Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)
EUGENE GARFIELD: Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 4. Research on the Peer Review of Grant Proposals and Suggestions for Improvement
36 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 would merely substitute "the politics of the institutions for the politics of the review committees." 3 2 And the people who make the funding decisions not only won't be anonymous to those in need of funds, they will have to live and work with them daily, and thus, as Sanders writes, "are less apt to make their choices impartially." 2 0 Some scientists also question the underlying assumption of the present peer-review system: that only experts from an applicant's field or a closely allied discipline are qualified to judge that research proposal. David Apirion, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, suggests the creation of a class of professional, salaried science reviewers to replace peer review. 3 3 As Apirion puts it, "In all other branches of human creative enterprise [such] as literature, music, sculpture, etc., the producers of new works as well as the performers of new and old works are often judged by a special class of persons, reviewers and critics, who are seldom actively involved in the expansion of the particular discipline that they are entrusted to judge and evaluate." 3 3 Pressures on the Peer-Review System Several authors made observations concerning peer review that bear emphasizing. Yalow pointed out that there is a certain deadening effect—or dishonesty—inherent in trying to explain or justify research that has yet to be done; if your project is so lowrisk that you already know what you expect to find, Yalow asks, then how original or important can it be? 212 2 Daniel H. Osmond, University of Toronto, notes that there may be a certain amount of pressure, once funding is approved, to "groom" research results to fit the expectations of the granting agency. 3 4 Perhaps the biggest problem with peer review, however, isn't really a problem with peer review at all, but rather with the amount of funding available. In the "golden years" of the 1950s and 1960s, money for research was relatively plentiful and granting agencies generous; now, with money tight and with so many applicants, even deserving projects are sometimes denied funding. 3 5 As Lederberg says, "When there's not enough [money] to go around, some people are inevitably hurt—sometimes arbitrarily and unfairly." 3 2 Frustration with such decisions carries over to the system by which the decisions are rendered. Obviously, the process of peer review grinds on in spite of such troubling issues. There was a consensus of views expressed by scientists interviewed for Sanders's wide-ranging special report. In spite of all the complaints and all the faults hinted at, peer review is still considered the best method by which society places its bets on the most fruitful research. 2 0 Yet the credibility of peer review in the eyes of both the public and the scientific community is threatened by the activities of those who lobby Congress directly for funds. Richard C. Atkinson, former director, NSF, and currently chancellor, University of California, San Diego, and physicist William A. Blanpied, currently international studies specialist at the NSF, warn that the abandonment of peer review might reduce science to just another special-interest group, with funds being allocated based on political acumen rather than on a consensus of what best serves the advancement of scientific knowledge. 3 5 To prevent more institutions from joining those that have already abandoned the system, further changes in peer review may be necessary. But we should not confuse the forest with the trees. Without a strong peer-review system, albeit constantly reexamined, science might become tentative and inefficient. • » * * * My thanks to Stephen A. Bonaduce and Terri Freedman for their help in the preparation of this essay. ©1907 ISI
