Why are Bell, 3M and the intramural program at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) so successful at inspiring innovation? How does the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) compare and conflict with innovation in these examples? Will the existing and proposed structure and culture of the new Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), which are replacing MRC, produce relatively little innovation from the outset? Our examination leads to recomendations for an alternative funding system and organizational structure for CIHR: minimal structure with baseline funding at the initial, idea stage (40 percent of budget); more formal structure and competitive funding at the feasibility stage (50 percent); and matching industrial grants for the commercialization stage (10 percent). Our alternative CIHR budget would permit baseline grants of approximately $20,000/year for each of 10,000 qualified medical investigators, 8,000 more than presently funded.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 27 (2001) Issue (Month): 1 (March) Pages: 95-111 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:27:y:2001:i:1:p:95-111
Contact details of provider: Postal: University of Toronto Press Journals Division 5201 Dufferin Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T8 Email: Web page: http://economics.ca/cpp/