In the News and Views Section TFW reports on a recently completed analysis of the US National Institutes of Health's peer review system for awarding grants. Valen Johnson, a biostatistician at the University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, published data which suggests that the way NIH review sections are organised they inappropriately skew awards when the applications fall close to the cut-off line and that as many as 25% of applications may be effected.

The NIH Center for Scientific Review is in partial denial but in alluding to the recent review of peer review^1,2 instituted by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni says it is interested in revising its scoring procedures and the centre is considering changes, such as varying the weight given to different criteria such as innovation or the strength of preliminary data. It is also considering shortening applications and increasing the number of reviewers to about ten from the current mean of 2.8.

All of which ought to give the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr, pause in his rush to micromanage via his Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA).

Perhaps the ARC's CEO, Professor Margaret Sheil, and the CEO of the NHMRC, Professor Warwick Anderson might reconsider their support for the ill-conceived ERA and press for a thorough makeover of the system of peer review for the ARC and NHMRC as well as careful consideration of how oncosts should be calculated and distributed.

Andrew Trounson, reporting in The Australian's July 30 edition after listening to Julia Gillard's senior policy advisor Tom Bentley, says he came away with the take home message that the vice-chancellors should keep it simple and ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Are we really witnessing an "education revolution" that is to be brought to its knees with a thousand cuts? Do vice-chancellors have to explain in monosyllables why, for example, the teaching in the enabling sciences from secondary school up must be revitalized.

Harry Robinson thinks so and has advocated in these pages: "Ed-Sci can no longer afford the old fashioned decencies. Ed-Sci needs to hire an attack dog to push its case."

Certainly there was no point addressing John Howard's conservative coalition, you knew you were talking to the hand.

Maybe, just maybe Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard, and Senator Carr might think on the following:

When Robert Wilson, the first director of the American research giant Fermilab, was soliciting funds for a high-energy particle accelerator he was asked at a Senate hearing, "How will the project contribute to national defence?"

Wilson replied: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

Apparently the senators took his point. He got the funds.

When Mr Bentley raises the spectre of bangs for bucks and all the other catch phrases, just maybe this government should assign some of its collective neurons and think about it.