The Appeal of Safety: Unraveling Scientists’ Preference for Low-Risk Projects

The Appeal of Safety: Unraveling Scientists’ Preference for Low-Risk Projects

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

An intriguing study published in⁢ PLOS Biology by Kevin Gross from North Carolina State University, U.S., and Carl‌ Bergstrom from the University ⁢of Washington, U.S., delves into ⁤a mathematical framework based on hidden-action ⁤models in economics. This framework sheds light on how the invisible aspects of effort and risk influence the research⁤ strategies of investigators and the incentive systems in which they ‌operate.

Scientific progress often ​requires taking risks, ‍yet ⁣many ‌funded research projects tend to play it safe. Gross and Bergstrom’s‌ research explores how the unobservable ‍nature‌ of risk and‍ effort hinders the‍ pursuit of high-risk,​ high-reward research endeavors.

The model ⁤they developed addresses the challenge of ‌rewarding scientific discoveries‌ in a way that motivates effort and risk-taking while also safeguarding ‌researchers’ ​livelihoods from the uncertainties of scientific outcomes.

An interesting dilemma arises from the‍ need to ⁣balance incentives for ⁤effort and risk-taking, as⁣ failed projects can be perceived as either a⁣ result of bold risk-taking or mere laziness. This conflict leads to a situation where the encouragement of effort inadvertently​ discourages risk-taking.

As a consequence, scientists tend to gravitate towards safer projects that demonstrate effort but may not advance scientific knowledge as quickly as riskier ventures would.

To address this issue, a social planner ⁢prioritizing scientific productivity over researchers’ well-being could incentivize major discoveries enough to promote​ high-risk research. However, this approach exposes scientists to greater livelihood risks, ultimately leaving them worse off.

2024-08-15‌ 13:15:03
Original article available at phys.org

Exit mobile version