What's New: To receive these updates and announcements by email, manage your subscription, or review the mailing list archive, go to the NCSE List User Form. OMB Revises Peer Review Guidelines The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has revised its peer review guidelines for scientific information disseminated by the federal government in response to nearly 200 public comments and input from federal agencies.  The scientific community has received the revised guidelines far more favorably than the draft guidelines released in September.   National Academy of Engineering president William A. Wulf said "While the extended comment period will permit further refinements in the proposed guidance…these revised guidelines on peer review point to a new and constructive era of scientific engagement in public policy-making."  Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, was also positive, stating, "If adopted, I believe that this policy will help to improve the quality of the government's scientific assessments and thereby its decision-making." In response to the comments it received, OMB has changed which information will be subject to the guidelines and how agencies can satisfy them.  Skeptics had suggested that the new requirements would favor inclusion of industry scientists over academics on peer review panels, and would serve as a tool for delaying regulations that would be costly to industry. In the revised Bulletin for Peer Review, the definition of ‘highly influential' scientific information—which must undergo the most rigorous peer review—has been narrowed.  It will now include only what OMB calls " ‘scientific assessments' (as opposed to all influential scientific information) that have a $500 million annual impact (rather than a $100 million annual impact) or involve novel, complex, or precedent setting approaches or generate significant agency interest."  OMB defines scientific assessments as evaluations that synthesize a wide body of scientific knowledge, such as state-of-science reports, technology assessments, weight of evidence analyses and similar things.  Under the revised Bulletin, agencies would also have to conduct peer review of ‘influential' scientific information, but would have considerable flexibility to decide on the mechanisms for doing so.  OMB specifies that major findings from reports by the National Academies of Science (NAS) can be presumed to satisfy the new peer review guidelines.     The revised Bulletin clarifies that the new peer review guidelines will apply only to information officially disseminated by the federal government—not to publications by individual scientists who work for, or receive funding from, federal agencies.  To prevent confusion about whose opinion is being put forth in a scientific publication, the Bulletin advises government-funded scientists to state that the views in their reports do not reflect those of the funding agency.      The initial guidelines issued in September would have required agencies to obtain OMB approval for emergency peer-review waivers, but the new version would allow agency heads to make this decision.  The revised guidelines also allow agencies more freedom in selecting their peer-reviewers.  Under the draft Bulleting released in September, independent scientists who had been awarded investigator-initiated, competitive grants from an agency would be barred from serving as peer-reviewers for that agency.  Under the revised Bulletin this is no longer the case.  Restrictions are more stringent for scientists actually employed by the sponsoring agency:  they can serve as reviewers for ‘influential,' but not ‘highly influential' information.   While many public comments have been incorporated into the revised peer review guidelines, not all parties are convinced that peer-review should fall under the purview of OMB.   According to OMB Watch, "The new proposal does not address the concerns raised by many that a government-wide peer review requirement is unnecessary and that OMB lacks the legal authority to establish such requirements."  While OMB gives agencies more discretion in the revised guidelines, it keeps the authority to determine whether agencies can adopt alternative peer review procedures, and whether they can have non-emergency exemptions.   The complete text of the revised guidelines and instructions for submitting comments are available at www.omb.gov.  OMB will accept comments on the revised guidelines until May 15.   Craig Schiffries and Amanda Brewster National Council for Science and the Environment 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 202-530-5810 Email: policy@NCSEonline.org Web: www.NCSEonline.org

return | home