16 



really believe thev should open things up and get peer review, it's 

 because that has been my experience for a very long time. 



I should mention a couple of other problems that I had over the 

 years setting up peer review. First of all, you have to demand real 

 qualifications to get real peers with real expertise; otherwise, re- 

 view panels get loaded up with policymakers and other people who 

 don't really have adequate qualifications. 



A second problem is that you can't operate this very long on vol- 

 unteers. I can barely imagine how busy you are. We probably aren't 

 as busy as you are, but let's suppose we sent you a proposal and 

 said we'd like you to review it and get comments back to us by next 

 Friday. You just can't operate a peer review system on a volunteer 

 basis like that, unless there is some kind of compensation there. 



Third, and this addresses the second problem too, there has to 

 be an air of open competition for at least part of the projects in 

 order to stimulate interest in serving as peers, particularly by the 

 university sector. The worse problem I had was trying to keep the 

 university people interested and involved in a program in which 

 they recognized that they didn't stand a chance of getting any of 

 the money or projects. 



Senator Kempthorne. I'm going to continue this but this is all 

 very helpful and I would invite any of you who, after this meeting 

 on further reflection, just steps one through five, what have you, 

 if you'd send those to me, it would be helpful because I appreciate 

 this and it is helpful. 



Mr. Ebel. 



Mr. Ebel. I agree with just about everything that my colleagues 

 said on the left here. I think one of the main difficulties is to find 

 a peer group that is knowledgeable enough and unbiased without 

 some kind of ax to grind to review these studies. 



Senator Kempthorne. Does that happen in the scientific commu- 

 nity too? 



Mr. Ebel. You bet. The other thing that Margaret mentioned is 

 that something different needs to be done in the way the North- 

 west research proposals are handled. I agree with that but if some- 

 thing new is done, let's, for Grod's sake, eliminate some of the stuff 

 that is being done now; otherwise, you're never going to get a 

 project off the ground. If you're going to have peer review, that 

 should be it ana the proposal goes forward after that; let's not run 

 it through nine more committees and State agencies. 



Senator Kempthorne. Good point. 



Mr. Fidler. 



Mr. FiDLER. I agree completely that there is a need for a review 

 process. One of the difficulties I see is who establishes the people 

 who make up the peer review panel, if you will. Is it the State and 

 tribal agencies or NMFS? To me, this is like letting drug companies 

 do their own clinical review and conduct their own clinical trials 

 on new drugs. I think there needs to be some mechanism to allow 

 truly independent input to the review process, independent review 

 and participation. 



I think another problem is there needs to be some mechanism to 

 force people to participate in the peer review. For example, on the 

 second NMFS Dissolved Gas Expert Panel meeting, the State, trib- 

 al agencies, along with the Fish Passage Center were invited to 



