NIH isn't alone: Just a few weeks ago, Rita Colwell, the director of the NSF, reminded the academic community (including reviewers) to focus on "impact" and "intellectual merit --criteria that were introduced two years ago!--when preparing and reviewing research proposals.
On balance, the tailored intervention demonstrated both behavioural and biological impact and thus merits further study and development.
The current thinking at NSF, Strausser says, is that broader impacts and intellectual merit "really are on equal footing" and that "neither by itself is sufficient".
Interestingly, comments by the NSB task force subtly contradict the claim that broader impacts and intellectual merit are held in equal esteem.
Notwithstanding this apparent resolution, ensuring meaningful opportunities to redress challenging perceptions of illness and its impact, merit consideration in assessment and intervention.
It describes the procedures by which requests are reviewed for academic merit, budget impact, and fundraising potential.
Participants develop proposals in the non-medical fields of science and engineering (e.g. for the National Science Foundation) focusing on required documents such as the 1-page Project Summary, Broader Impacts, Intellectual Merit, and Research Plan.
(Calculated Risk) Closing the IT gap (OMB blog) Social spending and poverty (Lane Kenworthy) Medieval life "could teach us about debt-free living" (Telegraph) The job shortfall: then and now (Econbrowser) The uncertain impact of merit pay for teachers (Economix) Chile's surprise recovery (FT beyondbrics) Can emerging markets save the world economy?
Criteria are scientific merit, innovation, clinical/medical impact, and quality of the research environment.
Moreover, relatively little is known about the clinical impact or merit of the wide variety of instrumentation currently available.
