We provide evidence that risk aversion leads pharmaceutical firms to underinvest in radical innovation. We introduce a new measure of drug novelty based on chemical similarity and show that firms face a risk-reward trade-off: novel drug candidates are less likely to obtain FDA approval but are based on more valuable patents. Consistent with a simple model of costly external finance, we show that a positive shock to firms’ net worth leads firms to develop more novel drugs. This suggests that even large firms may behave as though they are risk averse, reducing their willingness to investment in potentially valuable radical innovation.

We examine editors’ influence on the scientific content of academic journals by unpacking the role of three major forces: journals’ stated missions, the aggregate supply of and demand for specific topics, and scientific homophily via editorial gatekeeping. In a sample of top biomedical journals, we find the first two forces explain the vast majority of variation in published content. The upper bound of the homophily effect is statistically significant but practically much less important. Marginal changes to the composition of editorial boards do not meaningfully impact journals’ content in the short run. However, we cannot rule out persistent or pervasive frictions in the publication process.