Analysis of the comparative strengths of intramural and extramural grant funding mechanisms

Abstract

Science funders utilize a variety of funding mechanisms to advance scientific discovery, and the comparative strengths of these approaches are frequently debated. One prominent example is the contrast between extramurally funded research, where grants are awarded to external institutions, and intramurally funded research, where scientists are directly hired by funding agencies. Each mechanism is backed by theoretical justifications. In this context, we quantify the comparative strengths of the National Institutes of Health’s extramural and intramural mechanisms. When adjusted for investment, extramural research excels at producing scholarly outputs such as publications and citations, which are standard metrics in academic assessment. In contrast, intramural research, whether basic or applied, stands out for producing research that influences subsequent clinical studies, aligning with its agency mission. These findings provide evidence that the institutional incentives associated with different funding mechanisms drive their comparative strengths.