36 



in a station, for example, of how to allocate dollars. So there's some 

 kind of quality control there. 



Again, we can argue about how good the quahty control is, but 

 I thmk the basic premise of the formula funding, that there's a site 

 specificity and a long-term element to ag research that distin- 

 guishes it irom other endeavors, says that you might not want to 

 have the same kind of peer review that you do with the competitive 

 grants program. 



Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Savage. 



Mr. Savage. I think it's important to remember what competitive 

 peer review and merit review mean. The term "merit review" was 

 used instead of "peer review" after a while for political reasons, but 

 the idea behind it was that there are any number of possible con- 

 siderations, whether they be regional concerns, helping out particu- 

 lar regions, whether it be helping out, say, minority and female re- 

 searchers, any sort of particular concerns in addition to, say, pure 

 scientific merit, that could be identified. The point, though, of merit 

 research broadly based is the idea that there is a review of all 

 these different criteria that could be used to determine whether or 

 not a particular entity should receive Federal funding. 



So given that notion of merit review where there are any number 

 of considerations that can be employed, as long as the^re up-front 

 evaluated, that would certainly clearly be my preference. 



I thinJk that earmarking in general reflects, on one hand, a very 

 legitimate and constitutional right of the Congress, the legislative 

 branch, to review the activities of the executive branch. The execu- 

 tive branch doesn't always use peer review, doesn't always use 

 merit review. So sometimes things are included in the Federal 

 budget proposal that in fact are the equivalent of executive ear- 

 marks, and sometimes maybe you need congressional earmarks to 

 counter that practice. Just because it's in the President's proposal 

 doesn't mean it's been merit reviewed. So I think as a legitimate 

 counter, that's one consideration. 



Mr. Stenholm. If we were going to have a more accoimtable peer 

 review for Congress in competitive grants, should we not apply the 

 same criteria, the same accountability to anything that USDA 

 might do? 



Mr. Savage. I would agree. 



Mr. Stenholm. My final question to both of you. Based on your 

 intimate knowledge of the subject that we're talking about, my 

 question is on accountability. On a scale of 1 to 10 on agricultural 

 research, on accountabiUty, if you were seated where the five of us 

 are seated, having voted taxpayer funds for the research, on a scale 

 of 1 to 10, how would you rate the accountabihty, the process 

 whereby the fluids that are expended are accoimted back to the 

 Congress? 



Mr. Savage. Which funds in particular? 



Mr. Stenholm. Any funding that is available. If you want to 

 make a differentiation, do so. But I'm talking in general, all dollars 

 expended for agricultural research purposes. 



Mr. Savage. I'd probably give it about a three, four maybe. 



Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Offiitt. 



Ms. Offutt. I think it deflnitely gets a higher mark than that. 

 It's probably somewhere on toward five or six, I think, the question 



