For Tulane University physicist John Perdew, the panel's suggestions would mean good riddance to what he believes is now a lottery among highly qualified proposals. For population biologist Robert Wyatt of the University of Georgia, they would mean a welcome reliance on a scientist's track record in reviewing and awarding grants. And for ecologist Garth Redfield, they offer the hope of improved working conditions for himself and his fellow program managers at NSF.
The report of the Merit Review Task Force, completed this past summer and then sent out to all grantees for comment, so far has attracted little attention. Yet the study has the potential of changing the way that NSF passes out money--nearly $2 billion this year--for scientific and educational research and training.
WASHINGTON--The National Science Foundation isn't the only federal research agency that's taking a fresh look at its peer review system. The National Institutes of Health ...
