Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape. We can and must do better.
My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the studies being proposed. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: > That is false logic. > There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all > productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean > that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite > possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would > be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. > A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone > who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer > for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the > entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a > trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are > spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be > used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals > prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing > manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these > activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science > departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in > science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good > grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands > the system. > > I don't think anyone does this though! :) > M > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > > Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as do > > the mechanics you describe. > > > > But, hmmm....... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in > > scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with funded > > laboratories within them. > > > > David McNeely > > > > ---- malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: > >> Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they > >> are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at > >> NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the > >> congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific > >> process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. > >> > >> http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates > >> > >> These developments are interesting to me because when NSF was first > >> being conceived there were those who felt the concept would slow > >> science by turning it into a search for funding rather than a search > >> for facts. More and more, we are becoming important for the money we > >> can bring in rather than our contribution to the greater good. > >> > >> >From the Mark Gable Foundation (A short story in the compendium, The > >> Voices of Dophins, by Leo Szilard) published in ???? > >> (http://books.google.com/books?id=xm2mAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), > >> when Mark Gable asked how to slow science, this was the answer > >> provided: > >> > >> "Well," I said, " I think that shouldn't be very difficult. As a > >> matter of fact, I think it would be quite easy. You could set up a > >> foundation, with an annual endowment of thirty million dollars. > >> Research workers in need of funds could apply for grants, if they > >> could make out a convincing case. Have ten committees, each composed > >> of twelve scientists, appointed to pass on these applications. Take > >> the most active scientists out of the laboratory and make them members > >> of these committees. And, the very best men in the field should be > >> appointed as chairmen at salamries of fifty thousand dollars each. > >> Also have about twenty prizes of one hundred thousand dollars each for > >> hte best scientific papers of the year. This is just about all you > >> would have to do. Your lawyers could easily prepare a charter for the > >> foundation. As a matter of fact, any of the National Science > >> Foundation bills which were introduced in the Seventy-ninth and > >> Eightieth Congresses could perfectly well serve as a model." > >> "I think you had better explain to Mr. Gable why this foundation > >> would in fact retard the progress of science," said a bespectacled > >> young man sitting at the far end of the table, whose name i didn't get > >> at the time of introduction. > >> "It should be obvious," i said. "First of all, the best scientists > >> would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees > >> passing on applications for funds. Secondly, the scientific workers in > >> need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered > >> promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results. For > >> a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output; but > >> by going after the obvious, pretty soon science would dry out. Science > >> woudl become something like a parlor game. Some things would be > >> considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those > >> who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn't woudl > >> not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too." > >> **** > >> In other words, scientists would not take chances, because that risks > >> getting grants, they would not do long-term research because it is > >> slow to payoff, they would spend most of their time managing grant > >> money, evaluating other people's research, and not doing it > >> themselves. scientists would follow fads whether that is good or not, > >> at the cost of other fields. In a lot of way, this was a prophetic > >> two pages that has in a lot of ways come true. Imagine how much work > >> you could get done if your had a line item budget that covered the > >> costs of your research and you did not have to spend time writing > >> proposals, managing grants. How much money would be saved in research > >> if 10-80% of the funded grand did not go to indirect costs and similar > >> places? > >> > >> Understand, I know we are where we are, and each of us must work in > >> the current system as it exists, and that it isn't changing. However, > >> this story certainly nailed many problems to the wall that arise when > >> you have competitive funding instead of line items. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Malcolm L. McCallum > >> Department of Environmental Studies > >> University of Illinois at Springfield > >> > >> Managing Editor, > >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > >> > >> > >> > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > >> Allan Nation > >> > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > >> and pollution. > >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > >> MAY help restore populations. > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! > >> > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > >> Wealth w/o work > >> Pleasure w/o conscience > >> Knowledge w/o character > >> Commerce w/o morality > >> Science w/o humanity > >> Worship w/o sacrifice > >> Politics w/o principle > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > >> destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > -- > > David McNeely > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Environmental Studies > University of Illinois at Springfield > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. --
