Who defines "high-risk, high-reward"?

The House Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a meeting today (Thursday, Oct. 8th) to discuss investing in more high-risk, high-reward research. The NIH wasn't at the meeting, but Neal Lane from Rice University, representing the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, James Collins from NSF, Richard McCullough from Carnegie Mellon University, and Gerald Rubin from HHMI were there to tell members of Congress about why the US needs to invest more money in high-risk, high-reward research and how to go about distributing it. When I listened in on the hearing, one thing especially surprised me: Congressman Vern Ehlers (Mich-R) asked how agencies could increase grants to young scientists under these new funding initiatives since they often lack the experience and credibility needed to push their proposals through the application process. To me, this suggests that young researchers are by definition high-risk high-reward.

It all left me wondering: this term is thrown around a lot, but what exactly does "high-risk, high-reward" mean? In the hearing they defined it as the National Science Board does – "unique ideas and sometimes unconventional approaches that have the potential to create new models or fields within science and engineering or radically change our understanding of a current concept." But that's a bit broad, no?

Do you think funding bodies -- and Congress -- need a better definition of "high-risk, high-reward" research? Where do young researchers fit into that definition?

-Katherine Bagley, Editorial Intern

These are terrific questions. "High risk, high reward" definitely is part of that Great American Entrepreneurial Spirit that we all wish to fondly embrace. It does work very well in engineering, where technological advances become applied quite inventively. Such is particularly prominent with most medical devices where America does currently lead the World. However, usually, those high tech solutions that are created, such as implantable medical devices, only treat fairly low tech problems; e.g. pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and neurostimulators apply electrical pulses, artificial heart valves provide a one-way flow of blood, etc. Certainly these are incredible engineering feats that provide solutions for unmet medical needs that extend lives and relieve pain, but they collectively took sweat, perseverence, and brilliant problem solving to be achieved, without any grand, new, scientific theoretical constructs.

What works wonderfully in engineering/business may not translate well to basic medical research. I personally don't know what "high risk, high reward" might mean. Are they talking about bolts from the blue, unforeseen magical solutions that slap the face of convention? Or, are they simply currently ignored, but traditionally exceedingly fruitful areas of research, that might have fallen way behind on the funding ladder these past few decades, when everything went molecular, animal equaled mouse, and if you weren't working on an ome then you weren't working on anything relevant; e.g. classical organ physiology?

I wish I knew what the definition is, because that known, then the place of the young, to-be-hopefully-independent-researcher-once-he/she-becomes-funded in this process will become much more clear, and it would provide a straight-forward goal for that person to achieve.

What is this -High Risk ,High Rewards? Are we thinking in terms of running a business corporation?In Science, especially in Theory aspect of it, it needs time to collate facts after a general Premise, find individual cases, ,create conditions,conduct experiments and provide proof.You can not, at one shot, form a theory and prove it instantly.
This is not a joke and jokers a.k.a politicians are not qualified to decide on this issue.Panel of eminent academics may examine the soundness of the theory, on case to case basis( as new theories may not be in consonance with existing theories) and recommend what to choose and proceed.
Age has no relevance in Science.

If we attempt to define "high risk high reward" science, in terms any less broad than the NSB definition, we will immediately constrain it and render it no longer "HRHR." So I would argue strongly against the premise that the NSB definition is overly broad. The breadth of the definition is to my mind the important key to the hard job of recognizing risky, potentially transformative research. After all, THAT'S THE POINT, REALLY -- we won't know for 100% sure what's paradigm-shattering, or what is so novel or of such unexpected significance that it will make a profound change in how we think or what we do until AFTER THE FACT -- after the idea is explored, after the experiments are done, after the work has withstood rigorous. testing Trying to limit the definition a priori will only serve to limit the downstream potential possibilities. How can you constrain serendipity??

As for young investigators -- that's a chin-rubbing notion. On the one hand, young investigators are intrinsically risky not necessarily because of their ideas but because of their lack of track record. In other words, the risk is not in the project but in the investigator himself or herself. Literally, we don't know until after an investigator has been working independently for ten years or so whether or not he or she is any good. Is that a reason for not providing support? I think not. I think that's a reason for supporting lots of these young investigators, to ensure a pipeline of creative and productive scientists for the future. In other words, supporting promising young investigators, giving them the opportunity to "play in the lab" (I mean that literally, and I consider it a good thing to do) and gain the experience in both depth and breadth that they will need in order to make the great contributions of the future, is the only way to get great contributions in the future. That's the reward. The hard part is figuring out which "promising" young scientists will pan out in the long run -- and there's the risk. Yes, some of the promising young investigators we support will drop out of the system eventually for one reason or another. Nobody can predict with 100% accuracy which ones will and which ones won't hang in there in the long run. That's why we need to support as many as we can, to ensure the pipeline.

The problem with "high risk high reward" projects (including young investigators), which is the thing that bothers everyone, is that you can't predict outcomes (by definition -- if you can predict the outcome, it ain't High Risk). Therefore, conservative souls tend to shy away from such things instinctively. But we need to support risky science, in order to reap potential rewards, and so it is necessary to do the hard thing -- take the risks, acknowledging up front that not every "high risk" project, and not every promising young investigator, can possibly pan out in the end, but recognizing that even if one in five, or even if one in ten, DO pan out, then the investment in all of them will have been worth it.

Amen.

I agree that we need to be careful about trying to specifically define high risk high reward research beyond the current definition. HRHR research is just that... It's research that is innovative and has the potential to advance the field, but is a long-term investment. At the hearing, Dr. Ehlers gave the example of the laser, which took many years and lots of funds to discover, but once done became a standard technology in society.
I really enjoyed hearing the witnesses at the hearing outline the challenges to funding this research. It is true that our current system disregards HRHR research as too risky, particularly with so many lower risk proposals being submitted. But, as was pointed out by Dr. Lane, we need to start thinking about these proposals in a different way. Whether or not the initial hypothesis is proven, these types of research proposals promote excellent science, provide jobs, enhance education, and advance the field, possibly leading to other great investments.in this sense, the risk is not as great and the reward already apparent before the research begins.