Only One Side of the Coin

TRADITIONALLY, government funding for scientific research has been granted to institutions via a merit-review process--in which peer committees review grant proposals and award money to the most qualified applicants.

However, recent actions by Congress threaten the peer review process. Congress has begun to legislate research funds directly to institutions, thus bypassing the review process and seriously threatening the future quality and integrity of academic research.

Clearly, congressional debate is not an effective method to weigh the merits of competing scientific research programs. Furthermore, the new funding scheme invites unwanted political interference in research. Universities will have to become more concerned with lobbying Senators than with maintaining research standards.

FORTUNATELY, CORNELL University, among others, is resisting the new approach. In January, Cornell announced that it was rejecting a $10 million federal grant which had been awarded directly by Congress for the university's widely publicized super-computer project.

Since the grant was made without informing university officials, one might suspect that Cornell refused the money for purely bureaucratic reasons. It is clear, however, that the university is concerned with the way Congress is distributing funds and is determined not to "accept a funding award if it circumvented traditional merit-review procedures."

Although Cornell can afford to carry on the supercomputer project without the federal money, giving up $10 million is a bitter pill to swallow. Thus the decision is both bold and praiseworthy. Other universities should also demand that the merit-review process be maintained. Indeed, some have already begun to do so--witness Harvard Vice President for Government and Public Affairs John Shattuck, who pledged that Harvard "will refuse all money not received by the peer review process."

THERE IS ANOTHER side of the coin, so to speak, as those institutions which do not fare well in the merit review process naturally prefer Congress' direct grant scheme. Charles Coffin, director of government relations at Northeastern University, voices the complaint: "Frankly, for too long peer review has been a pipeline for the haves to continue to have and the have-nots to be shunted aside." Northeastern received a grant in the same bill as Cornell.

Coffin wrongly assumes that all universities have an equal right to government grants. Receiving research funding is a privilege, not a right. Obviously, institutions have an equal right to compete for awards, but no right to expect and demand a guarantee. While the government may provide aid to academic institutions by confering tax-free status, research grants are not awarded so that everyone can get a piece of the pie.

Recent controversy over CIA sponsorship of the research of two Harvard professors foreshadows the kind of damage that politics brings to the funding process. The CIA reserves the right to censor work which it sponsors; but censorship of research findings runs counter to the policies and spirit upon which universities are based. While the CIA is not Congress, the CIA funding episodes suggest that Congress might ask in the future for similar freedom-constraining privileges in return for research grants.

Cornell's action is only the first step. Other universities must stand firmly behind the peer-review process if quality scientific research and the merit basis of the funding system is to be preserved.