Cargando…

Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities

Federal funding for basic scientific research is the cornerstone of societal progress, economy, health and well-being. There is a direct relationship between financial investment in science and a nation’s scientific discoveries, making it a priority for governments to distribute public funding appro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murray, Dennis L., Morris, Douglas, Lavoie, Claude, Leavitt, Peter R., MacIsaac, Hugh, Masson, Michael E. J., Villard, Marc-Andre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27258385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155876
_version_ 1782435429225594880
author Murray, Dennis L.
Morris, Douglas
Lavoie, Claude
Leavitt, Peter R.
MacIsaac, Hugh
Masson, Michael E. J.
Villard, Marc-Andre
author_facet Murray, Dennis L.
Morris, Douglas
Lavoie, Claude
Leavitt, Peter R.
MacIsaac, Hugh
Masson, Michael E. J.
Villard, Marc-Andre
author_sort Murray, Dennis L.
collection PubMed
description Federal funding for basic scientific research is the cornerstone of societal progress, economy, health and well-being. There is a direct relationship between financial investment in science and a nation’s scientific discoveries, making it a priority for governments to distribute public funding appropriately in support of the best science. However, research grant proposal success rate and funding level can be skewed toward certain groups of applicants, and such skew may be driven by systemic bias arising during grant proposal evaluation and scoring. Policies to best redress this problem are not well established. Here, we show that funding success and grant amounts for applications to Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant program (2011–2014) are consistently lower for applicants from small institutions. This pattern persists across applicant experience levels, is consistent among three criteria used to score grant proposals, and therefore is interpreted as representing systemic bias targeting applicants from small institutions. When current funding success rates are projected forward, forecasts reveal that future science funding at small schools in Canada will decline precipitously in the next decade, if skews are left uncorrected. We show that a recently-adopted pilot program to bolster success by lowering standards for select applicants from small institutions will not erase funding skew, nor will several other post-evaluation corrective measures. Rather, to support objective and robust review of grant applications, it is necessary for research councils to address evaluation skew directly, by adopting procedures such as blind review of research proposals and bibliometric assessment of performance. Such measures will be important in restoring confidence in the objectivity and fairness of science funding decisions. Likewise, small institutions can improve their research success by more strongly supporting productive researchers and developing competitive graduate programming opportunities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4892638
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48926382016-06-16 Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities Murray, Dennis L. Morris, Douglas Lavoie, Claude Leavitt, Peter R. MacIsaac, Hugh Masson, Michael E. J. Villard, Marc-Andre PLoS One Research Article Federal funding for basic scientific research is the cornerstone of societal progress, economy, health and well-being. There is a direct relationship between financial investment in science and a nation’s scientific discoveries, making it a priority for governments to distribute public funding appropriately in support of the best science. However, research grant proposal success rate and funding level can be skewed toward certain groups of applicants, and such skew may be driven by systemic bias arising during grant proposal evaluation and scoring. Policies to best redress this problem are not well established. Here, we show that funding success and grant amounts for applications to Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant program (2011–2014) are consistently lower for applicants from small institutions. This pattern persists across applicant experience levels, is consistent among three criteria used to score grant proposals, and therefore is interpreted as representing systemic bias targeting applicants from small institutions. When current funding success rates are projected forward, forecasts reveal that future science funding at small schools in Canada will decline precipitously in the next decade, if skews are left uncorrected. We show that a recently-adopted pilot program to bolster success by lowering standards for select applicants from small institutions will not erase funding skew, nor will several other post-evaluation corrective measures. Rather, to support objective and robust review of grant applications, it is necessary for research councils to address evaluation skew directly, by adopting procedures such as blind review of research proposals and bibliometric assessment of performance. Such measures will be important in restoring confidence in the objectivity and fairness of science funding decisions. Likewise, small institutions can improve their research success by more strongly supporting productive researchers and developing competitive graduate programming opportunities. Public Library of Science 2016-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4892638/ /pubmed/27258385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155876 Text en © 2016 Murray et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Murray, Dennis L.
Morris, Douglas
Lavoie, Claude
Leavitt, Peter R.
MacIsaac, Hugh
Masson, Michael E. J.
Villard, Marc-Andre
Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities
title Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities
title_full Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities
title_fullStr Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities
title_full_unstemmed Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities
title_short Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities
title_sort bias in research grant evaluation has dire consequences for small universities
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27258385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155876
work_keys_str_mv AT murraydennisl biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities
AT morrisdouglas biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities
AT lavoieclaude biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities
AT leavittpeterr biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities
AT macisaachugh biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities
AT massonmichaelej biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities
AT villardmarcandre biasinresearchgrantevaluationhasdireconsequencesforsmalluniversities