Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences
利用霍华德·休斯医学研究所（HHMI）与国立卫生研究院（NIH）资助方式的差异，发现容忍早期失败、奖励长期成功的HHMI模式能显著提高科学家产出高影响力论文的比率，并促使他们探索新颖的研究方向。
Despite its presumed role as an engine of economic growth, we know surprisingly little about the drivers of scientific creativity. We exploit key differences across funding streams within the academic life sciences to estimate the impact of incentives on the rate and direction of scientific exploration. Specifically, we study the careers of investigators of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), which tolerates early failure, rewards long‐term success, and gives its appointees great freedom to experiment, and grantees from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who are subject to short review cycles, predefined deliverables, and renewal policies unforgiving of failure. Using a combination of propensity‐score weighting and difference‐in‐differences estimation strategies, we find that HHMI investigators produce high‐impact articles at a much higher rate than a control group of similarly accomplished NIH‐funded scientists. Moreover, the direction of their research changes in ways that suggest the program induces them to explore novel lines of inquiry.