NASA's Office of Space Science has a tried-and-true procedure that it uses to determine who gets funded to perform research. The planetary-science aspect of NASA's research has a number of different disciplines (such as planetary astronomy, geology and geophysics, planetary materials, and others). American scientists submit their proposals to do research to the relevant discipline at NASA Headquarters. Non-American scientists are given access to lunar samples, but are expected to receive their funding from their own government's agencies, or elsewhere. NASA then convenes a panel of scientists who have a lot of experience in the experimental, theoretical, analytical, and observational branches of the discipline. This panel is then pretty much isolated for a week or so to read and evaluate the proposals. Helping them in that effort to evaluate a given proposal are other scientists in the relevant discipline who are not on the panel but receive their own copy of the proposal to examine and critique. These are called "external reviewers," and they provide their own, independent points of view. Because these scientists generally have also sent in their own proposals, the whole process is called "peer review": each scientist's proposal is, in effect, reviewed by his or her peers. The panel then evaluates the scientist's (called the "Principal Investigator," or "PI" for short) proposal from a variety of viewpoints. Is the proposed research relevant to NASA's objectives? Does it follow the instructions for organization and presentation of the necessary information? Is the basic premise of the research reasonable? If another PI is proposing the same sort of research, should one be favored over the other? Why or why not? What is the track record of the PI -- has he or she completed the funded research in the past? Does the proposal basically make sense? Can the PI do what is being described in the allotted time (usually one to three years, depending on the request)? Is he or she asking for enough money, or too much? These are just some of the things that the panel members must consider. Being on the panel is a real honor, because people believe that you can be just and fair in your assessments, that you can keep things to yourself (These proposals are, after all, full of proprietary information, such as salaries, new research ideas, and other things.), and that you have enough experience and knowledge of your field to contribute something meaningful to the evaluation process. On the other hand, when you receive such an "honor," it usually means that you have a lot of work ahead that basically constitutes a thankless job. That isn't to say that there aren't a good number of people who really appreciate your efforts; there certainly are, and they let you know that they appreciate it. In the long run, though, your principal reward is knowing that you helped to maintain the health of the program. (People don't come up to panel members on the street later and say things like, "I really appreciate all the effort you went through to reject my proposal -- thank you very much.") The proposers depend on the panel to give them a fair shake. The members of the panel, in turn, feel the Weight of Responsibility. After all, it's not a stretch to say that the careers of these scientists are often in the hands of the panel. Scientists also have families to feed, mortgage payments to make, and the future ahead of them just as other people do. Funding for their students can be on the line. The overall direction of the planetary sciences program can be affected by the panel's reviews. Waiting for the results of the review process takes months and can be very stressful. Reviewing the proposals and making such difficult decisions is very stressful, and all of it must be done under a deadline. This is, to put it bluntly, a downside of being a planetary scientist. It's not much fun for anybody.