高风险高回报项目资助有助于科研创新吗? ———基于科学大数据的文献耦合网络分析

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 传统竞争性项目资助容易引发科学家规避风险、开展保守性研究的问题，引起了科学共同体的广泛关注。高风险高回报项目资助被认为是能够弥补传统竞争性项目资助缺陷的有效途径。此类项目重点资助具有较高风险的科学问题研究，产出具有突破性、变革性和创新性的成果。在当前我国基础研究原创性成果数量较少，颠覆性创新不足的现状下，通过实证分析的方法深入研究高风险高回报项目的资助效果对完善我国科研资助体系具有重要意义。本文以高风险高回报项目的典型代表—美国国立卫生研究院“新创新者项目”为研究对象，以美国国立卫生研究院传统竞争性项目R01项目为对照组，构建不同类型项目的资助效果分析框架。通过构建学术论文的文献耦合网络，利用复杂网络社团结构划分、知识图谱以及引文频次等指标，定量测度高风险高回报项目的创新性特征，并开展了科研人员个体属性的调节效应分析。分析结果显示：（1）高风险高回报项目更加鼓励科学家开展探索性研究，其资助产出的学术论文具有更高的创新性；（2）高风险高回报项目资助产出的学术论文具有更高的学术影响力；（3）科学家的个体属性显著调节了高风险高回报项目的资助效应：青年科学家和女性科学家会强化高风险高回报项目与其资助论文创新性的正向关系，而女性科学家会弱化高风险高回报项目与其资助论文学术影响力的正向关系。最后，本文基于上述研究结论提出了优化我国政府科研项目资助体系的政策建议。

Abstract: Conventional competitive funding program is prone to encourage scientists to avoid risks and engage in conservative research, which has attracted widespread attentions from the scientific community. Funding for high-risk, high-reward research is considered an effective way to address this issue. Such funding program deems to support research with high risks, aiming to produce breakthrough, transformative, and innovative results. Given that the original and disruptive research in basic science is limited in China, empirical analysis of the effects of high-risk, high-reward funding programs has substantial societal impacts. In this paper, we focus on the “New Innovator Award” from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and consider the conventional R01 project as a control group. By constructing a bibliometric coupling network of papers, we use community structures in network theory, knowledge graphs, and citations to quantify the effect of “high-risk, high-reward” projects. Moreover, we also analyze the moderating effects of individual characteristics. We find that: (1) “High-risk, high-reward” projects encourage scientists to engage in exploratory research, and papers funded by such projects have higher novelty. (2) Papers funded by “high-risk, high-reward” projects have higher citations. (3) Individual characteristics have significant moderating effects: age and gender strengthen the positive relationship between “high-risk, high-reward” projects and novelty, while female scientists weaken such positive relationship. This paper has policy implications for the government and funding agencies.

李美玲王洋阿儒涵李铭禄. 高风险高回报项目资助有助于科研创新吗? ———基于科学大数据的文献耦合网络分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2025, 43(2): 337-347.

