SLIDE 1

In 1995 NSF adopted a new strategic plan, partly in response to GPRA.  The new plan had as a long-term goal: “the promotion of the discovery, integration, dissemination, and employment of new knowledge in service to society.”

In 1995 the National Science Board (NSB) also stated its desire to re-examine merit review criteria in light of the new strategic plan. 

In 1996 NSB-NSF Task Force on Merit Review was formed to see whether they could be aligned more closely with the new strategic plan.

In 1997 NSF’s current merit review criteria were approved by the National Science Board and went into effect on October 1, so we are rapidly approaching the 10th anniversary of the “Broader Impacts” criterion – which we’re going to call “BIC.”"

SLIDE 2

"Also in 1997 – so almost immediately after the new criteria went into effect – Congress directed NSF to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA ) to examine the new criteria.

In 2001 NAPA issued its report."

SLIDE 3

"The NAPA Report notes that “many reviewers either ignore Criterion 2 or in some cases regard it as irrelevant in the review of proposals,” that many reviewers “perceive Criterion 1 (scientific merit) and Criterion 2 (broader or societal impact) as in competition with each other,” and that many reviewers either “disregard Criterion 2 altogether or simply merge social value into scientific merit” (p. 13).  Among the major recommendations of the NAPA panel is that “there is a need to improve the conceptual clarity of the objectives of the new criteria as well as the language used in stating them . . . .  This is true of the language of Criterion 2, in particular” (p. 8).

In essence, what happened is that people ignored BIC.

In 2002 – in an effort to reemphasize the importance of the BIC –  NSF issues Important Notice No. 127, which advises the community that NSF will begin to return without review proposals that do not address both merit review criteria.

This got people focused on the fact that they had to address BIC and led to what I’m calling “No Proposal Left Behind.”"

SLIDE 4

"With “No Proposal Left Behind,” the focus was placed especially on the quantity of proposals and reviews that address BIC.  Now it’s up above 90% pretty regularly (i.e., over 90% of proposals submitted to NSF do address both criteria).  However, this focus on quantity is inadequate, and it led to some unfortunate results, including the 2005 development of a “5-word metric” by the Division of Integrative Organismal Biology (IOB) – as long as you say 5 words about BIC, it counts as addressing it."

SLIDE 5

"Obviously, this is a reductio ad absurdum of the policy of focusing only on the quantity of proposals that address BIC….

Gradually, and as attention to BIC has increased (in quantity), the focus has shifted from quantity to quality of attention to “Broader Impacts.”  This is a move in the right direction, which is due in large part to NSF as well as people in the education and outreach (EPO) community (who approach resistance to BIC with an attitude of “we’ll show you how to do this”). 

However, BIC is not just “the education and public outreach criterion.”  Our approach to BIC needs to go beyond that.

Among other activities that would satisfy BIC are:"

SLIDE 6

"Finally, despite the gradual move toward a focus on how to address BIC, there remains what can best be termed significant resistance on the part of many members of the scientific and engineering community toward “broader impacts” activities:"

SLIDE 7

"If, despite the move in the direction of increasing the quality of responses to BIC, significant resistance among members of the science and engineering community to addressing “broader impacts” remains in place, then we still need to ask: why?"

SLIDE 8

My “hypothesis” is …

SLIDE 9

"If I am correct in this hypothesis, then the way to overcome such resistance is to attempt to answer why engaging in education and public outreach activities would benefit both science and society; why broadening the participation of underrepresented groups would benefit both science and society; why enhancing infrastructure would benefit both science and society; why broadly disseminating research results would benefit both science and society; and why benefiting society would benefit science, as well as society."

SLIDE 10

"Just getting funding is a bad reason to care about these things.  However, feminist philosophy of science, for instance, has something interesting to say about why it would be good to include other viewpoints from underrepresented groups.  I think all of you here have your own contributions to make in helping us answer “why” BIC, as well."