Comment from John Gray

John GrayOpposeAcademic
Summary: A university researcher and educator argues against replacing the expert peer review process with non-expert review for scientific grants and publications. They contend that non-experts cannot properly evaluate the value of basic research, which has historically led to major technological and medical breakthroughs.
I am a plant science researcher and educator (mainly genetics) at a public University in Ohio (The University of Toledo). I have received both USDA, and NSF funding throughout my career and participated in many grant review panels. I am also an Associate Editor at the journal Plant Science. Having participated in the review process throughout my career, I can testify to the importance of thoughtful and deliberate scientific evaluation of each proposal and paper to ensure that the science is being pursued and published in an accurate and unbiased manner. It is difficult to fathom how the final decision for grant or paper approval can be handed off to a non-expert. There are so many examples where what appeared to be obscure basic research has led to enormous breakthroughs and applications. A good example of this is the basic research into how bacteria protect themselves against viral infections. A non-expert might easily think that would be a waste of funds. However the discoveries that were made led to the tools that are the foundation of the modern biotech industry including the production of clean insulin for millions of patients. The discovery of the CRISPR-Cas gene editing system from the same basic research in bacteria, is now resulting in treatment for human genetic diseases and the beginning of the xenotransplantation industry. There is no way that a non-expert can see the value of basic research and adopting such a path can only result in poor decisions. Since the 1940's the expert peer review process has resulted in the U.S. being a leader in science discovery. Replacing the expert review process with non-experts means that that torch will inevitably pass to other countries. Based on my more than 35 years of experience in the U.S. science research system, I strongly recommend maintaining the current expert review process for grant approval and paper publications. Combined with investment in research and education, then the U.S.A. can truly continue to be a leader in scientific discovery and application.

View on Regulations.gov