Can the U.S. government do a better job of betting on long shots in science? NSF and NIH hope the answer is yes. Duke University neuroscientist Erich Jarvis won the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) prestigious Waterman Award for outstanding youngresearchers 2 years ago. But despite his early success, the assistant professor sounds like a battle-hardened veteran of the struggle for federal funding—in his case, for work on vocal learning. He certainly knows what it's like to have his ideas shotdown. For example, Jarvis has cracked the code used by reviewers to undercut a grant proposal, especially the one that begins, "This is a very ambitious proposal. ..." He's learned that those words, seemingly in praise of a novel scientific idea, are actually the kiss of death. And he sees irony in being penalized for trying something that nobody else has attempted—in other words, for proposing the sort of cutting-edge science that federal agencies profess to welcome. "You learn the hard way not to send high-risk proposals to NSF or fthe National Institutes of Health], because they will get dinged by reviewers. Instead, You're encouraged to tone down your proposal and request money for something you're certain to be able to do."
展开▼
