I have served on dozens of NSF computer science funding panels at the small (500k), medium (1.5m), and large (3m) levels. These review panels are not blind, an

I have served on dozens of NSF computer science funding panels at the small (500k), medium (1.5m), and large (3m) levels. These review panels are not blind, and decisions are based on (a) what problems are explained in the grant, and (b) prior track record and proven expertise in the area. In my own circumstance and what I know from my colleagues, CS researchers rarely write their best ideas in grants---not because they are afraid the ideas are too bold---but rather because those ideas are often not fully worked out, and nobody wants to just give those away to a review panel full of top-rank scientists who might make connections faster than you! The problem with "blind review" is that project proposals can rarely be anonymous because just explaining the work and citing the relevant prior work leaks a lot about the possible author. So making review blind can often be an advantage to the higher profile researcher and a disadvantage to the capable but slightly less well known one. That said, as my own experiment, during my next NSF review, I am going to tear away the first pages of all the proposals, and make my first pass without knowing the authors to see if it makes a difference.