IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0290077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of Japanese public funding to generate emerging topics in life science and medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Ryosuke L Ohniwa
  • Kunio Takeyasu
  • Aiko Hibino

Abstract

Understanding the effectiveness of public funds to generate emerging topics will assist policy makers in promoting innovation. In the present study, we aim to clarify the effectiveness of grants to generate emerging topics in life sciences and medicine since 1991 with regard to Japanese researcher productivity and grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. To clarify how large grant amounts and which categories are more effective in generating emerging topics from both the PI and investment perspectives, we analyzed awarded PI publications containing emerging keywords (EKs; the elements of emerging topics) before and after funding. Our results demonstrated that, in terms of grant amounts, while PIs tended to generate more EKs with larger grants, the most effective investment from the perspective of investor side was found in the smallest amount range for each PI (less than 5 million JPY /year). Second, in terms of grant categories, we found that grant categories providing smaller amounts for diverse researchers without excellent past performance records were more effective from the investment perspective to generate EK. Our results suggest that offering smaller, widely dispersed grants rather than large, concentrated grants is more effective in promoting the generation of emerging topics in life science and medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryosuke L Ohniwa & Kunio Takeyasu & Aiko Hibino, 2023. "The effectiveness of Japanese public funding to generate emerging topics in life science and medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290077
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290077
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290077&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0290077?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshi-aki Shimada & Naotoshi Tsukada & Jun Suzuki, 2017. "Promoting diversity in science in Japan through mission-oriented research grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1415-1435, March.
    2. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    4. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    5. Qi Wang, 2018. "A bibliometric model for identifying emerging research topics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(2), pages 290-304, February.
    6. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    8. Ulrich Schmoch & Bernd Beckert & Petra Schaper-Rinkel, 2019. "Impact assessment of a support programme of science-based emerging technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1141-1161, March.
    9. Carter Bloch & Jesper W Schneider & Thomas Sinkjær, 2016. "Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Ryosuke L Ohniwa & Masatsugu Denawa & Mituko Kudo & Keiko Nakamura & Kunio Takeyasu, 2004. "Perspective factor: a novel indicator for the assessment of journal quality," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 175-180, December.
    11. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    12. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 2001. "Publicly Funded Science and the Productivity of the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 1-34, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Grit Laudel, 2005. "Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 27-34, April.
    14. Stefano Breschi & Franco Malerba, 2011. "Assessing the scientific and technological output of EU Framework Programmes: evidence from the FP6 projects in the ICT field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 239-257, July.
    15. Beise, Marian & Stahl, Harald, 1999. "Public research and industrial innovations in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 397-422, April.
    16. Ryosuke L. Ohniwa & Kunio Takeyasu & Aiko Hibino, 2022. "Researcher dynamics in the generation of emerging topics in life sciences and medicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 871-884, February.
    17. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mathis, Bryan & Ohniwa, Ryosuke L., 2024. "Trends in emerging topics generation across countries in life science and medicine," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    2. Ryosuke L. Ohniwa & Kunio Takeyasu & Aiko Hibino, 2022. "Researcher dynamics in the generation of emerging topics in life sciences and medicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 871-884, February.
    3. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    4. Toole, Andrew A., 2011. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Nola Hewitt-Dundas, 2013. "The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 93-115, April.
    6. Aschhoff, Birgit & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2008. "Successful Patterns of Scientific Knowledge Sourcing: Mix and Match," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-033 [rev.], ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Yu, Dejian & Xiang, Bo, 2024. "An ESTs detection research based on paper entity mapping: Combining scientific text modeling and neural prophet," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    8. Bekkers, Rudi & Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria, 2008. "Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1837-1853, December.
    9. Lu, Kun & Yang, Guancan & Wang, Xue, 2022. "Topics emerged in the biomedical field and their characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2022. "Empirical analysis of recent temporal dynamics of research fields: Annual publications in chemistry and related areas as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    11. Nelson, Andrew J., 2012. "Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 678-691.
    12. Roman Fudickar & Hanna Hottenrott, 2019. "Public research and the innovation performance of new technology based firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 326-358, April.
    13. Xiaoyu Liu & Alan L. Porter, 2020. "A 3-dimensional analysis for evaluating technology emergence indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 27-55, July.
    14. Wooseok Jang & Yongtae Park & Hyeonju Seol, 2021. "Identifying emerging technologies using expert opinions on the future: A topic modeling and fuzzy clustering approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6505-6532, August.
    15. Rudi Bekkers & Bodas Freitas, 2008. "Analysing preferences for knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?," Post-Print hal-01487467, HAL.
    16. Zhenyu Yang & Wenyu Zhang & Zhimin Wang & Xiaoling Huang, 2024. "A deep learning-based method for predicting the emerging degree of research topics using emerging index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4021-4042, July.
    17. Xu, Haiyun & Winnink, Jos & Yue, Zenghui & Zhang, Huiling & Pang, Hongshen, 2021. "Multidimensional Scientometric indicators for the detection of emerging research topics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    18. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. Kazuyuki MOTOHASHI & Takanori TOMOZAWA, 2014. "Differences in Science Based Innovation by Technology Life Cycles: The case of solar cell technology," Discussion papers 14005, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2004. "Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 709-733, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.