Preliminary Report

Click here for a preliminary report from the workshop (pdf opens in a new window).

Workshop Themes

The National Science Foundation merit review process requires scientists to address the broader impacts as well as the intellectual merit of the research being proposed. The aim of this research workshop is to reflect on why (rather than how) scientists and engineers ought to address the broader impacts of their research.

• Why did NSF change its merit review criteria in the first place?
• How much freedom should the scientific and engineering community be granted to set the terms of its research?
  
• Why is "the integration of research and education" an important value scientists and engineers ought to uphold? What would such integration actually entail?
  
• Why should scientists and engineers seek to expand the participation of underrepresented groups?
• What are the links between science and politics?
  
• Why should scientists and engineers worry about the broader impacts of their research? Do scientists and engineers have a responsibility to pursue research directed toward pressing societal needs when their research is publicly funded?
• Is basic research in science and engineering value-neutral?
• Do other funding agencies ask applicants to talk about societal benefits?
  
• How can basic researchers articulate the broader impacts of their research?
• What does "broader impacts" mean anyway?