Citation
Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: a special report of OTA's assessment on emerging agricultural technology: issues for the 1990s

Material Information

Title:
Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: a special report of OTA's assessment on emerging agricultural technology: issues for the 1990s
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
52 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture -- Research -- United States ( LCSH )
Agriculture -- United States -- Technology transfer ( LCSH )
Agriculture and state -- United States ( LCSH )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
This report addresses the central issues in the debate of the 1990 Farm Bill. It was requested as part of a larger study examining emerging agricultural technologies and related issues for the 1990s by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
Classification:
Y 3.T 22/2:2 Ag 8/4 ( sudocs )

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s March 1990 OTA-F-448 NTIS order #PB90-219981

PAGE 2

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTAs Assessment on Emerging Agricultural Technology-Issues for the 1990s, OTA-F-448 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990). For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

PAGE 3

Foreword Agricultural research and technology transfer policy will be a major subject of debate in the 1990 Farm Bill. The debate will likely focus on the level and type of Federal appropriations for and the planning and control of agricultural research and extension. This report addresses the central issues in that debate. It was requested as part of a larger study examining emerging agricultural technologies and related issues for the 1990s by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture. Although the study will not be completed until later this year, some findings from the study, provided in this report, are relevant to specific legislation regarding agricultural research and technology transfer that will be debated and acted upon in Congress. In the course of preparing this report, OTA drew on the experience of many individuals. In particular, we appreciate the efforts of the projects consultants and contractors and the assistance of all the workshop participants who spent two days in September discussing issues and policy alternatives. We would also like to acknowledge the help of the numerous reviewers who helped ensure the accuracy of our analysis. It should be understood, however, that OTA assumes full responsibility for the content of this report. ( JOHN H GIBBON S Director Ill

PAGE 4

OTA Project Staff-Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager Michael J. Phillips, Project Director Marie Walsh, Analyst Laura Dye, Research Assistant Carl-Joseph DeMarco, Research Assistant Susan Wintsch, Editor Administrative and Support Staff Nathaniel Lewis, Office Administrator Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary Carolyn Swarm, PC Specialist

PAGE 5

Contents Page Chapter 1. Summary ......................................... Issue Areas for the Research and Extension System . . . . . . Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . ........................00. Chapter2. Overview Mission . . . . . . . Planning . . . . . . . Priority Setting . . . . . . Structure . . . . . ........0 Funding . . . . . . . and Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer Status Quo Alternative . . . . . . . National Research and Extension Policy Alternative . Competitive Grants Alternative . . . . . AppendixA. Glossary of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00..... .*.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AppendixB. Agricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables . . . . AppendixC. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 6 9 11 12 13 15 16 18 21 27 28 29 36 40 42 47 49 Tables 3-1. Research Priorities, Extension Priorities and Joint Council Priorities . . 18 B-1. Federal Expenditures by State for Agricultural Forestry, and Veterinary Research and Development, As Reported by CRIS, FY86 (in dollars) . 42 B-2. Federal Expenditures by State for Agricultural Forestry, and Veterinary Research and Development As Reported by CRIS,FY88 (in dollars) . 44 B-3. Top 10 State Agricultural Experiment Stations with Biotechnology Funds from Federal Sources Other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture for FY 1986 and 1988 (in dollars) . . . . . . . . . 46 Figures 4-1. Current Organizational Structure for Agricultural Research and Extension . 28 4-2. Organizational Structure for National Research and Extension Policy Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4-3. Organizational Structure for Competitive Grants Alternative . . . . 37 v

PAGE 6

Chapter 1 Summary A new agenda is emerging for American agriculture in the 1990s, and there are serious questions as to whether the current agricultural research and extension system can respond effectively. Agriculture is changing in at least two distinct ways. First, agricultural research is broadening beyond its traditional focus on increasing production, and more recently on competitiveness, to also address issues of food safety and environmental quality. Technology to increase production in the future will be developed with increased attention to food safety and the environment. Second, agriculture is entering a new technological era the biotechnology and information technology era that holds great promise for enhancing productivity, producing a safe food supply, and sustaining the environment. Concern is growing that the traditional agricultural research and extension (AR&E) system, if unchanged, maybe bypassed by the broadening research base and emerging technologies. Already one-third or more of Federal funding of agricultural research is granted by Federal agencies outside the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and non-USDA funding for research is expected to increase significantly. Ten of the 57 state agricultural experiment stations received 75 percent of the Federal funds for biotechnology research from agencies other than USDA. It is noteworthy that these 10 experiment stations are those that have basic science departments within the associated colleges of Agriculture. Unimportant prerequisite for researchers in biotechnology is training in basic fields that underpin this technology (e.g., cellular physiology, biochemistry, genetics). These disciplines are generally lacking in colleges of Agriculture. Approximately 40 percent of the Ph.D. s currently working in agricultural research did not graduate from a college of Agriculture. All this implies that a broader base for agricultural research and its funding is evolving. But the research and technology transfer system is not well structured or coordinated and this could lead to serious problems. Without a close working relationship between basic and applied researchers on U.S. campuses and in Federal agencies, the lag time between the publication of basic scientific work and its adaptation into new technology will increase, damaging U.S. competitiveness. There is the additional risk that without strong links between researchers and practitioners, basic researchers might focus on problems irrelevant to agricultures needs or develop inappropriate approaches to perceived problems of agriculture. Faculty in fundamental sciences may not select problems meaningful to agriculture or design experiments that lead to readily adaptable solutions. Ultimately, the private sector could surpass a weak AR&E system. A strong, missionoriented AR&E system is needed to provide methods, products, and technologies to solve key agricultural problems. The United States cannot afford to have a public sector AR&E system falling behind the private sector and relegated to a role of simply reacting to, reviewing, or second guessing private sector research. ISSUE AREAS FOR THE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION SYSTEM The new agricultural agenda demands renewed and creative efforts to keep the AR&E system an effective and viable one for

PAGE 7

2. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s American agriculture. A review of the system points to concern in the following areas: 1. Mission: USDA lacks a statement of goals, action to achieve stated goals, and systems to evaluate results against desired outcomes. As a result, no succinct written statement of the mission or policies of the AR&E system, or of Science and Education seems to exist within USDA. Without missions or policies, organizations can only express vague plans and priorities. It is very difficult to express commitment to clientele in terms of programs. 2. Planning: Effective planning directs resources to priority programs, problems, and issues in a well-thought, orderly manner. Within Science and Education at USDA, there are no shortor long-term plans for coordinating the activities of SAES, ES, ARS, or NAL. Nor are there plans for coordinating Science and Education activities with those of other USDA agencies such as ERS, FS, or its regulatory agencies. A number of planning activities exist at state, multi-state, or regional levels, but they usually relate to program implementation. Sometimes plans are made by individual scientists or groups of scientists who have no authority over resources. Significant amounts of planning occur without necessary commitment of resources to set goals, implement plans, and measure progress. 3. Priority Sett ing: There is little specificity and clarity in stating priorities for the AR&E system. Within USDA no set Science and Education priorities exist. Individual S&E agencies have identified their own research and research-related priorities, and developed their own justifications without the benefit of close coordination among themselves. A number of advisory groups independently set priorities for the AR&E system. These include the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board, the Experiment Station Committee on Policy, the Resident Instruction Committee on Policy, the International Committee on Policy, and the Extension Committee on Policy. However, there is no mechanism for reaching overall consensus. Stated needs for research and extension funding and for renovating facilities or replacing equipment are not prioritized. 4. Structu re: Structure should facilitate the carrying out of mission, planning, and priority setting of the AR&E system. The present decentralized system is composed of Federal, state, and local partners. As research and extension budgets have declined, there has been increasing competition and division both within S&E at USDA and within universities. Little cooperation exists between many colleges of Agriculture and other colleges such as Arts and Sciences within the same university. In addition, new structures are evolving outside the traditional AR&E system as new technology is developed and transferred to the private sector for use. Extensions knowledge base, which has traditionally been drawn from the state experiment stations, has not kept pace with todays scientific advances. Extension runs the risk of being left out of the research and problem applications loop in the future. 5 Funding: There is evidence that the AR&E system is inadequately funded. Congress, however, will not increase fund-

