| Abstract: |
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 appointees great freedom to
experiment; and grantees from the National Institute of Health, which are
subject to short review cycles, pre-defined deliverables, and renewal policies
unforgiving of failure. Using a combination of propensity-score weighting and
difference-in-differences estimation strategies, we find that HHMI
investigators produce high-impact papers at a much higher rate than two
control groups of similarly-accomplished NIH-funded scientists. Moreover, the
direction of their research changes in ways that suggest the program induces
them to explore novel lines of inquiry. |