On April 15, 2004, OMB issued a revised proposal, noting that they “…listened to the scientific community and made revisions to make the peer review process more objective and workable.” This version was followed by another round of public comments.

The final version of the peer review requirements, issued in December 2004, was further modified to address several of the concerns addressed by the scientific community. Perhaps the most significant revision involved the conflict of interest provisions, which now allow scientists who have grant funding from agencies to participate in peer review panels. OMB has also deferred to the NAS in several areas. NAS panel reports are now presumed not to require additional peer review, and the NAS approach for addressing conflict of interest in the selection of non-government employee members of peer review committees may now be used by federal agencies.

While these and other modifications make the peer review requirements less onerous for agencies (for example, the level that triggers the most cumbersome and time-consuming level of peer review was raised from $100 million to $500 million), the fundamental issue raised by the scientific community remains: OMB failed to establish the need for a single government-wide peer review policy. The final Bulletin provides little evidence to refute the initial conclusion of many observers: that the new requirements are a poorly camouflaged attempt to introduce delays into already slow regulatory processes, and to further hamper government activities aimed at protecting the public health and environment.(1)

Notes:

(1) OMB Watch. Analysis of Final Peer Review Bulletin. January 2005

Read more:

Background: Background on peer review of scientific information.

Peer review of regulatory science: Introduction to peer review of regulatory science.

Recent developments in peer review of regulatory science: Information about the stated purpose of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) guidelines (first proposed in August 2003) and criticisms of the proposal.   

Additional Resources