23 



Can you do that? 



Mr. Carlson. I would have to- 



Mr. Smith. Do you have courage enough to do that? 



Mr. Carlson. You bet. I don't have any qualms about that. I just 

 need to examine it. 



As I said, in just a casual observation as far as the high research 

 priorities of the Nation versus those that are outside of that, or 

 those that are related to local needs and so forth, I just ran 

 through very casually at about 60 percent. But I can make a more 

 detailed examination. 



Mr. Smith. I wish you would do that. 



Mr. Carlson. I think it is a good point. 



Mr. Smith. I think you understand it. I think it strengthens our 

 hand in trying to remove the poUtical influence when the real need 

 is research. That is what we're all talking about. 



Mr. Carlson. That is right, and that is what I am talking about. 



Mr. Smith. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm [resuming chsiir]. Mrs. Clayton. 



Mrs. Clayton. You have begun to answer the question I had 

 posed to the earher paneUst. I am pleased to know that you have 

 had increased participation by a number of institutions that are 

 considered minority or those who are not in that elite group. 



Could you provide us a list of those participants on your peer re- 

 view commission? You had indicated to a question earlier that 



Mr. Carlson. This was on the peer review of our research 

 grants. 



Mrs. Clayton. Right. I would appreciate that, if you could. 



Mr. Carlson. Supply you the names? 



Mrs. Clayton. Right, of institutions or individuals. 



Mr. Carlson. I do not know if I have that. 



Mrs. Clayton. Could you get that for us? 



Mr. Carlson. I don't think so. 



Mrs. Clayton. It is not maintained? 



Mr. Carlson. The way it is done, we don't maintain a list like 

 that. That is the problem. We know where they come from, and 

 many of our peer review scientists who are minorities are from 

 major institutions, too. 



Mrs. Clayton. OK. 



I assume from your testimony that the research facility would 

 not be subject to peer review. 



Mr. Carlson. Well, they are not subject to peer review on a com- 

 petitive basis, but we establish a team of scientists that go out and 

 review those facihties on a one-on-one basis. It is not compared to 

 anything else. 



Mrs. Clayton. So these facilities also would have that input 

 from that diverse group, as well? 



Mr. Carlson. As much as we can. Our last group that I went 

 out on had a very distinguished scientist minority that was just 

 ideal. 



I would like to correct something else. I can give you a list of peo- 

 ple who are peer reviewers. That is in our red book. But I can't 

 necessarily identify which ones are minorities and which ones are 

 not. That is what I could not do. 



