China's National Natural Science Foundation on It's 25^th Anniversary Gets Reviewed. (October 29, 2010)

The National Natural Science Foundation of China  (NSFC) is its largest funding agency for basic research and as if to signify a coming of age it, together with the Chinese Ministry of Finance, set up an International Evaluation Committee, a first for China.

According to the editorial in this week's Science written by  Richard N Zare (Chair), Stanford University, Chemistry  and  Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker (Vice Chair), Secretary General of the Human Frontier Science Program Organization, Strasbourg, France: "Part of the motivation for this review was a desire on the part of the Chinese government to determine how well their extensive efforts to boost the support of scientific research measure up to international standards."

Overall Professors Zare and Winnacker opin: "Almost everyone we talked to—researchers inside and outside China, university administrators, applicants whose proposals were accepted or rejected, and representatives of various Chinese ministries—was of the opinion that the research-funding mechanisms of the NSFC are 'the best in China.' The NSFC processes its applications by means of peer review, the form of review that we consider to be the best practice internationally. This is a significant achievement, given that the Chinese research system had to start nearly from scratch a quarter of a century ago and underwent extremely rapid growth, so that the number of potential applicants is now huge."

Nevertheless, the report advises the NSFC "to focus its attention on several areas where improvements could further increase its effectiveness" which are summarised by Professors Zara and Winnacker:

• Compared to similar institutions elsewhere, it is clear that the number of NSFC staff needs to be substantially increased to handle the ever-increasing number of research applications.

• Drastic steps [should] be taken to reduce the number of proposals submitted.

• There is... a need to promote early-career researchers.

• Considerably more flexibility [is needed] in the way that researchers can use their resources after a grant is awarded.

• The NSFC also needs to improve its assessment of interdisciplinary proposals.

• Enhanced attention should be given to conflict-of-interest issues.

• The NSFC [should] restrict the tenure of panel members.

• [It should] broaden the composition of grant evaluation panels to include early-career scientists, female researchers, and international members.

• Although the NSFC has already made commendable efforts, internationality remains a key challenge for China.

Finally, the NSFC is advised: "The innovations that the Chinese economy would like to stimulate will require breakthroughs in basic research which, in turn, must have sustainable funding. There is no doubt that the NSFC deserves strong increases in its budget. We also hope that the model of the NSFC might be transferable to other granting agencies in China, thereby improving the entire Chinese research culture."