IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/12715.html

National Institutes of Health Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform

In: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 13

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Azoulay
  • Joshua S. Graff Zivin
  • Gustavo Manso

Abstract

Executive SummaryThe National Institute of Health (NIH), through its extramural grant program, is the primary public funder of health-related research in the United States. Peer review at NIH is organized around the twin principles of investigator initiation and rigorous peer review, and this combination has long been a model that science funding agencies throughout the world seek to emulate. However, lean budgets and the rapidly changing ecosystem within which scientific inquiry takes place have led many to ask whether the peer-review practices inherited from the immediate postwar era are still well suited to 21st-century realities. In this essay, we examine two salient issues: (1) the aging of the scientist population supported by NIH and (2) the innovativeness of the research supported by the institutes. We identify potential avenues for reform as well as a means for implementing and evaluating them.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2012. "National Institutes of Health Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 13, pages 1-21, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:12715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c12715.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Margaret K. Kyle, 2020. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 95-123.
    3. Azoulay, Pierre & Heggeness, Misty & Kao, Jennifer, 2025. "Medical research and health care finance: Evidence from Academic Medical Centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    4. Ginther, Donna K. & Heggeness, Misty L., 2020. "Administrative discretion in scientific funding: Evidence from a prestigious postdoctoral training programāœ°," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    5. Donna K. Ginther & Misty L. Heggeness, 2020. "Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program," NBER Working Papers 26841, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:nbr:nberch:12715. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.