{\rtf1\mac\ansicpg10000\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\upr{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020206030504050203}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times};}
}{\*\ud{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020206030504050203}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times};}}}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{
\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs28\lang1033\cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\cf1\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{
\s2\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\fs22\cf1\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs28\cf1\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext15 Body Text;}{\*\cs16 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 Hyperlink;}{\*\cs17 \additive \ul\cf12 \sbasedon10 FollowedHyperlink;}{\s18\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\cf1\lang1033\cgrid 
\sbasedon0 \snext18 Body Text 2;}}{\info{\title Statement to Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology}{\author Richard Gordon}{\operator Richard Gordon}{\creatim\yr2001\mo12\dy4\hr15\min18}{\revtim\yr2001\mo12\dy4\hr15\min21}
{\printim\yr2001\mo12\dy3\hr16\min43}{\version3}{\edmins3}{\nofpages2}{\nofwords876}{\nofchars4997}{\*\company University of Manitoba}{\nofcharsws6136}{\vern8243}}
\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow0\dgvshow0
\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale150\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang
{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}
{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9
\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s18\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\cf1\lang1033\cgrid {\fs22 Statement on Peer Review to Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, 
Parliament of Canada, November 29, 2001
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs28\lang1033\cgrid {\fs22\cf1 
\par Drs. Bryan Poulin and Richard Gordon (presented by Bryan Poulin)
\par 
\par }\pard \qj\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs22\cf1 Thank you for this opportunity to comment on improving peer review 
and granting processes used by Federal Government agencies in scientific and medical research. Peer review has come under increasing criticism as a means for funding research (e.g., see:}{\fs22  Poulin, B.J. & R. Gordon, \ldblquote 
How to organize science funding: the new Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), an opportunity to increase innovation\rdblquote , }{\i\fs22 Canadian Public Policy}{\fs22  }{\b\fs22 27}{\fs22 (1), 95-112, 2001}{\fs22\cf1 
) and Gordon and Poulin's review of Donald Forsdyke's recent book on Canadian research, }{\i\fs22\cf1 Tomorrow's Cure's today? How to Reform the Health Research System}{\fs22\cf1  (}{\i\fs22 Canadian Public Policy}{\fs22  }{\b\fs22 26}{\fs22 
(2), 272-273, }{\fs22\cf1 2000}{\fs22 ).}{\fs22\cf1 
\par 
\par We are not against discriminating among science research projects, and peer review may be a useful means of discriminating priorities. After all, there is a limit that any country can afford to spend on science and scientific research. 
\par 
\par However, our preliminary investigations suggest that the present state of peer review and "winner take all" models of funding are unlikely to lead to either fair or optimal results. This is because p
eer review tends toward competition that is overly aggressive and to decisions that have "conflict of interest" aspects. Further, peer review - especially in the early, most creative stages of research - does not foster the co-operation and trust required
 for truly creative research and learning to flourish, or permit it even a modicum of funding to get off the ground. Outcomes of peer review, and granting processes that are based upon it, include these: 
\par 
\par (1) denial of many good ideas by qualified and skilled researchers; 
\par 
\par (2) promotion of distrust among the scientific community in the fairness of the process; 
\par 
\par (3) likely sub-optimization of science and scientific innovation;
\par 
\par (4) loss of research effort by people paid to do research, but with few or no resources to do it with;
\par 
\par (5) discouragement of youth from entering scientific and medical research careers, given their perception of the difficulties in obtaining any research funding. 
\par 
\par The above charges are supportable, but need further investigation. F
or example, industry and institutional "best practice" at the 3M Corporation, Bell Labs and U.S.National Institute of Health (NIH) intramural research programs strongly suggests co-operative, not competitive conditions must be created for innovation to fl
ourish, with startup funds available for new ideas, without barriers or hurdles. 
\par 
\par What is needed to support or refute the arguments of critics and supporters of the present peer review and funding systems is not surveys of ungrounded opinion. Too often the
se are little more than articles of faith, such as the typical claim by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research of  \ldblquote CIHR's strong tradition of excellence in research through the peer review process\rdblquote 
\par (}{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\fs22\cf1  HYPERLINK "http://www.cihr.ca/partnerships/international/ghri_2_e.shtml" }{\fs22\cf1 {\*\datafield 
00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b7a00000068007400740070003a002f002f007700770077002e0063006900680072002e00630061002f0070006100720074006e0065007200730068006900700073002f0069006e007400650072006e00610074006900
6f006e0061006c002f0067006800720069005f0032005f0065002e007300680074006d006c000000}}}{\fldrslt {\cs16\fs22\ul\cf2 http://www.cihr.ca/partnerships/international/ghri_2_e.shtml}}}{\fs22\cf1 ).
