Keep it on the QC

I'd been wanting to write about this topic for a while, but kept on hitting a wall. No matter what angle I approached it from, I kept on coming to the same conclusion - that I really had no conclusion, therefore not much to write. But then some higher power hears my frustration and answers me in the form of this Slate article. The topic is about the peer review system and whether it works in the world of science.

The advantages of the peer review system are readily apparent: it serves to judge the quality of an investigator's work and, if implemented correctly, will be constructive in improving the quality of research being performed by the scientific community. However, sometimes you look around and see people who have ascended despite the quality of their work.

**cough** matthewshaitan **cough**

I think that the peer review process does indeed hold the scientific community to a certain standard, but I also think that the system causes scientists to converge their communication styles, and therefore, their approaches to research and experimental design. It's a system that may sometimes deter innovation, which, obviously, is what research should be all about.

Also, there are ways around the quality control purpose of the peer review process. Take, for example, an investigator who we will call, hmm, I don't know, say, 'M'. 'M' is a senior faculty member at a large biomedical institution who has sat on many a grant review committee. By participating in these sessions, 'M' has learned the 'tricks' of the grant review process. One may read 'tricks' to mean things like experimental controls or new research protocols to apply to one's area of study. But....no.

'M' has a healthy disdain for experimental controls, as sometimes they nullify the results of the experiment. Darn pesky controls can be so incovenient, huh? Additionally, 'M' is loathe to adopt new technologies - establishing new protocols in the lab takes time and money, both of which can be momentum-killers. Better to exhaust existing (even archaic) technology until nobody takes it seriously anymore.

No, to 'M', the 'tricks' apply to grant-writing format, keywords, and key phrases that automatically reward the grant with a higher score when it is evaluted at these review sessions. In short, a researcher can have his/her grant stand out amongst all the others with just a few precious phrases. 'M' is able to work this and bring in several grants and thus become the big breadwinner in his/her department. Moral of the story: If you learn to work the system, you can also become a research superstar!!!

Obviously, the story of 'M' does not constitute evidence against the peer review system, but I think it does demonstrate that any system will have cracks, especially one that is supposed to evaluate such a large and diverse pool of individuals. This is where I run into the wall. How to fix it? Where do we go from here? I have no freaking idea. And that's where the article rescues me and alerts me to the fact that a commission has been studying the peer review process for almost two decades now. And they still don't have any solid answers. At least someone up there recognizes that there may be a problem.

I'd go on except I've got a deadline Friday.

So - what do you all think? Especially those of you who read but never write. Yeah, I'm looking at you.

*******

What I'm listening to now: The Final Cut, Pink Floyd

This certainly isn't the most depressing of Pink Floyd's albums. I reserve that honor for Dark Side of the Moon, which made me almost jump off our balcony back in college. The only casualty, however, would have been a trampled rosebed as we lived on the first floor. The Final Cut gets high marks for depressing imagery due to "The Gunner's Dream", which are the thoughts of a World War II paratrooper as he parachutes behind enemy lines.

Not exactly the best writing music that iTunes could have chosen for me.

Update:

What I'm really listening to now: Possessed, The Balanescu Quartet

I'd finished writing this blog and was going about doing some formatting when I accidentally deleted the whole thing. Arrrgh. Anyway, this quartet is much better writing music than Pink Floyd. It's a bunch of Kraftwerk songs transcribed for a string quartet. Good stuff. And cheerful, too - that Floyd album had me dragging.

I should note that I pilfered this 'What I'm listening to now' idea from another blog, yet another good idea from Dave. I'd copy his flickr thing, too, except my photos don't come anywhere near to his in terms of quality.