Is the system dumbing down research?

As biologists, we are all familiar with the feedback mechanisms that control gene expression, enzyme activity and other biological processes. The cell detects a deficit in a certain protein or compound and switches on gene expression or activates the enzymes that metabolize the required compound. As soon as supply meets demand, the product itself then serves as a signal to stop gene expression or bring the enzymatic reaction to a halt. Two articles in this issue (pages 402 and 405) suggest that there is a similar phenomenon at work in the realm of peer review. Our peers work anonymously to critically evaluate research proposals and publications. Increasingly, however, critics of this process maintain that these peers have become so effective that the material they see is safe and sterile enough to render the review process almost unnecessary. As a consequence, the intellectual quality of research suffers. Indeed, some suggest that in the era of the worldwide web, there is no longer a need for Caesars to give a thumbs up or thumbs down—let the readers decide. But do the Caesars …