PAGE 8

Ch. 1Summary .3 ing as long as it considers the systems justification for additional funds to be inadequate. Until problems of mission, planning, priority setting, and structure are resolved, determining the adequacy of Federal funding will be difficult. ALTERNATIVE POLICIES FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OTA has identified a clear need for the AR&E system to have a well-articulated and coordinated research and technology transfer policy and proposes three alternatives: l l l Status Quo Alternative: Continuation of the current policy as implemented under the 1985 farm bill. National Research and Extension Policy Alternative: Development of a larger Federal role in planning to align more closely research to end-user needs, without necessarily anticipating large increases in aggregate funding levels. Competitive Grants Alternative: Substantially increase the level of competitive grants research while continuing current levels of formula funding and/or appropriated funding for research and extension. Status Quo Alternative Based on the findings in this report and those of previous OTA reports dealing with the AR&E system, the likely consequences of the Status Quo Alternative are: 1. The new era of biotechnology and information technology will likely bypass the traditional AR&E system. A minority of the land-grant universities will compete effectively as technological advances are made in this new era. 2. 3. 4. 5. Without a clearly enunciated missionoriented policy, the AR&E system will continue to lack direction. Planning and priority setting will continue to be ineffective, with no assurance of follow-through on initiatives and/or recommendations of the Joint Council and/or Users Advisory Board. The AR&E system will continue to be rigidly structured and resistant to change. Increased emphasis by land-grant universities and USDA on basic research, combined with accelerated technical change and continued neglect of applied research needs, will continue to widen the knowledge gap between research and extension. National Research and Extension Policy Alternative The National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a mission-oriented approach designed to increase the AR&E systems responsiveness to the needs of the food and agriculture system. The major components of this system include: l l l A clearly enunciated mission-oriented AR&E policy. A restructured, integrated an d coordinated AR&E planning system. A combination of formula and competitive grant funds consistent with the conclusions of the planning system. AR&E Policy The first, and perhaps the most important component of the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a statement of clearly enunciated policy supported by the Secretary of Agriculture. It will emphasize that:

PAGE 9

4 l AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s Research and extension will be integral to carrying out all aspects of agricultural, food, trade and rural policy. The research and extension functions of USDA will be operated according to a comprehensive and coordinated plan. These functions willbe mission-orientedwith significant user influence on the planning process as well as on the resulting research and education programs. The research and technology transfer functions will be carried out by those scientists/institutions deemed to be the most competent, capable and efficient in achieving mission-oriented objectives. Research and Extension Policy Planning System The proposed policy statement implies a user-oriented research and extension system that places increased emphasis on competitive grants in research and extension programs. The key operating components include: Users Advisory Council (UAC) Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board (ASEPB) Technical Panels Existing research and extension agencies Federal research and extension planning activities would be operationally centered in ASEPB, even though the planning process itself would begin in the UAC, in keeping with the userand mission-oriented basis of the system. Research and extension agencies at the Federal, state, and local levels would also have planning functions. Users Advisory Council. UAC would be independent of USDA and its role would be expanded considerably beyond that of the current Users Advisory Board (UAB). Its primary functions would include: Identification of important research and technology transfer problems. (Same as UAB) Development of recommendations on goals and funding levels. (Expanded role) Coordination of industry support for agricultural research and extension at the Federal level. (Expanded role) Evaluation of results. (Expanded role) UAC board members would be elected to represent, and would serve at the pleasure of: private agribusiness firms and associations; farmers and farm organizations; public interest groups; foundations; and government action agencies. Each major group could include specialized segments. For example, agribusiness might include a representative from suppliers of inputs, food processors, and exporters. The total membership on UAC probably should not exceed 25. Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board. ASEPB would be the research and technology transfer planning center for USDA. It would be chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education and would include the following members who would be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, or other relevant agency head in the case of NIH and NSF: l l l l Administrator of each USDA research and technology transfer agency (ARS, CSRS, ERS, ES, FS, NAL) Assistant Secretary for Economics ESCOP chairman or designated representative (experiment station representative) ECOP chairman or designated representative (extension representative)

PAGE 10

Ch. 1Summa~. 5 RICOP chairman or designatedre representative (resident instruction representative) One 1890 university dean or designated representative AASCARR chairman or designated representative (nonland-grant representative) NIH director or designated representative NSF director or designated representative ASEPB Functions. ASEPB would manage the Federal research and extension mission-oriented planning process, and oversee the allocation of grants for research and technology transfer functions. Specific functions include: l l l l l l Establishment of Goals Establishment of Priorities Maintenance of Intelligence System Creation of Technical Panels Assignment of Responsibility Evaluation of Results AR&E Funding Funding initiatives would come directly from ASEPB and from UAC. Since the Secretary would overtly adopt the ASEPB policy, he/she should be more inclined to support the recommendations of ASEPB within the Administration and the Congress. Likely Consequences of the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative l A basis would exist for effective AR&E planning in a mission-oriented context. In contrast to the present system, research funding would be allocated to programs, not agencies. l l l l l l The argument that too much planning already exists stems largely from the ineffectiveness of current planning and follow-through. The USDA would have an internally consistent AR&E policy. The Secreta~ of Agriculture would be directly involved in establishing and endorsing AR&E policy. Multidisciplinary research would likely grow. Increased integration o f biological (CSRS, FS and ARS) and economic (ERS) research would occur through ASEPB, UAC and the technical panels. The use of formula funds and competitive grants would be more balanced. Potential would exist for increased concentration of research and extension at specific locales within the system. This is occurring now, but the process would likely accelerate under this alternative. A mechanism would exist through the ffectif UAC for increased and more effective user input into AR&E decisions. Potential would exist for increased financial support for the AR&E system with improved planning, priority setting, and balance between research and extension. Competitive Grants Alternative The Competitive Grants Alternative was developed by the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. This proposal recommends: Establishing a $500 million agriculture, food, and environment competitive research grants program within USDA. It would en-

PAGE 11

6 l Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s compass all science and technology relevant to research needs for agriculture, food, and environment, from basic biology to social sciences and public policy. Grants would be open to researchers in public and private universities and colleges, not-for-profit institutions, and research agencies of the state and Federal government. Major emphasis would be placed on fundamental and missionlinked multidisciplinary research. Missionlinked multidisciplinary funding would be designed to facilitate application of knowledge and the transfer of technology to the user through joint research-extension studies. Other recommendations include: l Provision of researchstrengtheninggrantsto institutions and individuals. An increase in the duration and size of grants. l Continuation of present levels of formula funds and USDA agency support forresearch or extension. Maintaining the Joint Council and UAB structure and the overall planning process now in place. Differences Between the Competitive Grants Alternative and the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative The Competitive Grants Alternative would place less emphasis on planning than the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative, which would make planning the driving force of the AR&E system. The primary emphasis and driving force in the Competitive Grants Alternative is more money for research; it assumes that a lack of adequate research funding is the major problem with the AR&E system. Structural problems in implementing a mission-oriented research and extension program are instead highlighted under the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative. The Competitive Grants Alternative places virtually all of its emphasis on research. In short, it is a research proposal whereas the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a research and extension proposal. Likely Consequences of the Competitive Grants Alternative l l l l l l More funds would be available to all public and private universities and government research agencies able to compete on a scientific basis. This would greatly accelerate agricultural research, rates of discovery and technological change without changing formula fund support. Potential for dealing with complex multidisciplinary problems would increase. While funds would be available for strengthening grants, this proposal would inevitably lead to increased concentration of research talent. The basic/applied research gap could be reduced. However, neglect of technology transfer as a target for grant funds would inevitably lead to a serious gap between research and extension. No changes would be made to improve the planning system or the linkage between planning and execution. Nothing assures that funds will be allocated to the UAB and Joint Council-determined priorities. The drain of the best scientific talent away from extension would accelerate as more funds become available for research. CONCLUSIONS Three alternatives have been described and the likely consequences of instituting each identified. It will be difficult for the

PAGE 12

Ch. 1Summa~ l 7 current AR&E system to be effective in meeting the challenges facing American agriculture in the 1990s. In this regard, either of the other two alternatives represents an improvement over the Status Quo Alternative. Questions remain as to whether a responsive mission-oriented system could be achieved by major structural change as implied by the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative, by increased research funding as implied by the Competitive Grants Alternative, or by a combination of the two. It is clear that without increased appropriations, structural change of the type contemplated by the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative will be required to obtain a mission-oriented system. Increased mission-orientation and responsiveness could be realized by combining structural change with more competitive grant money. Imbalances between research and extension could be remedied by opening up the competitive grants process to the development and implementation of innovative extension programs. And, it seems likely that these improvements could be accomplished with a less than $500 million increase in appropriations for competitive grants.

