 |
Searching for Cures: Assessing Interest Group Influence in the Federal Grantmaking Process
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Searching for Cures: Assessing Interest Group Influence in the Federal
Grantmaking Process
By
Michelle L. Chin
Arizona State University
(Michelle.## email not listed ##)
Eric Lindquist
Texas A&M University
(## email not listed ##)
Risto Karinen
Arizona State University(Risto.## email not listed ##)
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.
*This research was sponsored in part by a grant from Arizona State University with support from Texas A&M University.
|
| | Authors: Chin, Michelle., Lindquist, Eric. and Karinen, Risto. |
|
| |
|
|
Searching for Cures: Assessing Interest Group Influence in the Federal
Grantmaking Process
By
Michelle L. Chin
Arizona State University
(Michelle.## email not listed ##)
Eric Lindquist
Texas A&M University
(## email not listed ##)
Risto Karinen
Arizona State University
(Risto.## email not listed ##)
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.
*This research was sponsored in part by a grant from Arizona State University with
support from Texas A&M University.
|
|
 Convention | | Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 13 
