Warning:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this page will work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Earmark Version 2, Debate on Academic Earmarks Purpose of the project facilitating a discourse concerning methods of distributing public funds for research, Problem 6 - Quality Control Earmarked research has poor record of producing quality research Problems with academic earmarks Problem 4 Poor Safety Earmarks are problematic with regards to science based regulatory issues, Problem 7 - Not Competitive Earmarks eliminate competition based on merit. Problems with academic earmarks Problem 1 Earmark projects involve infrastructure not research Earmarks do not fund science, they fund infrastructure to do science, Academic earmarking defeats the bias of elite institutions found in current competitive grant system using peer review therefore (MP) Academic Earmarking should be used to allocate funding for research, inference rule therefore claim, There are problems with academic earmarks Problems with academic earmarks Problem 3 Earmarks defer priorities Earmarks consume funds intended for research to support agency missions and national strategic goals, There are problems with academic earmarks Problems with academic earmarks Problem 2 Earmark allocations favor elite Academic Earmarks allocate funds to universities who can afford to lobby for earmarks, Problem 7 - Not Competitive Earmarks eliminate competition based on merit. Problems with academic earmarks Problem 4 Poor Safety Earmarks are problematic with regards to science based regulatory issues, "Earmarking does the same thing (biased funding decisions favoring elite), but breaks on the pool of institutions along different division lines" AAAS Supports Problem 2 Earmark allocations favor elite Academic Earmarks allocate funds to universities who can afford to lobby for earmarks, Problem 5 Damage to norms Earmarks damage the institution of science by promoting deviation from scientific norms Problems with academic earmarks Problem 3 Earmarks defer priorities Earmarks consume funds intended for research to support agency missions and national strategic goals, Academic Earmarking should be used to allocate funding for research Defined as Academic earmarking is the process by which legislators place specific provisions in the government's annual appropriations bills requiring specific agencies to allocate specicified levels of funding to designated universities for particular projects (Savage 1999) -- these are provisions in legislation or accompanying committee reports that indicate, with varying degrees of specificity, congressional intent as to where/how funds are to be spent (AU=Minge), Citation rates are "statistically and substantially lower than that of peer reviewed projects" (de Figueredo and Silverman, 2007) supports Problem 6 - Quality Control Earmarked research has poor record of producing quality research, Allocation of Public Funding for research is an essential feature of public policy regarding economic development, national security, and general prosperity Could be distributed Hybrid of competitive grants and academic earmarks, Via Competitive Grant process which relies on evaluations by specialists in the domain of the proposed research (aka Peer Review) Defined as Peer review is a process for selection of proposals to receive federal funds for research. The proposals are reviewed by experts in the field whose evaluations enable the agencies to rank proposals based on perceived scientific merit (Figueiredo Silverman 2007 36) - Process channels money to the worthiest project as judged by scholars and career professionals at federal agencies. (AU=Minge) - It is a merit system, Non-deserving research can be funded that contibutes little to science denying funds to needed science supports Problem 4 Poor Safety Earmarks are problematic with regards to science based regulatory issues, Academic earmarking provides for more competition therefore (MP) If the problems related to academic earmarking can be managed or solved, if academic earmarking provides for more competition, if academic earmarking defeats the bias of elite institutions found in current competitive grant system using peer review then academic earkmarking should be used to allocate funding for research, Lobbying for earmarks requires wealth therefore (MP) Problem 2 Earmark allocations favor elite Academic Earmarks allocate funds to universities who can afford to lobby for earmarks, Problem 6 - Quality Control Earmarked research has poor record of producing quality research Problems with academic earmarks Problem 2 Earmark allocations favor elite Academic Earmarks allocate funds to universities who can afford to lobby for earmarks, Academic earmarks fails to offer all us universities an efficient and optimal choice for funding research Supports Problem 7 - Not Competitive Earmarks eliminate competition based on merit., Debate on Academic Earmarks presented according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)