Earmarking versus peer review
The Voice of San Diego features an interesting article on the role of peer-review in earmarked government-funded projects. The article is about a proposal to build two new dams in California, but it addresses the more general question of the usefulness of earmaking federal money to particular academic institutions for specific research. According to the Voice of San Diego, 10 per cent of the US$30 billion "pork barrel" annual spend now goes to universities.
Critics of the process say that the earmarking diverts funding from projects that have been rigoriously peer-reviewed by expert panels -- not least when institutions likely to benefit spend money on Washington lobbyists. The recipient insitutions, naturally, beg to differ, as the money can mean a new lab or high-tech equipment. An interesting debate follows on where to draw the line between scientific scrutiny and "obvious public good".