IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/eipoec/doi10.1086-719252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Funding Risky Research

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara Franzoni
  • Paula Stephan
  • Reinhilde Veugelers

Abstract

The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines were developed and their high performance underlines how much society depends on the pace of scientific research and how effective science can be. This is especially the case for vaccines based on the new designer messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. We draw on this exceptional moment for science to reflect on whether the government funding system is sufficiently supportive of research needed for key breakthroughs, and whether the system of funding encourages sufficient risk-taking to induce scientists to explore transformative research paths. We begin with a discussion of the challenges faced by scientists who did pioneering research related to mRNA-based drugs in getting support for research. We describe measures developed to distinguish risky from nonrisky research and their citation footprint. We review empirical work suggesting that funding is biased against risky research and provide a framework for thinking about why principal investigators, panelists, and funding agencies may eschew risky research. We close with a discussion of interventions that government agencies and universities could follow if they wish to avoid a bias against risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:eipoec:doi:10.1086/719252
    DOI: 10.1086/719252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719252
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719252
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/719252?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2012. "NIH Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform," NBER Working Papers 18116, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan, 2021. "Uncertainty and Risk-Taking in Science: Meaning, Measurement and Management in Peer Review of Research Proposals," NBER Working Papers 28562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & Devin Pope, 2018. "Predicting Experimental Results: Who Knows What?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(6), pages 2410-2456.
    4. Viner, Neil & Powell, Philip & Green, Rod, 2004. "Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 443-454, April.
    5. Reinhilde Veugelers & Georg Zachmann, 2020. "Racing against COVID-19- a vaccines strategy for Europe," Policy Contributions 36267, Bruegel.
    6. 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.
    7. Josh Lerner & Ramana Nanda, 2020. "Venture Capital's Role in Financing Innovation: What We Know and How Much We Still Need to Learn," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 237-261, Summer.
    8. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    9. Kevin Gross & Carl T Bergstrom, 2019. "Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Caroline S. Wagner & Jeffrey Alexander, 2013. "Evaluating transformative research programmes: A case study of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 187-197, June.
    11. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    12. Danielle Li, 2017. "Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 60-92, April.
    13. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 5-11, January.
    14. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    15. David Kaplan & Nicola Lacetera & Celia Kaplan, 2008. "Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-3, July.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    17. Linton, Jonathan D., 2016. "Improving the Peer review process: Capturing more information and enabling high-risk/high-return research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1936-1938.
    18. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    19. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 515-522, April.
    20. Wesley M. Cohen & Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2020. "Not in the Job Description: The Commercial Activities of Academic Scientists and Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4108-4117, September.
    21. Elizabeth L. Pier & Markus Brauer & Amarette Filut & Anna Kaatz & Joshua Raclaw & Mitchell J. Nathan & Cecilia E. Ford & Molly Carnes, 2018. "Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(12), pages 2952-2957, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    2. Purvis, Ben & Genovese, Andrea, 2023. "Better or different? A reflection on the suitability of indicator methods for a just transition to a circular economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Damrich, Sebastian & Kealey, Terence & Ricketts, Martin, 2022. "Crowding in and crowding out within a contribution good model of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    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. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    4. Albert Banal-Estañol & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castillo, 2019. "Funding academic research: grant application, partnership, award, and output," Economics Working Papers 1658, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    5. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Elise S. Brezis & Aliaksandr Birukou, 2020. "Arbitrariness in the peer review process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 393-411, April.
    7. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    9. Nicolas Carayol & Emeric Henry & Marianne Lanoë, 2020. "Stimulating Peer Effects? Evidence from a Research Cluster Policy," Working Papers hal-03874261, HAL.
    10. Samir Mamadehussene & Francesco Sguera, 2023. "On the Reliability of the BDM Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1166-1179, February.
    11. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    12. 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.
    13. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    14. Kyle Myers & Wei Yang Tham, 2023. "Money, Time, and Grant Design," Papers 2312.06479, arXiv.org.
    15. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    16. Joshua Krieger & Ramana Nanda & Ian Hunt & Aimee Reynolds & Peter Tarsa, 2022. "Scoring and Funding Breakthrough Ideas: Evidence from a Global Pharmaceutical Company," Harvard Business School Working Papers 23-014, Harvard Business School, revised Nov 2023.
    17. Stefano Bianchini & Patrick Llerena & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Emre Özel, 2022. "Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    19. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    20. Christian Grund & Dirk Sliwka, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and the Impact of Wage Increases on Job Satisfaction: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(2), pages 313-335, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:ucp:eipoec:doi:10.1086/719252. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/EIPE .

    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.