pect, but also on the part of the State agencies concerned, State forest services, the forest industries, the conservation organizations, and our cooperating group, the U.S. Forest Service, with which we work very closely to be sure that all of the research is carefully coordinated. Mr. WHITTEN. Dr. Kaufert, thank you for your statement. I would like for you to provide for the record the institutions that have qualified and what the situation is with regard to the States that are presently cooperating. (The information requested follows:) LIST OF INSTITUTIONS CERTIFIED FOR PARTICIPATION-MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 87-788) Delaware: University of Delaware University of Illinois Southern Illinois University Louisiana State University School Department of Forestry, Louisiana Maine: University of Maine chusetts Michigan: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan Technological University. 30-087-64-pt. 2- 21 Vermont: Vermont Agricultural Expe- West Virginia: West Virginia Univerriment Station sity Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic In- Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, University of Washington, Seattle man Mr. WHITTEN. You might tell us briefly a little of your background. Dr. KAUFERT. I am in forestry by training and have worked in research administration in the U.S. Forest Service and State agencies, and for about 17 years since World War II have been at the University of Minnesota. I have worked in, I think, practically all of the States in the country in one capacity or another in forestry, and I have enjoyed the experience of working in the Mississippi Delta which I did one time, as well as in most of the country, except in the Northeast. I have been with the Cooperative State Research Service only since last September, and this was because of my deep interest in the act. I think that this is one of the most remarkable things that has happened to forestry research in its history, and I have been close to it for years. We have needed some kind of a stimulation. I think this is giving it to us. It is a start. COOPERATIVE APPROACH TO FORESTRY RESEARCH Mr. WHITTEN. I am glad to hear you say that. This program will be handled by our own subcommittee. Some years ago this subcommittee handled the whole forestry appropriation. When this committee did handle the regular forestry appropriation we were the ones that provided the language which enabled the forestry department to enter into partnership agreements for research with private industry. It proved very beneficial, and subsequently the legislative committee brought it forward as an act from that committee, though it was already permanent law. We followed that through the years and we can fully realize the advantages. Even in the private companies, if they contribute to the project they will have something to say about the work to be done. Secondly, industry's share is tax deductible. The overall problem that we have is the matter of whether it is better to do research in a federally owned and operated institution with Federal funds only, or whether it is better to do it through a cooperative arrangement with land-grant colleges and State experiment stations or through a cooperative agreement between the Government and the industry. From my standpoint, if you have a cooperative approach it gives you a degree of protection. If the local people put up 50 percent of the money, it is a sign that they have some interest in the research. Secondly, it gives them a chance to see that the work is what they think is important rather than what somebody here might tell them. There are still other areas where the problem is so great that you need to go all out to get the job done. In recent years we have built federally owned and operated research facilities to the point that I have had several extension directors express some concern that in the process we may be weakening the old approach of having a cooperative research program in the various States. I think we do have to be careful that we do not get this situation out of balance. So I, for one, have been glad to see this cooperative approach brought into this area. Dr. BYERLY. Mr. Chairman, may I remark at this point that the cooperation of the Forest Service in establishing this program has been exemplary. They have been most helpful. They were even helpful, I think, in persuading Dean Kaufert to come down and help us get it started. Mr. WHITTEN. Dr. Byerly, I wonder how Harvard and the University of Minnesota are getting along since this administration came in. The Secretary is from Minnesota and the late President was from Harvard-I just wondered how the institutions were doing now. Dr. BYERLY. Well, perhaps I could phrase it this way. Minnesota thinks they are doing all right. Mr. WHITTEN. Well, they have a friend at court, I am sure of that. Dr. Kaufert, we thank you again for your presentation. REVIEW AND COORDINATION OF STATE RESEARCH Dr. BYERLY. With your permission, I would like for Dr. Knoblauch to report briefly on the activities of the Cooperative State Research Service per se, and then I would like to return to the general program. Mr. WHITTEN. Proceed in that order. Dr. KNOBLAUCH. Thank you. This committee has expressed a continuing interest in procedures used by scientists and administrators at the State agricultural experiment stations and by the Cooperative State Research Service, representing the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the use of available resources of scientific manpower, funds and research facilities in the most effective manner. Before outlining recently established procedures for research_review and evaluation I would like to indicate to the committee that two basic elements have been an established part of the procedure for administration by the Cooperative State Research Service of the program of research under the Hatch Experiment Station Act. These are: (1) No funds can be expended on a research project until it has been received from the State station and approved by the Depart ment. (2) Every State station now has a complete inventory of the research being carried on by every other station. We feel that this is an essential part of research communication if there is to be effective coordination between stations. In addition, through the cooperation of Dr. Shaw of the Agricultural Research Service, every State station and major Federal research laboratory soon will have a complete inventory of U.S. Department of Agriculture and State station research. Mr. Chairman, this is relevant to the comment you made regarding the need for keeping current on what is going on in other areas, and too, having this inventory available so scientists will be able to know of new research work that is initiated in other locations. I would submit for the record the detailed statement and give you just a