NSF Makes It Easier To Appeal As It Opens Up Review Process

WASHINGTON -- The National Science Foundation, in the midst of declining funding rates and a growing debate about the nature of peer review, has decided to make it easier for scientists to appeal the bad news they receive. Procedural changes disclosed last month at a meeting of the National Science Board also are designed to help NSF identify the worthiest grant proposals and to provide applicants with more information about the factors that led to funding decisions. "We want to open up the process to the outside," NSF Director Erich Bloch told board members. "We want the PIs [principal investigators] to feel free to say what they think. And we also want to tell them as much as possible about how the decision [on their proposal] was made." Critics of what NSF officials call merit review say they welcome the changes. They also claim partial credit for them. Last summer geologist Jon Kalb joined with Public Citizen, a Washington-based advocacy group, in a 37-page petition urging NSF to change the way it keeps information on the more than 25,000 applications submitted each year (The Scientist, Sept. 18, 1989, page 13). The petition has prompted letters between the two sides but, as of March 1, no formal response had come from NSF. However, Kalb says, NSF's announced plan to revise its procedures was prompted by the criticism agency administrators have received. "Without a doubt it's because of our pressure on them," says Kalb, who in 1987 received $20,000 and an apology from NSF for having allowed an NSF panel that was reviewing his grant application to discuss a false rumor that Kalb was working for the CIA while conducting research in Ethiopia. "NSF is a very autonomous agency, and it likes to pretend to do things its own way without outside interference," Kalb says. But NSF officials deny that Kalb's petition forced their hand. They say that the changes stem from heightened concern in Congress and society about how science is conducted, as well as from their desire to make the process as transparent as possible without sacrificing the privacy of individuals and their ideas. "This goes back to a request from Mr. Bloch in September for an examination of how we can improve the merit review system," says James McCullough, director of program evaluation at NSF. "If you look closely at what we've done in this area, you'll see that he's made changes when and where he felt they were needed." The new rules will permit scientists to appeal their rejection, a process that NSF calls reconsideration, on the grounds that reviewers exercised faulty judgment. At present such reconsiderations are permitted only for alleged errors in how the application was handled. "We want to make it clear that you can come back for any reason," Bloch told the science board. "Right now, the perception is that we only accept procedural questions." While NSF rejects thousands of grant proposals annually, the agency currently receives fewer than 50 requests for reconsideration each year (The Scientist, June 15, 1987, page 1). Officials say they don't expect that number to grow significantly, although Bloch says that there could be a temporary "spike" caused by scientists who want to test the system. But some science board members fear that the change might force NSF staff and outside reviewers to repeat the review process. "What if a PI says that we've rejected his proposal because the reviewers incorrectly think the problem has already been dealt with?" wondered chemist Albert Cotton of Texas A&M University. "You'll probably want to see a citation, and before you know it you're arguing the merits of the original proposal again." Added board member Frank Rhodes, president of Cornell University, "I'm just concerned about the time that it will take up." McCullough admits that the new procedures "have the potential to become a considerable burden." But he doesn't expect it to turn out that way. "It would be foolish for people to abuse it," he says. In fact, some NSF administrators say that the change is nothing new. "They could always appeal on the substance," says Mary Clutter, NSF assistant director for the biological and behavioral sciences. "But they knew that they'd generally be better off finding out why their proposal was rejected and amending it for the next round." Some observers predict that the changes will actually improve the review process by reminding program managers that they are accountable for their actions. "It will impose a good discipline on people to make sure that they do their jobs right," says George Mason University economist John Moore, who until January was deputy director of NSF. "The threat that this could happen will make everybody more aware of the need to keep good rec-ords." "It's all part of a general atmosphere of greater scrutiny within which NSF is operating," he adds. "And it was important for NSF to get its act together." The new procedures also give scientists the chance to submit the names of persons who, because of personal or professional conflicts or animosity, should not be allowed to review the proposal. Some program managers already solicit such information, McCullough notes, but "we need to make it clearer." Once the proposal is turned down, program officers will supply additional information about the context in which the decision was made. "Right now people get the raw reviews, without names, and a standard cover letter," says McCullough. The new procedures also take into account the growing number of reviewers contacted at panels that meet at NSF. In the past, NSF contacted the bulk of its reviewers by mail. But last year about 60% of applications received either both types of reviews or just a panel review, and Bloch told the science board that the agency has been lax in documenting the panel's decisions. Science board members asked NSF to evaluate the procedures in a year or so to see if applicants think they are working properly. But critic Kalb, for one, says that he's already convinced that the changes represent real progress. "What we're seeing is some major reforms in the peer review system," says Kalb. Referring to his petition against the agency, Kalb adds that "we're not against peer review. We just want to end the abuses that occur."

NSF Makes It Easier To Appeal As It Opens Up Review Process

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Jeffrey Mervis

Published In

March 1990

Related Research Resources

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Comparing Analytical Solutions for High-Throughput Drug Discovery

Products

Product News

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Singleron Biotechnologies and Hamilton Bonaduz AG Announce the Launch of Tensor to Advance Single Cell Sequencing Automation

Zymo Research Launches Research Grant to Empower Mapping the RNome

Cytosurge Appoints Magid Haddouchi as Chief Commercial Officer