201 



measuring improvements in the quality or quantity of research that might have been generated by 

 ftinriing of "misscd" research opportunities. Congressional earmarks increase research capacity in an 

 ad hoc way, and also increase the future costs of maintenance. That is, new construction of academic 

 facilities solves one problem while creating another-the eventual need for facilities renovation funds. 



Research Facilities 



Should there be, then, a Federal facilities program? The prospect is attractive on its face, but 

 OTA concluded that such a program-a "pay now" strategy-would undoubtedly eat into operating 

 fiinds for research. A "pay later" strategy would shift the burden to research institutions, who would 

 try to recover a portion through indirect costs. Thus, there are risks, even with cost-sharing, on all 

 sides. As we are all aware, once a facility is complete, there is a predictable drive to fill it with 

 sponsored research. 



Congress is not of one mind on earmarking: while many congressional representatives favor it, 

 others are steadfastly opposed.' Within the scientific commimity, academic earmarking is seen as 

 circumventing peer review, politicizing science, and reducing the quality of research by diverting fimds 

 that otherwise would be awarded competitively for facilities and projects. However, no one claims that 

 merely because a project is funded through earmarking it will automaticaUy produce bad science.^ 

 Opponents argue that, given limited Federal resources, many worthy projects are likely to be denied 

 funding. And staff at all six of the R&D agencies interviewed by OTA stated that earmarking disrupts 

 budgeting. If additional money is not set aside for earmarks, then funds plaimed for new or continuing 

 programs must be adjusted to cover the congressionally mandated expenditures.' 



' OTA defines an academic earmark as ' . . .a project, facility, instrument, or other academic or research- 



related expense that is directly funded by Congress, which has not been subjected to peer review and will not be 

 competitively awarded.* Office of Technology Assessment, op.cit., footnote 1, p. 87. 



^ Indeed, there is evidence, cited by representatives of the Department of Energy and the Department of 



Defense who OTA interviewed, that some earmarking has led, ostensibly, to highly regarded research centers. 

 ' Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 88. 



