in environmental conservation, science and the San Francisco Bay Area. The majority of funding is directed to organizations whose work supports the foundation's initiatives in its three major program areas.

Program Area(s)
The grantmaker has identified the following area(s) of interest:

Environment Conservation
The foundation's Environmental Conservation Program works to change the ways in which people use terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal marine ecosystems to conserve critical ecological systems and functions, while allowing sustainable use.

San Francisco Bay Area
The goals of the foundation's San Francisco Bay Area Program are to improve the quality of life by sustaining healthy Bay Area ecosystems and conserving critical landscapes; enhancing science education and learning especially for children, and improving the quality of care provided to adults during and following hospitalization.

Science
The foundation's Science Program aims to make a significant impact on the development of provocative, transformative scientific research, and increase knowledge in emerging fields.

Fields of Interest
Subjects
Environment
Science

Selected Grants
The following grants were reported in 2010:

$8,639,634 to Tides Canada Foundation, Vancouver, Canada. For Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Initiative to produce an Integrated Marine Management Plan, payable over 1 year.

$5,000,000 to California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. For new experiments designed to understand casual link between gene functions, the brain, and behavior, payable over 1 year.

$2,446,138 to Stanford University, Stanford, CA. To study coral resilience in the field and via sea anemone model system, payable over 1 year.

$566,953 to New Forests Advisory, San Francisco, CA. To design ecosystem service products and incentives for private landowners in Brazil, payable over 1 year.

$550,000 to University of California, San Francisco, CA. For Magnet Readiness to improve nursing-related patient outcomes, payable over 1 year.

$299,550 to Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC. To make Global Scale Conservation Datasets available on Google's Earth Engine, payable over 1 year.

________
Source: Foundation Center, New York

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

and I wonder who funded this study niyad Apr 2012 #1
The authors declare no competing financial interests FarCenter Apr 2012 #6
Who funded it? obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #9
It looks like it was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation FarCenter Apr 2012 #14
Everyone knows the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment is a subsidiary of Monsanto 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #16
And the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation looks to be a front for the Koch brothers... FarCenter Apr 2012 #17
How so? I think you should provide some evidence for such a claim. yellowcanine Apr 2012 #40
I was being sarcastic -- take a look at the link; they support a wide range of environmental causes. FarCenter Apr 2012 #45
are you making fun of liberals? CreekDog Apr 2012 #71
Anyone who has driven through southern Minnesota has seen all the Monsanto signs and I would jwirr Apr 2012 #63
Hold on a sec, 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #68
Of course not and that is not what I said. But having a huge business in the back yard is reason jwirr Apr 2012 #72
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation KansDem Apr 2012 #61
yes, and steroids and unhealthy supplements can make you stronger CreekDog Apr 2012 #69
Monsanto or one of their ilk obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #7
Why is it "probably" monsanto? 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #12
Yes because the pro-organic sources laundry_queen Apr 2012 #13
And only billions of dollars can taint a research project 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #15
Wow you twisted that post so much laundry_queen Apr 2012 #20
You are completely misrepresenting how research works 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #21
According to this study laundry_queen Apr 2012 #31
There's a huge difference between: 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #33
I agree to a point laundry_queen Apr 2012 #35
I believe the "front posts" were supposed to be jokes in response to the "It was Monsanto" claims. yellowcanine Apr 2012 #41
You have to take a long term outlook - hedgehog Apr 2012 #2
The article did say that the difference declines over time. I wish they had been more specific libinnyandia Apr 2012 #3
The article ended with that as a throw-away line when in fact it is a key finding Gormy Cuss Apr 2012 #23
It's primarily nitrogen that is the limiting factor FarCenter Apr 2012 #26
Nitrogen-fixing crops can be rotated in off seasons or shoulder seasons (depending on climate) Gormy Cuss Apr 2012 #30
but applied nitrogen in runoff decreases the yield from our waterways by polluting them CreekDog Apr 2012 #73
That is what I was thinking - also the continued fertilization of the soil is supposed to cut the jwirr Apr 2012 #64
If even if the conclusions are bullet proof, so what. musiclawyer Apr 2012 #4
Good post obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #10
true-- the lower pollution should offset the increased land, even in a worse case scenario NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #43
Shouldn't be a problem gratuitous Apr 2012 #5
Also a good post obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #11
+1000 Blue_Tires Apr 2012 #42
People can quit eating so much red meat obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #8
This Vehl Apr 2012 #18
3 times? flvegan Apr 2012 #19
How much does price play a role in this? bigwillq Apr 2012 #24
I think that is because laundry_queen Apr 2012 #34
Even the "Dollar Menu" dinner... meaculpa2011 Apr 2012 #53
True but bigwillq Apr 2012 #57
I don't mean to be... meaculpa2011 Apr 2012 #58
I eat salads all the time at McDonalds. bigwillq Apr 2012 #60
Except that most land is better suited for permanent pasture than annual crops like veggies. yellowcanine Apr 2012 #36
Or any meat. Mendocino Apr 2012 #52
What do we want? What can we afford? Space or sustainability. The Midway Rebel Apr 2012 #22
But what about the health risk of organic vs. non-organic LynneSin Apr 2012 #25
What is the relative health risk? The spinach scare a few years back was organic spinach. yellowcanine Apr 2012 #37
Umhumm... Lost-in-FL Apr 2012 #27
Where is that located? I'd like to visit it. MineralMan Apr 2012 #39
Still in the concept stage but it seems it is possible. Lost-in-FL Apr 2012 #49
Oh. Thanks. MineralMan Apr 2012 #56
Will Organic Food Fail to Feed the World? FarCenter Apr 2012 #28
Frankly, I think local is more important than organic cali Apr 2012 #29
I think I agree with you. If we were using our resources on a local level (even in developing jwirr Apr 2012 #67
Maybe so, but maybe if we respected our food and didn't waste so much it wouldn't matter. I'll take Pisces Apr 2012 #32
Anybody that didn't know that already. sendero Apr 2012 #38
yeah, it's kind of obvious, isn't it NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #44
Exactly.. sendero Apr 2012 #46
Consider me unsurprised quaker bill Apr 2012 #47
But Roundup lets one use less land, and provides that just right smoky flavor. n/t jtuck004 Apr 2012 #48
This is uncontroversial, but this is geoagriculture. Use hydroponics, and the like... joshcryer Apr 2012 #50
"benefits" of industrial agriculture: humus Apr 2012 #51
Its obvious that organic farming have lower yields Lars77 Apr 2012 #54
Its obvious that a healthy meal will take longer to make humus Apr 2012 #65
So why is this news? Sounds like the GM food lobby wrote it. Lars77 Apr 2012 #76
I'd love to see a study that includes the use of Permaculture techniques. PuraVidaDreamin Apr 2012 #55
Even organic farms use herbicides mainer Apr 2012 #59
I think you are a bit confused. nobodyspecial Apr 2012 #62
I wish I could dig up that article... mainer Apr 2012 #66
I wish you could as well nobodyspecial Apr 2012 #75
NO synthetic herbicides can be used here in VT for organic farming. Zero. in fact, the growing piratefish08 Apr 2012 #70
Organic farms DO yield less and require more land - the alternative is deadly food. piratefish08 Apr 2012 #74
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Organic farms yield less ...»Reply #61