Scientists Fear the NSF Is Next Site of Earmarks

By RON SOUTHWICK

The budget for the National Science Foundation has long been off-limits to pork-barrel

ALSO SEE: » A searchable database of Congressional earmarks to higher education Related articles: » A Record Year at the Federal Trough: Colleges Feast on $1.67-Billion in Earmarks » Separating Fact From Myth About Pork-Barrel Spending and Academe Related charts and graphs: » Top Recipients of Pork, 2001 » How the States Rank in Pork for Higher Education » Top Sponsors of Pork in the Education Department » Earmarks That Make You Scratch Your Head » Earmarks by Agency » Escalating Academic Earmarks

spending, but some scientists fear that Congress is reneging on that principle by giving an advantage to some institutions seeking research funds from the agency.

In its appropriation to the N.S.F. for the 2001 fiscal year, Congress directed the agency to begin the Children's Research Initiative, a $5-million program designed to produce studies on the social development of children. Congress did not earmark funds to any specific universities, and the spending bill includes language specifying that grants should be awarded via merit review.

Nonetheless, scientists have complained that the bill's language gives preferential treatment to some colleges. "Highest funding priority should be given to proposals from distinct human-sciences units in institutions of higher education that have an interdisciplinary academic program in human and family development, nutrition, and related areas," says the report accompanying the bill.

An N.S.F. advisory panel told Rita R. Colwell, the foundation's director, that Congress should not set criteria favoring certain colleges. Researchers worry that doing so sets a bad precedent and could encourage lawmakers to restrict other competitions.

Some scientists also fear that it may entice Congress to place earmarks to specific colleges in the N.S.F. budget, a practice that the agency has vigorously discouraged.

"The feeling in the community has been that the N.S.F. has always been protected from this sort of stuff," says Howard J. Silver, director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations.

University officials who lobbied for the program assert that the N.S.F. will decide which proposals deserve funds. Supporters of the Children's Research Initiative cite the bill's specific requirement that the awards be made through competition.

The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges pushed for the program's creation. The organization employed Van Scoyoc Associates, one of Washington's largest lobbying firms, to persuade Congress to set aside money for it. Many land-grant colleges have programs in human sciences.

The parameters on grants to be distributed through the Children's Research Initiative are no different than the N.S.F.'s restrictions on some other grants, says Kevin F. Kelly, a lobbyist for Van Scoyoc.

"No school without an engineering program can expect to win money from a civil-engineering program at N.S.F.," he says.

"We've always respected the principle of peer review," Mr. Kelly adds. "No institution has any preferred opportunity for funds."

The N.S.F. has yet to announce the winners of grants in the new program. Agency officials say they received more than 100 applications for funds.

The competition should not be considered limited because more than 70 members of the land-grant group have programs in human sciences, notes June M. Henton, dean of Auburn University's School of Human Sciences. Ms. Henton says she and other officials pushed Congress to create the program because some researchers at land-grant colleges are "underrepresented at the N.S.F. table."

"Our external funds are coming from a lot of other places," she says.

However, critics say it is inappropriate to give any colleges or groups an advantage in winning N.S.F. funds. Researchers say it's one thing for the N.S.F. to set restrictions on grant proposals, and quite another for Congress to do it.

"As a policy, this is ridiculous," says Richard M. Shiffrin, a professor of psychology at Indiana University at Bloomington. "If this continues, scientific decisions would be made by lobbyists, not scientists. It is a terrible policy to follow. It snuck through, and I hope it ends."

Congress is still working on the N.S.F.'s budget for the 2002 fiscal year. President Bush has requested $5-million for the Children's Research Initiative. Current language in the House and Senate spending bills does not favor any institutions, and researchers hope it remains that way.

Even if some researchers at land-grant colleges have not fared well in competing for funds, Congress should not set aside funds for those institutions, Mr. Shiffrin says. "It's not like everyone can do science equally well," he says. "It's critical that research is done by the best scientists."

To date, N.S.F. officials have deterred legislators' efforts to attach earmarks to the agency's budgets. "Once you start getting into exceptions for that rule, it's very hard to say it is going to happen only one time," says David M. Stonner, who directs government relations for the N.S.F.

Easy-to-print version

E-mail this article