Political Influence behind the Veil of Peer Review: An Analysis of Public Biomedical Research Funding in the United States

Posted: February 24, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Lobbying, Politics, Research, Science | Leave a comment »

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/605565

The U.S. public biomedical research system is renowned for its peer review process that awards federal funds to meritorious research performers. Although congressional appropriators do not earmark federal funds for biomedical research performers, I argue that they support allocations for those research fields that are most likely to benefit performers in their constituencies. Such disguised transfers mitigate the reputational penalties to appropriators of interfering with a merit‐driven system. I use data on all peer‐reviewed grants by the National Institutes of Health during the years 1984–2003 and find that performers in the states of certain House Appropriations Committee members receive 5.9–10.3 percent more research funds than those at unrepresented institutions. The returns to representation are concentrated in state universities and small businesses. Members support funding for the projects of represented performers in fields in which they are relatively weak and counteract the distributive effect of the peer review process.

Cutting NASA Budget Actually Could Improve Science and Technology

Posted: February 11, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Research, Science | Leave a comment »

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-weinberg_08edi.State.Edition1.2153ca9.html

Researcher Who Sparked the Vaccine/Autism Scare “Acted Unethically”

Posted: January 29, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Government, Health Care, Politics, Research, Science, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Sent to you via Google Reader

Researcher Who Sparked the Vaccine/Autism Scare “Acted Unethically”

vaccine imageA

Political Influence on Research

Posted: January 20, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Corruption, Politics, Research, Science | Leave a comment »

Abstract

The U.S. public biomedical research system is renowned for its peer review process that awards federal funds to meritorious research performers. Although congressional appropriators do not earmark federal funds for biomedical research performers, I argue that they support allocations for those research fields that are most likely to benefit performers in their constituencies. Such disguised transfers mitigate the reputational penalties to appropriators of interfering with a merit‐driven system. I use data on all peer‐reviewed grants by the National Institutes of Health during the years 1984–2003 and find that performers in the states of certain House Appropriations Committee members receive 5.9–10.3 percent more research funds than those at unrepresented institutions. The returns to representation are concentrated in state universities and small businesses. Members support funding for the projects of represented performers in fields in which they are relatively weak and counteract the distributive effect of the peer review process.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/605565

Science and Government: Food Pyramid

Posted: December 11, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Health, Research, Science | Leave a comment »
http://www.google.com/searchhl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS322US322&q=william+butos+government+and+science&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/10119/Butos_NEW_Science_Funding-1.pdf

The Educational Value of Climategate

Posted: December 2, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Consensus, Research, Science | Leave a comment »

http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/12/02/climategate-its-educational-value/

http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/11/three-things-elizabeth-kolbert-doesnt-know/

Great Way to Find Articles by Topic

Posted: September 16, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Research | Leave a comment »

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/promo.asp

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.