IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/12715.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

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:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Ginther, Donna K. & Heggeness, Misty L., 2020. "Administrative discretion in scientific funding: Evidence from a prestigious postdoctoral training program✰," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    3. 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.

    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. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Alexander Whalley & Justin Hicks, 2014. "Spending Wisely? How Resources Affect Knowledge Production In Universities," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(1), pages 35-55, January.
    5. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Fleming, Lee & Manso, Gustavo, 2017. "Independent boards and innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 536-557.
    6. Zhang, Lin & Qi, Fan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Liang, Liming & Campbell, David, 2023. "Gender differences in the patterns and consequences of changing specialization in scientific careers," SocArXiv ep5bx, Center for Open Science.
    7. Colatat, Phech, 2015. "An organizational perspective to funding science: Collaborator novelty at DARPA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 874-887.
    8. Catherine Bobtcheff & Jérôme Bolte & Thomas Mariotti, 2017. "Researcher’s Dilemma," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(3), pages 969-1014.
    9. Joshua S. Gans & Fiona Murray, 2014. "Credit History: The Changing Nature of Scientific Credit," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 107-131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Joshua Graff Zivin & Jordan J. Louviere & Sally Sadoff & Jeffrey G. Shrader, 2022. "The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9042-9060, December.
    11. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    12. Albert Banal-Estañol & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2016. "Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 5852, CESifo.
    13. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    14. Donald E. Bowen III & Laurent Frésard & Jérôme P. Taillard, 2017. "What’s Your Identification Strategy? Innovation in Corporate Finance Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2529-2548, August.
    15. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Kyle Higham & Orion Penner, 2022. "Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent," Working Papers 19, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    16. Hazhir Rahmandad & Keyvan Vakili, 2019. "Explaining Heterogeneity in the Organization of Scientific Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1125-1145, November.
    17. Sen Chai, 2017. "Near Misses in the Breakthrough Discovery Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 411-428, June.
    18. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Muller & Pierre Pelletier, 2020. "Deep Learning in Science," Papers 2009.01575, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    19. Bianchini, Stefano & Müller, Moritz & Pelletier, Pierre, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).

    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.

    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: 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.