Subcommittee Reviews NSF’s Merit Review Process
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing titled, “The Merit Review Process: Ensuring Limited Federal Resources Are Invested in the Best Science.” The hearing examined the merit review grant award process, primarily at the National Science Foundation (NSF), and its effect on federally funded scientific research. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Cora Marrett, Deputy Director, NSF; Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of California San Francisco; Dr. Nancy Jackson, President, American Chemical Society; and Dr. Jorge José, Vice President for Research, Indiana University.
“I agree with the statements of all of the witnesses here today that NSF’s merit review system remains the gold standard for the world,” said Ranking Member Dan Lipinski (D-IL). “At the same time, I recognize that there are challenges in any system for allocating limited research dollars. I agree with Chairman Brooks that it is our job, on this subcommittee, to hold hearings such as this one to discuss these challenges and collectively imagine how we might continue to make NSF, and the merit-review system that it manages, even stronger. Particularly in this tight budgetary environment it is incumbent upon us all to make sure that the system for funding excellent science is as efficient and effective as possible.”
All of the witnesses agreed that the merit review process at NSF has been proven over many decades to be a very strong system for identifying and supporting the best science. They added that the process has been so successful, it has been adopted by funding agencies around the world.
Dr. Jorge José said, “My broad experience in different aspects of the process by which the federal government funds scientific research at universities leads me to conclude that while no system of review is perfect, nor guaranteed to fund only the best scientific research, the merit review system is the most effective process we have for ensuring that federal funds are used most effectively in support of scientific research, in particular at this time of limited resources when we need to prioritize how the tax payer dollars are best invested.”
Members and witnesses also discussed issues with the merit review process, such as the tendency of peer-review panels to favor incremental over potentially transformative research when both are important; the need to ensure that early-career researchers can successfully compete for funding; and different perspectives on the Broader Impacts Review Criterion.
The National Science Board is currently in the process of reviewing and revising the existing merit review criteria, including clarifying the purpose and implementation of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion. Ranking Member Lipinski expressed his desire to revisit these issues after the National Science Board has completed their review this fall.
Dr. Marrett said, “For over 60 years NSF has been forward-looking in terms of how the agency manages its research and education portfolio. Merit review fosters the “process of discovery,” the means by which researchers can identify emerging scientific challenges and innovative approaches for addressing them, NSF is dedicated to ensuring that the merit review process remains robust, rigorous, and beyond reproach, in support of our mission and enabling us to pursue our goal of funding the world’s best research in science, engineering, and education.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article