© THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY

cA
< 1230 YORK AVENUE - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

July 3, 1978

Dr. Jeffrey S. Kane

Advanced Research Resources Organization
4330 East West Highway

Washington, D.C. 20014

Dear Dr. Kane:

Thank you for your letter and reprints on peer assessment. Your
inferential leap connecting my request to my new position was under-
standable, but incorrect. For many years I have been concerned about
the validity of the federal peer-review system of peer review for
grants, and (1.) have urged a self-critical assessment of the process,
(2) certain changes in procedure, especially aimed at enhancing the
exchange of information in a timely way, and (3.) more empirical
observations of and insight into the group processes involved in
study section actions. My main concern has been with the conflicts
between bureaucratic tidiness and the obligation to get enough ©
accurate information to make a valid judgment. There is not much
feedback now that could help correct reviewers’ misconceptions: for
grants much less than, say, for mss.

Your review, although only obliquely connected with my concerns
(I am aware of many different connotations @f “peer groups") was
helpful and thank you for sending it.

The NIH is more receptive than ever before to self-examination
and if I have an opportunity to pass on the gist of your letter to
some useful effort, I will do so. However, I should think you could
more fruitfully press your own inquiries on the directors of NIH,

NIMH and NSF if you have a research design that you feel might lead to
improvements in a fundamental gatekeeping process.

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg,
_ President