Sa. Glantz et La. Bero, INAPPROPRIATE AND APPROPRIATE SELECTION OF PEERS IN GRANT REVIEW, JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 1994, pp. 114-116
Objective.-To assess the members of the California Tobacco Related Dis
eases Research Program Behavioral and Public Health Research on Tobacc
o Study Section and those of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Res
earch (AHCPR) Dissemination Study Section as ''peers'' to review tobac
co policy research. Both study sections reviewed a similar grant appli
cation on tobacco policy research written by one of us (S.A.G.). Desig
n.-Search of MEDLINE for 1989 through 1993 with the keyword tobacco fo
r Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program and AHCPR reviewers. As a
control, the National Institutes of Health Cardiovascular Study Sectio
n, which reviewed a ventricular function grant submitted by the same a
uthor with the keyword heart, was analyzed. Setting.-Not applicable. P
atients or Other Participants.-Study section members. Interventions.-N
one. Main Outcome Measures.-Publications by study section members in a
reas germane to the proposal being reviewed. Results.-Six (33%) of 18
Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program reviewers had no ''tobacco''
publications (median, two publications; interquartile range, zero to
four). The members' ''tobacco'' publications concentrated on well-cont
rolled experimental interventions on smoking cessation and prevention
strategies, not tobacco policy. Only one member had primary expertise
in tobacco policy research. None of the AHCPR reviewers had ''tobacco'
' publications. All 31 (100%) of the National Institutes of Health rev
iewers had ''heart'' publications (median, nine publications; interqua
rtile range, seven to 19). Five members had a primary interest in the
subject of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute application.
Conclusions.-Study section members' professional interests play a crit
ical role in the level of interest and enthusiasm they will have for a
proposal, which affects the priority score. In contrast to the study
section that reviewed the heart grant, the study sections that reviewe
d the tobacco control grant were not ''peers.'' The membership of thes
e review committees has effectively precluded research on tobacco cont
rol policy.