PAGE 13

Chapter 2 Overview The U.S. food and agricultural sector enters the decade of the 1990s facing many new problems and issues that will challenge the agricultural research and extension (AR&E) system. A major focus of the system has been to increase productivity on a continual basis. In the decade of the 90s productivity will continue to be a concern, but additional concerns for food safety and for the environment will become equally important. Agricultural productivity gains are slowing throughout the world. The slowdown, however, is more pronounced in the United States than elsewhere (16). As the U.S. agricultural sector slips from global leadership, its role in strengthening the nations economy could decline. At the same time, however, consumers domestically and abroad are increasingly concerned about the safety of the food supply, and demand is growing for more emphasis on producing a safe and nutritious food supply at relatively low cost. There is also increasing concern that gains in agricultural productivity not come at the expense of the environment or of biological and genetic diversity. Contaminants from a variety of current agricultural practices negatively affect water quality; certain agricultural practices also contribute to the release of greenhouse gases, possibly changing global atmosphere. Meeting the challenges posed by these broadening concerns will require an AR&E system with an effective national strategy. It will also require advances in science and technology of a scale and scope the system has not previously experienced. Fortunately, the food and agricultural sector stands on the threshold of a new technological era the biotechnology and information technology era. This represents the third major technological era of the century following the mechanical era (1920-1950) and the chemical era (1950-1985). Biotechnology (recombinant DNA, cell biology, genetic manipulation) and information technology (artificial intelligence, expert systems, computers, networks) hold great promise for solving problems in the food and agriculture sector. A pressing question is whether the AR&E system is capable of capturing the potential these new technologies promise. The development of these promising technologies will require a different environment than that of previous technological eras. Agricultural scientists will need to thoroughly understand the basic science underlying the technology and the AR&E system will have to be flexible and adaptive. This report focuses on two major challenges to the AR&E system: 1) a broadening of problems to solve and 2) the advent of new technologies for solving these problems. The report identifies the problems these challenges bring to the system and concludes with a set of alternatives for structuring a national agricultural research and technology transfer policy that will help the system meet the needs of the next decade. 9

PAGE 14

Chapter 3 Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension The twin forces of a broadening of research problems facing American agriculture and the advent of a new era in technology pose significant challenges to the research and extension system. Can the system readily adapt to this new agenda? Evidence exists that it will be difficult. For example, researchers who want to adopt plant-cell biotechnology need education and training in the basic fields that underpin this technology. Cellular physiology, biochemistry, genetics, and microbiology are not generally found within colleges of agriculture at landgrant universities. This problem in agricultural education notwithstanding, the application of biotechnology to agriculture will proceed at a rate commensurate with its benefits and with the abilities of the private sector to market a product both in the United States and elsewhere. Because many businesses are now global, adoption rates will be similar worldwide (18). There are several indications that adoption of biotechnology may bypass the traditional agricultural research and extension system if changes are not made: 1. At least one-third of the Federal funding of agricultural research is granted by Federal agencies outside of USDA (Appendix Tables B-1 and B-2). Therefore, USDA is no longer viewed as the only agriculture research-granting agency. 2. Ten of the 57 state agriculture experiment stations received the bulk of Federal funds for biotechnology from research agencies other than the USDA (Appendix Table B3). These 10 experiment stations are the 3. 4. same ones that have basic science depart ments within the associated colleges o agriculture. A direct relationship seems to exist between an institutions ability to cap ture Federal grants for biotechnology and the strength of its basic science com ponent. A survey in 1987 concluded that 40 percer of the Ph.D.'s working in agricultural re search did not graduate from a college c agriculture. At least 8,000 active agricul tural scientists earned Ph.D.s outside c applied agricultural disciplines (12). The agriculture private sector seems to b granting more research funds to educa tional institutions other than colleges c Agriculture. Land-grant universities ar receiving funds for basic science researc but most recipients are faculty in the co lege of Arts and Sciences, not faculty i colleges of Agriculture (9). An argument can be made that this situa tion does not need fixing, that a much broade base for agricultural research is evolving However, this is risky. There is a lag tim between the publication of basic scientif work and its development into a technolog by applied agricultural public and private se tor researchers. Without a close workin relationship between basic scientists and al plied researchers on U.S. campuses and i Federal agencies, information transfer an technology development will be no faster her than anywhere else researchers read basi scientific journals. The United States will no obtain a lead-time advantage for its inves ment without on-campus or inter-agency in tegration of basic and applied research, an technology transfer that operates in partner ship with research development. 27-690 90 2 : QL 3

PAGE 15

12 l Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s In addition, scientists unfamiliar with agriculture may work on problems irrelevant to agricultures needs or develop inappropriate approaches to solving the problems of agriculture. Faculty in fundamental sciences are not necessarily concerned with practical applications of their research and experiments, and they are frequently unaware of the real needs of agriculture. A strong, responsive agricultural research and technology transfer system is also needed to complement private sector research. The research investment by the private sector is substantial today, and the private sector operates quite independently of the landgrant and USDA research establishment. The United States cannot afford to have a public sector research component that lags behind the private sector, one relegated to a role of simply reacting to, reviewing, or second guessing private sector research. What is needed is a publicly supported system that provides new methods, products and technologies. For one thing, the private sector will use biotechnology primarily to protect and extend its investment in current products. This is a natural and predictable response. Little incentive exists for a chemical company to develop a plant that needs few chemical inputs. Similarly, little incentive exists for a seed company to develop a plant with drought tolerance but reduced yield. This is merely to recognize the purpose of business and the need to protect shareholder values. Publicly supported research needs to provide the technical foundation for a continuous new array of technologies to reduce input costs, to develop new uses of existing crops as well as new crops, and to help make agriculture more environmentally benign. THE FUNCTIONS AND CHALLENGES OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION Providing a strong public sector research and extension system means focusing on the continuum of technological change. The process of achieving technological change in agriculture involves three basic steps, each a component of the research and extension system: 1. basic researchdiscovery of new knowledge, concepts, and relationships; 2. applied and developmental research: l l l development of ideas, concepts, and relationships into products (outputs of technology); adaptation of new technologies to various agroecosystems; and maintenance of newly achieved productivity in the face of evolvingpests, disease, decline in soil fertility, and other factors (sometimes referred to as maintenance research). 3. adoption of products or processes (transfer of technology). Discovery is the primary function of basic research. Most basic research has traditionally been done in the public sector. There seems to be a general assumption that the private sector will not support sufficient amounts of high risk basic agricultural research because that research is unlikely to yield a near term payoff. However, this assumption is now being challenged by large private sector investments in biotechnology and information technology.

