NSF's Struggle to Articulate Relevance

Public science today finds itself caught between competing demands: Researchers need autonomy to pursue questions wherever they lead, whereas funders demand that research meet societal needs. The National Science Foundation (NSF) offers a case study of the balancing of scientific autonomy and societal accountability. NSF is charged with funding basic (i.e., nonmission) research. Yet Congress funds basic science in the hope that societal benefits will result. In 1997, NSF added a “broader impacts” review criterion to address concerns about relevance: Justify research in terms of societal outcomes.

Over the past decade our nation's concern with accountability has increased, and in response, the NSF recently issued new draft criteria for the review of submitted proposals (1). The new plan will require researchers to identify the broader good of their research by selecting from a list of national priorities. No doubt, scientists who complained about the vagueness of the “benefits to society” clause in the former criterion will welcome the proposed changes as providing much-needed clarity and direction to the idea of “broader impacts.” But specifying impacts raises three potential problems.

First, the list focuses on economics and national security, but excludes protecting the environment and addressing other social problems. Aside from the consequences of neglecting these areas, this new focus may undermine the attractiveness of STEM disciplines to more idealistic students who are interested in meeting human needs rather than fostering economic competitiveness. Second, under the proposed new criteria, applicants and reviewers are restricted to the provided list of national needs, which will complicate efforts to respond to new challenges as they develop. Third, addressing these national needs is now supposed to happen “collectively.” This reopens the question of whether each individual proposal must address broader impacts. The new criterion thus replaces vagueness regarding what counts as a broader impact with vagueness regarding who is responsible for addressing broader impacts.

The new criteria are not without merit. For example, the guidelines on how to implement proposed broader impacts are improved. Once one identifies the national goal to be pursued, the new broader impacts criterion focuses on logistical questions that should be asked in peer review.

The proposed changes in the merit review criteria move too far in the direction of accountability, at the cost of scientific creativity and autonomy. The set of principles (in terms of national goals) also suffers from excessive detail at the cost of flexibility. Of course, revising the criteria is a perennial process of renegotiation as cultural values change, and these are only draft criteria and principles. NSF invites comments until 14 July. Both the scientific community and the science policy community need to make their voices heard.