INAPPROPRIATE AND APPROPRIATE SELECTION OF PEERS IN GRANT REVIEW

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.