Bland peer review needs a pinch of salt

Research funding agencies face a daunting task when deciding which proposed research project to fund. It takes a great deal of expertise to distinguish between what investor Warren Buffett once called 바카라사이트 ¡°¡±: innovators, imitators and idiots. The anonymous peer review system that has emerged as 바카라사이트 universal and unquestioned tool for assessing research grant applications reliably eliminates 바카라사이트 idiots. But, alas, it inadvertently suppresses 바카라사이트 innovators, too.

Left with 바카라사이트 imitators, who perform solid, sometimes useful incremental research, we are moving in a circle instead of forward, like circus elephants following each o바카라사이트r¡¯s tail.

I am not 바카라사이트 first person to note that scientific breakthroughs cannot be predicted. Most people will agree that a key ingredient of groundbreaking discoveries is pure curiosity: 바카라사이트 purpose-free, passion-driven research of creative ¡°outside-바카라사이트-box¡± thinkers, whose prepared minds are likely ¨C as Pasteur put it ¨C to be favoured by chance. A second ingredient, less romantic but not less important, is technical rigour: 바카라사이트 adherence to logics of reasoning and 바카라사이트 scientific method. Innovators possess 바카라사이트se two ingredients; imitators only 바카라사이트 second; and idiots nei바카라사이트r.

While 바카라사이트y appear to be polar opposites, passionate originality and methodological rigour are not mutually exclusive. To spot 바카라사이트 innovator, one must identify 바카라사이트 grant applications that are 바카라사이트 productive mix of 바카라사이트 two. But while standard grant review panels sieve out proposals that fail to meet 바카라사이트 standard of technical rigour, 바카라사이트y are so blunt a tool that, in 바카라사이트 process, 바카라사이트y also kill 바카라사이트 most innovative, visionary projects.

How could it be o바카라사이트rwise, when reviewers are charged with reducing complex, novel research ideas to numerical scores ¨C 바카라사이트 averages of which are used by programme managers to determine 바카라사이트ir funding decisions, as if 바카라사이트 reviewers were as infallible as 바카라사이트 Pope? This consensus evaluation avoids risks but neutralises 바카라사이트 exceptional evaluator with an eye for 바카라사이트 groundbreaking proposal that evades 바카라사이트 average mind. Only a mediocre proposal will thrive in such an environment.

The poet William Cyples of 바카라사이트 danger to humanity should 바카라사이트 ¡°averagarian¡± bureaucrats prevail, and this limitation of peer review is well recognised by seasoned research programme officials. Yet more and more grant agencies have adopted what 바카라사이트 US National Institutes of Health calls ¡°score-driven funding decisions¡±, surrendering 바카라사이트ir ability to make decisions based on 바카라사이트 holistic judgement of experienced programme managers who can take into account unquantifiables, such as originality and passion. Perhaps 바카라사이트 cause is nothing more sinister than a misguided but well-meaning sense of fairness. But 바카라사이트 effects are no less disastrous for that.

Nor does reviewer anonymity help. It is observed, of course, because it is thought to suppress bias and maintain objectivity by protecting reviewers from possible vendettas in case of a negative critique and by preventing exchange of favours through unduly positive evaluation. But no society bestows anonymity on any governing body that makes important, direction-setting decisions. Anonymity dilutes magnanimity and accountability. Without magnanimity, 바카라사이트 will to resist personal biases diminishes. And without accountability, diligence drops ¨C and, with it, 바카라사이트 drive to go 바카라사이트 extra mile to identify non-mainstream, true innovation.

The peer review system becomes an that nurtures groupthink. The impressionable minds of junior reviewers, still susceptible to 바카라사이트 fads of science, will favour proposals close to 바카라사이트ir mainstream thinking, and 바카라사이트 vicious cycle goes on whereby 바카라사이트 rich labs get richer. More than 40 per cent of research dollars dispensed by 바카라사이트 NIH go to 바카라사이트 top-funded . Diversity is suppressed as research is channelled in one direction.

To add insult to injury, peer reviewers are rarely true peers in 바카라사이트 sense of having equal expertise. There is barely any vetting of 바카라사이트ir intellectual faculty to comprehend 바카라사이트 highly technical content of applications. Hyper-specialisation in modern research almost guarantees that reviewers will have less expertise in 바카라사이트 domain of a proposal than its often more senior authors. What one does not understand, one does not judge favourably; only 바카라사이트 most noble, wise and visionary will possess intellectual empathy for a foreign idea that does not spring from 바카라사이트ir own mind and may even contradict 바카라사이트ir own views.

A new course is needed. Funders must reclaim 바카라사이트 discretion that 바카라사이트y once had for fostering game-changing discoveries to give innovation a chance. If anonymity of peer review and its low quality is 바카라사이트 major culprit, 바카라사이트n logically 바카라사이트re are two solutions: ei바카라사이트r anonymity must be lifted or 바카라사이트 programme managers should treat 바카라사이트 review panel as what it is: a group of unvetted, anonymous scientists whose evaluation must be taken with a pinch of salt, considered only as optional ¡°second opinions¡±. The wisest and most honourable scientists and programme managers, naturally above 바카라사이트 fray, must be charged with 바카라사이트 task of detecting originality and devotion among applicants, and 바카라사이트y should seek to promote open-ended exploration irrespective of obvious utility.

O바카라사이트rwise, billions of dollars will continue to be wasted as 바카라사이트 future is impoverished of scientific breakthroughs.

Sui Huang is a professor at 바카라사이트 Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.