National Science Foundation Releases Draft Revised Merit Review Criteria; Just Fills in Details

Earlier today the Chair of the National Science Board and the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) released this document outlining draft revised criteria for merit review.  I wouldn’t characterize the draft criteria as radically different than the current set of criteria.  The changes in the proposed revisions are really giving detail and specifics to what could be considered broader impacts.  (There is a slight adjustment to the list of questions to consider when judging intellectual merit.)  Here are the draft revised criteria.  Comments are being accepted at meritreview at nsf dot gov for 30 days, until July 14.  NSF public affairs have characterized the announcement as a Dear Colleague letter, so comments from the public may not be given due consideration.  Given the consultations on the process to date have focused on stakeholders who aren’t the public, I wouldn’t be surprised.

1. All NSF projects should be of the highest intellectual merit with the potential to advance the frontiers of knowledge.
2. Collectively, NSF projects should help to advance a broad set of important national goals, including:

• Increased economic competitiveness of the United States.
• Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce.
• Increased participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in STEM.
• Increased partnerships between academia and industry.
• Improved pre-K–12 STEM education and teacher development.
• Improved undergraduate STEM education.
• Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology.
• Increased national security.
• Enhanced infrastructure for research and education, including facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships.

3. Broader impacts may be achieved through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by the project but ancillary to the research. All are valuable approaches for advancing important national goals.
4. Ongoing application of these criteria should be subject to appropriate assessment developed using reasonable metrics over a period of time.

For what it’s worth, the proposed revisions to the broader impact criteria are nearly identical to the goals for the criteria inserted into the NSF Authorization bill in 2010.