Congressional earmarks are typically associated with bridges, parks, or other public works -- but science?

Indeed, science is also a recipient of this process, in which money comes directly from the appropriations bills (i.e - your tax dollars), sans the competition that marks most government awards, courtesy of legislators adept at funneling cash into their home states.

Image: Steven Lek via Wikimedia Commons

Research funded by earmarks usually comes in the form of agricultural and defense projects but science involving green energy and biomedicine have been increasing in recent years, according to David Williams, vice president for policy at watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). "We're concerned that there aren't a lot of checks and balances and there's thin oversight on money that's awarded through Congressional earmarks," he told The Scientist.

"When you don't have a competitive vetting process, everyone doesn't get treated equally," said Williams. "It's obviously very tempting if you're a researcher or a scientist and you have a contact in Congress who's going to get you money. But what if you don't have an influential member of Congress?"

Albert Kausch, a University of Rhode Island plant geneticist who recently received more than $1.4 million in earmarked money to find ways to genetically sterilize the biofuel switchgrass (a requirement to secure US Department of Agriculture approval to commercially grow the crop), balked at the idea that the earmarked money was awarded in a non-competitive fashion. He said that he had to submit a "pre-proposal" to University of Rhode Island officials and that the Department of Energy (DOE)oversees the funding. Furthermore, Kausch added, the sizeable infusion of funds was not without strings attached. "It comes with a huge responsibility," he said. "It's the most intense reporting responsibility I've had for any grant," he added, citing quarterly reports on deliverables and milestones he delivers to DOE as evidence.

"I'm aware of the idea that earmarks are questionable, but in our experience, this has been the best way to address this research," Kausch said. "It's a great way to fund science and research for the public interest."

"I try to fund my lab wherever I can," Kausch added. "This is not a bridge to nowhere. We're really trying to get this done."

Recent pork barrel research projects run the gamut from sequencing the catfish genome to research on bioterrorism threats. Stay tuned to The Scientist, as we'll be following up this story with more complete coverage of the issue in the near future. In the meantime, here is a (by no means complete) list of some other projects that recently got a monetary shot in the arm courtesy of the US Congress. (Data derived from CAGW's annual "Pig Book" database):

From FY 2009 appropriation bills:

- $1,250,000 for the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawaii to conduct research on open ocean fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. Earmark appropriated by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI).

- $800,000 for the University of South Alabama for oyster rehabilitation in Mobile. Earmark appropriated by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

From FY 2008 appropriation bills:

- $11,808,000 to the University of N.M. (Albuquerque), for the Mind Institute ongoing research into brain related research. Earmark appropriated by Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

- $2,460,000 to the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks to support antibodies research. Earmark appropriated by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND).

- $871,854 to the Catfish Genome project at Auburn University. Earmark appropriated by Representatives Artur Davis (D-AL) and Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-NM)

From FY 2006 appropriation bills:

- $1,000,000 for the DNA Safeguard Project at Boise State University. [Unsure who sponsored it.] (Appropriators not listed by CAGW.)

From FY 2005 appropriation bills:

- $2,600,000 for the University of Mississippi in Oxford School of Pharmacy for the National Center for Natural Products Research Phase II. (Appropriators not listed by CAGW.)


Related stories:

Hamming it up
[18th December 2009]

Can USDA's NIFA be ag's NIH?
[27th October 2009]

Congressional pork fatter than ever
[26th March 2008]