Expertise, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, and integrity: Those are the guiding principles of scientific merit review espoused by a recent global summit hosted by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Led by the federal agency’s director Subra Suresh, former dean of engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a newly elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the summit brought together top administrators of research funding agencies from nearly 50 countries. One of the goals of the summit was to establish guidelines for merit review, a widely used tool for evaluating scientific research grant applications. The hope is that global standards of merit review would benefit science worldwide and foster multinational collaboration. Here, Suresh discusses the need for universal principles for the conduct of science with PNAS.
Subra Suresh.
PNAS: What was the impetus for a global summit on merit review, and where did the idea originate?
Suresh: The fundamental requirement for scientific collaboration, whether through research, funding, or publications, is a common understanding of what constitutes a rigorous merit, or peer, review system. The NSF is broadly viewed as the gold standard for merit review among basic science funding agencies worldwide. Thus, the White House invited the NSF to host a meeting to discuss global standards of peer review for basic research funding and to help develop principles by which global scientific collaboration could be enhanced. Although smaller regional meetings have been held in the past, a convention of the heads of research funding agencies of the size we convened had not taken place previously.
PNAS: In what ways is the NSF well-positioned to lead such a summit?
Suresh: The NSF funds a broad range of natural science, engineering, and social science research, including a focus on science education. Our merit review system has been honed over 62 years and tailored to the needs of diverse communities of scholars, many of whom perform interdisciplinary research. Further, compared with other “mission” agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Institute of Standards and Technology, we do not have in-house research projects; hence, our exclusive focus is on external research.
PNAS: What were the main objectives of the summit?
Suresh: Before the summit, we held a set of regional meetings on merit review representing most of the global scientific enterprise. The meetings were organized by Canada and Brazil (representing the Americas); Switzerland and Sweden (representing Europe); China, India, and Japan (representing Asia, Australia, and New Zealand); and South Africa and Saudi Arabia (representing Africa and the Middle East). The four regional hosts reported at Brussels in the fall of 2011 as a forerunner to the summit. At the May summit, we invited 47 countries representing the Group of 20 and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which were represented by my counterparts in those countries. The specific goals of the summit were twofold: to develop high-level principles of scientific merit review and to seek a collective endorsement of a virtual entity called the Global Research Council, whose purpose is to help us periodically address issues of common interest and, in the process, leverage resources, help developing countries obtain research infrastructure, and bring the international scientific community together.
PNAS: How will the Global Research Council operate? What scientific issues will it tackle in the future?
Suresh: The Global Research Council will not be a brick-and-mortar entity but a series of annual conventions preceded by regional meetings. Different countries will host the various meetings, which are restricted to the heads of the research councils and their deputies, attended by the invitees at their own expense, and guided by specific goals. Our goals for the near future are to address issues pertaining to research integrity, open access of scientific publications and data, mobility of scientists, and intellectual property-related concerns, to name a few.
PNAS: How will the guidelines differ from those already in place at other research funding agencies, such as the NIH, the nation’s biggest funder of biomedical research?
Suresh: The strength of the Global Research Council is that it provides a forum for the development and endorsement of principles based on best practices from around the world. Although each funding agency may have its own set of guidelines and policies, the Global Research Council promotes a shared set of “high-level” principles that are endorsed by the members for the purposes of enhancing collaboration. The principles are not necessarily applied to how each agency is run. The principles form the basis for potential multilateral collaboration and global coordination on issues of common interest to funding agencies from both developed and developing countries.
PNAS: How will the summit influence international scientific collaboration with developing and underdeveloped countries?
Suresh: We want the process of merit review to be free of political influence, scientifically based, and transparent. The idea would be to encourage a collective endorsement of peer review principles by countries that do not already have them in place. The principles of review, such as structure, selection of experts, and confidentiality, that seem obvious to some countries are novel in others. Because science is a global enterprise, we want to ensure that discussions of merit review happen at a global scale. Once a common framework for research funding is put in place, multinational scientific endeavors might be facilitated, whether a jointly operated telescope, ocean-going research vessel, or Antarctic expedition.
PNAS: What are your next steps now that the summit is behind you?
Suresh: Our next steps would be to help Brazil and Germany, which will lead the coordination of regional meetings in the coming months, to develop a common set of guidelines for research integrity. The reports from the regional meetings will be presented at a Global Research Council gathering hosted by these two countries in Berlin in May 2013, when the guidelines are expected to be collectively endorsed by the participants. Another item on the agenda is to begin meaningful discussions on the complex issue of open access to scientific publications and data. That objective is likely to take longer to accomplish, but we hope to get the regional meetings rolling.
PNAS: As you close in on your 2-year mark at the helm of the NSF, how do you feel about your sojourn as a policymaker in Washington?
Suresh: At the NSF, I have a unique vantage point to observe the national and global evolution of cutting-edge research and educational practices in science and engineering, and every day proves to be an exciting learning experience.