Inappropriate and appropriate selection of 'peers' in grant review
S. A. Glantz and L. A. Bero
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0124.
OBJECTIVE--To assess the members of the California Tobacco Related Diseases
Research Program Behavioral and Public Health Research on Tobacco Study
Section and those of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR)
Dissemination Study Section as "peers" to review tobacco policy research.
Both study sections reviewed a similar grant application on tobacco policy
research written by one of us (S.A.G.). DESIGN--Search of MEDLINE for 1989
through 1993 with the keyword tobacco for Tobacco Related Diseases Research
Program and AHCPR reviewers. As a control, the National Institutes of
Health Cardiovascular Study Section, which reviewed a ventricular function
grant submitted by the same author with the keyword heart, was analyzed.
SETTING--Not applicable. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS--Study section
members. INTERVENTIONS--None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Publications by study
section members in areas germane to the proposal being reviewed.
RESULTS--Six (33%) of 18 Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program
reviewers had no "tobacco" publications (median, two publications;
interquartile range, zero to four). The members' "tobacco" publications
concentrated on well-controlled experimental interventions on smoking
cessation and prevention strategies, not tobacco policy. Only one member
had primary expertise in tobacco policy research. None of the AHCPR
reviewers had "tobacco" publications. All 31 (100%) of the National
Institutes of Health reviewers had "heart" publications (median, nine
publications; interquartile range, seven to 19). Five members had a primary
interest in the subject of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
application. CONCLUSIONS--Study section members' professional interests
play a critical role in the level of interest and enthusiasm they will have
for a proposal, which affects the priority score. In contrast to the study
section that reviewed the heart grant, the study sections that reviewed the
tobacco control grant were not "peers." The membership of these review
committees has effectively precluded research on tobacco control policy.
