Robohub.org
 

Funding high risk proposals at the National Science Foundation: A brief history

by
03 July 2013



share this:

National Science Foundation (NSF) efforts to develop a mechanism to fund research proposals that had a high risk of failure, but which also had the potential for high return, began in 1980. In that year a task force was created by the NSF Advisory Council to look at the issue of “highly creative or innovative” proposals for which there was “a high risk of failure.”

The task force’s report identified two significant hurdles the NSF needed to overcome to support high risk/high return proposals: 1) the conservatism of the peer review process, and 2) the reluctance of NSF program officers to fund research with a high potential for failure in an environment in which proposals with a high probability of success were not being funded because of limited budgets. The task force suggested a variety of ways to encourage NSF support of these risky proposals, most of which depended upon giving the program officer encouragement to use his or her discretion to identify and fund such proposals. None of the recommendations of the task force were immediately adopted by NSF, although some of the mechanisms suggested appear in modified form later.

A small number of failed grants were a necessary and unavoidable by-product of efforts to fund innovative research.

The first NSF mechanism for supporting high risk proposals was developed in the recently created Engineering Directorate in the mid-1980s. Engineering took the initiative because of the leadership of Assistant Director Nam Suh, who felt that a small number of failed grants were a necessary and unavoidable by-product of efforts to fund innovative research. The Directorate was also responding to recommendations by the National Academy of Engineering for NSF support of high-risk/high- return research. Engineering established a pilot project called Expedited Awards for Novel Research (EANR), encouraging program officers to fund innovative proposals without the benefit of peer review.

The successes of EANR funded proposals persuaded NSF Director Erich Bloch to establish the Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) mechanism for the entire NSF in August 1989. Restricted to no more than 5% of any program’s budget, SGER awards, like EANR awards, bypassed the external peer review process. There were a number of objectives for SGER awards, but one was to induce researchers to “propose high-risk work to NSF.”

In 2004, the National Science Board established a Task Group on High-Risk Research to reexamine the issue. Its work, and that of an NSF staff task force on the topic, led to the replacement of the SGER award mechanism by a number of other mechanisms in 2009. The most important of these for high-risk research was the Early-concept Grant for Exploratory Research (EAGER). An EAGER award will provide up to $300,000 for up to two years of “high-risk, high-payoff” research. Like its predecessors, EAGER awards do not require external review.

References
National Science Foundation Advisory Council, “Report of Task Group 10: Funding of Innovative High Risk Proposals,” November 6, 1980
“NSF Starts Program to Encourage Creative Engineering Research,” NSF PR85-74, December 12, 1985
Erich Bloch, “Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER),” Staff Memorandum O/D 89-11, August 14, 1989
Dian O. Belanger, Enabling American Innovation: Engineering and the National Science Foundation, 1998, p. 246.
National Science Board, “Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation,” May 7, 2007
National Science Foundation, “Proposal Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide,” October 2012



tags: , , , , ,


Marc Rothenberg is agency Historian of the National Science Foundation.
Marc Rothenberg is agency Historian of the National Science Foundation.





Related posts :



ep.

352

podcast

Robotics Grasping and Manipulation Competition Spotlight, with Yu Sun

Yu Sun, previous chair of the Robotics Grasping and Manipulation Competition, speaks on the value that this competition brought to the robotics community.
21 May 2022, by
ep.

351

podcast

Early Days of ICRA Competitions, with Bill Smart

Bill Smart, one fo the early ICRA Competition Chairs, dives into the high-level decisions involved with creating a meaningful competition.
21 May 2022, by

New imaging method makes tiny robots visible in the body

Microrobots have the potential to revolutionize medicine. Researchers at the Max Planck ETH Centre for Learning Systems have now developed an imaging technique that for the first time recognises cell-​sized microrobots individually and at high resolution in a living organism.
20 May 2022, by

A draft open standard for an Ethical Black Box

Within the RoboTIPS project, we have developed and tested several model of Ethical Black Boxes, including one for an e-puck robot, and another for the MIRO robot.
19 May 2022, by

Unable to attend #ICRA2022 for accessibility issues? Or just curious to see robots?

There are many things that can make it difficult to attend an in person conference in the United States and so the ICRA Organizing Committee, the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society and OhmniLabs would like to help you attend ICRA virtually.
17 May 2022, by
ep.

350

podcast

Duckietown Competition Spotlight, with Dr Liam Paull

Dr. Liam Paull, cofounder of the Duckietown competition talks about the only robotics competition where Rubber Duckies are the passengers on an autonomous driving track.
17 May 2022, by





©2021 - ROBOTS Association


 












©2021 - ROBOTS Association