Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.


Science 17 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5840, p. 871
DOI: 10.1126/science.1147818

Editorial

Pork and Punishment

Donald Kennedy

The Congress of the United States does some funny things with respect to some scientific projects. It either likes them enough to scoop them out of some priority line and give them special status, or it finds them, well, either dumb or disgusting and declines to give them money that their executive agency has asked for. In the first instance, it finds various ways of funneling federal support to them, often going outside various established procedures for competitive review. In the second case, it amends authorization or appropriation bills to require the removal of particular projects that members dislike for some reason or another.

We have long experience with both habits. The first has become so familiar that it has a pet name: pork, short for "pork-barrel funding," a term that first received public notice in the late 19th century, when individual members would compete for river and harbor projects. The process by which pork is actually distributed is "earmarking," after the practice of notching the ears of livestock to claim ownership. In the development of a research agency's budget, a member will specify a support line for a building, project, or research facility at an institution in the member's district; because the budget is limited, this means that funds will be diverted from projects that had been competitively approved.


Donald Kennedy is Editor-in-Chief of Science.

Read the Full Text





To Advertise     Find Products


Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)