TY - JOUR
T1 - The breakthrough paradox
T2 - How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science
AU - Falkenberg, Ruth Ingeborg
AU - Fochler, Maximilian
AU - Sigl, Lisa
AU - Bürstmayr, Hermann
AU - Eichorst, Stephanie
AU - Michel, Sebastian
AU - Oburger, Eva
AU - Staudinger, Christiana
AU - Steiner, Barbara
AU - Wöbken, Dagmar
N1 - Funding Information:
There is little doubt that the work of the ERC has had an enormous positive impact on science in Europe and beyond (König, 2017). However, the ERC and its funding model were conceptualized as complementing existing funding ecosystems and not as setting a new norm for good research. We argue that there is a danger that this role balance in the funding ecosystem may be shifting, paradoxically because of the success of the ERC. During the past decade, ERC funding and ERC definitions of quality have increasingly become seen as the gold standard of excellence in European academia (König, 2017). Faced with growing numbers of grant applications and limited budgets, national funders increasingly prioritize research that promises to daringly venture into novel areas. In Austria, for example, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the central funder of basic research, explicitly notes in their guidelines for standalone projects “that the next logical step or the incremental further development of published data is not considered to be innovative or original” (p. 8)—hence not worth being funded. Other European countries show similar tendencies. The Independent Research Fund Denmark, for example, writes in their call for proposals that applications should “display innovative research as opposed to expanding on already ongoing research” (p. 19). What is particularly problematic about these ERC-like demands for innovative breakthrough research is that they are usually matched neither with financial support comparable to an ERC grant, nor with longer-term prospects, thus making the development of breakthrough innovations in a single research project very unlikely. … the ERC and its funding model were conceptualized as complementing existing funding ecosystems and not as setting a new norm for good research. In addition, ERC funding and funding from grant agencies with a comparable focus on excellence and breakthrough research have become a major factor in hiring and tenure decisions (Scholten et al, 2021). In planning their projects, researchers anticipate requirements for ERC-like funding that is oriented towards breakthrough science, thus potentially de-prioritizing other lines of research that may be equally valuable. As Scholten et al (2021) stress, this type of excellence funding has strong positive effects on the few researchers and groups that succeed, in the sense that they can build “protected spaces” within the university (Gläser et al, 2014). However, these positive effects are counteracted by the negative effects for the many other researchers who do not receive such funding but still neglect more gradual lines of research.
PY - 2022/7/5
Y1 - 2022/7/5
N2 - Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground-breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.
AB - Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground-breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.
KW - innovation
KW - science
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131008074&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.15252/embr.202254772
DO - 10.15252/embr.202254772
M3 - Editorial
VL - 23
JO - EMBO Reports
JF - EMBO Reports
SN - 1469-221X
IS - 7
M1 - e54772
ER -