February Voice Your Opinion Poll Comments:

Congressional earmarking of research appropriations to specific institutions has become a common practice in recent years. Opponents claim that the practice undermines merit review and is damaging to academic research. Advocates say that earmarks help to level the playing field and are the only way that less-renowned institutions can compete with elite universities.

Do you feel that the overall impact of earmarks in the research budget is positive or negative?

1. (1.) Pork is pork, regardless of it's intent.

(2.) The elite institutions are just as adept as lobbying, if not more so.

(3.) None of this will stop without reform of the redistricting process. (USA)

2. Conservatives at large -and members of the Bush administration in particular, are generally more ignorant of science than liberals. (USA)

3. From my perspective the merit system in my discipline (ocean sciences) has broken down. There isn't enough funding at NSF or other agencies to support the number of research scientists in the discipline. The percentage of proposals that are funded in a given panel are on the order of 15% or less. Earmarks seem to be a necessary evil just to keep the system from meltdown. (USA)

4. This excuse, of fairness to institutions that can't make the grade, is consistently used by the politicians in our state to justify diverting money to 3rd or 4th rate institutions. They do it for their own personal selfish benefit come re-election time. But the general public loses, as their money does not fund societies' needed research in an institution where it could actually be accomplished, much less done better and cheaper. (USA)

5. It is not so much the budget but the integrity of the whole research enterprise which is impacted. (UK)

6. Even if the argument regarding leveling the playing field were accurate, the practice would be disruptive to rational planning...that's why EPSCOR/DEPSCOR programs were created. However, the argument is specious, since many of the largest earmarks go to the elite schools, and others have nothing to do with research, but rather focus on museums, etc. Congress has gone crazy in this process, and the Administration has made little or no effort to restrain the members. (USA)

7. The role of Congress is to make legislative policy and provide financial resources. Earmarking by technically and scientifically uninformed law makers is micro management at its worst and is causing serious damage to the scientific integrity and productivity of the country. Why is this practice not abuse of power? The argument that it "levels the playing
field" suggests that I should be able to form my own militia and siphon away as much of the defense budget as possible. (USA)

8. Re: The subject issue. I think that there are other and better ways to address the level playing field. For example, provide more educational fellowships to second-level universities, provide financial incentives for established full professors and up to 5 of their graduates students to attend a second level university for 1-2 yrs. Also, these type of
relationships might be enhanced by developing "sister" institutional arrangements (these type of cooperative arrangements, e.g., "sister" colleges/universities already exist but will need help to get settled professors to move and give up their "territory" but additional funding their department with an equipment award would help put a small smile on the Dean's face). Spread these types of programs nationally reduces the pork-barrel aspect. An example of an effective program---In 1962 I won an US Public Health Service Fellowship in Water Quality Research at Rutgers University and my major professor received a small but then a significant equipment award. I do not think the nation can compete over the long-haul without maintaining both elite and "striving universities." (USA)

9. Decisions should be made by informed individuals. Neither Congress nor the public they rely on is adequately informed on scientific issues and opportunities to make such decisions.

Imagine a governor of a large state asking the public to decide on complex funding issues. Imagine the president of a country asking the public to decide on something as complex as Social Security (without extensive marketing propaganda!).

Imagine the CEO of a company asking the employees -- janitors to mid-level managers -- to decide on which projects to fund..! (USA)

10. There is an old boys network that tends to give to those who already have, but at least the old boys are knowledgeable about science.

