From AIBS Public Policy Report:
National Science Board Proposes Revisions to Merit Review Criteria
The National Science Board (NSB) has suggested
changes to the criteria the National Science
Foundation (NSF) uses to evaluate grant
proposals. The existing two merit review
criteria, which consider the intellectual merit
and broader impacts of the proposed research,
would be retained. Changes, however, would be
made to better define the criteria, in order to
clarify misunderstandings within the research community.
The largest change was made to the broader
impacts criterion, which considers a projects
potential to benefit society and contribute to
the achievement of specific, desired societal
outcomes, such as expanding minority
participation in science. The revised criterion
takes into account a proposals potential to
benefit society and explore original or
potentially transformative concepts, as well as
the qualifications of the researcher(s), adequacy
of resources, and organization and rationality of
the plan. The existing broader impacts criterion
does not place an emphasis on the ability of a
grantee to achieve his/her stated outcomes.
The NSB also recommended the addition of three
overarching principles to better guide
researchers and reviewers. The principles aim to
ensure that NSF supports high quality research
that advances the frontiers of knowledge; that
NSF-supported research should contribute, in the
aggregate, to achieving societal goals; and that
assessment of NSF-funded projects should use
appropriate metrics that account for the size and scope of the work.
NSF has already taken action to transition to use
of the revised criteria, according to a
memorandum from Ray M. Bowen, chair of the NSB.
Download the report at
<http://aibs.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a2886d199362c2554974f78af&id=4b0e847629&e=86677c1c7a>http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf.
Head of NSF BIO Shares His Vision for the Directorates Future
The National Science Foundations (NSF) new
assistant director of the Directorate for
Biological Sciences (BIO), Dr. John Wingfield,
recently shared his vision for BIO with the AIBS
journal, BioScience. The interview, which appears
in the January issue, explores future directions
in biological research, the budget for the
directorate, and public access to data.
[T]he organism in its environment is the
ultimate frontier, said Dr. Wingfield. How we
are going to understand the organismenvironment
interaction in a changing world is a huge
challenge. Going from genomes to phenomes is one
way; also, the other way, top-down, from phenome
back to genome, is a useful way to look at it.
With respect to the recent change to an annual
grant cycle in the Divisions of Environmental
Biology and Integrative Organismal Systems,
Wingfield hopes that the new system will reduce
the burden on reviewers and researchers: You
expect that with this system, where you have more
time to assess the reviews, time to talk with the
program officer, over the same timescale, you'll
get funded, and you'll get a lot more feedback.
One thing we're reminding people of is that
despite this new cycle, we will still be funding
the same number of grants and the same number of
beginning investigators each year.
Wingfield recognizes the uncertainties in the
current federal funding environment, and views
protection of existing core programs as the first
priority. An austere budget, notes Wingfield,
could result in the delay of the opening of new synthesis centers.
Wingfield also expects NSF-funded researchers to
start sharing their data. Mandated open access to
data will be implemented in the future, although
the details are still evolving.
Read the full interview with Dr. Wingfield for
free at
<http://aibs.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=a2886d199362c2554974f78af&id=23b5f28441&e=86677c1c7a>http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.6.
