I'd like to help with this process. I've been funded by both NIH and NSF and have been through the process. I've also reviewed grants as have my friends/colleagues. I emailed you a few days ago (irollboozers), so you have my email address.

As for incorporating the NIH scores, I'd actually like to see the opposite. It's funny how people think that the NIH/NSF scores are actually representative of a proper review. They really aren't. They are assigned by people, typically people who don't even really read the grant well because they have 20 to read and leave them to the last minute because they are doing 100 other things. As such, many times grants (actually, any of the peer review items) are not really evaluated properly. Any federal funded scientist who has been through the review process will tell you how faulted the system is.

This isn't the place to rant/rave about this, but I'm happy that we are starting to evolve this system and change it. My YC application will be working on something similar, with the goals of getting around the stupidity behind the current system. What we need is to revolutionize the way science is performed, from the ground up.

Also, in terms of the "snake oil" statement, when you dig deep enough, you see that the entire peer review system is not immune from snake oil. Buzz words get grants funded, papers published in high tier journals, and careers sky rocketing. Doesn't even have to be good work, it just needs to include the buzz word and its getting published like crazy.

The fact is, science is broken and it's a great time to fix it with the technology, transparency, and forward thinking groups that are breaking the mold.