Bicameral grant review: How a systems analyst with aids would reform research funding

Abstract

A systems analyst (SA) with AIDS has applied his professional skills to determine whether available research funds are being spent optimally. After an initial briefing by the director (D) of a major funding organization and visits to various research laboratories, he now returns to suggest to the director a novel “bicameral”; method of reviewing research proposals. The “retrospective”; and “prospective”; parts of research proposals should be separated and independently routed. Peer‐review should be entirely retrospective and concerned with past performance relative to funds received. Prospective review, concerned solely with budget, should be performed in house by the funding bodies. The director is not entirely in agreement.

Keywords:

• peer review
• bicameral review
• performance/$
• sliding scale
• research on researc