PAGE 16

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challenging AgricuhuralRe search and Extension l 13 Developmental and applied research is conducted by both the public and private sectors. The marked increase in the quantity of applied private sector research has led some to suggest that the public sector support for agricultural research might logically be reduced. Such a suggestion, however, is overly simplistic. Most private sector applied research is aimed at development of ideas, concepts, and relationships into new products. The private sector directs little effort to the adaptation of new technologies to a specific agroecosystem or to defense of newly achieved productivity gains (maintenance research) (14, 17). The function of encouraging technology adoption traditionally has been shared by the public and private sectors. In the public sector, extension educators work directly with farmers to test and demonstrate the usefulness of new products. Private firms tend to concentrate their adoption strategies on more conventional promotion and advertising strategies. The effort and resources required to achieve a technological breakthrough, as a general rule, increase over time. This is true because the simpler problems naturally tend to be solved first. More difficult problems require more complex tools and analysis and, thus, a larger commitment in research and extension time, effort, and resources. This is becoming clear as agriculture enters the biotechnology era. To achieve the benefits of this era, large investments must be made in basic research and research techniques. Laboratories and equipment will be more complex and expensive. Scientists with modern biotechnology research skills must be trained for agricultural research, and existing agricultural scientists will need new training. Technology users will also have to be further educated if they wish to adopt and use the more complex new technologies effectively. The research and extension system thus faces numerous challenges. These evolve around five issue areas: mission, structure, planning, priority setting, and funding of the AR&E system. MISSION A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) review of USDA management found that the Secretary of Agriculture faces a formidable task: to mobilize a large work force in 36 USDA agencies to implement policies and programs under rapidly changing conditions in the face of many internal and external constraints. Despite dramatic changes in the food and agricultural sector, USDAs basic organizational structure has changed little. Its agencies are tradition bound and highly resistant to change. This rigidity and lack of flexibility, the report goes on to say, reduce the ability to redirect the allocation of scarce human and financial resources within the Department (22). UOSDAs stucture has served its clientele well m a period dominated by domestically oriented agricultural policies. However, when faced with more complex problems and changing international conditions, USDAs great size and structural diversity present problems. The agency will have difficulty directing the growing number of important cross-cutting issues that demand a higher degree of interagency, intergovernmental, and interdisciplinary cooperation than has previously been required. The GAO review concludes by stating that to begin to address these weaknesses, the Secretary needs to develop and clearly articulate an agenda for USDA focused on important cross-cutting issues and on improved management systems. The agenda should include a statement of 1) goals, 2) actions to

PAGE 17

14 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s achieve the stated goals, and 3) management systems to monitor implementation and evaluate results against desired outcomes. Without such an agenda, it is not surprising that no clearly defined or written mission or policies exist for the AR&E System, USDA Science and Education or related programs. Within USDA, individual research agencies have mission statements but most are not comprehensive. A mission statement should set out the goals and objectives of the organization and strategies to achieve them. Critical to any mission statement is a set of policies that define procedures, responsibilities, authorities, and operational factors that relate to the fulfillment of the mission and to day-to-day activities. There must also be a process for keeping the mission, policies, and clientele updated regularly. The mission statement for the Agricultural Research Service comes the closest to meeting these criteria. Perhaps because they lack similar statements, some agencies seem to be all things to all people. Without mission and policies, organizations can only express vague plans and priorities and it is difficult to define their clientele. The respective research organizations have a hard time understanding clearly the roles, responsibilities, and clientele of their sister organizations. Likewise, it is difficult for the public, industry, and technologytransfer organizations to understand and support agricultural research. A mission statement is critical for Extension. Currently, its programs encompass agriculture and natural resources, home economics, 4-H youth, and rural community development. As the number of U.S. farms decline and as urban populations expand, Extensions clientele has become more urban in its orientation. To many Extension has become an institution trying to be all things to all people. This development has led to friction between Extension and its traditional agriculture clientele in the 1980s (15). Congress in the 1985 Food Security Act directed a number of questions at the Cooperative Extension System. Among these were: a) what is Extensions mission and who are its clientele, b) how should Extension be organized and structured, c) what is its role in technology transfer and applied research, and d) how does Extension develop new educational methods to meet the needs of its traditional clientele on declining numbers of mid-size farms. These questions were particularly directed at state programs because they are responsible for program delivery. If Extension is to escape the "all things to all people label it will need to develop a mission statement and criteria that will limit its programs to definable priorities and goals. Extensions traditional focus has been agriculture and natural resources, and it is in these areas that Extension has made its greatest contributions in the past. As each state becomes more urban, Extension resources are increasingly drawn away from farmers and rural families. Extension must decide whether this trend will continue. If so, the programs displacing agriculture and natural resource programs should have the same quality research and knowledge base, and they should have a high probability of making an impact on high priority problems. Mission Issues In defining the mission of the AR&E system, USDA Science and Education and related programs several questions arise. Some of the them are: 1. Can mission statements and attendant policies related to research and extension be developed for USDA agencies (S&E, CSRS, ES, NAL) and other agencies receiving Federal funds?

PAGE 18

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension 2. How can the mission statement be used to assist in setting priorities, allocating resources, and defining clientele? 3. Who should be involved in development of specific missions, policies, and identification of clientele? 4. What management structure should be responsible for maintaining and updating mission and policies? PLANNING Effective planning allocates available resources to priority programs, problems, and issues. Within Science and Education at USDA no shortor long-term plans exist to coordinate the activities of SAES, ES, ARS or NAL (7). Nor are there plans to coordinate the activities of these agencies with those of other USDA agencies such as ERS, FS, or the regulatory agencies. For example, in the report Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain for International Trade, OTA identified research, extension, economic, marketing, transportation, and regulatory strategies to meet the goal of enhancing quality. But no apparent plans, incentives, or mechanisms exist for coordinating the expertise from Federal, state or private research and research-related groups to address international trade or similarly complex problems. Occasionally, agencies develop joint functional plans to address a problem. For example, there are joint plans involving ARS and ES in a technology transfer system. Similar planned programs between ARS and NAL relate to dynamic information storage and retrieval systems. ARS is the only S&E agency that has maintained an updated six year program plan that covers all research programs in the agency. This is complemented by a set of agency policies that assures the maintenance of a functional planning system. Science and Education at USDA has established a Board of Directors for the purpose of developing and approving plans for the allocation of competitive grants for national research initiatives within USDA (to be discussed later). The Board is comprised of the administrators of ARS, CSRS, ERS, ES, FS, and NAL; it is chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. This is clearly a step in the right direction for effective planning. It is, however, only for the purpose of allocating competitive grant funds. The Board does not address the planning and allocation of intramural and other grant funds in the system. It also does not formally coordinate with other Federal food and agriculture research funding agencies such as NIH and NSF. There are a number of planning activities at state, multi-state, or regional levels but these usually relate to program implementation, e.g., the Integrated Pest Management Program. Sometimes plans are made by individual scientists or groups of scientists without authority over resources. Commonly, there is a great deal of planning without the necessary commitment of resources for goal development, implementation, and monitoring. Plans are not effectively impacting key decision points locally or nationally. Extension has historically not been a topdown planning organization. Much planning is done at the local level through advisory committees. Hence, local priorities and needs have been expressed more than nation-

PAGE 19

16 l Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s al ones. National planning takes place as local and state needs are consolidated and incorporated into a framework of issues likely to receive national attention for funding. There has been little interactive planning between Federal and state partners (15). Planning Issues To develop effective planning within the AR&E system, a number of issues need to be addressed. They include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. How can meaningful shortand long-term plans for research and extension be developed? How can local and state priorities be adequately reflected in national issues? How can accountability be built into the planning process to assess progress towards goals and objectives? How can a multidisciplinary approach towards planning be accomplished? Can plans be developed that identify program changes (reduction or expansion) as budgets increase or decrease? What is the role of the Joint Council and Users Advisory Board in the planning process? Who (which groups or individuals) should be responsible for initiating planning? PRIORITY SETTING In a system that does not have a clearly defined mission or effective planning, it is not surprising to find a lack of specificity and clarity in stated priorities. Within USDA there are no set Science and Education priorities. Individual S&E agencies have identified their research and research related priorities independently of one another, and each has developed its own justification. A number of groups have laid out priorities for the system, including the Joint Council, Users Advisory Board, Experiment Station Committee on Policy, Extension Committee on Policy, and Resident Instruction Committee on Policy among others; but no explicit agreement exists among them nor was it sought. No priorities are assigned the stated needs for research and extension funding, facility renovations and new equipment. Within S&E, no apparent efforts have been made to set broad priorities (such as export marketing, or conversely, conservation of resources), or to prioritize sub-problems (such as food safety or soil erosion). In addition, problems have not been defined in terms of measurable goals. Thus, recognition of water quality as a problem has not led to questions like how can nitrate levels in well water be reduced by 25 percent by 1993? And there is little, if any, indication of the program changes that would be necessitated by lack of funding. Extensions response to the concerns raised in the 1985 Food Security Act (discussed earlier) was a strong attempt to develop priorities. The effort was sponsored jointly by Extension Service and the Extension Committee on Policy (ECOP). It emphasized the efficiency, accountability, and clarity of Extensions mission and its goal of making innovative program changes to meet the issues of the 1990s. Issues were identified with input from clientele and Extension staff across the United States. A number of hearings were held around the nation to secure additional input. The result of this process was the publication of the report Cooperative Extension System National Initiatives in conjunction with a national seminar that signaled Extensions commitment to the changes identified in the report and that outlined its plan of action. The nine identified initiatives in the report encompass programs already offered by Extension. They identify critical issues and problems, describe what Extension will do,

