Time to tackle the incumbency advantage in science: A survey of scientists shows strong support for funding policies that would distribute funds more evenly among laboratories and thereby benefit new and smaller research groups.

Abstract

There is something called the “incumbency advantage” in biomedical research: established laboratories have an advantage over newer laboratories when it comes to securing research funding. There are several interrelated factors that contribute to this phenomenon. First, research proposals are usually based on a considerable amount of preliminary data, which means that younger scientists have more difficulties putting competitive proposals together, even when these contain brilliant ideas [1], [2]. Second, the complexity and length of grant application guidelines and criteria can work against scientists who do not have enough expertise with application procedures, or assistants who can help them [2]. Third, the review committees that evaluate research proposals often seem to be biased in favor of established scientists with a solid track record. Indeed, there is evidence that review processes favor the “insiders and the familiar” over the “unknown”, even without intentional bias (see “Further Reading”). Fourth, consensus biases toward mainstream and orthodox ideas/approaches again favor the large and well‐established laboratories over small and newly established ones [1], [2]. While “seasoned investigators are inclined to stick to the tried‐and‐true formulas for success” [1], young investigators are more likely to test new ideas/approaches. Fifth, large research programs can also be favored simply by “inertia” biases, especially given their “financial dependency” [1]. The incumbency advantage therefore creates an unfair situation for young investigators. It is not only a matter of equal opportunities, but it also decreases the overall efficiency of the system in several ways. First, many innovative research projects by young PIs remain unfunded. This is a problem, because newly established laboratories often have innovative ideas. Second, the incumbency advantage leads to “over‐funding” of some laboratories, and there is evidence of a negative correlation between funding and laboratory …