WRITING THE RESEARCH REPORT AND THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCHuniversities and research institutes. They allocated
funds based on political favoritism rather than on
competition among proposals based on research
quality or merit as evaluated by informed members
of the scientific community. It appears that “pork
barrel” politics—the process by which a politician
distributes money to major government projects not
based on importance or high priority but because
those projects bring money to the businesses and
supporters in the politician’s home district—had
spread to the funding of research.
Increasingly, researchers in some states or elec-
toral districts receive substantial funding while
others get almost nothing, based on political con-
nections rather than on scientific merit. For
example, the State University of New York at Buf-
falo received $12 million to conduct research on
traffic injuries as the result of a noncompetitive,
political decision. The amount of research funds
politically earmarked doubled between 1989 and
1993; it then remained stable for a few years. Since
1996 it has increased fivefold to roughly $2 billion
per year.
The politicized allocation of government re-
search funds pressures universities and research in-
stitutes to court favor with influential politicians.
For example, in 1995, New Hampshire received no
earmarked research funds. After New Hampshire
Republican Senator Judd Gregg became the chair-
man of an appropriations subcommittee 4 years
later, New Hampshire researchers benefited as their
state became the seventh highest to receive govern-
ment funds. When Senator John McCain tried to
end pork barrel spending for research in 2001, the
U.S. Senate defeated his measure 87 to 12. Many
politicians are “proud of pork” and brag about the
money they “bring home” based on political fa-
voritism rather than scientific merit. To obtain re-
search funds, universities and research institutes
increasingly must devote efforts to courting polit-
ical favor and lobbying rather than encouraging re-
search proposals that will be competitive in the
merit-based peer review process.^37
As the April 29, 2010, issue of Inside Higher
Edreported, “The leading recipients of earmarks in
academe resided, not surprisingly, in states repre-
sented by some of the most powerful people in
Congress. Four Mississippi institutions... were
among the top 25 recipients of academic earmarks,
due in large part to the fact that Sen. Thad Cochran,
the state’s senior senator, is the top Republi-
can on the Senate Appropriations Committee” (see
Table 1). One study suggests that earmarks may in-
crease research publications by people at
universities that receive them but lower the over-
all quality of increased number of publications
(Payne, 2002).
Many research institutes and universities have
turned to private donors (wealthy individuals, cor-
porations, or foundations) for research funds. Pri-
vate funding often comes with strings attached. For
example, a private donor withdrew $450,000 be-
cause a researcher at the university that received the
money had publicly criticized a policy that the
donor favored.^38 Some donors want to support in-
dependent research with no strings, but many others
use the donated funds to create subtle pressure to
advance a pet policy position, ideological stand, or
political agenda. Universities and research institutes
try to avoid limitations on research funding from
private donators, but they must balance needed hard
cash from a donor against abstract ideals, such as a
researcher’s freedom to conduct and publish any re-
search that advances knowledge. Some universities
and research institutes might resolve the difficulty
of returning or rejecting a donor’s funds by agree-
ing to limits on open, free inquiry.Limits on the Dissemination of Knowledge.A
major norm of the scientific community is to pub-
licly distribute knowledge. Powerful groups or in-
stitutions can impinge on social research by limiting
the flow of information, restricting publication, or
silencing researchers.
A 1997 news report illustrates the suppression
of research findings.^39 A pharmaceutical company
that produced a widely used drug for thyroid prob-
lems prohibited a university research team from
publishing its research results that showed the drug
to be ineffective. In exchange for the research funds,
the researchers had signed a contract giving the
company a right to veto publications of the results.
Other studies show that when drug companies fund
research, 98 percent of the published findings show