PAGE 20

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension 17 provide potential impacts of successful implementation, and provide examples of model programs. The nine initiatives are well motivated and a step in the right direction. However, taken together they are too all-encompassing. The first and foremost concern is funding for initiative programs. It is highly unlikely that new Federal funds will be forthcoming in the near future because the executive and legislative branches are dealing with the difficult budget deficit problem. Many state and local governments face similar budgetary constraints. It may well be that funds will have to be reallocated to accomplish even part of the new initiatives, particularly if budgets decline. Another concern is that no process exists to reallocate funds to the most critical issues. Currently, all nine initiatives are treated with equal weight. Some mechanism is needed to force priority setting among and within initiatives and to reallocate resources to those of higher priority. The initiatives assume that local priorities are the same as national ones. Criteria and mechanisms are also needed to balance local and state priorities with national ones and to resolve differences if conflicts arise. A critical question is whether these initiatives are intended to direct resources from a national viewpoint or merely to provide a descriptive framework into which states can fit their self-determined programs. In the absence of a mechanism to force action in guiding and planning resource use, the latter seems to be the outcome whether or not it is the intent. Questions arise about the specificity of the goals in several initiatives and about whether the impacts described can be measured in specific and meaningful terms. At present, no process exists to reevaluate priorities and reallocate resources to meet new and emerging priorities. Evaluations should estimate what impacts the initiatives have had and indicate whether goals have been reached and problems solved. They should serve as a basis for program adjustments or termination o: programs and reallocation of resources. This process is critical if the initiatives are to reach their full potential as a priority setting and planning tool. Because priority-setting efforts are uncoordinated within the AR&E system, extension and research priorities do not match well A comparison of the extension initiatives, research priorities and Joint Council priorities are shown in Table 3-1. Wadsworth (1989) concludes that ... over half of the Extension Initiatives will not be supported by research priorities. Wadsworth attributes the difference in priorities to the mismatch between the mission-orientation of extension and the disciplinary/basic research orientation of the experiment stations. There is evidence that the Joint Council attempted to bridge the gap between research and extension. It is not clear, however, what changes were made in either extension or research priorities after the Joint Council report was released. Priority-Setting Issues To develop clearly stated and specific priorities for the AR&E system, a number of questions arise. They include the following: 1. 2. 3. 1. Is it possible to develop a single set of national priorities for the research and extension system indicating the role, responsibilities, commitments and funding needs of each component? Should priority setting be a top-down, bottom-up or a peer determined process, or some combination of these? Can priorities be set for national, regional, or local needs without the benefit of clearly

PAGE 21

18 l AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s stated missions and policies for the research and extension system? 4. What mechanisms and criteria should be used to rank one priority over another? 5. How can national priorities be incorporated into state and local programs? 6. How can extension priorities be incorporated with those of agencies with research and education responsibilities? STRUCTURE Structure should facilitate the carrying out of mission, pl anning, and priority setting of any institution. It is important to ask from time to time what purpose an institution should serve and how best to structure it to fulfill that purpose. The present AR&E system is decentralized, being composed of Federal, state, and local partners. Decentralization has advantages and drawbacks. One advantage is responsiveness to local problems. However, a major drawback of a decentralized system is the difficulty of coordinating programs to address problems that extend beyond county, state, or regional boundaries. It is also difficult to evaluate local and state efforts in terms of national problems such as the competitiveness of the food and agriculture sector, improvement of the environment, and safety of the food supply. With a decentralized system, changes are not easily made at the national level. This may be in part because funding is partitioned into Federal and state appropriations, formula funds, competitive grants, special grants, and private funding. Local organizations may also resist structures and courses of action that are seen as weakenTable 3-l-Research Priorities, Extension Priorities, and Joint Council Priorities NARC Research Priorities Extension Priorities Joint Council priorities Water Quantity and Quality Biotechnology Genetically Improved Plants Soil Productivity Pest Management Food Processing and Preservation Agricultural Product Diversification Animal Efficiency in Food Production Animal Health and Disease Food and Nutritional Health Water Quality Competitiveness and Profitability of American Agriculture Improving Nutrition, Diet and Health Revitalizing Rural America Alternative Agriculture Opportunities Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Family and Economic Well Being Building Human Capital Youth at Risk Improve Water Quality and Quantity Enhance Competitiveness of Agriculture improve Understanding of Diet, Human Nutrition and Health Relationships Enhance Rural Economic Development Expand Biotechnology and Its Applications Develop Agricultural Production Systems Compatible With the Environment Genetically Improve Economically Important Plants Improve Safety and Quality of Food Products Investigate Potential Effects of Global Climate Changes on Agricultural and Forest Productivity Nurture the Nations Talent Base in Food and Agricultural Sciences Enhance Control of Agricultural and Forests Pests and Diseases Develop New and Expanded Uses For Agricultural Products Source: Wadsworth, H. A., opportunities for Public Policy Education in the Extension Initiatives. September 1989, and Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, Fiscal Year 199 1 Priorities for Research. Extension. and Higher Edu cation, June 1989.

PAGE 22

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challening Agricultural Research and Extension .19 ing local control or as potentially less responsive to perceived local needs. There has been increasing competition and division within the historical management structure of the research complex. The situation has worsened as research budgets have declined, both within S&E at USDA and within universities. Little cooperation exists between ARS, CSRS, and ES within USDA and many colleges of Agriculture rarely cooperate with other colleges such as Arts and Sciences within the same university (7, 9). This problem might be solved by prioritizing problems of national significance and strengthening those structures, mechanisms, and policies that facilitate the effective allocation of resources to solving those problems. Mechanisms will also be needed to preserve the strength of local and state programs and provide enhanced support and leadership from the Federal level. New structures and mechanisms for technology development and transfer to the private sector are evolving outside the AR&E system. This is having an impact on the system. Extensions knowledge base traditionally has been drawn from the state experiment stations. This knowledge base is shrinking as state experiment stations and the USDA Agricultural Research Service place increased emphasis on basic research (15, 17). As biotechnology is becoming more important in research, considerable sums of venture capital have been invested in private biotechnology firms for development of new products. All of this has left Extension out of the research and problem applications loop. Changes in technology and technology development are taking place very rapidly. Technology is international in scope and there is fierce competition for control. It is imperative to reexamine and reevaluate the structures and mechanisms that tie Extension to research and technology development in the public as well as the private sector. Extensions relationships with the private sector need to be reexamined if Extension is to link itself to the emerging mechanisms that will control the development of new technology and knowledge. In particular, Extension needs to be involved in the commercialization of new technologies and knowledge, not only for the purpose of identifying new products and concepts that could be used in education programs, but also to assist actively in testing, evaluation, and directing these products and concepts to critical problems and issues. Much research is of no use until it is transferred into a usable product that can be incorporated into a strategy for solving a problem. Extension can and should be of valuable assistance in this process. The 1985 Food Security Act clarified the role of extension in conducting applied research. Although much applied research is being conducted by extension professional staff, with more planned, resistance has been encountered from Federal Extension and experiment station directors who believe that this is not an appropriate role for extension. In any case, the adequacy of resources for this purpose is questionable. An applied research component to Extension is essential, however, if its programs are to be integrated with research developments. The role of applied research in enhancing cooperation between experiment stations and extension services was addressed by a joint Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) in 1988. It concluded that an applied research component would allow Extension to link new technologies and knowledge with its education programs. It recommended that: a. The College of Agriculture or equivalent units at land grant universities develop

