The dubious benefits of broader impact

摘要

Since 1997, it has not been sufficient for US researchers seeking grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to merely explain the intellectual merit of their proposal. They must also justify their work in terms of a variety of'broader impacts'. Politicians worldwide no longer accept that public investments in science automatically bring social benefits. They increasingly expect research expenditure to be justified on its potential contribution to social and economic goals. In the United States, this expectation has resulted in the NSF s notorious Criterion 2. Criterion 2 is used by peer reviewers to check that projects will promote education and training, broaden participation, improve infrastructure for research and education, disseminate knowledge or deliver more general social benefits. Yet, according to a review by the National Science Board (the NSF's advisory and oversight body), the criterion "can be very confusing to the research community, which continues to express frustration in interpreting and thus responding effectively". Last month, the board published a revised criterion, and scientists had until this week to provide comments to the NSF before the final version is issued. But Criterion 2.1, as it might be called, is just as confusing and counterproductive as its predecessor.