Science policy: Well-funded investigators should receive extra scrutiny

University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA.
Nature (Impact Factor: 41.46). 09/2012; 489(7415):203. DOI: 10.1038/489203a
Source: PubMed


An added layer of review for elite grant-holders upholds the mission of
the National Institutes of Health, says Jeremy M. Berg.

1 Follower
3 Reads
  • Source
    • "This was true for all the metrics of impact investigated (Figures 1, 2, 3). Berg [14] observed that the productivity of researchers funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) plateaued with grants larger than $700,000 per annum. Our data show no plateaus, but NSERC grants are all far below the NIH plateau. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    PLoS ONE 06/2013; 8(6):e65263. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0065263 · 3.23 Impact Factor

  • Nature 10/2012; 490(7419):176. DOI:10.1038/490176a · 41.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biomedical research in the US will become unsustainable unless scientists and research institutions start to question certain assumptions they have long taken for granted.
    eLife Sciences 07/2013; 2(2):e01138. DOI:10.7554/eLife.01138 · 9.32 Impact Factor
Show more