35 



Mr. Stenholm. Then you will be excused. Well submit questions 

 to you in writing, Dr. Kloek. 



Mr. Kloek. Thank you. 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you for being here, and we will be con- 

 tacting you further. Thank you. 



We'll stand in recess for about 10 minutes. 



[Recess taken.] 



Mr. Stenholm. The subcommittee will come to order. 



Dr. Offutt, some individuals advocate a more regional approach 

 to the distribution of formula funding. Are the present efforts made 

 on these lines adequate, or could they be increased? 



Ms. Offutt. The board believes that there is probably the poten- 

 tial to increase the use of regional funding for agriculture. Right 

 now, as you know, the formula research funds have a mechanism 

 for funding regional research specifically, and one of the things 

 we'd like to do in the study is look at the base of agriculture re- 

 gionally and see how you might expand the use of regional mecha- 

 nisms. 



I was in Madison, Monday and Tuesday, and before that I had 

 been down in Illinois, and one of the questions that came up, for 

 example, is who should do dairy science work in the Upper Mid- 

 west. That's the kind of thing that you'd like to address. You'd like 

 to know how many dairy cows there are and where they are and 

 how that fits with the research structure. 



So, yes, we think that there are probably great opportunities for 

 that kind of collaboration. 



Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Savage, did you have a comment on that? 



Mr. Savage. No, sir. 



Mr. Stenholm. I want to take another run at the whole question 

 of competitive grants. Should all grants be competitive and peer re- 

 viewed, or are there unique and special circumstances that would 

 justify a grant from the U.S. Government to an entity without peer 

 review and without benefit of competition? 



Dr. Offutt. 



Ms. Offutt. Yes, I think there are. The example I gave of the 

 work on UVB radiation was a case in which the Federal Govern- 

 ment has a policy or an interest in global change research and 

 needed a specific kind of information to support our treaty commit- 

 ments, and it's essentially a contract. It's like procurement for the 

 Government, and that's a case in which implicitly, I suppose, you 

 can say that peer review is performed when you let the contract. 

 You look for the people to do the work, but it's not peer reviewed 

 in the traditional sense. 



So, yes, I think that's clearly a place, when there's a national pri- 

 ority or a need that needs to be filled very specifically, that you 

 would not use peer review. 



Mr. Stenholm. Can you think of an example in agriculture? 

 Now, that's one in which clearly the national interest is under re- 

 view. Can you think of an example in agricultural-related activities 

 in which a grant should be made without benefit of peer review or 

 without benefit of competition? 



Ms. Offutt. Well, again, the formula fiinds are not peer re- 

 viewed the way the competitive grants are, but there's review with- 



