I am interested in Jeffrey Tosk's statement on research funding. I am curious
about why the safe research gets continued funding. Is this a function of
the review process being carried out by peers who favor particular kinds
of research? I know that that has been a criticism of NIH review committees
where there are people on them who seem to favor their own research. Maybe
there could be a judicious selection of the reviewers to get ones who would
be more daring?
I know that when I edited a professional journal, as editor I could
predict the slant of the reviewer and I had to be careful to whom I sent
the article for review.
This is a serious matter and I would think that it would warrant
some further discussion. How might the restof us have some influence on
this process?
Bob Newbrough
