In a move aimed at enhancing the impact of scientific research, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is set to recommend significant changes to its grant review process. After an extensive 18-month review, the NSF plans to propose renaming one of its core evaluation criteria to emphasize the project's potential societal contributions.
Since 1997, the NSF has evaluated grant proposals based on two main criteria: "intellectual merit" and "broader impacts," assessing the novelty of research and its potential societal relevance, respectively. However, concerns have been raised regarding the adequate consideration of broader societal impacts by reviewers, prompting the National Science Board to reassess the evaluation metrics.
Stephen Willard, chair of the commission on merit review, provided a preview of the forthcoming report, slated for submission in May. The panel is expected to recommend renaming the "broader impacts" criterion to "societal benefits" to clarify its purpose. Willard highlighted the importance of assessing the tangible outcomes of funded research, such as advancements in public health, economic prosperity, and national security, as well as promoting diversity and inclusivity in the scientific community.
While acknowledging NSF's exceptional review process, Willard emphasized the need for improvement in evaluating the potential outcomes of funded projects. One proposed change includes introducing a separate score for the societal benefits criterion, providing transparency in the review process. Alan Leshner, a former board member, supported these changes, emphasizing the importance of transparency and clarity in evaluating grant proposals.
The move towards emphasizing societal benefits aligns with broader efforts to enhance the societal relevance of scientific research. The final report is anticipated by the end of the year, signaling a potential shift in NSF's grant review process towards a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.
