Policy News - June 16, 2004

Peer review standards still contentious

When the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released its proposal last September to codify standard peer review guidelines for federal agencies, it was met by an outcry of criticism from the scientific community. Although the revised document now includes changes intended to address those complaints, scientists say that significant concerns still remain, particularly over how the guidelines will be implemented.

The revised proposal, released April 15 by OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), would require all agencies to annually report to OIRA on those scientific and technical studies they might use to justify upcoming “significant” regulations. These studies must undergo a peer review before being released to the public; the guidelines offer peer review alternatives from which agencies can choose. Any study used to support a policy that might result in an economic impact of $500 million or more would undergo a more rigorous peer review.

OIRA received 187 comments on the original proposal. At the time, U.S. EPA officials told OMB the guidance wouldn’t provide any benefit to EPA because it has recently improved its peer review process.

Among other things, the critics charged that the proposal would put the White House in control of how science was applied in rulemakings and policy. Many still believe that the guidance is completely unnecessary because it adds another layer of bureaucracy that will slow down the release of new policies. Industry-related groups and some scientists, however, praised the guidelines and urged OMB to finalize them.

OMB has relaxed the language concerning the selection of reviewers. The original proposal included few, if any, provisions that would exclude industry researchers from sitting on a peer review panel. If left as proposed in September, this guidance “would exclude some of the best people” who are experts in the field, says Mark Frankel of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), an international nonprofit group.

The updated proposal clarifies that government-funded scientists working at universities or in consulting firms may be involved in peer reviews as long as their research doesn’t create a conflict of interest. The guidance now exempts from the peer review guidelines science related to decisions an agency might need to make quickly to protect public health, as well as matters related to national security and trade negotiations. Also, it allows reviewers to remain anonymous.

OMB staff met with most of the critics and now many of the scientific organizations are giving this third try a green light, adding that some agencies could improve their peer review process. Yet most scientists also caution that the key to success lies in the implementation of the proposal.

The April 15 Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer_review041404.pdf. —CATHERINE M. COONEY