Political staff making decisions about science funding acts against merit and towards personal agendas having little to do with science. (USA)

11. I can imagine several positive outcomes for earmarking money. However it should not be done at the expense of funding additional peer reviewed science. There is too much good science chasing too little money already. If the government wants to support science in disadvantaged parts of the country they should do it out of the general budget. (USA)

12. It seems to me that there may be special circumstances that would warrant Congress to identify a specific program, as illustrative the bond issue in California for stem cells, but for the most part, those who are making the decision are ill suited to evaluate the merits of the program, e.g. HIV vaccine program. (USA)

13. You may leave the impression that earmarks are focused on assigning particular research to specific institutions. Earmarks often address research that is not included in agency budgets; it may be the only way such research, development and demonstration of technology will get done. From my perspective of a grant peer reviewer, I have not observed the bias in review that you suggest exists; I have observed that in the particular
area I review (forest products) that a very large proportion of proposals come from a few institutions. (USA)

14. Earmarks may not be a major problem in times when funding is relatively generous, but when money is tight and earmarking takes funds away from more valuable programs, they're insupportable and inexcusable. (USA)

15. Both systems are politicized and potentially unfair. Funding from government agencies will always come with hooks. This way the payback is visible and open to public scrutiny and condemnation. (USA)

16. The recent politicization of science in legislatures is a dangerous and insidious trend. It must be controlled, even if a separate way to fund lesser-known labs must be devised. (USA)

17. Earmarks reduce the effectiveness of an already tight research budget. If such earmarks are needed they should be provided at the State or local level. Leveling the playing field to a general level of mediocrity serves no one well. Additionally the best students gravitate to the best institutions. They are the ones carrying out the bulk of the research grunt work. (USA)

18. Congressmen who are not particularly smart about science try to direct the money to research programs that are not worthy but are their pets, and withhold money from good research areas because they don't like what is being learned. An example of the latter is refusing to fund anything that has to do with sex research. (USA)

19. Even though faculty members at the "elite" universities apparently have an advantage, bypassing the peer review system is a mistake. This can and does lead to some very bad science. If Congress wants to "level" the playing field so faculty members at "lesser renown" institutions can get funding, they should significantly increase the funding to NIH and NSF so that a larger percent of submitted grants can be funded. This actually is
another problem, with a low percentage of grants being funded, many novel or "out of the mainstream" grants can't get funding. This can lead to some very myopic view of our scientific knowledge. Because of this myopic view, we may be lead down the wrong path in various areas of scientific research, especially in the biomedical fields. (USA)

20. I have never seen the "need a level playing field" argument accompanied by a proposed explanation of why elite universities are unfairly favored. 1. Many members of grant study sections are in fact from universities that might wish the playing field leveled, so it is hard to see grant evaluations as biased toward elite universities. 2. On the other hand, RFA's -- the big money -- do seem to reflect the views of those who sit on high-level government advisory committees, who do tend to come from elite universities, and who are most likely to apply for and receive the funds. It is here that AAAS might like to do some examination before dismissing the claim that earmarks are not a counter-strategy. (USA)

21. The only possible legitimate defenses of earmarking are the promise of matching funds from private or local sources, or if the appropriation does not subtract from other efforts.
I suspect (though I've not looked up the data) that neither of these circumstances usually apply, and that the earmarked funds are the traditional Pork Barrel. (USA)

22. "Earmarking" of appropriations opens the door to pork and this is strictly not kosher. Merit review may have its own set of pitfalls. Neither is perfect, but honest merit review is by far the better of the two. (USA)

23. Any time Congress meddles the result is negative. Presently, George W. Bush is wrecking NASA with his manned Mars Mission. Manned missions have resulted in minimal gain in knowledge in comparison with unmanned missions. No one seems to have noticed that the manned effort is based in Texas. (USA)

24. The purpose of per reviewed research is to allocate resources to the best-qualified researcher, as determined by competition in the peer-reviewed market place of ideas. The purpose of earmarking is to send resources to the most politically well-connected researcher, who will then use those resources to further the needs of the political patron.
Earmarking destroys the free market place of peer-reviewed research, replacing it with feudal system of congressional patronage. Any talk of anti-elitism in earmarking is simply a distraction using leveling sentiments, from the fact that resources are no longer being allocated on the basis of intellectual merit but instead are being allocated in the service of the politician controlling the earmarking. (USA)

Note: This survey is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general or the public as a whole. This survey only serves as a sampling of opinion among AAAS Members.