YouTube or You Lose: Grand Challenges Canada Explores Whether Scientists Are Ready for Web-Based Grant Competitions

Abstract

It is not hard to trace the influence of technology on the way we read the literature or give scientific presentations. Not so long ago, chemists used hard copies of Chemical Abstracts to find papers and sticks of chalk to deliver talks. Only over the past decade have computer presentations become the norm. In contrast, the way that grants are evaluated has remained relatively unchanged: scientists submit written proposals that are then evaluated by committees of scientists in the field. Might this process soon change as well? The not-for-profit organization Grand Challenges Canada (GCC) recently sponsored a competition in which researchers presented audacious ideas to attack problems related to global health (Figure 1). In its search for bold ideas from scientists, the GCC organization tested a bold idea as well: each proposal had to be accompanied by a 2-min-long video for public consumption on the Internet. Web users were encouraged not only to view these video summaries but to participate in the evaluation of the proposals by means of clicking on a "thumbs up" button (similar to the "like" buttons found on YouTube and Facebook). The votes from the public video were used by GCC to evaluate each applicant's ability to "engage the public and increase awareness in the grand challenges facing global health today".^1 The competition collected over 180,000 votes and over 100,000 unique online visits from 156 countries in a mere 4 weeks—staggering statistics for scientific videos. While each applicant also submitted a written version of the proposal, which was privately evaluated by "standard" peer-review, the public video feature was one of the first direct implementations of Web 2.0 technology (user-interactive sites and applications) to evaluate scientific proposals. The competition raises an important question: to what extent, if any, should Web 2.0 technology or other direct evaluation by the public be used to determine the outcome of scientific grant proposals?

Files

Additional details