"Isocyanates are very air sensitive and very toxic. No safety precautions are mentions [sic]."Isocyanates are air sensitive?!?!?!?!?!?!? No wait, they are very air sensitive. Where did that come from? Sure I can imagine an air sensitive isocyanate (just tack an -NCO group onto an existing air-sensitive material), but the statement is a broad generalization that is completely wrong. Worse, I can't imagine where someone got that idea from other than straight out chemophobia.
As for the second statement, toxicity cannot ever be described across a group of chemicals as broad as isocyanates, and the usual concern with them is the irritation that they cause to the eye and lungs, not their ability to kill someone (unless the irritation becomes extreme). TDI (toluene diisocyanate) has a particularly bad safety profile, but it is not the only isocyanate out there. The very existence of billions of pounds of polyurethanes in all aspects of our lives (foams, coatings, sponges, bowling balls and more) shows that these chemicals can be handled safely for the benefit of all.
As for the last sentence, ("no safety precautions are mentions [sic]"), the proposals are not requested to discuss safety. I could see doing so if we were working with unusually hazardous materials (explosives, nerve gases...) but that is not the case here unless chemophobia is kicking in and isocyanates are now considered as such. But furthermore, the reviews stated that the "PI has adequate qualifications" and that Aspen Research "has worked on worked on similar projects previously" [*] and "have sufficient expertise to conduct the research" contradicts all that.
I am aghast that someone with such ignorance and chemophobia would be reviewing chemistry proposals. Has anyone else ever seen this?
[*] We work with isocyanates several times a year manufacturing materials for outside clients on a production scale, not just a labs scale.