30 



This needs to be changed and there needs to be a separate man- 

 agement track for scientific people. Within a big company, you have 

 a managerial track for people to rise and you have a scientific 

 track. It is very important for these people. When I was at Mon- 

 santo, I had one person working for me that outranked me, in a 

 managerial sense. 



Senator Reid. Dr. Ford, what is your academic background? 



Dr. FORD. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, my undergraduate work 

 at Iowa State and my Ph.D. at Kansas State. 



Senator Reid. Again using your background in industry, do you 

 believe that private industry would be willing to share the cost of 

 doing research that would ensure a sounder scientific basis for im- 

 proving the end product, as you have talked about it? 



Dr. Ford. Certainly. We funded things in a number of academic 

 laboratories. 



Right now, I think there is a system starting where industry and 

 EPA are getting together and sharing costs on some very important 

 remediation problems. It is an organization called RTDF that is 

 starting to put together something called electroendosmosis, an 

 electronic remediation technology. This kind of thing needs to be 

 encouraged and needs to move on. 



You always have antitrust problems when big companies get to- 

 gether. I think the collaborations with EPA offer the opportunity 

 for getting around that. 



Senator Reid. The environmental monitoring and assessment 

 program and the national human exposure assessment survey re- 

 quire the Office of Research and Development to collect data and 

 develop methodologies and protocols. 



Dr. Glaze, while I agree that developing methodologies and pro- 

 tocols is a good use of ORD's resources, I am not sure if the data 

 collection component is a proper research and development func- 

 tion. 



What are your thoughts? 



Dr. Glaze. It is a part of the research function. The problem is 

 that EMAP and perhaps other programs of that type have focused 

 perhaps too much on simple data collection, in which case it is 

 largely an administrative matter, and less on what is going to be 

 done with that data. That is the key to this. It can very well be- 

 come an appropriate research function. Indeed, both of these efforts 

 are needed, but the analysis of that data — particularly in EMAP — 

 is going to be where the rubber hits the road. That is where EPA, 

 so far, has not been forthcoming about how that process is going 

 to take place. 



In my opinion, EMAP is a needed program, but what has been 

 described so far — as you have said — is not research in that it is not 

 a full complement of research involving analysis and synthesis of 

 data, rather it is simply collection. 



Senator Reid. Dr. Ford, as you have already said, it appears that 

 EPA is not currently able to attract highly qualified scientists. 



As a scientist, could you give any recommendations to the com- 

 mittee or any incentives that EPA could use to attract and nurture 

 highly qualified scientists? 



Dr. Ford. I think it would be interesting to look at this issue of 

 separating tracks, establishing a separate system for encouraging 



