Research-targeting, spillovers, and the direction of science: Evidence from HIV research-funding

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
{"title":"Research-targeting, spillovers, and the direction of science: Evidence from HIV research-funding","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>HIV/AIDS has been a major focus for research funders. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone has spent over $70bn on HIV/AIDS. Such investments ushered in antiviral drugs, helping to reverse a rapidly growing HIV/AIDS pandemic. However, the idea that research can deliver unexpected benefits beyond its targeted field, in fact, predates HIV/AIDS to at least Vannevar Bush's influential 1945 report. Cross-disease spillovers – research investments that yield benefits beyond the target disease – remains unexplored, even though it could inform both priority-setting and calculations of returns on research investments. To this end, we took a sample of NIH's HIV grants and examined their publications. We analyzed 118,493 publications and found that 62 % of these were spillovers. We used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms assigned to publications to explore the content of these spillovers, as well as to corroborate non-spillovers. We located spillovers on a network of MeSH co-occurrence, drawn from the broader universe of biomedical publications, for comparison. We found that HIV spillovers were unevenly distributed across disease-space, and often in close proximity to HIV (60 % local; 40 % remote). We further reviewed 1000 grant–publication pairs from a local sample and 1000 pairs from a remote sample. For local spillovers, a quarter seemed to be unexpected, on the basis of their grant description; for remote spillovers, that proportion increased to one third. We also found that the NIH funding institutes whose remits were most closely related to HIV/AIDS were less likely to produce spillovers than others. We discuss implications for theory and policy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001252/pdfft?md5=81196643146d187b2b75c625aa46106b&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324001252-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001252","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

HIV/AIDS has been a major focus for research funders. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone has spent over $70bn on HIV/AIDS. Such investments ushered in antiviral drugs, helping to reverse a rapidly growing HIV/AIDS pandemic. However, the idea that research can deliver unexpected benefits beyond its targeted field, in fact, predates HIV/AIDS to at least Vannevar Bush's influential 1945 report. Cross-disease spillovers – research investments that yield benefits beyond the target disease – remains unexplored, even though it could inform both priority-setting and calculations of returns on research investments. To this end, we took a sample of NIH's HIV grants and examined their publications. We analyzed 118,493 publications and found that 62 % of these were spillovers. We used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms assigned to publications to explore the content of these spillovers, as well as to corroborate non-spillovers. We located spillovers on a network of MeSH co-occurrence, drawn from the broader universe of biomedical publications, for comparison. We found that HIV spillovers were unevenly distributed across disease-space, and often in close proximity to HIV (60 % local; 40 % remote). We further reviewed 1000 grant–publication pairs from a local sample and 1000 pairs from a remote sample. For local spillovers, a quarter seemed to be unexpected, on the basis of their grant description; for remote spillovers, that proportion increased to one third. We also found that the NIH funding institutes whose remits were most closely related to HIV/AIDS were less likely to produce spillovers than others. We discuss implications for theory and policy.

研究目标、溢出效应和科学发展方向:艾滋病研究资助的证据
艾滋病毒/艾滋病一直是研究资助者关注的重点。仅美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)在艾滋病毒/艾滋病方面就投入了 700 多亿美元。这些投资带来了抗病毒药物,帮助扭转了艾滋病毒/艾滋病迅速蔓延的趋势。然而,研究可以在其目标领域之外带来意想不到的益处,这一观点其实早在艾滋病毒/艾滋病之前就有了,至少可以追溯到范内瓦-布什(Vannevar Bush)于 1945 年发表的极具影响力的报告。跨疾病溢出效应--即研究投资在目标疾病之外产生的效益--仍未得到探讨,尽管它可以为确定优先事项和计算研究投资回报提供信息。为此,我们对美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的艾滋病研究基金进行了抽样调查,并对其出版物进行了研究。我们分析了 118,493 篇论文,发现其中 62% 是外溢性论文。我们使用分配给出版物的医学主题词表 (MeSH) 来探索这些溢出效应的内容,并证实非溢出效应。我们从更广泛的生物医学出版物中提取了 MeSH 共现网络中的外溢词,以进行比较。我们发现,HIV 的外溢效应在疾病空间中分布不均,而且通常与 HIV 非常接近(60% 在本地;40% 在远程)。我们进一步审查了本地样本中的 1000 对赠款-出版物对和远程样本中的 1000 对赠款-出版物对。就本地溢出效应而言,根据赠款说明,四分之一的溢出效应似乎是意料之外的;就远程溢出效应而言,这一比例上升到三分之一。我们还发现,与艾滋病毒/艾滋病关系最密切的美国国立卫生研究院资助机构产生外溢效应的可能性低于其他机构。我们讨论了对理论和政策的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信