\par 
\par Data is available in the federal granting institutions to find out if peer review works, as a fair and efficient discriminating 
device. For example, if peer review is not generally applicable to all stages of the innovation process - and we suspect that it is not - then it should be reserved for the stage or stages where it is appropriate and, even here, it will need to be modifie
d to guard against misuse by vested, counter-productive interests. 
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s15\qj\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs28\cf1\lang1033\cgrid {\fs22 
In summary, there is little scientific evidence for the efficacy of peer review in general. In the words of psychopharmacologist David Horrobin, the very little evidence there is suggests 
that peer review is "little better than chance" and "may have destroyed rather than promoted innovation." This assessment of the preliminary evidence is in keeping with our own hypothesis, supported as it is by the success of notable private and governmen
t research institutions that do not use peer review for assessing the merits of launching new scientific and medical research initiatives. 
\par }\pard\plain \qj\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs28\lang1033\cgrid {\fs22\cf1 
\par Our position at this time is that scientific research on peer review and the related granting process has barely begun. It is perhaps avoided, precisely because the overriding political agenda of scientists is to increase funding (}{\fs22 
Greenberg, D.S., }{\i\fs22 Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion}{\fs22 , University of Chicago Press, 2001}{\fs22\cf1 ), without regard to t
he efficiency with which the bounty of funds is spent. Our advice is that we, as a community, must not pursue peer review and granting decisions in unscientific ways \endash  unexamined, and thus call for research on peer review.
\par 
\par Good science has always meant mo
re than going with the opinion of the day, and this includes our own opinion. It means, at the very least, conducting reliable, repeatable scientific research on both consistency of past reviews and the impacts of the decisions taken. In the interim, we s
hould be cautious in applying the largely untested peer review system that has become the norm. Our main suggestion is that available funds be spread more widely among qualified researchers. For more detail on this, we refer you to our paper in }{
\i\fs22\cf1 Canadian Public Policy}{\fs22\cf1 
, "How to Organize Science Funding: The New Canadian Institutes for Health Research, an Opportunity to Increase Innovation". The Abstract is attached to this statement, as is our review of Forsdyke's insightful book. 
\par 
\par }\pard \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs22\cf1 Bryan Poulin
\par Faculty of Business Administration
\par }\pard\plain \s2\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\fs22\cf1\lang1033\cgrid {Lakehead University
\par }\pard\plain \s1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\cf1\lang1033\cgrid {\fs22 BPoul@FoBA.LakeheadU.ca
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs28\lang1033\cgrid {\i\fs22\cf1 
\par Richard Gordon
\par Departments of Radiology and Electrical & Computer Engineering
\par University of Manitoba 
\par }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\i\fs22\cf1  HYPERLINK "mailto:GordonR@ms.UManitoba.ca" }{\i\fs22\cf1 {\*\datafield 
00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000170000001800000047006f00720064006f006e00520040006d0073002e0055004d0061006e00690074006f00620061002e00630061000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b3e0000006d00610069006c0074006f003a0047006f00720064006f006e0052004000
6d0073002e0055004d0061006e00690074006f00620061002e0063006100000000001130210000000000}}}{\fldrslt {\cs16\i\fs22\ul\cf2 GordonR@ms.UManitoba.ca}}}{\i\fs22\cf1  
\par 
\par }{\fs22\cf1 For all abstracts and references please see: }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\fs22\cf1  HYPERLINK "http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/radiology/stafflist/rgordontitle.html" }{\fs22\cf1 {\*\datafield 
00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90ba200000068007400740070003a002f002f007700770077002e0075006d0061006e00690074006f00620061002e00630061002f0066006100630075006c0074006900650073002f006d00650064006900630069006e00
65002f0072006100640069006f006c006f00670079002f00730074006100660066006c006900730074002f00720067006f00720064006f006e007400690074006c0065002e00680074006d006c000000000000}}}{\fldrslt {\cs16\fs22\ul\cf2 
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/radiology/stafflist/rgordontitle.html}}}{\fs22 
\par }}