IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v117y2020p12011-12016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science

Author

Listed:
  • Mikko Packalen

    (Department of Economics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1)

  • Jay Bhattacharya

    (Center for Health Policy/Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305)

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plays a critical role in funding scientific endeavors in biomedicine. Funding innovative science is an essential element of the NIH’s mission, but many have questioned the NIH’s ability to fulfill this aim. Based on an analysis of a comprehensive corpus of published biomedical research articles, we measure whether the NIH succeeds in funding work with novel ideas, which we term edge science. We find that edge science is more often NIH funded than less novel science, but with a delay. Papers that build on very recent ideas are NIH funded less often than are papers that build on ideas that have had a chance to mature for at least 7 y. We have three further findings. First, the tendency to fund edge science is mostly limited to basic science. Papers that build on novel clinical ideas are not more often NIH funded than are papers that build on well-established clinical knowledge. Second, novel papers tend to be NIH funded more often because there are more NIH-funded papers in innovative areas of investigation, rather than because the NIH funds innovative papers within research areas. Third, the NIH’s tendency to have funded papers that build on the most recent advances has declined over time. In this regard, NIH funding has become more conservative despite initiatives to increase funding for innovative projects. Given our focus on published papers, the results reflect both the funding preferences of the NIH and the composition of the applications it receives.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2020. "NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(22), pages 12011-12016, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:117:y:2020:p:12011-12016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/12011.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kuusi, Tero & Nevavuo, Jenni, 2023. "Breakthrough Innovations and Productivity: An International Perspective," ETLA Working Papers 101, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    2. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell Funk, 2021. "The decline of disruptive science and technology," Papers 2106.11184, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    3. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    4. 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.

    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:nas:journl:v:117:y:2020:p:12011-12016. 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: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    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.