A quest for the support of excellence in medical research should be accompanied by a quest for excellence in the evaluation of that excellence. Accordingly, in the 70s there was much public discussion in the US of the peer-review system of allocating funds for medical research. The Kirschstein Committee held open hearings on peer review and in 1976 submitted a report to the director of the National Institute of Health (2). The hearings triggered even more public discussion questioning, not so much the principle of peer-review, but the way the peer-review system currently operates (3, 4). One study came up with the unexpected finding that there was not a high correlation between grants awarded and the previous scientific performance of the applicants.