brief outline of the major points remaining in the rest of the statement. During the past year and a half concentrated effort has been directed to improved research review and evaluation procedures by the Cooperative State Research Service. Research quality improvement and productivity is a major responsibility of the station directors and scientists. The Cooperative State Research Service shares this responsibility and is always exploring ways in which assistance can be made more effective to accomplish improved research programs. There are various types of research reviews and evaluations that are carried out. One is the program and fiscal review. In the State experiment station service we have divided the Nation into five regions and have designated one senior staff member as a research review director for a region, and he carries out a detailed review of the station program on a Department level once every 2 years. He is accompanied by a fiscal person from the Office of Management Services who carries on a review of the fiscal expenditures under the supervision of the research review director from the Cooperative State Research Service. The next area, or the major aspect of the program review, is for the Cooperative State Research Service to assist the Director in the planning and coordination of the program of research between stations and between stations and the USDA and to assist the Director in any technical or financial questions that may need to be resolved. The major component of this review is the self-evaluation that precedes the actual review by the department heads and station scientists. It also provides for the cooperation and future planning that are to be major parts of the review. The fiscal review is primarily to determine that proper charges have been made against the proposed research. It is not an audit. The next area of review is that carried on by subject matter specialists, and this essentially involves a scientist-to-scientist review of the research underway. We use our limited staff where they can serve in the area of their greatest competence. In this scientist-to-scientist review the State station scientist feels that he has a better opportunity to express his research problems and needs to someone who is knowledgeable on the research that he is performing. This review is carried out in connection with the program and fiscal reviews. Again we come back to the essential framework of providing a basis for communication among scientists and an evaluation of research by scientists who are competent in the area. Throughout all of the reviews, the emphasis is on research quality, cooperation, and coordination. We have discussed with you in previous years a program that was initiated in 1956, which we call comprehensive research reviews. Dr. Brady referred to it briefly in regard to a review in North Carolina. This is a program wherein we hire a limited number of outside consultants. These comprehensive reviews are very penetrating by recognized scientists. About 15 to 20 different research areas are reviewed in 1 year. The review usually lasts about 1 week, and the members of the Cooperative State Research Service staff serve as executive secretary of each group and as a technical consultant in the review. During the past year with the cooperation of the State experiment station directors we have conducted a further study to determine the research, evaluation, and review procedures that were used by the State stations themselves. For most of the stations, prior to the submission of a project, there is a review in the Department, and in many there is also a thorough review by the station director's staff. The primary objective of all of these reviews and evaluations, regardless of the detail of procedure used, is again to improve the quality of the research. A major responsibility associated with all reviews and evaluations is that they do not impose on the scientist's time but direct attention to ways in which his efficiency and research productivity can be increased. Effective procedures by the State experiment station, the Cooperative State Research Service, and research scientists for planning and coordination represent a continuing challenge. They must be developed and operate so as to encourage creativity which is an essential component for research progress. If I may have the detailed statement put in the record, this completes my summary, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to have the detailed statement submitted for the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF H. C. KNOBLAUCH, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE, ON COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this committee has expressed a continuing interest in procedures used by scientists and administrators at the State agricultural experiment stations and by the Cooperative State Research Service, representing the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the use of available resources of scientific manpower, funds, and research facilities in the most effective manner. Before outlining recently established procedures for research review and evaluation I would like to indicate to the committee that two basic elements have been an established part of the procedure for administration by the Cooperative State Research Service of the program of research under the Hatch Experiment Station Act. These are: (1) No funds can be expended on a research project until it has been received from the State station and approved by the Department. (2) Every State station now has a complete inventory of the research being carried on by every other station. We feel that this is an essential part of research communication if there is to be effective coordination between stations. In addition, through the cooperation of Dr. Shaw of the Agricultural Research Service, every State station and major Federal research laboratory soon will have a complete inventory of U.S. Department of Agriculture and State station research. Beyond the use at the State stations and Federal laboratories, our technical staff uses the plans of research (form 20) and annual progress reports on research in connection with review of projects prior to approval and when various research reviews are made at the State stations by our Service. This inventory is used to eliminate possible areas of duplication and to bring about coordination. In addition, the Cooperative State Research Service Staff reviews all U.S. Department of Agriculture line projects to assist in coordination between the States and the Department. RESEARCH REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES During the past year the State experiment station directors and the Cooperative State Research Service have given special consideration to the development of improved procedures for research review and evaluation. Efficient use |