Working Paper: NBER ID: w28562
Authors: Chiara Franzoni; Paula Stephan
Abstract: Concern that the selection of research projects by peer review disfavors risky science has called attention to ways to incorporate risk into the evaluation of research proposals. This discussion often occurs in the absence of well-defined and developed concepts of what risk and uncertainty mean in science. This paper sets out to address this void with the goal of providing building blocks to further the discussion of the meaning of risk and uncertainty in science. The core contributions of the paper are fourfold. First, we outline the meaning of risk in science, drawing on insights from literatures on risk and uncertainty. Second, based on this outline, we discuss possible ways in which programs can embrace a more comprehensive concept of risk and embed it in peer review of proposals, with the goal of not penalizing risky research proposals with the potential of high return when funding decisions are made. Third, we make an important distinction between research projects involving high-risk and research projects whose evaluation is subjected to ambiguity/radical uncertainty. Fourth, we discuss possible ways of addressing ambiguity/radical uncertainty by funding agencies.
Keywords: risk; uncertainty; peer review; research proposals; funding
JEL Codes: H41; I23; I28; J18; O3; O31; O33; O38
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| peer review criteria (Y30) | types of projects funded (I23) |
| types of projects funded (I23) | outcomes of scientific innovation (O36) |
| peer review criteria (Y30) | outcomes of scientific innovation (O36) |
| reformed peer review process (Y30) | funding for high-risk projects (H81) |
| funding for high-risk projects (H81) | significant scientific breakthroughs (O36) |