THere may not be a peer reviewer if the research goes far enough beyond current knowledge, or the knowledge of one person. However, a good report from a recognized peer reviewer is not necessary for research to be entirely valid. When a researcher is called "peerless" --as Einstein was-- it simply means his or her findings have gone quite far beyond the knowledge of their peers. Hopefully the "reviewers" will catch up. But until they do, the research should proceed with energy and truthfulness and pride, It will be comprehended by the public as time goes on.

Peer reviewers have been right, and have been wrong; and one cannot depend on their judgment to see the value of a good or great thing. (See Lockhardt's "peer review" attacking and denigrating John Keats' great poem "Endymion" in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine in 1818.) I have been very interested in this subject.

While convergence sounds like just another interdisciplinary mash-up, it may prove to challenge traditional scientific categories, according to several panelists at a forum convened by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Convergence is more than simply bringing together experts in two or more disciplines to swap insights; it is an exchange of mindsets. "Fundamentally different approaches from physical science and engineering are imported into biological research, while life science's understanding of complex evolutionary systems is reciprocally influencing physical science and engineering," say the authors of an MIT white paper, "The Third Revolution: The Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering," released Tuesday. "Convergence is the result of true intellectual cross-pollination."