A couple of thoughts on these two items. I think it is an interesting turn on the often top down management of funding that the NSB is actually changing the Broader Impacts criteria to come into line with the way PIs, reviewers, and panelists have interpreted Broader Impacts, which, at least in DEB where I was a Program Director, has typically included how the SCIENCE ITSELF to benefit society, as well as the potential of the project to enhance scientific infrastructure. I think this is a very positive message explicitly recognizing that science itself provides societal benefits beyond that measured in people trained and dollars spent.
To address Aaron's concern. The ability of a researched to actually do the work they propose has always been part of the review criteria. This simply places that assessment by reviewers and panelists in the Broader Impacts. I don't see how this change effects the ability of junior researchers to secure funding. I am more concerned how the new submission guidelines in BIO affect junior researchers. Two very positive things jumped out from the Wingfield interview. Well, three actually, the first being that their is actually an Assistant Director for Biology in place, rather than an acting AD. Second is the stated desire to protect the core. This is something that Program Directors constantly fight for, because it is really the bread and butter for most of us as PIs. That AD Wingfield sees that as a priority should be comforting. Lastly, his statement that he still sees investigator driven science as, again, the bread and butter for most of us, is also very encouraging. This exchange gets at both brilliantly. "Beardsley: Do you see more big science projects in the future, as compared to individual PI projects? Wingfield: I would say no. Big projects will continue in BIO, but we try to protect the core. This is our goal, [since] it is where all the innovation comes from: Individual PIs collaborating and working with their students is where the really big, fundamental ideas come from. They may be communicated through synthesis centers, but it's individual PIs working at the bench or synthesizing data, talking with one another, in the community, who originate them. And that is why we have to protect the core." On 1/18/12 8:47 AM, "David Inouye" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 project's 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 proposal's 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 Directorate's Future The National Science Foundation's (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 organism-environment 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. William J. Resetarits, Jr. Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131 Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300 Fax (806) 742-2963 http://www.myweb.ttu.edu/wresetar/
