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
academic earmarking academic research administration agency Agriculture allocation American amount Appropriations Committee appropriations subcommittee associations authorization awarded benefits bill Brown budget California called Cassidy chair clients College Columbia Committee competitive congressional Congressional Quarterly continue cost decision Defense Department distribution dollars effect efforts employed equity example faculty federal government federal research firm funding grants higher education House incentives included increase individual influence institutions interests issue John legislation limited lobbying lobbyists major March marking members of Congress merit Michigan million noted obtain Office peer review percent political Pork Barrel position powerful presidents Press problem projects proposed rank received Report Representatives research facilities response result Robert rules schools Science scientific scientists Senate served spending subcommittee Table Technology tions University university presidents vote Washington Washington Post York