The May 23rd Eos “In Brief” could have been considerably more informative about Ward Valley and the work of the NAS panel in reviewing issues raised about the proposed site. The article should have included more comprehensive discussion by the scientific participants who reviewed the technical issues involved. In addition, the article raised two very different subjects—safety issues at Ward Valley and alleged bias of NAS panels—but did not separate the subjects well. Readers may not have distinguished between the Ward Valley panel and the NAS Board on Radioactive Waste Management in the question of bias. In addition, the nature of the reported-on attacks on scientific and personal integrity of the scientists may well discourage qualified but thinner-skinned geoscientists from public service on panels.