Letter: Medical moneyspinners

WHEN I indicated that the ``peer review'' process was a means of ensuring valuable scientific research with minimal political interference (Letters, 23 October), I was unaware of a recent change instituted by the Medical Research Council. Previously referees were asked to assess only a project's importance ``to the advancement of biomedical science/clinical practice''. It now requests an indication of the importance to ``wealth creation or the quality of life''.

The implication that a project might offset its inadequacy in contributing to an improved quality of life by making money would be laughable were it not stated

seriously.

Gavin Reynolds

University of Sheffield