In 1985, Richard C. Atkinson, then chancellor of the University of California at San Diego, published an article that firmly defended the peer review process. Atkinson argued that a strong peer review system strengthened the ability of the academic science community to preserve its independence in the face of its powerful federal sponsor. By uniting around peer review, the community would provide “an effective demonstration that science is not just another special interest lobby,” while “preserving scientific autonomy not only for science but for society. And it would give to the scientific community a good deal of the political and moral authority required to negotiate issues of genuine national importance.” In an interview conducted several years later, Atkinson continued to defend peer and merit review, and he was even more forceful in his denunciation of academic earmarking:

Could Atkinson conceive of a situation in which the University of California would, on the basis of principle, engage in earmarking? “Well,” Atkinson replied, “if I really thought the game were over and that … one could no longer depend on intellectual values.”