Obama and Energy Chief Push Innovation
The great thing about Bell Labs, he said, was its reliance on nurturing young talent. “Bell Labs did not hire established scientists,” Dr. Chu said. “They grew their own.”
Now, he said, the country’s challenge is to grow a generation of energy innovators, a challenge made harder because innovation has never been much of a priority within the energy industry.
How Professors Think
Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment
Michèle Lamont
Contents
2. Opening the Black Box of Peer Review
3. How Panels Work
4. On Disciplinary Cultures
5. Pragmatic Fairness: Customary Rules of Deliberation
6. Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence
7. Considering Interdisciplinarity and Diversity
8. Implications in the United States and Abroad
Appendix: Methods and Data Analysis
Notes
References
Acknowledgments
Index
Excellence. Originality. Intelligence. Everyone in academia stresses quality. But what exactly is it, and how do professors identify it?
In the academic evaluation system known as “peer review,” highly respected professors pass judgment, usually confidentially, on the work of others. But only those present in the deliberative chambers know exactly what is said. Michèle Lamont observed deliberations for fellowships and research grants, and interviewed panel members at length. In How Professors Think, she reveals what she discovered about this secretive, powerful, peculiar world.
Leyse Remarks to Congressman Mike Simpson
Robert H. Leyse
222 Elkhorn Road
Sun Valley, ID 83353
February 14, 2009
Congressman Mike Simpson
U. S. House of Representatives
1339 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mike:
Congratulations on your vote against Obama’s bail out bill.
Today I’ve read my February 13, 2009, Wall Street Journal and I note that, “The National Science Foundation will receive $3 billion for research funding.” That $3 billion is a big boost to the $7 billion that NSF already receives. Of course, it is only a speck inside of the nearly trillion dollar package. Nevertheless, it is tragic that the NSF cartel of university administrators gets this additional handout.
Section 3(e) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Act of 1950, as amended, states that: "...it shall be an objective of the Foundation to strengthen research and education in the sciences and engineering, including independent research by individuals, throughout the United States, and to avoid undue concentration of such research and education."
In reality, NSF avoids funding “independent research by individuals.” In fact, NSF resents such applications for funding. It is a fact that the cartel of university officials has a preferred and somewhat closed access to NSF funding.
We need legislation to partially reform NSF. Right now, when an investigator submits a proposal to NSF, the investigator’s background is revealed to the evaluators of the proposal. The identification of the evaluators is never revealed to the investigator. This must be changed. The investigator’s background should never be revealed to the evaluators of the proposal. The identification of the evaluators should be disclosed to the investigator when an award, or the refusal of an award, is announced. Right now, the evaluators discriminate against investigators from outside of the academic world. Evaluators should be forced to evaluate a proposal based on its merits and not on the academic connections of the investigator. American innovators need a fair deal.
Thank you for your attention to this. I’ll write more next week.
Robert H. Leyse
Leyse Remarks to Bement, head of NSF
Robert H. Leyse
P. O. Box 2850
Sun Valley, ID 83353
January 26, 2009
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230
Dear Dr. Bement:
Substantial Reform of NSF Proposal Review Process
The NSF proposal review process must be substantially reformed. Currently, NSF assigns four reviewers to each proposal. Four reviews are written and consolidated into one consensus review. The identification and qualifications of the applicant are disclosed to the reviewers. However, the identifications and qualifications of the reviewers are never disclosed to the applicant. Essentially this is a caste system.
A better system would be as follows: The identification of the applicant and the applicant’s organization would not be disclosed to the reviewers. This would force the reviewers to focus on the technical merits of the proposal without being influenced by relatively unrelated factors. The identification of the reviewers would be disclosed to the applicant when the reviews are presented to the applicant. Also, reviewers would have no access to the financial aspects of the proposal.
Of course, the Program Director would have complete access to all data related to the proposal. He would use the technical review as the keystone factor, but not the only factor, in selecting a proposal for NSF funding.
Dr. Bement, reform of the present caste setup is long overdue. In a nutshell, the identification and qualifications of the applicant should not be disclosed to the reviewers. Only the Program Director should have access to the entire proposal. The identifications and qualifications of the reviewers should not be perpetually hidden from the applicant. Please let me know whom I may contact within NSF so that I may track the status of these necessary reforms.
Robert H. Leyse
Copy to:
Congressman Mike Simpson
District Office
Boise, Idaho
Bement's Response to Leyse (Received April 2, composed March 19)
Ensure that the discovery-innovation institutes lead to transformative change.
No comments:
Post a Comment