Funding mechanisms as incentive systems: a role for science philanthropy
- 1ilken Institute Science Philanthropy Accelerator for Research and Collaboration, Washington, DC, United States
Abstract
Biomedical research is shaped not only by scientific questions, but also by the incentive structures that determine what scientists study, how they approach the work, and how success is defined. Current incentives often prioritize individual achievement as a pathway to career advancement, while undervaluing replication, data sharing, mentorship, collaboration, and shared infrastructure. This can make it challenging for scientists to prioritize these contributions, even when they recognize that they are essential for a strong scientific ecosystem. This article examines how funders and funding mechanisms create implicit incentives and argues that funding design is a powerful lever for shaping both scientific behavior and the broader research ecosystem. Philanthropy is uniquely positioned to experiment with funding design by supporting high-risk research, emerging areas, and investments in people, fields, norms, and shared infrastructure that other funders may be unable or unwilling to pursue, while also dedicating resources to learn from how these investments shape scientific behavior. Here, we highlight questions funders can ask about the incentives embedded in funding mechanisms, including what behaviors they encourage, who participates and benefits, and what persists beyond the award. For scientists, understanding funding goals, participating in evaluations, and making contributions beyond traditional outputs visible can strengthen the feedback between funding design and scientific practice. By treating funding mechanisms as design choices that can be tested and refined, philanthropy can generate evidence that informs future funding approaches and strengthens the scientific ecosystem.
Related
- Electron Transfer in Enzyme-Photo-Coupled Catalytic Systems: Mechanisms and Regulation Strategies
- Reproducibility of social science research using aggregate statistics with noise infused for differential privacy
- MUCOR-ADVANCE: Uniting multidisciplinary science to defeat a deadly fungus
- Better antibodies, better science
- MOSHPIT: Accessible, reproducible metagenome data science on the QIIME 2 framework
BibTeX
@article{parr2026funding,
title = {{Funding mechanisms as incentive systems: a role for science philanthropy}},
author = {Lillian Parr and Nadia Sarfraz and Sylvina M. Raver and Nadia M. Penrod},
journal = {Frontiers in Systems Biology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fsysb.2026.1939099},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fsysb.2026.1939099},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Funding mechanisms as incentive systems: a role for science philanthropy
AU - Lillian Parr
AU - Nadia Sarfraz
AU - Sylvina M. Raver
AU - Nadia M. Penrod
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
JO - Frontiers in Systems Biology
DO - 10.3389/fsysb.2026.1939099
UR - https://doi.org/10.3389/fsysb.2026.1939099
AB - Biomedical research is shaped not only by scientific questions, but also by the incentive structures that determine what scientists study, how they approach the work, and how success is defined. Current incentives often prioritize individual achievement as a pathway to career advancement, while undervaluing replication, data sharing, mentorship, collaboration, and shared infrastructure. This can make it challenging for scientists to prioritize these contributions, even when they recognize that they are essential for a strong scientific ecosystem. This article examines how funders and funding mechanisms create implicit incentives and argues that funding design is a powerful lever for shaping both scientific behavior and the broader research ecosystem. Philanthropy is uniquely positioned to experiment with funding design by supporting high-risk research, emerging areas, and investments in people, fields, norms, and shared infrastructure that other funders may be unable or unwilling to pursue, while also dedicating resources to learn from how these investments shape scientific behavior. Here, we highlight questions funders can ask about the incentives embedded in funding mechanisms, including what behaviors they encourage, who participates and benefits, and what persists beyond the award. For scientists, understanding funding goals, participating in evaluations, and making contributions beyond traditional outputs visible can strengthen the feedback between funding design and scientific practice. By treating funding mechanisms as design choices that can be tested and refined, philanthropy can generate evidence that informs future funding approaches and strengthens the scientific ecosystem.
SN - 2674-0702
ER -