Pork
T
~
he special interest groups are at it again! Rumblings from Capito1 Hill suggest that they are after the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget now, the result of which may be limitations on the flexibility of NSF administrators to allocate the funds as they see fit. This is a familiar story and, in my view, another example of how the country is being run by an unenlightened few for the benefit of a few. It also illustrates how, without proper controls, our system is susceptible to the particular wishes of powerful members of Congress who control the committees. The overall result of pork barrel politics is not good science. One might be able to point to a few programs created specially by Congress that are beneficial to the country, but more often they are not. By and large, special appropriations for a research project here, a new center there, and a new research building somewhere else are made in a political arena where careful consideration of the merits of each case is not paramount. When a trade is made so that one project will be funded in order for a second to make it through the Congress, worthiness is seldom the issue. Merit is defined simply in political terms. Over the past 10 years, there has been very little real growth in this country's research budget for individual investigator research projects. Increasingly, decisions are being made by Congress that either directly or indirectly subtract from the funding base of basic research. Two years ago, the EPA R&D budget, already a paltry sum, was severely cut in order to accommodate a group of pork barrel projects, some of which seemed ludicrous. Moreover, Congress has taken it upon itself to define the R&D goals for agencies in such a way that the science administrators have very little flexibility to find and reward excellent science. Often the excuse for this is that the funds are not being distributed fairly-that the prestigious research centers are getting more than their share. The answer to that problem, if it is one, is not for 0013-936X/92/092E2043$03.00/0 @ 1992 American Chemical Society
Congress to substitute mediocre science for good science. There are some basic principles of research funding that Congress still does not appreciate. First, it must foster a system that encourages R&D. Congress should restrict its activities to the development of an infrastructure that will encourage and effectively administer R&D, fund it at a level that will sustain it continuously, and not micromanage the research establishment. This c a n be-done by direct appropriations to well-run agencies and by economic instruments that encourage private business to expand R&D. Second, if the agencies are not being administered well, clean them out-but do so on the basis of credible measures of efficiency, not politics. Congress should let science administrators decide the details of the R&D this country needs because the subject is too complicated for it to comprehend and manage well. Third, science must be a cooperative enterprise among government, business, and academia. Congress and the executive branch need to encourage a new spirit of collaboration that will lead this country toward the development of a vigorous economy based on the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection. And finally, Congress and the science R&D establishment must encourage fundamental science. Although to a member of Congress basic research may appear to be grossly inefficient, it is the only way that new knowledge can be revealed. It is the wellspring of future industries; it will tell us how to avoid environmental mistakes for which we will have to pay later; and it will enrich our lives through the revelation of new knowledge about our planet and ourselves. Congress must take the higher road.
Environ. Sci. Technol., VoI. 26, NO.11, 1992 2043
