How to sponsor ground-breaking research: a comparison of funding schemes

A key challenge for research management and science policy is support of scientific exploration of new research frontiers. This paper examines funding schemes that aim to encourage scientists to conduct unconventional and high-risk research. Schemes are analyzed across institutional dimensions, such as: target group and field, selection process and criteria, budget size, and funding duration. It argues that sponsorship programs for ground-breaking research should: respond to the existing talent pool rather than setting arbitrary funding thresholds, undertake efforts to contend with the selection bias of peer review, and take an applicant’s ongoing research into account. It discusses whether such programs should be within existing funding organizations, or if new funding agencies that are dedicated to sponsoring ground-breaking research should be set up.

[1]  Adolph Lowe,et al.  Economics and Sociology , 2003 .

[2]  Nick von Tunzelmann,et al.  The Effects of Size on Research Performance: A SPRU Review , 2003 .

[3]  A. Berezin,et al.  The perils of centralized research funding systems , 1998 .

[4]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[5]  J. Grant,et al.  Evaluating high risk research: an assessment of the Wellcome Trust's Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research , 1999 .

[6]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation , 2001 .

[7]  L. Butler,et al.  The efficacy of different modes of funding research: perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences , 1999 .

[8]  Svein Kyvik,et al.  The Bureaucratisation of Universities , 1998 .

[9]  D. Chubin,et al.  Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy , 1990 .

[10]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics , 2007, Scientometrics.

[11]  Benoît Godin,et al.  National Innovation System , 2009 .

[12]  P. Shapira,et al.  Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research , 2009 .

[13]  Rickard Danell,et al.  The top eight percent: development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden , 2006 .

[14]  G. Laudel.  The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions , 2006 .

[15]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[16]  D. Horrobin,et al.  Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? , 1996, The Lancet.

[17]  Liv Langfeldt,et al.  The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome , 2001, Peer review in an Era of Evaluation.

[18]  Bernhard vom Brocke,et al.  Bemerkungen zum sogenannten Harnack-Prinzip. Mythos und Realilität , 1996 .

[19]  B. Martin,et al.  Frontier Research: The European Challenge , 2005 .

[20]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System , 1991 .

[21]  D. Jansen,et al.  New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations , 2007 .