Abstract
The NSF's practice of relying on scientifically qualified program directors, some of them “rotators” from university laboratories, to make grant-giving recommendations independent of external peer reviewers is a marked difference from the practice in Australia, the UK and Canada, and in other US agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. I will discuss the features of the NSF grants management practices in the context of the US Federal research system, with particular emphasis on the benefits and problems that arise from having relatively powerful program directors, and will appraise the practice begun in 1990 of permitting each program director to make a limited number of small grants for exploratory work with no external peer review.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
