NSF Physics Funding Mechanisms Reviewed in New Reports

The National Science Foundation’s Mathematical and Physical Sciences Advisory Committee (MPSAC) approved two reports last week that assess the funding strategies of the agency’s Physics Division. One of the reports focuses on the Physics Frontiers Centers (PFC) program, which has supported 15 university-based physics groups since 2001, including nine that are currently funded. A separate, routine review of the division as a whole addresses a variety of issues, among them the impact of NSF’s Big Ideas initiative .

Both reports are broadly supportive of the division’s work and affirm the value that PFCs and Big Ideas funding opportunities add to NSF’s physics portfolio. At the same time, the reports identify some potential troubles. In particular, the division review suggests there is tension between the Quantum Leap Big Idea and NSF’s Quantum Information Science (QIS) program. Both reports also find room for improvement in fostering diversity and inclusion in physics.

Frontiers Centers boost collaboration and flexibility, report finds

The Physics Division charged MPSAC last year to assess the PFC program in response to a recommendation made in a previous division review. The assessment was conducted by a special subcommittee chaired by Argonne National Laboratory physicist Donald Geesaman.

The subcommittee’s report affirms that the PFC model offers certain distinct advantages over grants to individual investigators. For instance, centers’ longer, six-year funding cycles provide opportunities to address larger and more complex problems. Centers’ large budgets also allow them to support shared facilities and resources that are not affordable under smaller grants. Centers can also reserve and divert funding, allowing them to respond to urgent problems such as equipment breakdowns or to “jump on new opportunities and beat out competing groups around the globe.”

In addition, the report finds centers enhance scientific collaboration. It states,

Broadly, the report suggests that PFCs help American institutions compete with similar institutions in other countries, such as the Max Planck Society institutes in Germany and institutes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Assessing how PFCs have contributed to scientific progress, the subcommittee finds they have had a “tremendous impact” in biophysics and are addressing foundational problems in areas such as quantum information science and astrophysics.

Although the subcommittee regards PFCs positively, it acknowledges a “widespread concern” that they take funding away from individual investigator grants and contribute to the concentration of resources at elite institutions. The report suggests that NSF try to allay such concerns by carefully articulating centers’ role in its research portfolio, and that centers themselves remain committed to building up the communities around their research subjects.

The subcommittee also acknowledges the view that, because center grants are often repeatedly renewed, the existing set of centers is essentially “locked in.” While the report conveys the view of some subcommittee members that NSF might limit center renewals, it does not recommend that action. It does suggest some other minor reforms, such as not requiring centers to apply for a final, sixth year of funding in a cycle, and that additional “ramp-down” funds be provided to smooth center terminations when they do occur.

Review regards NSF’s ‘Quantum Leap’ as a concern

The routine review of the Physics Division was conducted by a committee of visitors chaired by MIT physicist Bob Redwine.

The committee reports it was broadly “impressed” with the division’s processes for evaluating funding proposals, noting they have resulted in a “portfolio of projects that contains excellent science, important educational thrusts, and considerable flexibility to respond to emerging opportunities.” It also points out that the success rate of proposals has declined since the last division review in 2015 due to level funding in the face of a growing number of applications.

Another development since the last review was NSF’s establishment of 10 “Big Idea” focus areas, of which two are especially germane to the division: Windows on the Universe and Quantum Leap.

The committee states the division has done a “commendable job” of engaging with the Big Ideas. However, it notes that the Windows on the Universe idea has proven “easier to leverage” because it is a “meta-program” that cuts across different funding opportunities in astrophysics. The committee finds that, compared to Quantum Leap, it is “showing signs of much greater effectiveness at providing significant additional funding to an important research area.”

Conversely, the committee flags the relationship between the Quantum Leap idea and the regular QIS program as its “primary concern coming out of this review.” Observing that Quantum Leap is focused on particular solicitations for interdisciplinary funding proposals, it states that that focus “ignores the fact the QIS program, even though it is solely managed by Physics, is inherently cross-disciplinary by the nature of the quantum information research challenges.”

The committee points out that NSF’s QIS program had a lower proposal success rate than other programs it reviewed and that pressure from applications is “only going to increase due to the Quantum Leap program’s need for fundamental work in potential breakthrough areas in QIS algorithms as well as physical architecture down the qubit level.” The committee states the “only possible solution” to that problem is “strong cooperation between QIS and Quantum Leap, including co-funding where appropriate.”

Reports find diversity efforts need more attention

Both reports cite the promotion of diversity and inclusion in science as an important priority. The division review devotes a brief section to the matter, broadly commending the division for developing a diversity plan and its “skillful use of internal co-funding in support of broadening participation.” It notes there remain “concerns” about the collection and analysis of data on diversity in physics research.

The PFC report also points to the lack of diversity data as “a problem,” and condemns as “highly unsatisfactory” the fact that diversity at the centers is not “significantly different” than in the field of physics as a whole.

The report does take note of the efforts of some individual centers. It points to the Center for the Origin and Structure of Matter, which was operated at three historically minority-serving institutions between 2002 and 2007, as having been a “unique opportunity to target the training of an underrepresented group.”

The report also cites the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav) center as a “success story” that has leveraged a “clear” diversity policy to recruit a significantly higher proportion of women than in the field as a whole. It also points to a code of conduct developed by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics – Center for Evolution of the Elements (JINA-CEE) as a factor in its doubling its proportion of women faculty over three years to 37%.

In general, the report finds the centers have not leveraged their resources to their full potential for educational, diversity, and public outreach activities. While observing the centers’ “hearts are in the right place,” it asserts that “if NSF wants the PFC program to be transformational in education, outreach, and diversity efforts, this expectation needs to be made clear.”