Should people without skin in the game be allowed to review major research grants?
I mean those who are insulated from the results of the process. HHMI stalwarts, NIH intramural, national labs, company scientists...
On one hand, I see argument that they provide needed outside opinions. To keep an insular, self-congratulating process honest.
On the other, one might observe that those who cannot be punished for bad behavior have license to be biased, jerky and driven by personal agenda.
Would you prefer review by those who are subject to the funding system? Or doesn't it matter?