Major Non-Consensus Program and its review process design

Major Non-Consensus Program and its review process design Wang Yue; Li xiaoxuan Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences Zheng yonghe National Nature Science Foundation of China May 21-23, 2012

Outline • Background concepts • Several typical reviewing mechanisms of science funding agencies in the world • The suggestion of an interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism • Major Non-Consensus Program

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) 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. 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?

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 1 2 3 4 5

1、Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (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.

2、Director'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

3、Director's New Innovator Award (NDNIA) at NIH • Funding 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

4、Transformative R01 Program (T-R01) at NIH • 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

5、The Ideas Factory at Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) in the UK • Funding 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.

5、The Ideas Factory at Engineering and Physical Science 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.

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

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

The complete reviewing process of this interactive heuristic reviewing mechanism

Interactive conference/forum assessing

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. 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 program • Based 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.

Major non-consensus program • 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.

Discussion • High risk: the researchers might have not good publications • Enthusiasm: to organize this kind of project

Thank you

Major Non-Consensus Program and its review process design