Major Non-Consensus Major Non-Consensus Program and its review Program and its review process designprocess design

Wang Yue; Li xiaoxuanInstitute of Policy and Management,

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Zheng yonghe National Nature Science Foundation of China

1

May 21-23, 2012

OutlineOutlineBackground concepts

Several typical reviewing mechanisms of science funding agencies in the world

The suggestion of an interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism

Major Non-Consensus Program

2

According to Kuhn's paradigm theory, innovative research can be grouped into :

normal innovation (promote the development of normal science)

revolutionary innovation (challenge conventional scientific paradigm and lead to the paradigm shift)

3

Here, Exploratory Pioneering Research (EPR) generally refer to a class of basic research which are highly exploratory, relatively high-risk, pioneering and potentially transformative, belonging to revolutionary innovation in basic research.

In NSFC, the most widely used review mechanism is the peer review.

For normal innovations, using traditional peer review process could ensure fair.

For EPR, using traditional peer review process seems too cautious and overly conservative, and the traditional peer review process may lead to reviewers’ non-consensus and some other problems.

4

It is stated that the traditional peer review mechanism is not the best mechanism to assessing EPR Project.

At present, NSFC has not yet set up special funding projects for such research. There are some related funding practices such as Small Grant Exploration Project and

Non-Consensus Project. Encountered some difficulties in their implementation

process. One of the major reasons is the absence of an effective corresponding reviewing mechanism specifically for such projects.

For NSFC now: How to protect and encourage scientists to apply for

such research project? How to identify EPR effectively?

5

OutlineOutlineBackground concepts

Several typical reviewing mechanisms of science funding agencies in the world

The suggestion of an interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism

Major Non-Consensus Program

6

The following typical funding programs:The following typical funding programs:

Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) at NSF

Director's Pioneer Award (NDPA) at NIH

Director's New Innovator Award (NDNIA) at NIH

Transformative R01 Program (T-R01) at NIH

The Ideas Factory at Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) in the UK

7

1

4

3

2

5

11 、、 Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) at NSFResearch (EAGER) at NSF

Funding Target: exploratory work in its early stages on untested, potentially transformative research ideas or approaches.

Requirement of Research Plan: the project description should be brief (5-8 pages) and include clear statements as to why this project is appropriate for EAGER funding.

Review Process: Only require internal merit review for proposals; Under rare circumstances, program officers may choose external reviews.

Highlights of Reviewing Mechanism: Besides internal and external merit review, program officers have power to decide whether to fund.

8

22 、、 Director's Pioneer Award (NDPA) at NIHDirector's Pioneer Award (NDPA) at NIH

Funding Target: supporting individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose pioneering approaches to major challenges.

Requirement of Research Plan: 3–5 page essay includes response to questions about the challenge, potential impact, suitability for this program; and how research qualifies as new research direction.

Review Process; Administrative review; external evaluator review; interview review.

Highlights of Reviewing Mechanism: Interview review

9

33 、、 Director's New Innovator Award (NDNIA) Director's New Innovator Award (NDNIA) at NIHat NIHFunding Target: Stimulating highly innovative

research that has the potential for significant impact, and supporting promising early stage investigators.

Requirement of Research Plan:10-page essay addresses significance and potential impact; innovativeness of approaches and how risks and challenges will be addressed; and investigator qualifications for the award.

Review Process: Two phases, the first is pre-application ， the second is full-application

Highlights of Reviewing Mechanism: Pre-application

10

44 、、 Transformative R01 Program (T-R01) at Transformative R01 Program (T-R01) at NIHNIH

Funding Target: support exceptionally innovative, high risk, original and/or unconventional research projects.

Requirement of Research Plan: 12-page limit; respond to questions about the challenge, potential impact, and appropriateness for this program.

Review Process: Be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of outside experts; NIH councils for second-level review; The Director will make the final selection of awardees.

Highlights of Reviewing Mechanism: Multidisciplinary group of outside experts

11

55 、、 The Ideas Factory at Engineering and The Ideas Factory at Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) in the Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) in the UKUKFunding Target: Finding new ways to generate

highly innovative and more risk-accepting research projects

Requirement of Research Plan: Do not need research plan at early days, after 5 days workshop discussion and a series of activities, research groups are formed. Groups present their projects and repeatedly are tested. Full research proposals are submitted after that.

12

55 、、 The Ideas Factory at Engineering and Physical The Ideas Factory at Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) in the UKScience Research Council (EPSRC) in the UK

Review Process: By real-time participating in the generation of whole research plan, a panel of experts review and feedback, and then the proposal are ranked to make funding decision.

Highlights of Reviewing Mechanism: special workshop called SANDPIT is organized

as reviewing platform and innovation environment; Residential sandpit workshop; Brainstorming as an innovative way; Real-time review.

13

OutlineOutlineBackground concepts

Several typical reviewing mechanisms of science funding agencies in the world

The suggestion of an interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism

Major Non-Consensus Program

14

Compared with the above typical funding Compared with the above typical funding mechanisms, our funding mechanism and mechanisms, our funding mechanism and its reviewing mechanism refer from its reviewing mechanism refer from following aspects.following aspects.

15

Combined with the actual conditions of NSFC, Combined with the actual conditions of NSFC, “interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism” is “interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism” is suggested suggested

A real-time assessing which relies on a special conference /forum as an assessing platform to identify worth funding research.

This kind of conference /forum belongs to the brainstorming forum which is similar to SANDPIT.

16

The complete reviewing process of this The complete reviewing process of this interactive heuristic reviewing mechanisminteractive heuristic reviewing mechanism

17

Interactive conference/forum assessingInteractive conference/forum assessing

18

Advantages Advantages

Breaks through the traditional peer review way such as panel review and scene review.

The composition of reviewers breaks through the traditional peer review process which depends on experts from the same research field.

This reviewing mechanism could not only be used to identify worth funding projects but also help the researchers to foster their unconventional ideas and be inspired during the debate and discussion.

19

This reviewing mechanism is a dynamic assessing method that could be a complementary and expansion method for traditional peer review process to evaluate EPRP efficiently.

Major non-consensus Major non-consensus programprogramBased on a broard discussion, NSFC

set up a new program called Major Non-Consensus Program.

“interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism” isn’t taken as review procedure (since it takes big management resource), but take the result of it as review start point

Then 2 phases review process were followed.

20

21

Funding Target: one kind of high risk and exploring research with big dispute in S&T community, but it could imply some breakthrough potentially.

Requirement of Research Plan: proposal which addresses significance and potential impact; innovativeness of approaches and the risks and challenges. Applicant has to explain why the other funding tools can’t support this project.

Review Process: First phase, panel review in consultative committee of Science Department, applicant will make presentation; second phase, NSFC presidents meeting review, applicant will make presentation.

Highlights of Reviewing Mechanism:

2-phase panel review, fully discussion and preparing for the proposal in the early time.

Major non-consensus Major non-consensus programprogram

DiscussionDiscussionHigh risk: the researchers might

have not good publicationsEnthusiasm: to organize this kind

of project

22

23