14 



some private entities involved. But unlike the Columbia Basin, we 

 have a group of independent, privately-contracted peer reviewers 

 and State and Federal agency studies cannot go forward unless 

 they are certified by the peer review body. 



This doesn't mean that we tell State and Federal agencies what 

 to do, not at all. We simply ensure that the science is the best that 

 we can find; we ensure that the objectives of the research projects 

 contribute to the established program measures for salmon recov- 

 ery in the Exxon Valdez oil spill area. So this process, I think, has 

 been very effective. It doesn't keep State and Federal agencies from 

 functioning; we're not a drag or a bottleneck. We simply bring on 

 more people if a bottleneck appears to get the job done. 



So I think that a peer review independent of the process that is 

 now going on could very well benefit and give some direction be- 

 cause there are some critical quantities that we should have had 

 by now. We've been spending lots of money. I don't accept $400 mil- 

 lion a year for research, I think that's a figment of somebody's 

 imagination. We probably spend maybe $25 million in what I 

 would call hardcore research projects out of all of that. Those are 

 the ones that I relate to measuring the impact of the hydroelectric 

 system on the juvenile salmon. 



I think we could focus that research program much better than 

 we have and I think we could get a lot more for our money than 

 we have with an independent peer review process. 



Senator Kempthorne. All right. Thank you very much. 



Mr. Anderson, your comments. 



Mr. Anderson. I think the peer review is essential. I also think 

 it is very limited. The reason is because of the volume of informa- 

 tion that we have to sift through. There was a peer review of the 

 models a couple of years ago and it did not attain, in my opinion, 

 all that it should have. Someone will come in, an outside scientist, 

 and spend a week or 2 weeks reviewing information. They might 

 end up understanding the basic elements of the system but to real- 

 ly get into peer review, they would have to understand the data 

 and all the intricacies of the data, which means the people who are 

 actually doing the work. 



To do that, I thought of the idea of a jury panel where scientists 

 doing the work would present their results in a more formal set- 

 ting, and then have a jury of peers evaluate that. We, as individ- 

 uals can point out the strengths and flaws in each other's work and 

 then get those strengths and flaws evaluated by an outside group. 

 It's a way to direct the peers to the essential parts. Right now, we 

 don't have that ability. 



Senator Kempthorne. I may come back to you on that. 



Ms. Filardo, if you could give us your comments on this meaning- 

 ful peer review? How do you make it work? 



Ms. Filardo. I would welcome change in the present process 

 whereby programs are developed and implemented and funded. I 

 think the overall region needs a change in what is presently going 

 on, something of the magnitude that Phil is speaking to, the Exxon 

 Vaidez peer review committee, elements that he referred to in that 

 overall game plan and elements that Jim Anderson referred to in 

 his game plan as well. 



