Targeted NRPs: a new approach to priority issues for policymakers and the federal administration

The three new National Research Programmes (NRPs), focusing on mental health of adolescents, digital resilience of critical infrastructures, and deglobalisation and supply chain resilience, were launched in response to the priorities of the Federal Administration rather than via an open call for proposals (open review period). Laetitia Philippe, Vice Director of SERI and Head of the National Research and Innovation Division, explains this approach.

The three new NRPs are the result of a new approach to defining topics, involving a more targeted framework. What objectives is SERI seeking to achieve through this approach?

These new NRPs were launched with several specific objectives in mind, which include exploring the possibility of introducing shorter programmes focused on highly specific topics that address needs identified by policymakers and the Federal Administration. The idea is also to be able to launch these programmes more quickly than would be possible at the end of an open review period, in order to provide scientific answers to pressing questions. The fundamental aim of the NRPs nevertheless remains unchanged: to encourage research projects that contribute to solving societal challenges of national importance. By adopting this new approach, SERI’s main aim is to determine how the NRPs can be used as targeted instruments to address questions for which scientific research is likely to provide answers relevant to the Federal Administration’s priorities. The aim is not to carry out sectoral research, but to issue a targeted call for proposals to the scientific community. The scientific excellence of the proposals submitted by researchers remains the primary criterion in the SNSF’s evaluations. SERI is considering an alternation between review periods of this type and open review periods, which are allocated higher levels of funding. During open review periods, the topics submitted by the relevant stakeholders help to bring major scientific questions to the fore. This bottom-up approach is one of the strengths of the NRP instrument, and the Federal Administration considers it particularly important.

The new NRPs on the mental health of adolescents, digital resilience and deglobalisation and resilience address wide-ranging issues. In your opinion, what will be the main challenges in transforming these very broad issues into targeted research programmes with a real impact?

The issues addressed by these three NRPs are indeed very wide-ranging. They are the result of a process that began by identifying key issues for policymakers and the Federal Administration. These three topics were ultimately selected because they were deemed to be both relevant and scientifically feasible. The experts appointed by the SNSF also carried out significant work to sharpen the focus of the topics. The aim was to make the NRP call documents as specific as possible, while allowing sufficient scope for academic freedom. One challenge will arise during the project selection process. Given the available funding, it will be particularly important to build a coherent and complementary project portfolio that supports the objectives of each programme. The nature of the programme is largely determined by the project portfolio. We must therefore avoid any dilution of their objectives at this stage.

Can these new programmes provide useful insights for the future development of the NRP instrument itself? If so, which aspects will be particularly interesting to observe?

That is precisely one of the purposes for this review period. By streamlining the selection process and shortening the research period, SERI wants to test the ability of the NRP instrument to provide effective, practice-oriented answers to policy questions for which there is a proven need for scientific responses. In substantive terms, the three programmes aim to provide a basis for action where the needs are most evident. NRP 85 is therefore intended to allow a better understanding of changes in the mental health of adolescents and to identify areas for action in schools, prevention and health services. NRP 86 examines the capacity of our institutions, our infrastructure and the population to cope with digital risks. Finally, NRP 87 analyses the implications of the fragmentation of international trade for an economy as open as Switzerland’s. Three aspects will be particularly instructive: what targeted programmes (with limited funding and short durations) can achieve; the effects of an accelerated timeline; and the ability of the NRP instrument to address issues that are both of societal importance and on the political agenda. Two dedicated assessments will help answer these questions. The Swiss Science Council is conducting an ongoing assessment of this review period, which will continue right up to the selection of the research projects. SERI is planning a subsequent assessment of its own, which will take place in the 2030s.

How do these developments fit into the current debate on the role of the NRPs within the Swiss research funding landscape?

These developments are part of a broader reflection that has been ongoing for several years. The ability to mobilise science around issues of major importance to Switzerland, within a structured framework and over a defined period, is a distinctive strength of the National Research Programmes (NRPs). In the current context, the need for robust scientific evidence to inform policy decisions and address the many challenges facing society has become particularly important.

SERI regards the NRPs as an instrument capable of providing sound scientific answers to issues of major societal importance. The main opportunities for improvement concern the phase between the identification of a need and the launch of the call for proposals. The current adjustments therefore focus on this stage. However, they do not call into question either the way the programmes are run or the academic freedom of the research teams. Academic freedom and practical relevance are not, in fact, at odds with one another within the NRPs. Project teams conduct their work with full scientific autonomy, while addressing questions whose relevance to practice has been established beforehand. It is this structure that underpins the value of the instrument and facilitates the implementation of its findings.

The survey conducted by SERI among federal offices shows that the NRPs are seen as a valuable instrument, particularly because they provide direct access to research findings relevant to public policy. The report also highlights the value of strengthening links with non-academic actors. What contribution can the new NRPs make in this regard?

Research has increasingly evolved towards closer collaboration with non-academic partners, particularly when it comes to addressing complex societal challenges. The new NRPs follow this trend, promoting transdisciplinary approaches and non-academic stakeholder involvement, as in NRPs 76, 81 and 82.

NRP 85, which focuses on the mental health of adolescents, includes a Youth Advisory Board to directly involve the community targeted by the programme, for instance. The increased involvement of the federal offices concerned by the selected topics is also intended to strengthen the practical applicability of the findings. The relevant offices were consulted, in particular, on the programme proposals, programme concepts and NRP call documents. Finally, each NRP includes a representative of the Confederation in its Steering Committee. For NRP 85, the cantons are also represented by a delegate from the Conference of Cantonal Health Directors.

Following this call for proposals, the next open review period is expected to be conducted in the traditional manner. How do you see these two formats complementing one another?

The two types of review periods are based on different perspectives. Both a scientific perspective and a policy perspective are required to identify issues of national importance. This complementarity is reflected in the two formats of the NRP instrument. With this new type of review period, SERI is aiming to establish a predictable alternation between targeted and open review periods. This will allow a more targeted response to different kinds of needs, both of which nevertheless require solutions based on scientific research. These include, on the one hand, issues where there is a clear need for swift political action and, on the other hand, broader societal issues, put forward by both the scientific community and other interested parties, whose scientific analysis requires a longer-term horizon. It remains to be seen whether the new approach adopted will produce the desired results. The two planned assessments will help assess whether this is the case. Beyond procedural aspects, NRPs remain one of the few funding instruments capable of creating lasting links between societal and policy needs and high-quality research. SERI wishes to continue the close and trusted collaboration with the SNSF that characterizes this instrument.