SCIENCE IN THE NEWS DAILY
NSF Tweaks Its Merit Review Rules
from ScienceInsider
The National Science Board has made two subtle but potentially important changes in how grant applications are reviewed at the National Science Foundation (NSF). And while those procedural changes may seem relevant only to those hoping to win NSF funding, they also add to the never-ending debate about how best to measure the results of federally funded research.
A new report from NSF's oversight body, approved last month, attempts to clear up ambiguous language on how proposal writers and reviewers should interpret a criterion NSF adopted in 1997 asking reviewers to evaluate the so-called "broader impacts" of the proposed research. To help applicants and reviewers with what is the second of two criteria used to evaluate proposals, NSF guidelines currently provide eight examples of possible outcomes. They range from attracting more women and minorities into science to fostering ties between academia and industry. The list has become a de facto definition of broader impacts, in other words, a blueprint of the ideas investigators believe NSF is most likely to fund.
That's a false assumption, says the science board, and one that imposes unnecessary restrictions on the creativity of investigators. Instead, the board stipulates that reviewers should use the same five metrics that they use to assess how well a proposal meets NSF's first criterion--the proposal's intellectual merit. The metrics include the significance of the idea and whether the investigator is qualified and has the resources to carry out the work.
Read more...
Science in the Media
Newspapers:
Magazines and Web Sites:
The Science-Media Intersection:
Subscribe to Our Content!
Visit our RSS Feeds page to choose among 13 customized feeds, or create a free My AmSci account to request an email notice whenever a specified author, department or discipline appears online.