Author's Keywords: federal advisory committees, interest groups, lobbying, academic earmarks, federal grants, National Science Foundation, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, science and technology policy, health policy	Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152265_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Chin, Michelle., Lindquist, Eric. and Karinen, Risto. "Searching for Cures: Assessing Interest Group Influence in the Federal Grantmaking Process" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2011-03-13 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152265_index.html>

Chin, M. L., Lindquist, E. and Karinen, R. , 2006-08-31 "Searching for Cures: Assessing Interest Group Influence in the Federal Grantmaking Process" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA Online <PDF>. 2011-03-13 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152265_index.html

Publication Type: Proceeding Abstract: In the U.S., proponents of federal support for basic science research and development (R&D) justify the expenditures on grounds that it promotes economic growth and would not otherwise be funded by private industry. Proposals for federally-funded research are subject to peer-review by grant review panels of experts, also known as federal advisory committees (FACs). Ideally, these FACs would be the least likely arenas for pressure politics, but critics concerned about funding inequities associated with peer-review decisions have increased the demand for academic earmarks. Furthermore, in recent years, the National Institutes of Health and other agencies have begun to emphasize the value of translational research, which triggers concerns that individual-investigator grants will suffer while private sector interests such as pharmaceutical companies will benefit. The controversy raises questions about the true nature of pressure group politics regarding peer review of federal grant proposals. Any monopoly of access to the policy process by certain groups can lead to systematic under representation of policy views. In this paper, we examine the interest group participation in grant review FACs in the health, biotechnology and information technology policy domains. Although academics (e.g. researchers, professors, teachers, educators) make up a majority of members of these grant review FACs (Chin & Lindquist 2003), concerns remain that the peer-review process is biased. We collect FAC membership data from 2000-2004 to identify the FAC members who decide how to allocate the scarce research dollars. This research is preliminary and yields questions for further study.

Welfare Reform and Access to Higher Education: Can State and Local Policy Innovation Survive the Federal Renewal Process?

orders and disorders in transition: the peer review institution in China's reformed science and technology funding policies