Instead, the evaluation of the merits of grant proposals for scientific research is reserved for the judgment of experts in the statutorily-mandated peer review procedure. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 282(b)(9), 284a(a)(3), 289a. Plaintiffs also, again, rely on a newspaper article that attributed to Dr. Kington a comment that the number of hESC lines eligible for use in NIH-funded research would increase.

Instead, as noted, the Executive Order simply restored the ordinary operation of NIH’s statutorily-mandated two-level system of peer review, in which qualified experts review the scientific merits of particular research proposals, including proposals for the funding of hESC research. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 282(b)(9), 284a(a)(3), 289a. Plaintiffs further argue that the Executive Order did not override the requirements of the APA, a proposition that defendants do not dispute.

Instead, as noted, the Executive Order simply restored the ordinary operation of NIH’s statutorily-mandated two-level system of peer review, in which qualified experts review the scientific merits of particular research proposals, including proposals for the funding of hESC research. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 282(b)(9), 284a(a)(3), 289a. Plaintiffs further argue that the Executive Order did not override the requirements of the APA, a proposition that defendants do not dispute.

Instead, the evaluation of the merits of grant proposals for scientific research is reserved for the judgment of experts in the statutorily-mandated peer review procedure. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 282(b)(9), 284a(a)(3), 289a. The plaintiffs also reiterate the same mischaracterizations that they relied upon in their preliminary injunction motion.

As discussed above, the Public Health Service Act requires a two-tier system of peer review whereby qualified experts review the merits of each grant proposal. 42 U.S.C. §§ 282(b)(9), 284a(a)(3), 289a. The Director of each Institute makes a funding decision only after receiving the recommendations required from both bodies.