| This is a hypertext file from Rae West's archives. It is not his work and is reproduced here, unedited, so readers may judge for themselves the views expressed in this file when it was freely available on Internet. https://www.big-lies.org |
| Link back to 'Why Science Cannot Cure Cancer and AIDS Without Your Help?' [Ling] |
That peer review system suppresses innovation and progress has been confirmed by survey and survey conducted by among other institutions and agencies, the National Institute of Health (NIH) itself.
In response to a request from Congressman Bob Casey of Texas dated 9/27/1973, a seven-member committee was formed, including myself. The purpose was to poll scientists' opinions concerning the peer review procedures as used by various government agencies. A questionnaire was written and approved by representatives of both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In cooperation with the Industrial Research magazine, the committee mailed out questionnaires to 500 physicists, 500 chemists and 500 biologists. 175 physicists, 189 chemists and 343 biologists responded. Only one in eleven scientists believes that the peer review system, as it operates today, is fair and reasonable.
The American Council of Learned Societies conducted an opinion poll of 3823 scholars in seven disciplines: Classics, History, Linguistics, Literature, Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology. The results were reviewed in the New York Times (9/30/1986). Three out of four respondents believe that peer review procedures were biased in favor of researchers or scholars on a prestigious campus or who used currently fashionable ideas that do not upset the establishments's elders. The majority also say that peer review process often overlooked pioneering voices, in favor of conservative opinions, sanctioned by the academic establishment or trendy views already approved by intellectual "in-groups".
Polls like those cited above show that increasingly more and more people in science and in other fields of study feel that the widely used peer review system is undermining the normal progress. Undoubtedly these dissatisfactions eventually reached the responsible section of the Congress, namely the Committee on Science and Technology. A congressional hearing on the peer review system as practiced at the National Science Foundation in the funding of scientific research took place in Washington, D.C. between 7/22 and 7/31/ 1975.
Testifying before the Committee, I presented my difficulties of getting continued support from NSF as new findings made it increasingly clear that the scientific view of the establishment was wrong. Thus in many ways, my experience supported what Representative John B. Conlan had commented in general terms (see linked page lp11). In the end beside my verbal presentation I also deposited a total of 63 pages of written documents in support of my view that the peer review system being practiced at the time at NSF does not permit the survival of scientists pursuing new and innovative research. Unfortunately as far as I know, this Congressional hearing did not make any significant impact on the way NSF distributes taxpayers' money to promote research beyond the publication of an 1158-page book by the Subcommittee.
As a result of a two-day long seminar held in 1974, top NIH officials recognized the need to look more deeply into the peer review system. A 14 member Grant Peer Review Study Team (GPRST) was appointed early in 1975 in order "to examine in critical detail, the entire process of peer review and make, where necessary, recommendation for modifications or change". Among the specific subject spelt out for investigation was "the capability of the peer review system to accommodate a really new and unusual scientific idea..." (Grant Peer Review Report to Director of NIH Vol. 1, pp.3-4).
A most extensive investigation followed. Public hearings were held in Chicago, San Francisco and Bethesda( Maryland). And written comments were solicited from all categories of people who had direct contact with the system. After most of two years, a final report of three volumes was submitted to the Director of NIH, Dr. Donald Fredrickson on 12/29/1976.
In Volume II, Supplement B, Part 3, are the following testimonials cited:
"...strong bias toward applications ..that fit into framework of more or less standard ongoing research without breaking new ground or developing innovative new directions or research" (Division of Research Grant Study, Section Member) (p.a.-3-10).
"Novel ideas which challenge dogma never get funding priority..." (Institute IRG member) (p. G-3-10)
"General Comment-Major problems with the current system...is that innovation by long- term projects are essentially unfundable by the system" (DRG Study Section member) (p.a.-3-10).
"For the review of the idea which runs contrary to prevailing thought, the system freezes..." (Advisory Council Board member.)
These are some of the testimonials. Their messages are loud and clear. The GPRST recommended the development of an experimental program involving limited support of speculative, high risk unorthodox or innovative research proposals. The GPRST then continued: "Such a study might be part of a larger much needed effort to examine the processes of decision-making in allotting research support."(Document #2). This statement clearly shows that top-ranking NIH officials were very aware that something was not right in the allocation of research support.
Unbelievably, the then departing NIH director Donald Fredrickson struck down the recommendation and gave the explanation for this action to the effect that "everyone thinks his or her research to be innovative." This is simply not true. But no one argued with him. His decision was final---after more than two years of hearings and a three-volume document written on the subject.
The quotations cited above---one wonders if Fredrickson has read them--- show quite clearly that the word, innovative, was not intended to represent something new. Instead, it represents something that is both new and against traditional view or practice---as most of the big authoritative dictionaries define the word, innovative. Every scientist definitely does not write proposal against traditional views or practices.
But apparently none of the fourteen signatories for the report saw fit or were otherwise unable or unwilling to explain to Dr. Donaldson that he had misundestood the word, innovative as they had intended.
This incidence shows just how a single person occupying the right place could take away the hope of untold millions with a stroke of his pen. And few even noticed it.