Literature DB >> 20056712

Sources of funding for Nobel Prize-winning work: public or private?

Athina Tatsioni1, Effie Vavva, John P A Ioannidis.   

Abstract

Funding is important for scientists' work and may contribute to exceptional research outcomes. We analyzed the funding sources reported in the landmark scientific papers of Nobel Prize winners. Between 2000 and 2008, 70 Nobel laureates won recognition in medicine, physics, and chemistry. Sixty five (70%) of the 93 selected papers related to the Nobel-awarded work reported some funding source including U.S. government sources in 53 (82%), non-U.S. government sources in 19 (29%), and nongovernment sources in 33 (51%). A substantial portion of this exceptional work was unfunded. We contacted Nobel laureates whose landmark papers reported no funding. Thirteen Nobel laureates responded and offered their insights about the funding process and difficulties inherent in funding. Overall, very diverse sources amounting to a total of 64 different listed sponsors supported Nobel-related work. A few public institutions, in particular the U.S. National Institutes of Health (with n=26 funded papers) and the National Science Foundation (with n=17 papers), stood out for their successful record for funding exceptional research. However, Nobel-level work arose even from completely unfunded research, especially when institutions offered a protected environment for dedicated scientists.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20056712     DOI: 10.1096/fj.09-148239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  FASEB J        ISSN: 0892-6638            Impact factor:   5.191


  10 in total

1.  More time for research: fund people not projects.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Research grants: Conform and be funded.

Authors:  Joshua M Nicholson; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  The Colombian scientific elite-Science mapping and a comparison with Nobel Prize laureates using a composite citation indicator.

Authors:  Julián D Cortés; Daniel A Andrade
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  The aging of biomedical research in the United States.

Authors:  Kirstin R W Matthews; Kara M Calhoun; Nathan Lo; Vivian Ho
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores.

Authors:  Mark D Lindner; Richard K Nakamura
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The transformative nature of transparency in research funding.

Authors:  Daniel Mietchen
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  Considerations for higher efficiency and productivity in research activities.

Authors:  Diego A Forero; Jason H Moore
Journal:  BioData Min       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 2.522

8.  Factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's scholarly impact.

Authors:  Courtney B Shires; Theodore D Klug; Ryan K Meacham; Merry E Sebelik
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-01-06

9.  Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.

Authors:  Jean-Michel Fortin; David J Currie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?

Authors:  John Rigby
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 3.238

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.