Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel
Cambridge University Press, 6. 11. 2000 - Počet stran: 219
Since the 1950s, the federal government has relied on the peer review system for funding high quality academic science. Yet, despite the success of American science, peer review is under attack for being a biased 'good old boy' network that helps rich research universities get richer. As a remedy for these biases, university presidents and members of Congress have turned to the earmarking of science projects and facilities in the federal budget. This earmarking of funds, however, brings with it new areas of tension and suspicion. Funding Science in America, first published in 1999, is the first book to explore both the pros and the cons of the controversial academic earmarking issue. Savage analyzes the earmarking decision of both university presidents and members of Congress, identifies those universities that have benefited most from earmarking, as well as examining the question of whether earmarking improves their ability to compete for research.
Co říkají ostatní - Napsat recenzi
Na obvyklých místech jsme nenalezli žádné recenze.
Další vydání - Zobrazit všechny
Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the ...
James D. Savage
Náhled není k dispozici. - 2000
AAU's academic earmarking academic science administration agency Agriculture allocation American appropriations bill Appropriations Committee appropriations subcommittee awarded benefits Byrd Cassidy and Associates Chronicle of Higher clients Colleges and Universities Columbia competitive congressional Defense distribution earmarked dollars earmarked funds elite Energy and Water equity facilities funding facilities program faculty federal budget federal funding federal government federal research funds House incentives included indirect cost institutions Jean Mayer John Silber legislation line-item veto lobbying lobbyists marking members of Congress merit review million earmark Murtha National Science Foundation NSF's oppose earmarking peer review peer review system percent political Pork Barrel projects rank Reagan received Report research grants research universities review process Robert Robert Rosenzweig Rosenzweig Schlossberg schools scientific scientists Senate Silber sity spending subcommittee chair Technology tions univer University of California university presidents University's versity veto vote Washington Post West Virginia University