The Scientist reports on a recent decision by Research Councils UK that grant applicants must submit an impact summary, describing the broader impacts of their research.  While this bears a strong resemblance to the National Science Foundation’s broader impact criteria in their grant requirements, I cannot find the specific text of the UK summary to make the direct comparison.  As a result, if there is an economic angle to the impact summary, I can see the criticism raised in The Scientist piece about the difficulty of predicting economic impacts of research.  However, I think any measure encouraging researchers to think of what happens (or could happen) with their work should be encouraged.