PAGE 23

20 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s b. c. d. mechanisms to enhance joint program development, planning, priority setting, and evaluation. These should include but not be limited to task forces, budget initiatives, and publications/media programs. The use of joint appointments between experiment station and extension be further encouraged. The ultimate basis for coordination, integration, and quality control of extension research be formal projects subjected to the same peer review and evaluation and reporting requirements as those of experiment stations. The extension efforts of experiment station scientists be integrated into extension planning and priority setting mechanisms and be subjected to peer review and reporting requirements as are other extension programs. Extension personnel need further training if they are to understand and use the advances in biotechnology and information technology in developing programs for clientele. Structural changes are also needed to bring Extension into the mainstream of development and dissemination of research results. Today, Extension is segregated from the new structures and mechanisms that are shaping the development of new technologies (15). Finally, Federal Extensionss role in leading and coordinating the AR&E system and, in particular, the ability of Federal Extension to direct resources to national priorities, needs to be reevaluated. Changes will be needed in budgeting, planning, and evaluation if national goals and priorities are to be met, thus justifying continued expenditures of Federal resources. There is also concern that Federal Extension is not taking the lead in facilitating technology transfer between USDA agencies with research programs and state Cooperative Extension programs, or between states. Information must be made available and shared in a coordinated way to assure increased efficiency in technology transfer (15). Extension has initiated joint appointments with other agencies. This concept is useful and could be extended, particularly with CSRS, ARS, and ERS where specific program areas need leadership in research and technology transfer. In addition, mechanisms for joint programming with other USDA and Federal agencies might be useful. Structure Issues To facilitate the structural changes needed for an effective AR&E system, a number of issues need to be addressed. Some of the issues are: 1. How can the integrity of separate agencies or research groups be retained while coordination of planning and other functions is improved? What alternatives exist? 2. What structure(s) will promote coordination of the various groups that contribute recommendations to S&E, e.g., Assistant Secretaries, industry groups, Crop Advisory Committees, CSRS, SAES, JC, UAB, ESCOP, ECOP, RICOP, NASULGC, NPSARS, BOA-NAS and others? Are all these groups needed? Does the structure foster excessive planning? 3. The structure seems to work well at the SAES-ARS level, and at the CSRS-SAES level, but ineffectively for example, at the more complex, CSRS-ARS-SAES levels and the Department level. Can the structure be changed in a way that will make it more effective at the higher or more complex organizational levels? 4. Much research of importance to agriculture is being carried out in institutions other than agricultural institutions. How

PAGE 24

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension l 21 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. can the structure be modified to incorporate these institutions expertise and contributions to agriculture? What is the research and knowledge base of extension? How does this base relate to extension programs? How can new sources of research and knowledge be developed and incorporated into public and private technology transfer programs? How can the developing gap between research and extension be overcome? How can the obstacles posed by funding constraints and land-grant reward systems be mitigated? How will training be provided to Extension professionals in biotechnologies, information technologies, applied research, and emerging technologies? What should be the balance between topdown planning and decentralized programming? What is the role of Federal Extension in setting priorities, planning, resource allocation, evaluation, and coordination of programs? How can multidisciplinary approaches to programs be developed? How should Extension programs be coordinated with other technology transfer programs in the public and private sectors? What is the role of Extension in a plied f research and commercialization o technologies? What structures are necessary to facilitate involvement? FUNDING Much has been written about the inadequate funding of the research and extension system especially at the Federal level (11, 17, 19, 20). Federal funding levels have been relatively stable for the past three decades especially to state agricultural experiment stations. States, for the most part, have made up the difference to the experiment stations. Federal appropriations are viewed as woefully inadequate by those who work in the system. However, those who control the appropriations process, i.e., OMB and Congress, are not compelled to increase Federal funding for AR&E. These groups point to agricultural surpluses, the budget deficit, and competing priorities (drugs, human health and diseases, environmental problems and social issues) as factors in their judgment against increased AR&E funding. A critical factor, in their opinion, is the systems inadequate justification for research dollars (7, 13. Only small increases in funding have been made in a few clearly defined areas such as groundwater quality and human nutrition. This situation is reflective of the problems discussed earlier encompassing mission, planning, priority setting, and structure. Until these issues are resolved, determining the adequacy of Federal funding is difficult. An issue of growing importance is how to allocate funds in research and extension. Federal funds for research are distributed four ways: for intramural research conducted by USDA staff; in formula funds to the SAESS; as grants for special R&D initiatives;

PAGE 25

22 l Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s and as competitive grants. Federal funds for extension are allocated in two ways: in formula funds to state cooperative extension agencies at land-grant institutions; and as grants for special initiatives designated by the Congress. Intramural and formula funding have been the major mechanisms for allocating funds in research and extension since the systems inception. Research and extension activities that require a continuous effort over many years to obtain significant results are often accomplished through base (formula) funding. Grants for special initiatives designated by Congress have also been institutionalized. Competitive grants are the newest mechanism for allocating resources in agricultural research. Grants are awarded on the basis of quality and technical merit as judged by experienced scientists serving on peer review panels. Competitive granting is flexible and responsive to new and emerging high priority research areas. In contrast to research, no competitive grants program exists for extension. Some grants for special initiatives are awarded on a competitive basis but they are a small proportion of extensions Federal budget. Major reliance on a formula system gives cooperative extension the discretion over how funds will be used with or without reference to national priorities. In recent years, the grant system has been expanded to place increased emphasis on basic research and to fund excellence wherever it is found. Federal agricultural research grant-funding authorization for fiscal 1989 is shown below (10). ($ million) Competitive grants 40 Special grants, national programs 18 Special problem grants 24 Total 82 Percent of total CSRS Funds 24% The average agricultural research grant is for $40,000 over 2.5 years (11). A major expansion of peer-reviewed competitive grants (which now account for a small proportion of research funds) is advocated by some experts as a way of improving allocative efficiency. Indeed, competitive grant funding currently seems to be the only politically acceptable source of additional Federal research support for agriculture. There is major disagreement over whether competitive grant or base (formula) funding provides the best use of limited Federal funds for agricultural research. The following review makes a strong if indirect case for combining these allocation strategies in private and public funding (16). Arguments for Base Funding 1. Base funding has been highly successful and served the nation well. A large number of studies, many of them by disinterested analysts at Yale University and the University of Chicago, show typical rates of return of 50 percent on public investment r (2, 14). Huffman and Evenson (1989) estimate the rate of return on public crop research investment to be 62 percent. Fox Evenson, and Ruttan (1987) show a rate of return of 180 percent on specific crop research and disciplinary biological crop research for the 1944-83 period. While no single study can be taken as definitive because of data shortcomings, overall the evidence is compelling. The payoff from public agricultural research and extension calls for increased investment. 2. Base funding of agricultural research by the Federal Government is a well-established and accepted historic social contract. Public research at land grant institutions is viewed as an important source of unbiased information that speeds adoption of technology by producers. Breaking the contract alienates political support not only for agricultural grant research but for all agricultural research.

PAGE 26

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension 3. 4. 5. Base funding avoids the massive overhead of the peer review system. A sizeable (estimates run to 50 percent) portion of research resources is spent writing proposals and reports and reviewing proposals. Much of this is done by peers who have high opportunity cost. Base funding also utilizes review and competition at the local level but reduces overhead by relying more on administrators who know local circumstances and problems. Peer review is indeed a useful part of grant and base funding but, used excessively, it detracts from useful output of research. Bonnen (1986) notes that Short-term project-by-project grant proposals do not add up to coherent long-term research programs, and points to wasted creativity of senior scientists who no longer have time for anything but developing grant proposals and managing a laboratory. Grants do not provide the long-term funding continuity essential for the most productive use of research resources, especially in the case of basic research. As noted earlier, the average duration of competitive agricultural research grants is only 2.5 years. Peer reviewed grants are not necessarily effective in funding pathbreaking basic research. Holt (1989) notes that ... early basic research efforts in agricultural biotechnology and agricultural applications of artificial intelligence were supported by formula funds before biotechnology and artificial intelligence became buzz words in basic science circle s. Pathbreaking basic research resulting in antibiotics and the transistor were not recognized early on as important by peers. These and other breakthroughs did not arise from a peer reviewed grant proposal specifically addressing those goals. The peer review system is useful for directing substantial research resources to an area after the important basic breakthroughs have been achieved by base 6. 7, 8. 9. funding of private or public research. The most successful research establishments, including some land grant and ivy league universities, as well as Bell and DuPont laboratories, have huge endowments or other assured funding bases. The large number of commodities, agroecosystems, and local social needs requires research capabilities in many locations. Base funding provides for this, whereas the peer review system might concentrate research funds on a few large centers. The profit motive might focus research on a few major commodities. Those who review grant funds may not be aware of local agroecosystems and their research needs. Research has been underway for some years on integrated pest management and conservation systems at land-grant universities. That research would have been delayed by peer reviewed allocations; it was called for by environmental and food safety lobbies along with some farmers rather than peer scientists. The Federal Government has not dictated precisely how base funds should be spent by states. Some advocate a large Federal role in funding along with dictation of how funds are to be spent to best serve national priorities. The strong complementary relationship between basic and applied research has contributed to the favorable record of agricultural research. Grant funding to institutions outside the system without departments of agronomy and animal sciences would not foster or benefit from this symbiosis. Basic research funded by competitive grants tends to drive out applied research funded by base allocations because institutions direct resources to where additional funds can be obtained. Partly for that reason Holt (1989) contends that the publicly-supported development and

