340
The Body Electric
clearly stated that I was to spell out past accomplishments and indicate
future directions only in broad outline. Instead, the director was apply-
ing the criteria for first-time grant applicants just entering research. She
invited me to resubmit the proposal in the other format. But that would
not have helped. Even if the second application was approved, the
money would arrive six months after the lab had been closed and we had
gone our separate ways.
There was another strange thing about the rejection. By that time all
federal granting agencies had to provide the actual reports (with names
deleted) of the peers who had done the reviewing. Three out of the four
were long, detailed, well-thought-out documents in the standard cri-
tique format; they'd been neatly retyped, single spaced, on "reviewer's
report" forms with an elite typewriter. One was absolutely lavish in its
praise, saying that the VA was fortunate to have me and that the pro-
posed work would undoubtedly make great contributions to medicine.
Another was almost as laudatory.
One name had inadvertently been left on one page of the third review.
It was the name of a prominent orthopedic researcher with whom I'd
disagreed for years about commercialization of bone-healing devices.
Since our mutual disregard was well known in the orthopedic service, I
feel it was indefensible for the director to ask him to review my applica-
tion in the first place. Perhaps she expected a more damaging critique
from him. He did complain that the proposal was insufficiently detailed.
However, his appraisal was quite fair and even said my proposed work
was of "fundamental importance to the field of growth and healing." It
obviously led up to a recommendation for approval, but the last sentence
of that paragraph had been deleted.
The last review was half a page of vague objections, typed double
spaced on a pica machine with no semblance of the standard format.
There was a revealing mistake ("corrective" tissue instead of connective
tissue) that showed the writer had glanced at my proposal for cues but
really didn't know what it was about. Strangest of all was the phrasing
of this pseudoreview: "[Becker's proposal] is broad and sweeping in
scope and contains little documentation for technique and methodology.
However, in view of his past record and strong letters of support, a
decision should be deferred. .
.." The director had used it almost word
for word in her letter.
She certainly had no motive for such conduct herself. I'd met her
briefly a few years before. In 1966 she'd been appointed chief of research
at the
Buffalo VA Medical Center and
had visited Syracuse to see how
I'd organised the program there. Our conversation was pleasant but
quite
innocuious.