Scientists win peer rebellion, face-to-face review is restored

It was a win for Canada's health scientistsWednesdayas the Canadian Institutes of Health Research agreed to restorethe face-to-face system of peer review.

Thereversal followswhat amounted to a peer revolt over the last few weeks, as a new online system appeared to collapse under the weight of the largest funding competition in the agency's history.

During theall-day session,the scientists drafted a plan that would restore the face-to-face peer review committees, while still using aspects of the new virtual review process.

Now the question is whether the bureaucrats will be able tomake it happen in time for the next round of funding in September.

"I'm cautiously optimistic," said Jim Woodgett, researchdirector atthe Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institutein Toronto,"but the devil is in the details."

Woodgettwas a leading voice in the uprisingover changes in the way Ottawa distributes its funding for health and biomedical research.

Instead of bringing scientists together todiscuss proposals submitted by their colleagues, tochoose the best ideas, the CIHRtried to implement a virtual review where individual scientistsevaluatedproposals in isolation, ranked them by computerand madecomments online, thenwaitedto see if anyone in the virtual group responded.

"A bit like communicating using a 19th-century telegraph,"Woodgettsaid. "It was a failed experiment."

Word soon spread on social media that reviews weren't being submitted, online discussions weren't happening, and scientists didn't have enough time and, in some cases, enough expertise to do a proper review of the proposals they'd been given,

• Scientists protest funding chaos
• Minister orders emergency meeting with scientists

Within days, an open letter to Health Minister JanePhilpottbegan circulating, demanding a halt to the changes. The letter was quicklysigned byalmost 1,300 scientists, including some of Canada' s most prominent researchers.

Philpott ordered the CIHR to convene an emergency summit to try to resolve the problems before the next round of funding begins in September. So 50 scientists were hastily invited to Ottawa for what was dubbed the CIHR Summit.

One big questionwas why the system was changed in thefirst place. CIHR presidentDr. Alain Beaudetsaid it was an attemptto deal with the emerging complexity of biomedical research.

"Wedidn'tfeel wecoulddojusticeto the changing profile of science,"he said. "Theobjectivewas to bebetterat appraisingexcellence."

But Brenda Andrews, director of the Donnelly Centre, a multi-disciplinary research institute atthe University of Toronto, had another theory.

"I think the pressures to start the reforms were motivated by the previous government's concern about how much it was costing and the actual urge to move more science into commercial emphasis," she said.

"I think there's a great recognition now with the new government that it's important to support foundational basic research, that is peer reviewed in a very rigorous manner."

Some scientists have called for Beaudet to resign, but after the meeting, he deflected reporters' questions about his future.

"It's a day torejoice,a day we've achievedsomething together," he said. Hecommendedthe scientists for their collective uprising.

"This can only workwiththe community on board," he said. "They are the ones that we work for. I'm extremely happy to see how thecommunitygottogether and stuck together."

Many of thescientistsare not celebrating,as they brace themselves for grim news on Friday when the results of the current round of fundingare announced. The CIHR has revealed that only13 per cent of the scientists applying for moneywill be successful.