Peer Review

In refuting my conclusion that the National Institutes of Health system for deciding which proposals to fund is flawed and badly in need of reform (The Scientist, Oct. 16, 1995, page 12), Brian Herman not only seems to accept the system as it is but also seems to see it as being as good as it can be and needing no improvement (The Scientist, Feb. 5, 1996, page 12). It is really too bad that he was not able to see the roughly 30 pieces of positive E-mails I got, in addition to faxes, letters, a

Arthur Sowers
Apr 1, 1996

In refuting my conclusion that the National Institutes of Health system for deciding which proposals to fund is flawed and badly in need of reform (The Scientist, Oct. 16, 1995, page 12), Brian Herman not only seems to accept the system as it is but also seems to see it as being as good as it can be and needing no improvement (The Scientist, Feb. 5, 1996, page 12).

It is really too bad that he was not able to see the roughly 30 pieces of positive E-mails I got, in addition to faxes, letters, and even requests for reproduction rights that I received from other readers who agreed with my view. I am sorry that I was not able to respond to all of this "fan mail," but I did appreciate that I hit on a sore point, which is even more prevalent than I...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?