{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018908465835840136, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034379028792436614, 'mean_word_length': 4.969230769230769, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 3, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel (review)

The growth in earmarking of appropriations to specific academic institutions in support of research or facilities (sometimes referred to as the “academic pork barrel”) is one of the big stories of science and technology policy during the past two decades. Congress gave more than one billion dollars in earmarked funds to universities in fiscal year 2000. Allocating research funds in this manner rewards political clout rather than scientific merit, undermines the ability of federal agency officials to manage their own research programs, and ultimately may pose a serious threat to the peer review system and the vitality of the U.S. research system. The issue of how to deal with earmarking has preoccupied higher education associations and their lobbyists, scientific societies, university officials, and science policymakers for years. In view of the importance of the issue and the attention that policymakers and the press have paid to it, it is surprising that relatively little serious scholarship has been devoted to academic earmarking. James Savage has gone a long way toward filling that gap with Funding Science in America. The book is well grounded in social science theory, but it is also rich with detail and alive with the realities of Washington politics. Savage reviews the history of earmarking, describing how a number of universities worked the political system, the role of professional lobbying firms, the actions of members of Congress, and the (mostly unsuccessful) attempts of university associations, the Clinton administration, and a few congressional “porkbusters” to put a stop both to individual earmarks and to the practice of earmarking. Savage first became acquainted with the issue in the 1980s as a member of the federal relations staff of the president of the University of California. Subsequently, as a faculty member and a consultant for several congressional agencies, he continued to follow and write about it. His intimate knowledge of the issues and personalities involved is evident. Earmarking is often justified by its proponents as a remedy for inequities produced by the peer review system, which, they claim, is dominated by an T E C H N O L O G Y A N D C U L T U R E