PAGE 27

24 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s adaptive research and extension components of the AR&E system are weak and getting weaker... Arguments for Competitive Grant Funding 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Base funding is the product of historical political considerations and is not necessarily an efficient use of scarce funds in this period of budget stringency. It is especially influenced by commercial farming interests at the state level. The political process calls for applied research on immediate problems. Essential long-term basic research has low priority and is underfunded by a base system. Base funding has not recognized that a critical mass of research resources is required for excellence. It spreads scarce resources too thinly. Market incentives are essential to productivity as apparent from the worldwide success of market economies and failure of planned economies. Although basic research cannot be allocated by the market, the competitive grant is the best and closest alternative. The academic tenure system limits the extent to which resources can be redirected in base funded institutions. Peer review enhances funding flexibility. The National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and other major sources of promising new biotechnology, provide mostly peer reviewed competitive grant funding. Competitive grants reward research excellence wherever it maybe found, inside or outside the traditional agricultural research establishments. Fears of the agricultural establishment that competitive grants would place USDA agricultural research funds outside the USDA-land grant-SAES system are not well founded. The agricultural establishment received 77 percent of USDA competitive grants and 78 percent of grant funds in FY88. Performing Grants organization awarded Amount ($) Land grant -1862 98 10,282,180 SAESs 169 19,159,343 USDA/S&E Lab. 1.831.000 Subtotal 18 31,272,523 (77%) (78%) Other public 32 3,208,200 Univ./College 28 3,487,287 Other 27 2,200,646 Total 372 40,168,656 SOURCE: Data provided b Competitive Research Grants Programs Cooperative State Research Service, U. S.Departrnent of Agriculture. Funding Issues To effectively address the concerns regarding funding for the AR&E system a number of questions need to be answered. They include the following: 1. What is the appropriate balance between base funds and competitive grants? 2. What is the appropriate balance between Federal and state funding for research and extension? 3. Should states have more responsibility to fund their infrastructure for conducting re-

PAGE 28

Ch. 3Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension search and extension focusing on local and 5. Has the redirection option for funding new state priorities, and use Federal funds for priority research needs been adequately emerging national issues? considered and used? Are incentives needed to encourage redirection? 4. Is there a role for competitive grants in cooperative extension? 6. How relevant is the current Federal formula for allocating resources?

PAGE 29

Chapter 4 Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer The main premise of this report is that a broadening of research problems and the beginning of a new era in technology will present serious challenges to the AR&E system. The preceding discussion regarding mission, planning, priority setting, structure, and funding indicates that the system may not be able to effectively respond to these challenges. Agricultural research and technology transfer policy will once again be a major focus of debate in the 1990 Farm Bill as it has been in the past two farm bills. The debate will likely center on the level and type of Federal appropriations for, and the planning and control of agricultural research and extension. The lack of increased real funds for agricultural research has received much attention, most recently in the National Research Council report Investing in Research, to be discussed later. However, until there is a well articulated and coordinated research and technology transfer policy, debate about allocating new funds to the system is premature. Effective planning to develop goals, determine priorities, commit resources and measure progress within the AR&E system is also crucial. Many within and outside the system complain that too much planning already exists. Most planning efforts, however, are relatively ineffective. Planning is not easy in a research system involving five Federal agencies, 57 state experiment stations, 50 extension services, and about 3,000 county extension offices. Complicating the issue is the combination of Federal and state funds for agricultural research, and of Federal, state and county funds for extension. Each sector claims a dominant role in the system. An effective system of Federal planning should consider, above all, the views of those who ultimately use the products of research and technology transfer services. The results of a user-oriented Federal planning system should be consistent with user-oriented state and local planning efforts. They certainly should not be contrary to state and/or local interests. Planning must identify an appropriate balance of formula funds and competitive grants for agricultural research and extension. Large competitive research grants may create a serious imbalance between research and extension. Interestingly, proposals for substantial increases in competitive grants funding relate almost entirely to research. In reality, there may be an equally pressing need for competitive grants to develop education programs and extension expertise in a time of rapidly changing technology (8). OTA proposes three alternatives for a national agricultural research and technology transfer policy: Continuation of the current policy as implemented under the 1985 Farm Bill, referred to hereinafter as the status quo. Development of a larger Federal role in planning to align more closely research and end-user needs, without necessarily engendering large increases in aggregate funding levels, referred to hereinafter as the national research and extension policy alternative. 27

PAGE 30

28 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s Substantially increase the level of competitive grants research while continuing current levels of formula funding and/or appropriated funding for research and extension, referred to hereinafter as the competitive grants alternative. STATUS QUO ALTERNATIVE A simplified schematic drawing of the current organizational structure of agricultural research and extension is shown in figure 4-1. While by statute the Users Advisory Board (UAB) reports to the White House, in practice it reports to USDA as does the Joint Council. It is difficult to depict accurately the complexities of the agricultural research and extension system in a single chart. Underlying virtually each component of the system is a series of national, regional, state, and local (extension) planning groups. For example, the Experiment Station Committee on Policy (ESCOP) reviews and establishes priorities as input into the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) budget process. Likewise, the Extension Committee on Policy (ECOP) reviews and establishes priorities as input to the Cooperative Extension Service budget process. An extensive six year planning function also occurs in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) (8). Based on the findings in this report and in previous OTA reports dealing with the AR&E system, maintaining the status quo will have the following consequences: Figure 4-l-Current Organizational Structure for Agricultural Research and Extension Secretary of Agriculture Agriculture I Assistant Secretary for Science and Education Competitive Research Grants Office Scientific Peer Special Advisory Review Blue Panel Panels Panels SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 31

Ch. 4-AlternativePolicies for Research and Technology Transfer. 29 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The new era of biotechnology and information technology will likely bypass the traditional AR&E system. Advances in these areas combined with changes in public policy regarding patent rights, have shifted the balance of agricultural research expertise in the direction of private sector firms and non-land-grant universities. A minority of the land-grant universities will remain competitive in this new era. The lack of a clearly enunciated missionoriented policy for the AR&E system means the system will continue to lack direction and focus. Planning and priority setting within the system will continue to be ineffective. No mechanism exists to assure follow-through on initiatives or on recommendations of the Joint Council and/or Users Advisory Board. There is much planning but little resulting action. The AR&E system will continue to be structured in a way that does not allow it to change easily. Increased emphasis by land-grant universities and USDA on basic research, combined with accelerated technical change and continued neglect of applied research needs, will continue to expand the knowledge gap between research and extension. Extension has made an effort to improve its responsiveness to contemporary concerns through its national initiatives efforts. However, without commensurate shifts in the allocation of Federal funds to these specific initiatives, national impacts are difficult to detect and quantify. Extension continues to be all things to all people without specifically narrowing its priorities and allocating its resources to those priorities. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION POLICY ALTERNATIVE The National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is the product of OTA deliberations based on its analysis of the status quo. It is a mission-oriented approach designed to increase the responsiveness of the AR&E system to the needs of the food and agriculture system. One principle problem with the current AR&E system is the lack of effective planning and its inability to respond to change. While the Congress has attempted to make the system more responsive through the formation of the Joint Council and UAB, the overall system resists change. The National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is designed to create a more responsive and better-coordinated AR&E system. The major components of this system include: A clearly enunciated mission-oriented AR&E policy. A restructured integrated and coordinated AR&E plannin g system. A combination of formula and competitive grant funding consistent with planning and political realities. AR&E Policy The first, and perhaps the most important component of the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a statement of clearly enunciated policy supported by the Secretary of Agriculture. While it can be argued that all secretaries of agriculture have supported the agricultural research and extension system the original purpose for which the USDA was established a policy statement of the type contemplated by this

