Peer-to-peer

The 'SciFlies' project, according to a Nature news story (Nature 459, 305; 2009), will profile scientists from a range of disciplines and the new ideas they want to pursue, or ways in which they would like to expand their current research programme. Website visitors will be able to donate any amount to support the projects they find most interesting or worthwhile.
The website itself states: "We look forward to receiving your application for funding of initial proof-of-concept STEM research projects in the range of $5,000 to $12,000. To participate in this unique online grassroots-funded opportunity, please complete the questionnaire about your project, including details of its possible outcome/impact and profiles of the researchers or research team. SciFlies.org will then depict the project for online users to view and decide if they want to make a charitable contribution in support of the project-funding goal. Once each project’s funding goal is reached, researchers will be notified and the process of funding will be completed based on a mutually acceptable agreement of terms between researcher and SciFlies.org....Projects are competing for support from the general public, so researchers are encouraged to describe their work in appealing and accessible terms, such that users can easily understand the concepts and potential outcomes. Avoid “science-speak,” acronyms or abstract language. A proposal that conveys the researcher’s excitement about a project and its potential, as well as providing insight into his/her personal story, can significantly attract donors."
At this stage, there is nothing on the website about the peer-review or other assessment process, but there are already some projects listed. A full launch is promised for mid-July.
According to the Nature News story, "David Fries, a marine engineer at the University of South Florida in St Petersburg, conceived of and heads the SciFlies effort. His main inspiration was long-standing frustration with a research funding structure that, with few exceptions, offers scientists no intermediate steps on the way to requesting full grant funding." Daniel Gaddy, in a comment to the News story, mentions a similar enterprise called FundScience, which also seeks direct public funding of research projects. FundScience provides a description of its activities here, but although a press release is also provided, there is no information about whether a form of independent peer-review will be used to aid potential donors.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 21, 2009
Categories: Policy and Public, Systems | Permalink | Comments (0)

After a campaign by scientists, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has softened and delayed its controversial policy to bar serially unsuccessful grant applicants from making funding bids for one year (Nature online News, 5 May 2009). The ban was due to be imposed on 229 researchers starting on 1 June, in an effort to reduce pressure on an overloaded system that currently peer-reviews all grant applications. But eight weeks after it published the policy (see Nature online news 19 March 2009 and Nature 458, 391; 2009), the EPSRC now says that the restriction will not come in until 1 April 2010 — giving scientists more time to change their grant-submission behaviour so that they do not fall under criteria defining repeated failure. And instead of being excluded outright, researchers will be allowed one application during the year.
"We have made these adjustments to address concerns raised by the community — for example, the retrospective nature of [the policy's] implementation," the EPSRC said in a statement. "We've made bold changes to protect peer review, but we're not an insensitive organization."
Peter Main, director of education and science at the Institute of Physics in London, says the EPSRC has listened to criticism and has shown flexibility. "It's the policy that it perhaps should have been in the first place," says Joe Sweeney, an organic chemist at the University of Reading, UK, who set up an online petition demanding the policy be repealed, signed by more than 1,900 scientists.
But some researchers say they are disappointed not to have been consulted more directly beforehand — which might have prevented the EPSRC from introducing the ban in the first place. "It's something of a shame that we had to force them into this policy change," says Philip Moriarty, a physicist at the University of Nottingham, UK.
The EPSRC is keeping a policy introduced on 1 April, to refuse uninvited resubmissions of failed proposals, which it says will cut 20% of applications submitted for review. The exclusion policy had been expected to cut a further 10%.
The EPSRC says that letters intended to warn individuals in April were never sent. "We are an organization that listens to the community," says chief executive David Delpy. "If we can make amendments to help researchers whilst ensuring the overall policy is still effective, then that's in everyone's interest."
Not all scientists oppose the proposals, however. In an online comment to this Nature news story, Nial Wheate writes: "I don't have a problem with the EPSRC policy. Seriously, if you have three grants all ranked in the bottom half in one year, then you need to stop and think about what research you are trying to get funding for. And what's wrong with only submitting 2 grants per year to make sure this doesn't happen to you? The policy makes sense to me."
News story first published online 5 May 2009 Nature doi:10.1038/459020b.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 08, 2009
Categories: Grants, tenure and positions | Permalink | Comments (0)