Match!

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding

Published on Jun 19, 2013in PLOS ONE2.776
· DOI :10.1371/journal.pone.0065263
Jean-Michel Fortin2
Estimated H-index: 2
(U of O: University of Ottawa),
David J. Currie41
Estimated H-index: 41
(U of O: University of Ottawa)
Abstract
Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.
  • References (15)
  • Citations (86)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
196841.04Science
1 Author (Robert K. Merton)
3,739 Citations
170 Citations
15 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
References15
Newest
126k Citations
I am prompted to write this editorial by the release of 30 papers this month from the encode Project Consortium. This decade-long project involved an international team of 442 scientists who have compiled what is being called an “encyclopedia of DNA elements,” a comprehensive list of functional elements in the human genome. The detailed overview is expected to spur further research on the fundamentals of life, health, and disease. ENCODE exemplifies a “big-science” style of research that continu...
27 CitationsSource
An added layer of review for elite grant-holders upholds the mission of the National Institutes of Health, says Jeremy M. Berg.
15 CitationsSource
2 CitationsSource
#1Pierre Azoulay (NBER: National Bureau of Economic Research)H-Index: 18
How can we know whether funding models for research work? By relentlessly testing them using randomized controlled trials, says Pierre Azoulay.
16 CitationsSource
The country’s scientists and engineers are starting to take part in the design and construction of telescopes, a trend that could boost other industries and the economy.
Source
#1Pierre Azoulay (MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)H-Index: 18
#2Joshua Graff Zivin (UCSD: University of California, San Diego)H-Index: 32
Last. Gustavo Manso (MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)H-Index: 15
view all 3 authors...
Despite its presumed role as an engine of economic growth, we know surprisingly little about the drivers of scientific creativity. In this paper, we exploit key differences across funding streams within the academic life sciences to estimate the impact of incentives on the rate and direction of scientific exploration. Specifically, we study the careers of investigators of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), which tolerates early failure, rewards long-term success, and gives its appointee...
206 CitationsSource
#1Athina TatsioniH-Index: 25
#2Effie VavvaH-Index: 1
Last. John P. A. IoannidisH-Index: 151
view all 3 authors...
Funding is important for scientists’ work and may contribute to exceptional research outcomes. We analyzed the funding sources reported in the landmark scientific papers of Nobel Prize winners. Between 2000 and 2008, 70 Nobel laureates won recognition in medicine, physics, and chemistry. Sixty five (70%) of the 93 selected papers related to the Nobel-awarded work reported some funding source including U.S. government sources in 53 (82%), non-U.S. government sources in 19 (29%), and nongovernment...
19 CitationsSource
As bibliometric indicators are objective, reliable, and cost-effective measures of peer-reviewed research outputs, they are expected to play an increasingly important role in research assessment/management. Recently, a bibliometric approach was developed and integrated within the evaluation framework of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC). This approach helped address the following questions that were difficult to answer objectively using alternative methods such as...
57 CitationsSource
#1E.R. Dorsey (UR: University of Rochester)H-Index: 48
#2Joel P. Thompson (UB: University at Buffalo)H-Index: 10
Last. Hamilton Moses (Johns Hopkins University)H-Index: 17
view all 9 authors...
Background We estimated U.S. biomedical research funding across therapeutic areas, determined the association with disease burden, and evaluated new drug approvals that resulted from this investment. Methodology/Principal Findings We calculated funding from 1995 to 2005 and totaled Food and Drug Administration approvals in eight therapeutic areas (cardiovascular, endocrine, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, HIV/AIDS, infectious disease excluding HIV, oncology, and respiratory) primarily using pub...
38 CitationsSource
Cited By86
Newest
#1Oliver Braganza (University of Bonn)H-Index: 6
Several systematic studies have suggested that a large fraction of published research is not reproducible. One probable reason for low reproducibility is insufficient sample size, resulting in low power and low positive predictive value. It has been suggested that insufficient sample-size choice is driven by a combination of scientific competition and 'positive publication bias'. Here we formalize this intuition in a simple model, in which scientists choose economically rational sample sizes, ba...
Source
Several systematic studies have suggested that a large fraction of published research is not reproducible. One probable reason for low reproducibility is insufficient sample size, resulting in low power and low positive predictive value. It has been suggested that insufficient sample-size choice is driven by a combination of scientific competition and 'positive publication bias'. Here we formalize this intuition in a simple model, in which scientists choose economically rational sample sizes, ba...
Abstract Introduction and objectives The Spanish Society of Cardiology/Spanish Heart Foundation (SEC/FEC) annually awards grants for cardiovascular research projects. Our objective was to analyze the trend in these investments and their resulting scientific production from 2007 to 2012. Methods A search of the publications funded by the SEC/FEC was carried out, according to the following inclusion criteria: publication in a journal indexed in MEDLINE or EMBASE, publication date after the grant, ...
Source
Resumen Introduccion y objetivos La Sociedad Espanola de Cardiologia/Fundacion Espanola del Corazon (SEC/FEC) realiza convocatorias anuales de becas para proyectos de investigacion cardiovascular. El objetivo es analizar la evolucion de estas inversiones y la produccion cientifica derivada en el periodo 2007-2012. Metodos Se ha realizado una busqueda de las publicaciones financiadas por SEC/FEC, segun los siguientes criterios de inclusion: publicacion en revista indexada en MEDLINE o EMBASE, fec...
Source
#1Rory M. Power (Morgridge Institute for Research)H-Index: 1
#2Jan Huisken (Morgridge Institute for Research)H-Index: 34
The growth of advanced, custom microscopy has outpaced commercialization, with biologists unable to benefit from these developments. We propose a complementary model for access based on shareable, traveling and configurable microscopes, with potential benefits for biologists, developers and the community.
3 CitationsSource
#2Christopher Scarpone (RyeU: Ryerson University)
Last. Kayla Morales (RyeU: Ryerson University)
view all 13 authors...
ABSTRACTBetween 1987 and 1995, research papers published in five leading journals of applied ecology and conservation biology (AECB) were overwhelmingly produced by American and British authors. A ...
Source
#1George Kleiner (Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation)H-Index: 1
#2Maxim Rybachuk (Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation)H-Index: 2
Last. Dmitry Ushakov (RAS: Russian Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 4
view all 3 authors...
A huge amount of the issues in the realm of scientific endeavor are decided by member of expert communities in various fields. Decisions that sanction the funding of project proposals are based on a voting process. Such decision-making is particularly applied in the evaluation of applications to publicly-funded initiatives, which include the awarding of higher academic degrees and titles, in competitions to fill personnel vacancies, and other similar areas.
Source
#1Kaare Aagaard (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 7
#2Alexander Kladakis (AU: Aarhus University)
Last. Mathias Wullum Nielsen (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 8
view all 3 authors...
The relationship between the distribution of research funding and scientific performance is a major discussion point in many science-policy contexts. Do high shares of funding handed out to a limit...
Source
Several systematic studies have suggested that a large fraction of published research is not reproducible. One probable reason for low reproducibility is insufficient sample size, resulting in low power and low positive predictive value. It has been suggested that insufficient sample-size choice is driven by a combination of scientific competition and 'positive publication bias'. Here we formalize this intuition in a simple model, in which scientists choose economically rational sample sizes, ba...
#1Stephanie Meirmans (UvA: University of Amsterdam)H-Index: 8
#2Roger K. Butlin (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 62
Last. Maurine Neiman (UI: University of Iowa)H-Index: 21
view all 9 authors...
In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different ...
1 CitationsSource