This article presents a historical view of the development of the system used at the National
Science Foundation for judging proposals sent to the agency for financial support for fundamental research. It looks at the issue in two ways. The study describes first how the policy and
process evolved within the foundation. Then, set in the context of the mid-1970s public
disillusionment with all government operations spurred by Watergate and the Vietnam War, the
article shows how the system has fared to date under the pressure of outside forces and events.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chubin, D.E., and E.L. Hackett.1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
2.
Chubin, D. E., and S. Jasanoff , eds. 1985. Peer review and public policy Science, Technology, & Human Values10 (3): 3-86.
3.
Cole, J.R., and S. Cole.1981. Peer review at the National Science Foundation: Phase two of a study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Cole, S., L. Rubin, and J.R. Cole.1978. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase one of a study. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
5.
Culliton, Barbara J.1975. NSF defense of closed peer review system not persuasive . Science189 (15 August): 535-37.
6.
Dow, P.B.1991. School house politics: Lessons from the Sputnik era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
England, J.M.1982. A patron for pure science. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
8.
General Accounting Office.1978. Accountability in the National Science Foundation's review process for grant awards needs strengthening. HRD-78-121, November 17. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
9.
—. 1981. Better accountability procedures needed in NSF and NIH research grant systems. PAD-81-29, 30 September. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
10.
Hensler, D.R.1977. Perceptions of the National Science Foundation peer review process: A report on a survey of NSF reviewers and applicants. NSF 77-33 . Prepared for the Committee on Peer Review, National Science Board, and the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation .
11.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policy makers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Lomask, M.1976. A minor miracle. An informal history of the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
13.
Merton, R.K., and H. Zuckerman.1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva9:66-100.
14.
National Science Foundation (NSF).1976. Reviewer and proposer similarity and its effect on award decision . Office of Audit and Oversight, Evaluation Staff Study 76-1, March. Washington, DC: NSF.
15.
—. 1982. A study of the fairness of the NSF award decision process . Office of Audit and Oversight, Evaluation Staff Study 82-1, August. Washington, DC: NSF.
16.
—. 1984. Fairness of the NSF award decision process fiscal year 1982. Office of Audit and Oversight, Evaluation Staff Study 84-1, January. Washington, DC: NSF.
17.
—. 1985. Fairness of the NSF award decision process fiscal year 1983. Office of Audit and Oversight, Evaluation Staff Study 85-1, March. Washington, DC: NSF .
18.
—. 1986. Final report, NSF Advisory Committee on Merit Review. NSF 86-93. Washington, DC: NSF .
19.
—. 1988a. Proposal review at NSF: Perceptions of principal investigators . NSF Report 88-4, February. Washington, DC: NSF.
20.
—. 1988b. Proposal review at NSF: Perceptions of principal investigators . NSF 88-4. Washington, DC : NSF.
21.
—. 1988c. Report on funding trends and balance of activities: National Science Foundation. 1951-1988, NSF 88-3. Washington, DC : NSF.
22.
—. 1990. Report of the Merit Review Task Force. NSF 90-113,23 August . Washington, DC: NSF.
23.
Nelkin, D.1976. The science-textbook controversies. Scientific American, April, 33-39.
24.
Political winds still buffeting NSF. 1975. Science News, 28 June, 412.
25.
Proxmire vs. NSF: Economizing or baiting?1975. Science News, 15 March, 165.
26.
Sanders, H.J.1982. Peer review: How well is it working?Chemical and Engineering News, 15 March, 32-43.
27.
Sapolosky, H.M.1990. Science and the Navy: The history of the Office of Naval Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Shapley, Deborah.1975. Confess: House votes veto power on all NSF research grants . Science189 (25 April): 338-41.
29.
Smith, B.L.R.1990. American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: Brookings.
30.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology.1975. National Science Foundation 1975 posture hearing . 94th Cong., 1st sess., 5 February. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
—. 1980. Toward the endless frontier, history of the Committee on Science and Technology. Committee print. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology.1975. National Science Foundation peer review, special oversight hearings. 94th Cong., 1st sess., July 22, 23,24,29,30,31. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
33.
—. 1976. National Science Foundation peer review. 94th Cong., 2d sess. Vol. 1. Report, January. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
34.
—. 1983. The National Science Board: Science policy and management for the National Science Foundation Report 98th Cong., 1st sess., January . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
35.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.1975. Hearings on H.R. 8070. Part 1, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 3-4 March, 42-59, 98-102. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
36.
Walsh, John.1975. NSF peer review hearings: House panel starts with critics . Science189 (8 August): 435-37.
37.
Waterman, A.T.1951. Federal support of fundamental research in the biological sciences. A.I.B.S. Bulletin, October, 11-17.
