|
|
|
Snakes & Ladders Profiles of Women in Science and Stories of the Snakes and Ladders They Have Faced in Their Careers
Grant Reviews – The American Way
|
In 1998 the US National Science Foundation called for applications under a new initiative on genomics. This initiative sought projects involving multiple chief investigators across different research organisations, rather like Cooperative Research Centres but without industry involvement. There was considerable interest in this initiative, and the pool of eligible reviewers from the US was reduced because many of these scientists had applied for funding. As a result, I was lucky enough to have an experience that is not often available to scientists working in Australia, and that was to serve on an NSF review panel, in this case for the first round of grants in the Genomics Initiative.
A
large box containing 16 applications duly arrived on my desk and my task, before
the panel meeting, was to read and submit reviews for all of these grants. The
time frame was rather shorter than normal, and so I had to complete this task
within a 4-week period. For six of these grants, I was to be the first reader;
this involved presenting my review to the panel and making a case to fund or
reject the application. On the remaining grants, I was to be the second reader
and would add discussion points from my own reading of the grant, together with
those provided by up to three ad hoc reviewers.
I had previously provided ad hoc reviews for the NSF, but those grants were
small by comparison to the Genomics Initiative where the investigators were able
to request up to $3,000,000 over five years. As you might imagine, I was more
than a little nervous about my role on the panel, which included several senior
US scientists whose work I really respected. As it happened, I was not the only
overseas scientist nor the most junior member of the panel.
NSF paid my airfare, accommodation and a per diem allowance. The panel members
were required to be in Washington DC by Monday evening; the meeting itself ran
from Tuesday to Friday. Given the distance that I had to travel, the NSF allowed
me to arrive several days early so that I could adjust to the time zone before
the panel meeting began. I arrived late Friday night and made good use of my
time in Washington. I was organising a conference with a colleague from the
National Institutes of Health the following year, so we met on the Saturday
morning to plan the program and list of speakers. After that my time was my own,
so I spent two and half wonderful days exploring the Smithsonian museums, the
nearby art galleries and memorials. What a great way to get into the time zone!
The panel meeting was held in the NSF headquarters where each day started with
doughnuts, bagels, fruit and coffee before work began in earnest. Over the next
three days, we discussed each application in turn (there were about 75
applications all told), and placed them in a rough ranking as we went. At the
end of each discussion, the panel reader who was responsible for a particular
grant prepared the report to be sent to the applicants. By Friday morning, we
had reviewed our overall ranking and presented this to the NSF. The final stage
of the review process was site visits, to observe the facilities available and
discuss the administration of these multi-site grants. As an overseas reviewer I
was exempt from this aspect of the review process.
I headed for home on Friday afternoon after a very interesting and valuable
experience for me, a mid-career scientist working at CSIRO. It gave me an
insight into the workings of the NSF panels, demonstrated the value of ad hoc
reviews and showed me that I was able to critically assess grants alongside my
peers. Hearing the comments of the other panel members to various grants also
broadened my thinking and enhanced my critical abilities. It was reassuring to
see that there was generally good agreement on the merits and weaknesses of
different applications, as well as the overall ranking of the proposals. While
the final outcome was not without some political bias, it did not deviate too
far from the recommendations of the panel.
|
|
