munich

Germany's main funding body for university research, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), is undergoing its first external evaluation. The result could be wide-ranging reforms — including perhaps the speeding up of the peer-review process — next year, the fiftieth anniversary of the DFG's re-establishment after the Second World War.

The idea of an extensive external evaluation was proposed by the DFG two years ago. A group of ten international experts was appointed by the Bund-Länder-Kommission, which coordinates federal and state governments' research policy. The group is headed by Richard Brooke, chief executive of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and held its first discussions in Bonn last month.

The evaluation will focus particularly on the DFG's grants system. Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, the new DFG president, is concerned that many grants last for too short a period, and that the reviewing procedure takes too long — and is out of line with European norms. In contrast to the United Kingdom and the United States, where major grant-giving bodies appoint their own referees, the scientific community elects the DFG's 500 or so referees every four years. Winnacker asks whether “democracy [is] the best way forward to scientific excellence”.

Most German researchers appear reluctant to abandon the democratic culture of the review system. A survey last year of 1,200 recent DFG grant applicants — plus a further 200 academics who had not applied for grants recently — found 80 per cent in favour of the election of referees.

But a substantial criticism raised by the survey was the length of time it takes the DFG to decide about grant applications — an average of about six-and-a-half months. Many researchers complain that this causes unnecessary uncertainty.

Working with the evaluation committee, the DFG is investigating ways of halving this time. Its somewhat random method for choosing referees for particular applications is seen as a significant factor in the delays, as those selected in this way are frequently unavailable. The DFG wants to guarantee the availability of a certain referee in future, using a computerized information system.

The agency also wants the evaluation committee to consider its at present modest programme for young scientists. This is a subject close to the heart of Winnacker, who believes that young scientists need to be given responsibility for running their own research groups much earlier than at present, to encourage them to remain in Germany (see Nature 388, 507; 1997).

Last year, the DFG created a programme for young life scientists, allowing them to apply not only for research grants for a five-year period — instead of the normal two or three years — but also for their own salaries, which it does not normally allow. But only three such grants are available each year.

DFG officials are hoping that a recommendation from the evaluation group could help to expand the programme. Budgetary pressure has made it difficult for the organization to agree internally on expansion because even now only a low proportion of approved applications in other programmes can be funded.

But the DFG remains cautious about the effectiveness of the evaluation committee's report, due next year. “You can never predict if, and when, politicians are willing to match action to words,” says Christoph Schneider, director for scientific and international affairs. Further inspections by and meetings of the evaluation group are planned for July and December.