NSF Program Attempts To Address Concerns Of Peer Review Critics

For years, critics have argued that the National Science Foundation's system of grant review is not receptive to novel or unorthodox ideas. But NSF has not failed to take notice of this charge. In 1989, spurred by complaints about reviewer conservatism, NSF introduced a new type of award known as Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER). Although still not widely known today, these grants exist expressly for the purpose of supporting speculative research endeavors that might not otherwise receive funding through normal channels, says James McCullough, senior staff associate for program evaluation at NSF. In discussing the SGERs, Mc-Cullough is careful to point out that they are not a distinct program of their own, but rather "an alternative mechanism [for awarding research grants] that any program officer can use." The money for an SGER, which is nonrenewable and may not exceed $50,000, comes out of the budget of the program issuing it. Program officers in all 28 NSF divisions can award SGERs at their discretion, with the proviso that no more than 5 percent of a program's annual budget may be spent on these grants. In keeping with the small-scale nature of the awards, the application process is simple and direct. Applications are limited to two to five pages in length--"back-of-the-envelope kinds of proposals," McCullough says. Although principal inves- tigators are required to submit brief bios, no more than five publications or research products may be cited. Proposals are subsequently evaluated by program officers alone, who have complete authority to approve or reject applications without seeking external review. The idea behind the grants is also simple: They enable program officers to fund high-risk ventures at minimal risk to NSF. "If [a study] doesn't work out, that's all right," McCullough says. "We've spent a bit of money to find that out without being engaged in a big research project." In addition, by bypassing normal peer review channels for SGERs, program officers can expedite the evaluation process. While six months is the average turnaround time for regular grants, SGER applicants typically receive a response within three or four months. The availability of SGERs does not mean NSF will stop supporting exploratory research through the regular funding route, NSF officials say. Nor does it mean that every speculative idea automatically qualifies for consideration for one of these grants. The SGER guidelines strongly recommend that prospective applicants consult with the appropriate program officer before submitting a proposal. It's up to the program officer to decide if this "is the appropriate mechanism for funding the research," says John Hunt, deputy director of NSF's chemistry division. "In a lot of cases, [the answer] will come down on the negative side if [the program officer concludes that] the regular grant mechanism will be adequate." In determining whether a proposal is suitable for an SGER, program officers will consider its novelty, level of risk, and potential impact. Another factor that comes into play is urgency. In fiscal year 1990, for example, a large number of SGERs went to researchers in geosciences, engineering, and social sciences who came forward with projects in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Hugo. Hunt also cites the example of Harvard University chemist Dudley Herschbach, who won the Nobel Prize in 1986, to illustrate a different kind of urgency. "Herschbach had a simple but elegant idea for orienting polar molecules in the gas phase," Hunt says. "He wrote an SGER proposal urging that he be funded because another group in Germany was working in the same area. So in this case, the urgency was the possibility of getting scooped." Herschbach received the SGER, and he and his rivals in Germany ended up splitting credit for developing the technique independently (Nature, 353:412, 1991). Although the application process plays down somewhat the importance of the investigator's track record, SGERs should not be construed as starter grants for scientists just embarking on their careers. At the same time, however, Mc-Cullough readily agrees that the grants are a good way for young researchers to "throw their hat over the transom if they have a good idea and want to test it out." He estimates that over the first two years, half of the applicants had no prior track record with NSF and that these individuals ended up receiving about 40 percent of the money awarded. Other data from the first two years (NSF officials are still in the process of tabulating data from the fiscal year just ended) indicate that program officers have granted SGERs sparingly. In FY 1990, for instance, 20 out of 28 divisions allocated less than 1 percent of their budgets to SGERs. The numbers increased slightly in FY 1991, but still only 15 divisions reached or passed the 1 percent mark. Overall, $15 million was awarded during this period, with the average grant size totaling $34,000. Although these figures seem to suggest that program officers have embraced the SGERs with a certain amount of restraint, some other numbers tell a different story: For both years, the approval rate for SGER applications has topped 50 percent--nearly double that of grant applications that pass through normal peer review. And of those proposals that were turned down in FY 1990, the most common reason for rejection was not that they were too speculative or off-beat, but rather that they weren't judged risky, novel, or urgent enough. Jeff Seiken is a freelance writer based in Pittsburgh.

NSF Program Attempts To Address Concerns Of Peer Review Critics

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of