IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v41y2012i10p1729-1741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH

Author

Listed:
  • Sampat, Bhaven N.

Abstract

The NIH (National Institutes of Health) is the largest single funder of biomedical research in the world. This paper documents tensions between the agency's health and science missions and considers how, in light of these, it has managed to sustain a level of bipartisan political support uncommon in U.S. health or research policy. It highlights the serendipity hypothesis, the presence of “safety valve” mechanisms that allow it to (on occasion) target research at particular diseases and priorities, and a broad and diverse set of constituencies as important to understanding the agency's political success. Through an in-depth look at the NIH allocation process, the paper also provides insights into how demand-side considerations can affect the direction of scientific research.

Suggested Citation

  • Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1729-1741.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:10:p:1729-1741
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312002168
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.013?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    2. Bhattacharya, Jay & Packalen, Mikko, 2011. "Opportunities and benefits as determinants of the direction of scientific research," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 603-615, July.
    3. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2001. "The Allocation of Publicly Funded Biomedical Research," NBER Chapters, in: Medical Care Output and Productivity, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. David M. Cutler & Ernst R. Berndt, 2001. "Medical Care Output and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number cutl01-1, July.
    5. David M. Cutler & Ellen Meara & Seth Richards-Shubik, 2012. "Induced Innovation and Social Inequality: Evidence from Infant Medical Care," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 47(2), pages 456-492.
    6. Meredith Wadman, 2007. "State of the donation," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7142), pages 248-250, May.
    7. Claude Barfield, 1997. "Science for the Twenty-First Century: The Bush Report Revisited," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53112, September.
    8. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Martin, Ben R., 2010. "Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1011-1023, October.
    9. Erika Check, 2006. "Facing the opposition," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7089), pages 17-19, May.
    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. Deepak Hegde & Bhaven Sampat, 2015. "Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2281-2298, October.
    2. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, June.
    3. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2018. "The Impact of Public and Private Research on Premature Cancer Mortality and Hospitalization in the United States, 1999-2013," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 147-165, October.
    4. David M. Cutler & Ellen Meara & Seth Richards-Shubik, 2012. "Induced Innovation and Social Inequality: Evidence from Infant Medical Care," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 47(2), pages 456-492.
    5. Kyle, Margaret K. & Ridley, David B. & Zhang, Su, 2017. "Strategic interaction among governments in the provision of a global public good," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-199.
    6. Kevin A. Bryan & Heidi L. Williams, 2021. "Innovation: Market Failures and Public Policies," NBER Working Papers 29173, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Margaret K. Kyle, 2019. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 95-123, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Jay Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen, 2020. "Stagnation and Scientific Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Bartels, Charlotte & Jäger, Simon & Obergruber, Natalie, 2020. "Long-Term Effects of Equal Sharing: Evidence from Inheritance Rules for Land," IZA Discussion Papers 13665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    12. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    13. Chen, Clara Xiaoling & Lill, Jeremy B. & Lucianetti, Lorenzo, 2023. "Performance measurement system diversity and product innovation: Evidence from longitudinal survey data," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    14. He, Jie (Jack) & Tian, Xuan, 2013. "The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 856-878.
    15. David Popp & Jacquelyn Pless & Ivan Haščič & Nick Johnstone, 2020. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Energy Sector," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 175-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    18. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    19. Janet Currie & Mark Stabile & Phongsack Manivong & Leslie L. Roos, 2010. "Child Health and Young Adult Outcomes," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 45(3).
    20. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.

    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:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:10:p:1729-1741. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.