Broader Impacts CriterionEdit
The Broader Impacts Criterion (BIC) is a standard used by major research funders to evaluate not only the scientific merit of a project but also its potential to benefit society beyond the lab. In the United States, one of the best-known versions comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which asks applicants to describe how their work will teach, inform, or engage the public, how it will build the workforce of tomorrow, and how it might strengthen the infrastructure that supports science and innovation. In practice, proposals are reviewed for both intellectual merit and broader impacts, and researchers who can point to concrete plans for education, dissemination, and public benefit often gain an edge in competition for funding. National Science Foundation STEM education
Supporters argue that tying research funding to real-world benefits helps ensure that public dollars yield tangible results and that science remains tethered to national interests such as economic growth, public safety, and global competitiveness. From this vantage point, the criterion is a prudent check on science that risks becoming insular or disconnected from the needs of taxpayers. Proponents emphasize components such as outreach to K–12 students, professional development for teachers, partnerships with industry and government, and the broadening of participation by students and researchers from diverse backgrounds. In this view, the BIC promotes accountability and helps scientists translate discoveries into products, processes, and policies that lift living standards. Public outreach STEM education Diversity in STEM
The scope of broader impacts is wide by design. Typical elements include education and public engagement, dissemination and translation of results, improvements to infrastructure or policy, and activities that broaden participation in science, technology, engineering, and math. For some projects, the most valuable impact is workforce development—training students and postdocs in skills that employers prize, from data analysis to project management. For others, the focus is on informing public understanding of science or informing decision makers in areas such as health, energy, or national security. The criterion also envisions contributions to institutional capacity, such as building partnerships, enhancing science communication, or creating open data and shared tools. Workforce development Dissemination Infrastructure Policy impact
Critics, however, raise questions about how to measure and compare broader impacts across disparate fields and goals. A common concern is that the criterion can become a gateway for projects to pursue social or political objectives under the umbrella of public benefit, potentially at the expense of pure, curiosity-driven research. Critics also warn about the administrative burden on researchers, the risk of inconsistent reviews across panels, and the temptation to treat outreach or advocacy as a substitute for scientific excellence rather than a complement to it. They argue that the most reliable way to advance science is to reward rigorous inquiry and reproducible results, while clearly separating what belongs to basic discovery from what can be claimed as societal benefit. Science policy Impact assessment Dissemination Public policy
From a pragmatic, taxpayer-focused perspective, several mechanisms are central to making the Broader Impacts Criterion work without bogging down the research enterprise. Clear definitions of the kinds of impacts being sought help reviewers assess proposals consistently. Early planning and budgeting for outreach and training reduce later ad hoc additions and demonstrate that broader impacts are built into the project, not tacked on at the end. Emphasis on measurable outcomes—such as the number of students reached, the scale of new partnerships, or documented changes in public policy or practice—helps justify funding decisions to both scientists and non-scientists. In this framing, the BIC is less about advancing a particular cultural agenda and more about ensuring that research investments produce value that endures beyond the life of a single grant. Outreach Measurement Partnerships Public accountability
Controversies and debates persist about how to balance intellectual merit with broader impacts, and how to avoid turning broad statements of potential benefit into box-ticking exercises. Proponents of a strict, merit-first approach caution against diluting scientific rigor, while others worry that neglecting broader impacts could undermine public trust and the social license for research funding. Those who push back against what they view as activist or identity-driven emphasis argue that the primary purpose of public funding is to expand knowledge and technological possibility, not to advance a predefined social agenda. Supporters of the broader impacts concept respond that responsible science is inherently linked to the public good, and that well-designed outreach and partnerships can amplify discovery without compromising rigor. In this sense, the debate centers on how to design and implement the criterion so it is fair, objective, and truly beneficial to society. Social license to operate Evaluation metrics Career awards Public understanding of science
Case studies illustrate how the Broader Impacts Criterion can operate in practice. Some awardees design robust education pathways that connect researchers with classrooms, creating pipelines for students to pursue STEM careers while giving researchers hands-on opportunities to explain their work to a lay audience. Others develop open-access data resources, software tools, or educational curricula that persist beyond a single project. There are also efforts to forge partnerships with industry or government agencies to translate findings into real-world applications, from energy efficiency to public health. Critics point to projects with ambitious outreach plans that yield limited measurable outcomes, underscoring the challenge of measuring societal benefit in a field where results may take years to materialize. Education outreach Open data Public health Energy efficiency Public-private partnerships
The landscape of how broader impacts are defined and funded differs across agencies and countries, but the underlying principle remains: public investment in research should produce returns beyond the laboratory. Institutions may support internal guidance, mentorship for researchers on how to articulate broader impacts, and standardized review practices to improve consistency. As with any policy that touches multiple stakeholders, there will be disagreements about pace, scope, and emphasis. Yet the core objective—linking science to practical improvements in living standards and national strength—remains a central aim for many funding programs and policymakers. Institutional policy Science funding Global science policy