SciSIP (MOD): A Comparative Assessment of Models for Integrating Societal Impacts Concerns into the Peer Review of Grant Proposals

世界各地的公共科学与工程(S和安培)资助机构依靠对研究提案的同行审查来做出资助决定。科学和技术专家最有资格评判拟议研究项目的科学和技术优点。然而，社会正越来越多地要求S研究资助机构展示对S研究的公共投资回报。作为回应，S和安永全球的融资机构已将更广泛的社会影响纳入提案审查过程。但是，要求科学家和工程师评估拟议研究项目的潜在社会影响，这超出了他们的科学和技术专长的领域。这个为期三年的研究项目的基本问题是：将社会影响考虑纳入赠款提案同行审查过程的最佳方式是什么？这项研究的重点是不同的同行审查模式如何纳入拟议研究的更广泛的社会影响。这项研究评估了三个美国联邦机构的五种不同的同行审查模式：国家科学基金会(NSF)、国家卫生研究院(NIH)和国家海洋和大气管理局(NOAA)；以及两个非美国背景：加拿大自然科学和工程研究委员会(NSERC)和荷兰技术基金会(STW)。本研究采用定性和定量的方法(数据挖掘、文献回顾、调查和半结构访谈)，通过构建比较矩阵和分析这五种同行评议模式来开发有用的知识。本项目的更广泛影响包括：(1)资助2名研究生研究助理，从而为科学与创新政策的继续工作奠定基础；(2)将本研究与本科水平的教学(在北大的科学伦理学课程中)相结合；(3)扩大研究人员探索科学与创新政策的网络；(4)通过向同行评审过程中的所有利益相关者(科学家和工程师、资助机构官员、政策制定者和普通公众)通报项目结果，提高对赠款提案同行评审过程的理解；以及(5)改进对赠款提案的同行评审，特别是在各种同行评审模式评估拟议的S和安培研究的社会影响方面。该项目使社会受益，因为它改善了通过提案同行审查作出的资助决定与资助研究的社会影响之间的联系。

Public science and engineering (S&E) funding agencies worldwide rely on the peer review of research proposals to make their funding decisions. Scientific and technical experts are best qualified to judge the scientific and technical merits of proposed research projects. Increasingly, however, society is requiring that S&E funding agencies demonstrate a return on the public investment in S&E research. In response, S&E funding agencies worldwide have incorporated considerations of broader societal impacts into the proposal review process. But asking scientists and engineers to assess the potential societal impacts of proposed research projects takes them beyond the realm of their scientific and technical expertise. The fundamental question of this three year research project is: What is the best way to incorporate societal impacts considerations into the grant proposal peer review process? This research focuses on the ways in which different models of peer review incorporate the broader societal impacts of proposed research. The study assesses five different models of peer review across three US federal agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and two non-US contexts: the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Dutch Technology Foundation (STW). Using both qualitative and quantitative methods (data mining, literature review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews), this research develops usable knowledge by constructing a comparative matrix and analysis of these five models of peer review.The Broader Impacts of this project include: (1) funding 2 graduate research assistants, thereby laying the foundation for continuing work in the Science of Science and Innovation Policy; (2) integrating this research with teaching at the undergraduate level (in UNT's Ethics in Science course); (3) expanding the network of researchers exploring the Science of Science and Innovation Policy; (4) enhancing the understanding of the process of grant proposal peer review by informing all stakeholders in the peer review process (scientists and engineers, funding agency officials, policy makers, and members of the general public) of the project's results; and finally, (5) improving the peer review of grant proposals, especially in terms of the capacity of various models of peer review to assess the societal impact of proposed S&E research. This project benefits society by improving the connection between the funding decisions rendered through proposal peer review and the societal impact of the funded research.