NSF Denies Access of Peer Reviews to House of Representatives Science Committee Chaired by Lamar Smith (R-TX) (May 16, 2013)

Yesterday the US National Science Foundation (NSF) informed Lamar Smith, chairman of the House of Representatives science committee that it was not prepared to forward reviewer comments on five social science research projects it is funding.

Jeffrey Mervis writes in  ScienceInsider:

In a letter to Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), NSF defended the need to preserve the confidentiality of the peer-review process, according to sources with knowledge of the letter's contents. The letter explains how NSF's process works and that the independent reviewers recruited by the agency are promised anonymity in return for offering their candid comments on the quality of the proposal. After taking that hard line, however, acting NSF Director Cora Marrett proposed to brief the committee on how NSF selects from among some 40,000 research proposals that it receives each year. NSF also offered to provide general information on how the five grants satisfy NSF's mission to expand the frontiers of science.

A statement given to ScienceInsider in response by Representative Smith indicates his annoyance: "I am disappointed the NSF declined to provide Congress with additional information that would show why they are spending taxpayer dollars on specific research grants." A committee aide says that, earlier this year, NSF officials told the committee to submit a letter describing the information it was seeking and that today's NSF response "is at variance with that conversation."

The aide went on to indicate that the Committee would continue its pressure on the NSF: "We are working through the problem," says the aide. The next step, according to the staffer, is a meeting at which NSF officials will clarify "what they can provide us. … The ball is in NSF's court."

That the matter has a fair way to go and may well get ugly is indicated by Mr Mervis' final paragraph:

In the minds [of NSF officials], confidentiality is a bedrock principle of the peer-review process that goes beyond the identity of reviewers. They believe that the comments themselves need to be protected in order for the system to work properly. Accordingly, the proper response to Smith's request is to explain how grant proposals are reviewed and how the best are funded without reference to specific reviewer comments. Any more details, they feel, would undermine the peer-review process.