SCIENCE. RESEARCH AND TE( HNOLOGY 1970-79 523 



of 212 to 199, but was subsequently knocked out by the conference 



committee. 



The controversy stirred by the Conlan and Bauman amendments 

 was b) no means ended by passage of the authorization legislation in 

 \9~^ In addition to the citizens committee appointed by Teague and 

 the NSF Review Committee, the Science Committee also asked for 

 studies of the administrat ion and development of MACOS by the Gen- 

 eral Accounting Office, and the Congressional Research Service. The 

 citizens committee which Teague appointed was chaired by Dr. James 

 M Moudv. chancellor of Texas Christian University, and included 

 such people as former Congrcsswoman Edith Green, Gerard Piel 

 (publisher of the Scientific American), Mrs. Clare W. Schweickart 

 wife of Astronaut Russell L. Schweickart), and former NASA 

 Associate Administrator Rocco A. Petrone. 



PEER REVIEW 



As the reports of the various review committees began to come in, 

 the Symington subcommittee held another extensive series of hearings 

 on the entire NSF "peer review" system during July 1975- During 

 six hot summer davs, a parade of witnesses raked over the pros and 

 cons of the NSF review system to which very few people had paid any 

 attention, other than the grant applicants and their reviewers. Con- 

 gressmen Conlan and Bauman appeared as the principal critics of the 

 system, and they called seven other witnesses. Four NSF witnesses 

 were supplemented by ten scientific experts picked by the subcommittee 

 from outside the NSF. 



Conlan's attack was slashing. He told the subcommittee: 



It's no trick to rig the system, I know from studying material provided to me by 

 NSF that this is an "Old Boy's System," where •: igram managers rely on trusted 

 friends in the academic community to review thc;ir proposals. These friends rec- 

 ommend their friends as reviewers. * * * 1 submit that the Congress -its Members 

 and staff — can only decide whether public funds are being handled judiciously and 

 fairly in the XSF grant awards process if we have total access to peer review hies 

 and the full rationale for program managers decisions. * * * It is an incestuous 

 "buddy system" that frequently stifles new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, 

 while carving up the mulnmillion dollar Federal research and education pie in a 

 monopoly game of grantsmanship. 



There were some eloquent responses to Conlan. NSF Deputy 

 Director (later Director) Richard Atkinson told the subcommittee: 



I do feel that the maverick in our system, the person who really has an idea that 

 is counter to what most of the scientific community believes, is going to receive very 

 special treatment in our system. If anything, I think our system leans over a little too 

 far in the direction of trying to favor the maverick. 



