Description: This article offers viewpoints on Broader Impacts 2.0. The authors point out that the National Science Board (NSB) has presented us with merit review criteria that challenge us to undertake research that marries scientific merit and broader impacts in a way that benefits the research community, our funding sources, and our society.

Description: This article discusses the precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making. Abstract: This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment) and action (in the form of technological innovation) as they come together in policy, which itself is both a kind of knowing and acting. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that principles in general can be used either to guide our actions, or to determine them for us. We argue that allowing principles to predetermine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.

Description: This paper discusses the University of North Texas' (UNT) Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity (CSID), where philosophers continue to examine the value of knowledge. The authors also discuss one example of CSID's work with the Comparative Assessment of Peer Review (CAPR) project. CAPR is a four-year project (2008-2012) studying the changing nature of peer review processes across six U.S. and foreign public science agencies. CAPR is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation's (NSF) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program.

Description: This article discusses how resistance to impact criteria can lead to a tightening of the accountability noose. Vague impact criteria are a blessing in disguise. The authors write that researchers who push against criteria that allow considerable autonomy are foolish and should learn from overseas contemporaries that a clearer definition of impact requirements is not dissimilar from a tightening of the noose.

Description: This report is on the workshop 'Transformative Research: Ethical and Societal Implications'. Workshop conversations cluster under the four headings of the history and definitions, promotion, evaluation, and integration of transformative research (TR): 1. History and Definitions: The National Science Board's 2007 report (NSB-07-32) on transformative research called for more effort directed at defining TR. The present report offers additional context and clarity regarding meanings of the term. But it also argues that there are virtues in leaving the term open to multiple interpretations. 2. Promotion: The report welcomes new mechanisms for promoting TR, such as NSF 'CREATIV' grants. It embraces additional means for promoting TR, such as increased emphasis on interdisciplinary research, and explores how different interpretations of how TR occurs imply different strategies for promoting TR. It also calls for increased attention to the broader societal impacts of TR at the levels of policy, of NSF programs, and of individual research projects. 3. Evaluation: The report emphasizes the need to develop means for evaluating attempts to promote TR. It also concludes that research should be directed toward evaluating transformative research at the project level. 4. Integration: The report suggests that consideration of the broader societal impacts of TR be ...