In article <3394C7FE.6949 at vasilisa.com>, welshwytch <violette at vasilisa.com> writes:
> S L Forsburg wrote:
>>>> Check out the latest Nature (23 May 97 issue). There's a commentary
>> called "nepotism and sexism in peer review" about a study done in
>> Sweden on peer review for postdoc fellowships, which suggests
>> that women candidates must be substantially better than the men to
>> get an equivalent rating.
>>>> I foresee class action lawsuits here.
>> To work that hard, to sacrifice your life to the research track,
> and then get screwed by a team of irresponsible and under-accountable
> "peers" injecting their personal feelings about women into
> supposedly objective judgments about the allocation of PUBLIC
> funds.... arrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>> We need the facts about American peer review now.
Yes, we need the ****facts****, not hysteria! You appear to have already tried
and convicted the "men" of NSF and it's peer review pool! That's just as
sexist as what you are objecting to--judging others based on gender and
position instead of finding out what *those individuals* are doing/saying.
Calm down and design the study necessary to find out what's happening in our
government funding system before you build the gallows! AAAS has done some
examination of this situation and published a couple of large syntheses on the
subject in _Science_. Those articles would be a good place to start.
Robin K Panza panzar at clpgh.org
Section of Birds, Carnegie MNH
Pittsburgh PA 15213 USA