Fewer numbers, better science

PIVOT TO SUCCEED Two simple changes could make a big difference. Create a ‘pivot narrative’. Funding applications should give researchers who are in the midst of a shift an opportunity to describe their rationale. The significance and potential of the proposed work should be assessed alongside the researcher’s proven abilities for research in other fields. Alisic, for example, could explain how her work with young people sensitized her to a growing need for evidence-based interventions to treat trauma in children fleeing conflict. A ‘pivot narrative’ would also explain dr y spel ls and the lack of a track record in the proposed area. The simple step of adding a text box to an application form could expand scientists’ willingness to explore, and help assessors to support such exploration. Revise peer review. There is little to no emphasis on peer-review training. Equipping scientists with skills for more nuanced appraisal will help them to consider varied attributes, particularly how to address complex societal challenges and to evaluate broader interdisciplinary questions. This could eventually change institutional cultures. The greatest risk is that innovation will be stifled by failing to invest in the best emerging scientists, who are approaching the peak of their creativity. ■