Kudos to Mary Clutter and advisers who are responsible for NSF's new policy on grant proposal format ("NSF Stresses Publication Quality, Education With New Grant Format," The Scientist, Dec. 11, 1989, page 2). By limiting biographical sketches to 10 publications, NSF joins Harvard Medical School in spotlighting quality rather than quantity as the principal determinant of an investi-gator's performance. By requiring investigators to include statements about the educational and training value of

I applaud NIH's examination of the peer review process (The Scientist, August 8, page 1) and the agency's attempt at procedural reforms aimed at funding the best possible science. At bottom, much of the concern with the peer-review system at NIH, as with professional journals, lies in the inescapable fact that the same small pool of experts serves as both reviewer and reviewee for an extended time in many domains, facilitating two inappropriate practices—backslapping and backbiting. The sm