19 



that AAU may have been mistaken in limiting its condemnation of 

 direct appropriations in the agricultural appropriations bill. 



Unfortunately, this tolerance for agricultural earmarks that 

 Chancellor Wyatt addressed continues to be the dominant opinion 

 within the university research community. I believe this view of ag- 

 ricultural research within academia, where pork barrel is the ac- 

 cepted name of the game, helps to reduce agricultural research in 

 general to second-class status within the academy. 



Moreover, the academes green light for earmarking the agricul- 

 tural appropriations bill has resulted in universities and colleges 

 seeking projects there that have little to do with agricultural re- 

 search. These projects include technology centers, trade centers, 

 and biology centers. When academic institutions fail to obtain ear- 

 marks in those Appropriations Subcommittees where academic ear- 

 marks are generally shunned, such as in the House Labor-HHS- 

 Education Appropriations Subcommittee, they turn to other sub- 

 committees to fund their projects. The effect of this, of course, is 

 to reduce the funds available under the Appropriations Subcommit- 

 tee allocation for true agricultural research. 



The subcommittee should also be aware that some universities 

 attempt to avoid the charge that they are earmarking by sub- 

 contracting their project in a manner that involves a modified form 

 of peer review. This practice is not uncommon in the special 

 projects awards funded from the agricultural appropriations bill. 

 For example, a university will obtain an earmark and, acting as 

 the principal investigator, share the award with several other uni- 

 versities organized as a consortium. This is the case with the mos- 

 quito research funded through special projects. 



In another example, the Midwest plant biotechnology consortium 

 consists of an estimated 18 universities. The consortium establishes 

 a peer review panel, which sometimes consists of faculty only from 

 those particular universities, to allocate the funds within the 

 group. Thus, although the initial project was earmarked, the sub- 

 contracting faculty and institutions claim that their project under- 

 went peer review, but peer review comprised of peer review panels 

 they themselves estabhshed. 



I raise these points because I believe the subcommittee should be 

 aware of how universities and colleges are adapting to what is the 

 willingness of the Congress to earmark academic research. To its 

 credit, the academic community in general has sought an expan- 

 sion of competitive USD A research programs, but has often con- 

 fi*onted hostility fi-om the agricultural Appropriations Subcommit- 

 tees. Proposals for expanding competitive research programs, for 

 example, were met with counterproposgds to restrict indirect cost 

 rates for competitive grants. In the face of this resistance, univer- 

 sities and colleges continue to adapt to the resource allocation sys- 

 tem Congress has allowed to develop. 



There are other, more familiar negative consequences to ear- 

 marking. The most obvious is that without peer review or merit re- 

 view, there's Uttle or no systematic evaluation and accountabiUty 

 for determining whether these earmarked projects represent the 

 best research for the dollar. After talking with appropriations sub- 

 committee staff, it is my understanding that the USDA has rarely, 

 if ever, evaluated an earmarked project and found it to be wanting. 



