The Science Foundation
Public Science, Public Good
What Ifs…? Fall 2026
Request for Reviewers
Apply to review for The Science Foundation!
Preamble
The Science Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan organization, is running our second ‘What Ifs?” competition to fund approximately five to ten up to $10,000 research projects in all domains of basic science. We are seeking to (i) support the basic science research ecosystem, (ii) increase public visibility and engagement with science, and (iii) experiment with new, efficient ways of evaluating proposals. We have designed an evaluation process that we hope will be exciting and engaging for our reviewers, and we would be honored if you would consider participating and sharing your expertise with us. All reviewers will receive an honorarium in recognition of their service.
Our Evaluation Process
We will adopt a two-stage evaluation process, scheduled for this October & November.
Stage One: Initial Screening
After a preliminary check by the SciFnd team to remove applications that are outside the scope of our program, we will assemble up to 20 applications per reviewer for preliminary evaluation. Each application will be viewed by two reviewers. You will be asked to view three-minute project pitch videos each accompanied by a brief written application, and answer the following question with a single numeric score:
1.1) How well does this pitch meet the two SciFdn review criteria (scientific merit and sparking curiosity) on a scale of 1 (not well at all) to 4 (extremely well)?
We anticipate that initial screening will take 2 hours of your time. This must be completed between Oct 19-26th.
Stage Two: Review and Panel Discussion
The top applications, based on stage one, will be moved to panel. Each reviewer will be asked to consider up to 10 applications based on the 3 minute video and answer the following three questions:
2.1.a) How exciting is the proposed scientific question? [1-4]
2.1.b) Why do you find it exciting or not exciting? [text]
2.2.a) Is the approach appropriate for the question being asked? [1-4]
2.2.b) What could improve the approach, if you rated it <4? [text]
2.3.a) How well does the proposer communicate their curiosity and inspiration? [1-4]
2.3.b) What inspired you the most? [text]
Please note that we are excluding traditional objective criteria, such as publication record or perceived institutional prestige. After reviews are submitted, we will hold a panel discussion with members of the SciFnd team to discuss the merits of each application. Panel discussions will be open to the public, including donors. We will record discussions for internal use only; we’d like to capture the discussions in the interest of reflection and improvement of our process.
We anticipate that stage two will require 1 hour of pre-panel work (viewing and scoring 10 applications) and up to 2 hours of panel time.
Sounds Exciting! How do I participate?
If you are interested in serving as a “What Ifs…? ” reviewer, please complete the reviewer survey here and hold time on your calendar if possible. We aim to make final reviewer selections by Oct 1st, 2026. We recognize that this is a short turnaround time and hope that our efficient process and provision of honoraria ($200) will enable great panels to be assembled to have productive and inspiring discussions. We’d like all reviewers to gain enthusiasm and connections from this process, in addition to helping support fundamental scientific research through their discussions.
Sincerely,
Maren Friesen
Director, The Science Foundation
The Science Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan project fiscally sponsored by the 501c3 Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) [EIN: 95-4116679]. We are 100% funded by donations. Our mission is to catalyze discoveries in the mathematical, physical, and biological sciences through a transparent and responsive funding process grounded in public engagement.