The subjective expected utility approach and a framework for defining project risk in terms of novelty and feasibility – A response to Franzoni and Stephan (2023), ‘uncertainty and risk-taking in science’

Abstract

In their Discussion Paper, Franzoni and Stephan (F&S, 2023) discuss the shortcomings of existing peer review models in shaping the funding of risky science. Their discussion offers a conceptual framework for incorporating risk into peer review models of research proposals by leveraging the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) approach to decouple reviewers' assessments of a project's potential value from its risk. In my Response, I build on F&S's discussion and attempt to shed light on three additional yet core considerations of risk in science: 1) how risk and reward in science are related to assessments of a project's novelty and feasibility; 2) how the sunk cost literature can help articulate why reviewers tend to perceive new research areas as riskier than continued investigation of existing lines of research; and 3) how drawing on different types of expert reviewers (i.e., based on domain and technical expertise) can result in alternative evaluation assessments to better inform resource allocation decisions. The spirit of my Response is to sharpen our understanding of risk in science and to offer insights on how future theoretical and empirical work—leveraging experiments— can test and validate the SEU approach for the purposes of funding more risky science that advances the knowledge frontier.