It is rapidly becoming a commonplace that peer review doesn't work. An article in Times Higher Education looks at the problems its use is causing at the research councils.
"Independent expert peer review" is contradictory. One submits a proposal and the councils ask experts to assess it. But these experts are likely to include proposers' closest competitors, even if they are selected internationally, because science is global - and real pioneers have no peers, of course. How then can the councils ensure that reviews are independent? To make matters worse, these experts can pass judgement anonymously: applicants don't know who put the boot in.
I suggest that the misuse of peer review is at the heart of the research councils' problems. Before about 1970, they largely restricted its use to the assessment of applications for large grants or expensive equipment. Scientific leaders protected the seed corn, ensuring that young scientists could launch radical challenges if they were sufficiently inspired, dedicated and determined. Today, the experts whose ignorance they would challenge might also influence their chances of funding.
There is obviously a suspicion that research funding is directed towards projects that will help the green cause and away from those that might question it, although it has to be said that evidence is thin on the ground. With a process like peer review involved, we suspicious members of the public are hardly going to be reassured though.