Here's the question. If normally, university research projects must go through a peer-review process, why should earmarks included by members of Congress be allowed to bypass that?

One of the major beneficiaries of these kinds of defense research grants is Texas A&M University in College Station, which gets three earmarks worth $3.5 million in the House defense appropriations bill, including one to develop technology to allow detection of biochemical agents in the atmosphere above the battlefield.

The earmarks were inserted by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, a Texas A&M alumnus whose district includes the university. He also is the top Democrat from Texas on the Appropriations Committee, chairing the panel's military construction and veteran's committee subcommittee.

Edwards did not respond to a request for an interview. But in a prepared statement, he said the peer review process that federal agencies require universities to go through to get research grants "can sometimes get bogged down in politics and bureaucracy."

So? What that seems to say is that getting your congressman to bypass the process to slip you some money instead of doing what any other educational entity must do is how it's done. Doesn't seem fair, does it? What if you don't have a friendly congressman who can bypass those onerous dang review processes, so that you must, um, follow the regulations? Does it seem right that we should be using elected representatives to do this? And in fact, what a weak reason, particularly when you compare what Edwards said with what the DOD says about the process.

In the Technology Area Reviews and Assessments, representatives from academia, government, and industry evaluate programs based on their completeness, balance, relevance, and transition plans, and thus avoid unnecessary duplication with other DOD programs...

Within academia, the peer review of proposals has long assured the matching of funding to researchers with the best ideas. Defense basic research is also carried out in a similar competitive process, by having individual researchers or research consortia submit proposals to receive funding in the form of research awards, education grants, equipment grants, and technical assistance grants.

Unless you've got a friendly congressperson who will bypass that process for you.

And what about the quality of the research?

But administration officials say the earmark system is not the best way to ensure that the highest quality research is performed.

In congressional testimony last year, Dr. John Marburger III, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said that merit review, through a competitive process refereed by scientists, engineers, and other experts, "has the best prospect for ensuring that the most important research is supported."

P.S. It's not only Chet Edwards but also John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison

In the Senate defense appropriations bill, Republican U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas inserted 27 earmarks worth $60 million, including funds for trauma care and border security.

Most of the earmarks are for equipment and research not included in the budget submitted by the Pentagon.

''Every dollar that is going to a particular earmark or a C-17 (aircraft) is a dollar that isn't going to other higher priority items in the federal budget," said Steven Ellis, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that scrutinizes earmarks.