With federal spending expected to reach $2 trillion in the coming fiscal year, it is no surprise that universities across the country continue to lobby heavily for a piece of the economic pie. But because of intense competition for federal academic grants, some schools, including Tufts, are searching for easier ways to get their money.
Tufts will receive part of a $4.2 million pork-barrel expenditure to study shrimp aquaculture. The federal funding, like all pork-barrel spending, did not require any type of academic approval. These funds typically go to congressional pet projects in representatives' home states.
While many college administrators say the congressional earmarks are essential to their research goals, some schools say they are uncomfortable receiving unregulated funds. A recent article in the Boston Globe noted that while Harvard University will receive $19 million in pork-barrel funding for the coming fiscal year, Harvard administrators insist that they do not lobby for the money.
According to Tufts' President Larry Bacow, Tufts receives the majority of its federal funding from a competitive peer review process. "Our faculty routinely compete for such funds and do very well based on the strength of their scholarship," Bacow said. "Our scholarly reputation," he said, "is based on the strength of our faculty and their research, not on our capacity to influence congressional appropriations."
Most money that does come to the University from direct appropriations is used for construction projects, according to Vice Provost for Research Peggy Newell, who said she could not recall the last time Tufts received earmarked funding for research prior to the shrimp project.
"Congress may have had a desire to help the shrimp industry," said Newell, who called the earmark "an unusual case." Most shrimp consumed in the US is imported, and America has a $3 billion deficit in its domestic shrimp industry.
The $4.2 million that Tufts is to receive will not go directly to the University, nor will Tufts see most of the money. According to Dr. Acacia Alcivar-Warren, associate professor of environmental and population health at the School of Veterinary Medicine, the funding is intended for the Oceanic Institute, a private organization in Hawaii that lobbied for the money. Tufts is one of six institutions involved in the center's US Marine Shrimp Farming Program, and will receive just $250,000 for its role in mapping the shrimp genome.
The Globe article said Tufts would receive the full amount, a statistic that Warren says is inaccurate. "Someone told me, 'Dr. Warren, you complain you have no money, but you just got $4 million!'" Warren said.
The question of whether the US government should focus on earmarks rather than a stricter, more focused funding system such as National Science Foundation (NSF) grants is becoming a contentious issue in Washington. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is at the forefront of the opposition. The NSF, one of the country's largest sources for research and education grant money, reviews 30,000 proposals annually, but awards just one-third that number to new proposals. This intense competition makes earmarking more attractive.
Economics Professor Gilbert Metcalf said that research earmarking has its flaws, but that it should not be regarded as government waste. Having spoken to many congressional staffers - those most knowledgeable about the issue - Metcalf says that the earmarking process can be as rigorous as peer review. And even peer review may not be completely free from non-academic considerations, he said. "Politics is always at work," he said, "there's no getting around it."
Objection to pork-barrel funding is not a cut-and-dry issue, says President-Emeritus John DiBiaggio. DiBiaggio said that "evolving institutions," which he described as young schools without a prominent reputation, are ideal recipients of earmarks. Although such schools may not have the reputation to secure lucrative grant money, DiBiaggio said that earmarks could help boost them to a more national position.
Tufts was one of the first clients of the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates in the 1970s. When Democrats were in control of Congress, including ten high-ranking Massachusetts congressmen, area universities were able to acquire ample earmark funds.
Although Tufts partnered with a new firm two years ago, Boston University has signed with Cassidy to handle its earmark procurement. A BU spokesman told the Globe that through the University's lobbying, former President John Silber helped make BU a nationally competitive school.
But DiBiaggio said he does not believe that earmarking is the best solution. "It's a delicate issue," he said. "I find myself in a quandary over it, since I do believe in a legitimate peer review process."
Metcalf agreed. "Earmarking is a trend that we should try to fight. It would be a valuable step for Tufts to lobby for a set of procedures for peer review," he said.
