Talent Program Evaluation: Significant Impact, but Also High Systemic Pressure

An independent evaluation agency, Dialogic, recently examined the role that the Veni, Vidi, Vici, and Rubicon grants play in the scientific landscape and the impact of the changes that have been implemented. The conclusion is that the program is effective and indispensable as a personalized pathway for independent research, but also, for example, that ranking the large number of eligible proposals remains difficult. Due to the significant time investment required of all involved, combined with the odds of receiving a grant, the program faces considerable challenges.

The Talent Program consists of three grants: Veni, Vidi, and Vici. The goal is to create creative space for talented researchers to conduct innovative research, develop their own line of research, and realize their potential at various stages of their academic careers. Rubicon, a grant designed to gain experience abroad, has been added to the evaluation. The most recent comprehensive, independent evaluation dates back to 2012, and changes have been made since then, such as the two-phase structure (with a preliminary application followed by a full proposal) and the evidence-based CV. The currentevaluation covers the period 2017–2024.

Most stakeholders—from applicants and reviewers to institutions and external stakeholders—describe the program as indispensable in the scientific research funding landscape: it is effective and demonstrably contributes to retaining scientific talent, with significant impact, as evidenced by all the research projects, research lines, and research groups it helps to facilitate. The program also sets the direction, particularly in areas such as Recognition and Appreciation. Furthermore, many of the changes implemented are viewed positively. For example, the two-phase structure contributes to efficiency, and the evidence-based CV enhances the visibility of greater diversity in the types of academic profiles considered in evaluations.

In its administrative response, NWO endorses the conclusion that the Talent Program is indispensable and effective, but also acknowledges that the program is not without challenges. For example, the evaluation shows that the program has (too) strong an influence on academic careers. 
The evaluation states: “It [has] a strong impact on prestige and status: receiving funding serves as a seal of quality and influences follow-up funding, promotions, tenured appointments, and institutional personnel policies.” Thus, the grants have an impact that extends beyond their original purpose as a supplementary incentive for talented researchers. Partly because of this, the volume of applications is very high. The large number of applications places a heavy burden not only on the applicants themselves, but also on reviewers and committees.

The evaluation is being published just as the NWO strategy for the period 2027–2030 is nearing completion. The Talent Program—and the broader theme of “talent policy”—is one of the key areas NWO will be addressing in the coming years. In this context, NWO is also taking into account the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science’s (OCW) response to the NWO evaluation, which includes a mandate for the Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) and NWO to present a plan by the summer of 2027 to reduce the pressure on the system and establish shared responsibility for the system.