The Hubble Space Telescope Proposal Review: Part 2

May 15th, 2008

I wanted to talk about what the experience feels like while it’s fresh.

There were nine of us sitting for 2.5 days in a board room at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), with a panel chair, plus two support staff from the institute to help with technical issues/questions.   We also had various observers come in from time to time, from the Institute or from the higher-level allocation committee.

In the old days, we did everything on paper.   Now, the proposals are distributed on DVD and everyone sits there with their laptops and some papers.   We have projection systems that allow each proposal discussed to be seen by everyone and for us to check out the figures together.   Our rankings and comments on individual proposals are all entered into Institute software.

It’s a tough business, this reviewing.   We triage to fit the schedule.   The bottom 1/3 of proposals, based on preliminary rankings, are not even discussed.   Experiments the Institute showed that only a tiny, tiny fraction of proposals with such low preliminary rankings ever rose to the top after full discussion and new ratings.

We discuss proposals in whatever order the chair selects, starting with an introduction and statement of strengths and weaknesses by pre-assigned primary and secondary reviewers.   After a brief discussion (5-15 minutes) we vote on paper slips with a score between 1 and 5.   At the end this process a couple of days later, we see where everything comes out and make final adjustments.   Sometimes science is overlapping, and we only want to support one of two competing proposals.   Sometimes we prefer to give time to one large program at the border of our orbit limit rather than several smaller requests.   Sometimes vice versa.   We also have to see where the snapshot and archival/theory proposals come out — generally speaking, they need to match the science level of the guest observer requests receiving time.

We stick to rating the science, primarily, with some consideration of the quality and productivity of the proposing teams.

Every panel has its own particular chemistry.   This panel had pretty good chemistry.   People got along, were respectful, and didn’t feel the need to hear themselves talk (too much — and I’m as guilty as anyone that way).   I’ve only been on a few panels over the years where things got testy.   It’s a democratic and professional process though — at the end of the discussion everyone votes and moves on.

One interesting thing that always happens is that while there’s a lot of general agreement about the strengths and weaknesses of a given proposal, there are always a handful that individual experts can torpedo or rocket to the top.   Our panel contained proposals on active galaxies, cosmology, and just a few on gamma ray bursts, so no one was an expert on all of these.   The experts bring in the specialized knowledge, and catch the proposers on problem points, and educate all of this.   I had 1-2 proposals I shot down, 1-2 I raised up, and most reviewers had at least one proposal for which they really swung opinion one way or another.   Frankly, we could have used a little more expertise, too, but nine reviewers is a lot already.   (There were about 100 of us total across all the panels.)

At times I think ego is involved, but no one goes on ego that long.   It’s really about focusing on what science Hubble should do.   If we make mistakes, Hubble does the wrong programs.   I can really think about why I am in astronomy, and be an advocate for what I think should be done with the telescope.

It’s a lot of work, with so much preparation, and then travel and intense discussion.   But it’s so educational, and so much plain fun.

Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.