During informal discussion with plant biologist here at MSU about President
Clinton's "plant stress" comment in his recent address, it has been pointed
out that the manner in which the funding for these projects was obtained is
more of concern than the type of research. These projects were likely not
obtained through peer reviewed granting agencies, but through the pet projects
of certain congressman, i.e. PORK.
Obviously, President Clinton may not have understood the nature of the
research he maligned, and he should be informed of its importance. However,
if the funds for research are to be fairly distributed for worthwhile
projects, why should funding that circumvents the ususal funding channels be
If the research in question was funded by "pork barrel politics", then I
believe that it should be cut off. This method of obtaining funds is an abuse
of our political system that has existed for too long. And that is the
purpose of using a "line-item" veto.
I am sure some of you may disagree.
(21848hjk at msu.edu)