Our intent is not to accord any special consideration to one discipline, but rather to insure that the compositions of review groups can address the objectives of biomedical research. Peer review by individuals who truly understand concepts and experimental design in areas such as addiction, therapeutics and quantitation of pharmacologic responses will assure that funds are not spent on ill-structured science in these areas or that these important areas are neglected. We all recognize that the peer review system based on study sections has functioned extremely well over the years, but any system feels strains when only a small fraction of the grants and investigators receive support. The strength of the system cannot be dissociated from the quality of the people involved. We would encourage that the SRA positions receive appropriate recognition and compensation, that SRA s be given opportunities to stay close to scientific developments in their fields, and that the scientific community renew its commitment to insuring that experienced and the best scientists serve on scientific review groups.
Academic institutions require service obligations of their faculty for promotion.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these issues and trust that such input will enable the scientific community in health-related research to continually improve what has historically proven to be the world s preeminent review process.