17 



STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE MATANOSKI, CHAIRMAN, 

 SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 



Dr. MATANOSKI. I am Genevieve Matanoski, professor of Epide- 

 miology of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, 

 Maryland and Chair of the Science Advisory Board. 



Senator Reid. Johns Hopkins had to be happy with U.S. News 

 and World Report last week about being ranked number one in 

 basic medical care in the country. 



Dr. Matanoski. Yes, and the School of Public Health was also 

 rated number one. 



Senator Reid. That is great. 



How big is the hospital? How many beds? Do you know? 



Dr. Matanoski. It is approximately 200. It is not a very big hos- 

 pital. 



Senator Reid. Please, proceed. 



Dr. Matanoski. I would like to indicate that I am testifying 

 today as an individual. I have to because none of my testimony has 

 actually been cleared by the Science Advisory Board. 



Senator Reid. The record will reflect that. 



Dr. MATANOSKI. I would like to indicate that the Science Advi- 

 sory Board has been established under the 1976 ERDDA and it is 

 an independent body of scientists who are basically there to provide 

 advice and review the scientific information which is the basis for 

 EPA's activities. These reviews include an evaluation of how the 

 agency conducts their scientific research as well as how the EPA 

 uses the science in regulations. So we actually serve two functions, 

 both a peer review function and a scientific evaluation and advice 

 function. 



I think the experiment has been quite successful. It has been 

 growing in size and activities over time and now consists of over 

 100 members and about 10 committees, which is coordinated by the 

 executive committee, and I Chair that committee. There are many 

 additional scientists who serve as consultants for specific reviews 

 because the extent of EPA's activities are so broad that even 100 

 scientists could not cover all the things in depth. 



The committees hold about 60 public meetings a year and gen- 

 erate more than 30 reports annually. So we are an active body and 

 we have a budget of about $2 million, which sounds like a lot but 

 for that much activity it is pretty cheap. 



Over the years, the board has played an expanding role in review 

 of many controversial scientific and technical issues. They have 

 been asked recently, especially, to take on some additional activi- 

 ties both from the agency as well as from Congress, which is kind 

 of a new direction for the board. The Science Advisory Board has 

 reviewed the science basis for health risks from environmental to- 

 bacco smoke, from radon in drinking water, and from electro- 

 magnetic fields. We don't always come down on the same level of 

 approval or disapproval in terms of what the agency has done, but 

 I think we have done a relatively independent scientific review and 

 it provides a public forum for debate on the science which has gone 

 on within the agency. 



We have in the last several months undertaken a reinvention re- 

 view of the Science Advisory Board itself. When that is complete, 

 I would be glad to share it with the Senate or any other Members 



