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)
IAN I. MITROFF and DARYL E. CHUBIN: Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis
113 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF A few conservative members of the House of Representatives have recently attacked the confidentiality of peer review in NSF and have questioned the integrity of its program officers. For example, Representative R. E. Bau man of Maryland denounced the peer review system in bitter terms on the floor of the House. 1 7 Gustafson then cites an excerpt from Representative Bauman's remarks which may be, by any standard, 'bitter* indeed. However, whether they are bitter or not is tangential to the issue. That Representative Bauman is a 'conservative' is likewise tangential. Central to the issue is a deep and serious division between points of view that cannot be dismissed by attaching labels of liberal/conservative, bitter/favourably predisposed, and the like. Other exchanges between proponents and critics demonstrate just how serious the division is, and underscore that it is far from unequivocally a case of one side being right, and the other being wrong; rather, the situation involves two distinctly differing points of view, each bolstered by cogent arguments. From its own perspective, each side is 'reasonable': Mr Pressler. Now, concerning the quality of the meetings being a bit higher if they are held in confidence, I am not sure why that is true in governmental meetings. 1 wonder if you could give us an example of why that would be true in your (scientific peer review) meetings? Dr Sherman. It has to do with one particular aspect of human nature. Even though the system is based on project grants, it is nonetheless necessary in the assessment of the project proposals to assess carefully the quality of the individual scientist named on the application. Sometimes, from my own experience with the system, the discussions about the individual's qualifications can be extremely heated. Now, it would seem in terms of the right of privacy of the individual, just because he is applying for funds from the Federal Government, that he should not have to lay out or make open to the public all of the considerations about his particular qualifications. The system can operate without jeopardizing the right of the individual. Mr Pressler. If there was something being used against that individual that was not entirely true, he should have a chance of rebuttal or to correct any misinformation. Then people would have a way of knowing. That is the other side of the com. 1 8 Mr Schever. Recently we [the Congress] have discovered what a cleansing effect openness has. It seems to cure a lot of problems. There may be problems with openness in the scientific decision making process, but we have not anticipated that they would be very serious. Recently, the Congress has moved from secrecy to openness. It used to be that after we heard from people like you [Dr Sherman] in our hearings we would go into executive session and do our markups. When it was suggested that the markups be made in public, with people listening to us talking or negotiating, many feared that the system would break down. Many
