Articles by Ronald Paque

In a recent speech (delivered Sept. 22, 1988 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.), Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan la mented the extended and dramatic downward trend in science, education, and literacy among U.S. schoolchildren and, perhaps correctly, pointed out what he believes to be the major reasons for the decline of science literacy. Sagan’s explanations include lack of publicity, poor teaching in the elementary and high schools, and the negative but well-publi

Funding Inequities Your story in the December 12 issue of The Scientist concerning NIH funding had the title, “The Rich Get Richer” (page 19). So what’s new? Many of us interacting with the system have known of the institutionalized inequity of the system for years. The reason why these institutions have monopolized the bulk of NIH dollars is because they have seeded the study sections with their own people and friends. The cruel joke is that many people inside the exclusive

End Peer Review Several articles in the July 25 issue of The Scientist focus on one of the major problems that we are having in American science and why we are losing our technological edge to other countries. The articles on “blue sky” funding [from British Petroleum] and “renegade” researchers, and the editorial about Uncle Sam needing more good scientists all illustrate problems that have roots in the peer-review process. It is well known that people with innovative,

As a disenfranchised victim of the peer-review system, I consider that the myriad proposals for modifying peer review are less than encouraging. In his letter “Can Peer Review Be Improved?” (May 4, 1987, P. 10), Moshe Wolman is more than correct when he points out the inhibitory effect peer review has on science. Innovative, creative ideas that depart from dogma are usually given unfundable priorities, especially when dealing with NIH. In 1985 NIH received more than 30,000 proposa