Scientific World's Low Tolerance For Controversy

Among scientists, Joachim Messing, in his excellent commentary (The Scientist, June 27, 1994, page 13), made the case for supporting many small, rather than a few large, projects. Some excellent suggestions on improvements have also been proposed by Jose M. Musacchio, though he, too, refrains from suggesting major changes in the peer-review system (FASEB Journal, 8:679-83, 1994). Of all the information recently brought out on spons

Naomi Kraus
Dec 11, 1994
The process by which research is supported is under continuous scrutiny, which is a good thing, because it means that those responsible for policy-making do care. It is also the topic utmost on the minds of scientists. For example, the National Institutes of Health recently conducted a roundtable discussion on many diverse aspects of the funding process (FASEB Newsletter, August/September 1994, page 4). And the congressional General Accounting Office this year released its findings on the peer-review system, concluding that it appears to be working reasonably well (E. Marshall, Science, 265:86, 1994).

Among scientists, Joachim Messing, in his excellent commentary (The Scientist, June 27, 1994, page 13), made the case for supporting many small, rather than a few large, projects. Some excellent suggestions on improvements have also been proposed by Jose M. Musacchio, though he, too, refrains from suggesting major changes in the peer-review system (FASEB Journal, 8:679-83, 1994).

Of...

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?