Newsletter Network

This feature was designed as a forum for UCAR Newsletter readers; it is 
part of an overall effort to enhance communication among the 
community and help UCAR be more responsive to the needs of its 
members.  Readers are invited to send comments, suggestions, or 
concerns to UCAR president Richard Anthes.  We will print those of 
general interest, with author identified and a response if one is called for.  
The following letter was sent to Anthes by Douglas Lilly (University of 
Oklahoma) and is printed in its entirety here.

--In a recent UCAR Newsletter, Richard Anthes added his voice to the 
increasing wave of concern among our colleagues over what is called 
Ňpork-barrel science,Ó the awarding of research facility grants by direct 
congressional action without evident peer review or quality control.  
Scientific leaders around the country have shown public concern or 
outrage over this process.  I wish, however, to enter a mild dissent to this 
almost universal professional condemnation, to question whether we are 
really talking about a new and dangerous phenomenon, and to offer 
some alternative models for scientific resource allocations. 

It should be recognized that the scientist-accepted process of 
meritocracy, or rewards based on peer reviews, tends to favor 
centralization of science.  Scientists working in institutions and 
environments which contain a critical mass of their colleagues in the 
same and interacting fields are likely to be more clearly on the cutting 
edge and capable of making better presentations and proposals than is 
the lone individual or small group in a relatively isolated environment.  
The reviewers of such proposals, however fair-minded, are also likely to 
be in those more favored institutions and environments, and therefore to 
be more familiar with those colleagues and their work.  If not countered 
by purposeful decentralization mechanisms, the scientific enterprise 
tends to go the way it did in the [former] Soviet Union, where nearly 
everything worthwhile was in Moscow, Leningrad, or Novosibirsk; or in 
France until about 20 years ago, where almost everything was in Paris.  
In countries with the most effective national and local democracy, especially the United States and Britain, political forces, scientifically 
uncommitted but economically alert, have forced a much greater 
decentralization, and I think we can mostly agree that to be a desirable 
situation, if a bit chaotic.  Bostonians may disagree. 

In our field, major centers of activity have always existed, but there has 
been a large shift between them.  Thirty years ago most meteorological 
research occurred in the Washington, D.C., area, with important 
academic outposts in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles.  The 
establishment of NCAR was a purposeful and rather unique event 
dictated by the elders of the field, but its location in Boulder was almost 
accidental.  The fairly effective leadership of NCAR and the 
establishment of ERL [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
AdministrationŐs Environmental Research Laboratories] headquarters 
there led to something of a bandwagon, enhanced and defended at 
critical moments by the local congressional delegation, especially when 
they were in the majority party.  Now Boulder is the center, or at least 
one of two main centers, of U.S. atmospheric science, and wants to stay 
that way, but there are competitors.  Significant university-government 
centers in Seattle, Miami, Madison, Ft. Collins, Norman, and Raleigh-
Durham ask for and receive a piece of the action.  In Norman, a key 
element leading to completion of our Energy Center building after the oil 
price collapse in the 1980s was $10 million of government support 
arranged by our congressman.  This could certainly be called Ňpork-
barrelÓ money, although it accompanied $40 million of state and donor 
support.  The expansion and now-occurring centralization of the 
university and governmental activities here follow on directly, though of 
course not without some very effective local leadership.  So now we have 
one of the largest meteorology departments in the country, pretty rapidly 
improving in quality, and are able to provide quite a lot of local 
employment for our graduates.  Should we feel guilty?  No; maybe 
worried, because North Carolina State is right on our heels, probably 
well supported by its congressional delegation.

The scientific scene in the United States is changing, not obviously for the 
better, and universities in particular are having to rethink their style of 
operation and maybe accept some downsizing after decades of 
exponential growth.  For a while, anyway, we may be lucky to get any 
major new grants and centers, or expansion of same.  When they come, it 
will probably be from a combination of peer approval and effective 
politics.  From the history of this country and its scientific enterprise, I 
donŐt think that it is either effective or admirable to hunker down and try 
to keep everything where it is, or a little more so.  An overemphasis on 
meritocracy over demography, however well intended, has that effect.  
The National Science Foundation has a little program, called EPSCOR, 
that is purposely designed to provide support to states where there isnŐt 
much current NSF-supported research.  Although one might consider 
this a form of scientific welfare, each award is made on the basis of 
competitive proposals which must have some defensible quality level. 
An expansion of that kind of activity might be a partial alternative to 
pork-barrel science.  

One might even consider a completely different model, where 
congresspeople are each given an allocation to support research activities 
within their districts.  This would, of course, be declared to be pure pork 
and opposed violently by many scientists, especially in states where 
research support per capita is considerably above average.  It is, 
however, analogous to the way appointments to the military academies 
have been made for nearly 200 years.  Provided that the allocations are 
spent in accord with a fair and competitive review process, as are 
academy nominations in most states, it is not obvious that harm would 
be done.  It would tend to assure that research capabilities are fairly 
evenly dispersed around the country.

Douglas Lilly
University of Oklahoma