Targeted Science Funding Misses the Target

Call it disease-of-the-month research funding. The US and European practice of earmarking government money to satisfy public demands for new therapies or direct funds to research institutes in parliamentarians' home regions exasperates some scientists working on basic research projects that rarely attract headlines. These scientists complain that earmarking substitutes political decisions for scientific judgments and narrows scientific inquiry. Because politicians, not peers, approve the funding targets, governments can end up funneling money into projects of murky scientific merit. "Earmarking undermines a capacity to plan a rational science policy," says James Savage, professor of government at the University of Virginia, author of Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel (Cambridge University Press, 2001). "It undermines peer review." The Sept. 11 attacks have provided the US Congress plenty of leverage for earmarking: $1.4 billion (US) for bioterrorism research. So, it's hardly surprising that what appear to be earmarks are popping up. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro received $500,000 for research on an early detection system against bioterrorist attacks on public water supplies. Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat, is seeking $8.4 million for bioterrorism protection projects at a half dozen universities in that state. Kai Simons, president and CEO of the newly created European Life Science Organization (ELSO), worries that basic research is not getting enough respect and money. ELSO wants to educate European Union legislators. "A lot of it [money] goes for EU earmarked funding and we feel there is too much of that," Simons says. That funding goes not for basic science, he asserts, but for specific projects advocated by industrial partners. "This makes it difficult to pursue basic research interests as such." The Public's Influence UK scientists enjoy a more direct role in influencing government science policy: a half-dozen research councils set priorities and dicker with the UK Office of Science and Technology for funding. But a recent report by that office suggests earmarking could be a future concern. The report recommends the councils "devise new active methods for consultation of and constructive dialogue with the public."1 "There is a general trend in the United Kingdom that government and public agencies, such as the research councils, should by more open to listening to the public," says Chris Pook, science attaché for the British Embassy in Washington DC. "This generally means making some sort of attempt to consult stakeholders in the broadest sense, or at least giving them some sort of an opportunity to comment." Courtesy of Boston UniversityJohn Silber Earmarking advocates say science and the public benefit from the practice. At a colloquium on science and technology policy during the May 2001 American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, John Silber, chancellor of Boston University, cited the establishment of Fermilab, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health by the US Congress as examples of successful earmarking. Since1985, Boston University has garnered some $63 million in earmarked funds to construct a variety of laboratories that Silber says perform at a high level. "Why do we now pick up something in the order of $200 million a year in peer reviewed research [grants] where before we picked up maybe $11 million?" he questioned. Former Louisiana senator Bennett Johnston, who is now a lobbyist, endorses Silber's view and adds that scientific review alone cannot improve research spending. "You have a very active press that looks at every one of those earmarks," says Johnston, chairman of the Washington, DC firm, Johnston & Associates. "They do not look at the peer-reviewed earmarks." The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that Congress earmarked $2.1 billion in the federal FY 2001 research and development budget, a historic 5% of the total. The FY 2002 budget includes more modest earmarks: $1.1 billion or 4% of the total R&D budget.2 "Basically it's wasted money," says a democratic House science committee staffer. "That's why agency review and peer review makes some sense for setting priorities on how you spend the money." OMB Director Mitchell Daniels declared his strong opposition to earmarking during a Sept. 19 meeting with Association of American Universities (AAU) president Nils Hasselmo and officials from other university organizations. But that passion evaporated within two months, according to The Washington Post. "Daniels has all but abandoned the quest he launched earlier this year to contain the practice of earmarking," the article says.3 Daniels did not respond to numerous requests from The Scientist for comment. A Permanent Part of the Landscape Savage says university presidents don't lobby against earmarking, because their own institutions can sometimes benefit. "This is an internal thing within the academy," he says. "There has never been a university president who has been sanctioned for earmarking." The AAU recommends members use common sense, but cannot sanction them, Hasselmo counters. "In regard to earmarking, [we say] 'Please exercise caution and good judgment when you pursue special types of funding,'" he adds, "So that we don't end up in a situation where quality and cost effectiveness are undermined." With so much money at stake and no censure for exploiting the political system, earmarking will remain a fixture in science policy, observers predict. "The prospect of some dramatic change in the system in minimal," says John Casteen, president of the University of Virginia. "Members of Congress have powerful motivations to act when they believe their districts are not being fairly treated." Harvey Black (hblack@chorus.net) is a freelance science writer in Madison, Wis. References 1. UK Office of Science and Technology, "Quinquennial Review of the Grant-Awarding Research Councils, Stage Two," November 2001. 2. AAAS R&D Funding Update, "House and senate earmark R&D," Oct. 2,2001. 3. J. Lancaster and D. Morgan, "In Congress: Pork stays on menu," The Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2001, p.1.

Targeted Science Funding Misses the Target

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of