69 



4. 

 appropriations bill has resulted in universities and colleges 

 seeking projects there that have little to do with agricultural 

 research. These projects include technology centers, trade 

 centers, and biology centers. When academic institutions fail to 

 obtain earmarks in those appropriations subcommittees where 

 academic earmarks are generally shunned, such as in the House 

 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, they turn to the 

 other subcommittees to fund their projects. The effect of this, of 

 course, is to reduce the funds available under the appropriations 

 subcommittee allocation for true agricultural research. 



The Subcommittee should also be aware that some universities 

 attempt to avoid the charge that they are earmarking by 

 subcontracting 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 agriculture appropriations bill. 

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

 the principal investigator, share the award with several other 

 universities organized as a consortium. This is the case with the 

 mosquito research funded through Special Projects; in another 

 example, the Midwest Plant Biotechnology Consortium consists of an 

 estimated eighteen 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 award was earmarked, the subcontracting 

 faculty and institutions claim that their project underwent peer ' 



