Lots of politically charged comments on this discussion. If you disagree with NSF’s merit and broader impact review criteria, that’s fine and it’s important to have a healthy conversation about it, but I think it’s important to take a step back and thoughtfully address concrete ideas that are actually contained in the proposal review criteria.
These are the kinds of issues at stake in terms of the broader impacts criteria:
- Is it good that NSF promotes applications that include historically minority-serving institutions (as opposed to just the same few R1 universities)?
- should NSF prioritize proposals with strong scientific outreach activities aimed at boosting engagement and opportunities in under-represented demographics?
Keep in mind that NSF funding is extremely competitive. It’s not like subpar research is ubiquitously getting funded over better research with lower “broader impacts” scores. Successful proposals excel on both fronts.
These are the kinds of issues at stake in terms of the broader impacts criteria:
- Is it good that NSF promotes applications that include historically minority-serving institutions (as opposed to just the same few R1 universities)?
- should NSF prioritize proposals with strong scientific outreach activities aimed at boosting engagement and opportunities in under-represented demographics?
Keep in mind that NSF funding is extremely competitive. It’s not like subpar research is ubiquitously getting funded over better research with lower “broader impacts” scores. Successful proposals excel on both fronts.