301 



minimized. Only rarely is in-house federal research subjected to tiie discipline of such 

 competition. 



Representative Weldon raised this issue with Dr. Alberts in the earlier hearing, and 

 asked if earmarking programs should be replaced with con^titive peer review? Dr. 

 Alberts responded that if we want the best value for the nioney, we have to op)en up 

 everything we can to competition. Its something nobody denies, its just hard to get it 

 done. I firmly believe that we need to make that effort in order to improve both the 

 quality of our nation's ocean sciences and its research efficiency and effectiveness. 



2. From the CORE position paper: The costs of University research or facilities to the 

 federal government are borne only for the duration of the grant or contract supporting 

 the research. When the program is concluded, the agency can move on to a new project 

 without having to carry continuing costs of the federal staff that would have been hired. 



3. As an alternative, university research provides the option for rapid changes, lending 

 flexibility rather than inertia to changing priorities. 



4. Sponsored research in universities supports tlie training of the next generation of 

 scientists and engineers. Because peer-review ensures that fimds are awarded to the best 

 scientists, the graduate students supported receive the best traiiung available. 



5. Federal agency programs are typically driven by a centralized Washington 

 perspective, one necessarily more narrow than regional needs would dictate. Coastal 

 environmental issues, for example, have a strong regional cast that can best be met by 

 local universihes. 



6. For ail of these reasons, rescissions or budget reductions that fall most heavily on 

 extramural research are counter to the needs of the nation for innovation ard scientific 

 leadership and to the logic that demands reduction of the Federal bureaucracy. 



lncenti\es need to be developed which move us nationally in the direction of government 

 agency/university partnerships such as those we are developing around Monterey Bay, 

 and in increased extramural research support by federal agencies. 



Several participants in the January 25 hearing raised the issue of the communication of 

 scientific findings to congress and the public. Congressman Kennedy asked "why can't 

 the scienhsts come up with a way of hitting us between the eyes on the significance of 

 the oceans and survival of the planet?" I completely agree with the need, and I think the 

 simple answer is that most scientists, unfortunately, aren't comfortable with the pubUc 

 or polihcal arenas and haven't historically seen this effort as part of their responsibility. 

 There are others like Bob Ballard who are quite comfortable and see this as part of their 

 responsibility and mission. 



We need to find avenues, such as this process, whereby the most up to date and most 

 accurate information from the best scientists is requested and can be put into the 

 decision making process, whether it be on global warming, limitations on fish catches, or 

 the state of marine pollution by chlorinated hydrocarbons. We all need to know what is 

 working and what isn't and what examples and models exist for getting the best ocean 

 science possible out of our research dollars, how to use our institutional resources more 

 cooperatively, and most importantly, we need to recognize the significance of the oceans 

 to our past, present and future and work to restore federal support to marine research 

 to Its level of 15 years ago. 