参考文献

[1] 国务院. 国务院关于全面加强基础科学研究的若干意见 [Z]//国务院. 2018 [2] PACKALEN M, BHATTACHARYA J. Does the NIH Fund Edge Science? [R]: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018. [3] BOL T, DE VAAN M, VAN DE RIJT A. The Matthew effect in science funding [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018, 115(19): 4887-90. [4] HEGDE D, SAMPAT B. Can private money buy public science [J]. Disease group lobbying and federal funding for biomedical research (July 16, 2014) Forthcoming in Management Science, 2015. [5] AZOULAY P, LI D, ZIVIN J S G, et al. Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules [J]. The Review of economic studies, 2019, 86(1): 117-52. [6] AZOULAY P, LI D. Scientific grant funding [M]. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA, 2020. [7] 阿儒涵, 王诗航, 李晓轩. 稳定拨款与项目资助的资助差异性研究——基于2009-2018日本化学领域资助产出的数据分析 [J]. 科学学研究, 2021, 39(06): 1067-73. [8] IOANNIDIS J P A. Fund people not projects [J]. Nature, 2011, 477(7366): 529-31. [9] SUN Y, CAO C. Planning for science: China’s “grand experiment” and global implications [J]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2021, 8(1): 215. [10] JOYNSON C, LEYSER O. The culture of scientific research [J]. F1000Research, 2015, 4: 66. [11] DAVIES B, GUSH J, HENDY S C, et al. Research funding and collaboration [J]. Research Policy, 2022, 51(2): 104421. [12] AYOUBI C, PEZZONI M, VISENTIN F. The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions? [J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(1): 84-97. [13] AZOULAY P, FUCHS E, GOLDSTEIN A P, et al. Funding Breakthrough Research: Promises and Challenges of the “ARPA Model” [J]. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2019, 19: 69-96. [14] DRESLER M, BUDDEBERG E, ENDESFELDER U, et al. Why many funding schemes harm rather than support research [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2022, 6(5): 607-8. [15] LAUDEL G, GLAESER J. Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding [J]. Research Policy, 2014, 43(7): 1204-16. [16] WANG J, LEE Y-N, WALSH J P. Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects [J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(6): 1070-83. [17] FRANZONI C, STEPHAN P, VEUGELERS R. Funding Risky Research [J]. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, 2021, No. 28905. [18] GEWIN V. Risky research: The sky's the limit [J]. Nature, 2012, 487(7407): 395-7. [19] OECD. Effective policies to foster high-risk/high-reward research [J]. 2021. [20] TINKLE S, MARY J, SNAVELY J, et al. An Outcome Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health Director’s New Innovator Award Program for Fiscal Years 2007–2009 [M]. 2016. [21] 曹玲静, 张志强. 发展高风险高回报研究的科技政策机制 [J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2022, 37(5): 13. [22] WANG J, LEE Y N, WALSH J P. Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects [J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(6): 1070-83. [23] 迟培娟, 宋秀芳, 冷伏海. 美国科技政策科学研究计划的成果及影响力分析 [J]. 科学学研究, 2021, 39(01): 73-82. [24] FORTUNATO S, BERGSTROM C T, B?RNER K, et al. Science of science [J]. Science, 2018, 359(6379): eaao0185. [25] YANG Y, TIAN T Y, WOODRUFF T K, et al. Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022, 119(36): e2200841119. [26] UZZI B, MUKHERJEE S, STRINGER M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact [J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-72. [27] RADICCHI F, FORTUNATO S, CASTELLANO C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008, 105(45): 17268-72. [28] WANG Y, LI N, ZHANG B, et al. The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics [J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(3): 1801-23. [29] WANG Y, JONES B F, WANG D. Early-career setback and future career impact [J]. Nature communications, 2019, 10(1): 1-10. [30] AZOULAY P, STUART T, WANG Y. Matthew: Effect or Fable? [J]. Management Science, 2014, 60(1): 92-109. [31] B.A. JACOB L L. The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity [J]. Journal of Public Economics, 2011, 95: 1168-77. [32] 田人合, 张志强, 王非, et al. 基于 DID 模型的科技政策创新能力资助效应实证研究——以杰青基金地球科学项目为例 [J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(8): 782-95. [33] AZOULAY P, GRAFF ZIVIN J S, MANSO G. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences [J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2011, 42(3): 527-54. [34] SIMONTON D K. Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks [J]. Psychological review, 1997, 104(1): 66. [35] JONES B F. Age and great invention [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 92(1): 1-14. [36] JONES B F, REEDY E J, WEINBERG B A. Age and scientific genius [M]. The Wiley Handbook of Genius. wiley. 2014: 422-50. [37] LI M, LIVAN G, RIGHI S. Quantifying the dynamics of peak innovation in scientific careers [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:230106374, 2023. [38] 于璇, 高瑞平. 科学基金助力女性科研人员成长:政策、成效与展望 [J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2023, 38(02): 265-76. [39] 崔林蔚. 科研人员科研产出及影响力性别分层的研究进展 [J]. 科学学研究, 2021, 39(07): 1239-47. [40] 黄园淅, 赵吝加. 我国女性科研人员发展现状、挑战及政策演变 [J]. 中国科学基金, 2018, 32(06): 622-8. [41] RZHETSKY A, FOSTER J G, FOSTER I T, et al. Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery [J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2015, 112(47): 14569-74. [42] JIA T, WANG D, SZYMANSKI B K. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2017, 1(4): 0078. [43] ZENG A, SHEN Z, ZHOU J, et al. Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics [J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10(1): 3439. [44] HILL R, YIN Y, STEIN C, et al. Adaptability and the pivot penalty in science [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:210706476, 2021. [45] LIU L, DEHMAMY N, CHOWN J, et al. Understanding the onset of hot streaks across artistic, cultural, and scientific careers [J]. Nature Communications, 2021, 12(1): 5392. [46] NIH. NIH Director's New Innovator Award [Z]. 2023 [47] NIH. NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01) [Z]. 2023 [48] RZHETSKY A, FOSTER J G, FOSTER I T, et al. Choosing Experiments to Accelerate Collective Discovery [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015, (in press)(47): 14569-74. [49] FOSTER J G, RZHETSKY A, EVANS J A. Tradition and Innovation in Scientists' Research Strategies [J]. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2015, 80(5): 875-908. [50] GUIMERà R, UZZI B, SPIRO J, et al. Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance [J]. Science, 2005, 308(5722): 697-702. [51] BLONDEL V, GUILLAUME J-L, LAMBIOTTE R, et al. Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks [J]. Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment, 2008, 2008. [52] 国务院. 国务院印发关于深化中央财政科技计划（专项、基金等）管理改革方案的通知 [Z]//国务院. 2014 [53] BROMHAM L, DINNAGE R, HUA X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success [J]. Nature, 2016, 534. [54] WANG J, VEUGELERS R, STEPHAN P. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators [J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1416-36. [55] FRANZONI C, STEPHAN P. Uncertainty and Risk-Taking in Science: Meaning, Measurement and Management in Peer Review of Research Proposals [J]. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, 2021, No. 28562. [56] 国家自然科学基金委员会. 2023 年国家自然科学基金项目指南-青年科学基金项目 [Z]//国家自然科学基金委员会. 2023