This paper presents an analysis of the peer-adjudicated grants awarded by the Science Research Council (SRC) between 1964-1975. During this period, some 12,000 grants were awarded via de peer-adjudication process representing some £120 million. Expenditures on 'big science' have not been included in the analysis. The aim of the analysis is to compare the intentions of SRC policy with the outcome of the decisions of the peer-review system. The conclusions pertain to two policy areas: (i) priorities, (ii) selectivity and concentration. With regard to the former, it is noted that as a proportion of total SRC commitments, the Nuclear Physics Board commitments have grown over the decade; the proportion of the Science Board's commitments have declined, especially in Chemistry, and there is no empirical evidence for increased priority for engineering. With regard to the latter, resources showed no changes in concentration index over the decade whether the data was analysed in terms of grants, scientists, departments or universities. Although in each case the outcome appears to be at variance with the policy intention, there is no evidence to suggest that either the SRC, or the scientists who constitute the peer-review system should have behaved differently. Rather, the intention has been to furnish reliable data on which future policy discussion might draw. © 1979.