PAGE 32

30. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s alternative has never been made. Such a statement could articulate the following printo be implemented by all USDAagenciples cies: l l l l Research and extension will be integral to carrying out agricultural, food, trade and rural policy in all dimensions. Thus, every USDA action agency will be required to consider seriously its research need s when developing an d implementing its programs. Likewise, USDA research and extension must be responsive to the research and technology transfer needs of the action agencies. The research and extension functions of USDA will be operated according to a plan. The broad outlines of this plan initially will be developed by an Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board (ASEPB) (discussed later). The plan will emphasize the Federal role in the agricultural research and extension system but leave room for state and local planning. More detailed planning will be expected within individual USDA research and extension agencies and at the state and local levels. The research and extension system will be mission-oriented with significant user influence on the planning process and on resulting research and education programs. (USDA and the land-grant system were created with a clear focus on mission-oriented problem solving.) Research and technology transfer functions will be carried out by the scientists/institutions most competent to efficiently achieve mission-oriented objectives. This implies n o predetermined mix of competitive grants and formula funds. The optimum mix would be expected to change over time and be tuned to the specific nature of the problem. Action agencies may best be served by ARS or ERS funding, while certain types of mission-oriented basic research or the development of extension education materials may best be supported by competitive grants. This means relatively more emphasis on competitive grants for research and extension and less on predetermined formula funding. Research and Extension Policy Planning System The proposed policy statement implies a user-oriented research and extension system that places increased emphasis on competitive grants in research and extension programs. The structure of the system is illustrated in figure4-2. The key planning components include: l l l l l l Users Advisory Council (UAC) Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board (ASEPB) Technical Panels Existing research and extension agencies Secretary of Agriculture Assistant Secretary for Science and Education (as ASEPB chair) Federal research and extension planning activities would be operationally centered in ASEPB. However, the planning process itself begins in UAC, reflecting the userand mission-oriented basis of the system. Planning functions are also included in research and extension agencies at the Federal, state and local levels. Users Advisory Council. UAC input would be considerably expanded beyond that

PAGE 33

Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer l 31 Figure 4-2-Organizational Structure for National Research and Extension Policy Alternative I CONGRES S Identif y Problems r Coordinate Industr y Suppor t Evaluat e Result s I 1 COUNCI L Farmer Organizations Agribusiness organizations Publi c Interes t \ I Assistant Secretar y fo r Science and Education I SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment. of the current Users Advisory Board (UAB). Development of recommendations on Coordination of industry support for agricultural research and extension at Develop Overall Research and Technolog y Transfer Plan Develop MissionEvaluate Results Oriented Plan Mak e Recommendation s The results of the UACS efforts would be reported regularly to ASEPB and annually to the Congress. UAC would be a quasi-public, quasi-private entity in that most of its active participants would be private organizations and foundations whose mission would be helping to plan public research. USDA action agencies or other interested public agencies would be involved in its deliberations. UAC would be composed of board members representing: Farmers and farm organizations

PAGE 34

32 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s Agribusiness firms and associations Public interest groups Foundations USDA action agencies In contrast to the UAB which is appointed by the Secretary, UAC board members would be elected to represent and would serve at the pleasure of the above groups. Each group could include specialized segments. For example, agribusiness might include a representative from input supplies, food processors, and exporters. Farm groups might include commodity groups, general farm organizations, and cooperatives. It is suggested that the total membership on UAC not exceed 25. Membership on UAC could be a part-time to full-time job. Members would be sought who have considerable scientific expertise and contact with clientele. UAC could be entirely a privately financed operation or it could be a joint public/private undertaking. It could operate much like producer checkoff programs with public accountability for its operations. To participate in UAC on an active basis, some agricultural associations/action agencies would have to improve substantially their understanding of their research and technology transfer responsibilities. Each group would have to establish methods for deciding research and technology transfer priorities. The best organized member group would likely have the greatest influence on UAC decisions. UAC would produce a set of recommendations regarding research goals and funding levels. In certain instances, join t public/private research undertakings may be recommended, and a commitment made for private funding support to tackle particularly complex problems. In addition to annual recommendations, UAC would produce interim reports as appropriate. UAC would interact with ASEPB on a continual basis. Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board. ASEPB would be the research and technology transfer planning center for USDA. In contrast to the current Joint Council, it would have a single chair, the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. It would include the following members who would be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, or other relevant agency head in the case of NIH and NSF: l l l l l l l l l Assistant Secretary for Economics Administrator of each USDA research and technology transfer agency (ARS, ERS, CSRS, FS, ES, NAL) ESCOP chairman or designated representative (experiment station representative) ECOP chairman representative (extension representative RICOP Chairman or designated representative (resident instruction representative) One 1890 university dean or designated representative AASCARR chairman or designated representative (non-land-grant-representative) NIH administrator or designated representative NSF administrator or designated representative Experiment stations and extension services would be equally represented on

PAGE 35

Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer ASEPB. However, total scientific representation would be weighted toward research. NIH, NSF, and AASCARR representation is designed to secure increased coordination among the basic and applied research components as well as between the land-grant and non-land-grant components of the system. Those ASEPB members who are not administrators of Federal agencies would serve for appointed or elected terms of no more than four years. All costs associated with ASEPB would be borne by USDA. ASEPB Functions. ASEPB would manage the Federal research and extension mission-oriented planning process and oversee the allocation of competitive grants for research and technology transfer. In terms of specific functions, ASEPB would: Produce a Rolling Five Year Agricultural Research and Extension Plan. This plan would set forth major goals, priorities, and means for achievement, and be transmitted to the Secretary of Agriculture annually for endorsement and to the Congress. Establish Goals. The plan, with input provided by UAC, would set forth specific, measurable goals for the system. For example, instead of merely identifying water quality as a problem, it would consider how to reduce nitrates in well water by 25 percent by 1993. l Establish Priorities. The key to an effective planning system is the establishment of priorities within the overall budget constraints prescribed by the Administration and the Congress. UAC input would be an important component of the priority-setting process. The established priorities would have major impacts on funding allocations and competitive grant decisions. Maintain Intelligence System. To operate effectively, ASEPB would need to identify the major centers of research and technology transfer expertise. It would probably need to maintain a scientific talent data bank, which could be located in the National Agriculture Library. Create Technical Panels. The technical panels would develop general plans, approaches, and recommendations for tackling particular priority problems (see below). Determine Responsibility. ASEPB would need to determine which agency holds responsibility for tackling specific priority problems. Responsibilities may be delegated to particular agencies or combinations of agencies that would thereafter be accountable for funding and maintaining progress. The ultimate authority for designating responsibility would lie with the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. l Evaluate Results. Performance of the research and extension system in pursuing the goals set forth by the planning process would be assessed by ASEPB as a basis for future planning and funding. To perform these functions effectively, ASEPB would require a staff to assist in planning and evaluation. Each agency might be asked initially to contribute staff with qualifications specified by ASEPB, although in the long run a combination of permanent and assigned staff may provide a desired mix of expertise. In the ASEPB framework, the USDA research and extension agencies would continue to operate with the same general responsibilities they now have. However, their programs would be affected by decisions made in ASEPB. Through representation in

PAGE 36

34 Agricultural Research and Technology TransferPolicies for the 1990s ASEPB, USDA would participate in making these decisions. Technical Panels. Technical panels would be established by ASEPB for each major research and technology-transfer priority. These panels would contribute scientific input and expertise to the process of planning to complete missions and solve problems relevant to the priority. Panels would be temporary although they might be reconvened to monitor progress on a particular priority and to develop additional recommendations. Panels would be of the minimum size required to include expertise on all dimensions of the mission, including its basic science, applied research, education, social and economic dimensions. Research and extension, as well as the private sector, would be represented. Each technical panel would have four primary responsibilities: l Define the dimensions of research and technology transfer encompassed by its mission. l Delineate the alternatives an d recommended research and technology transfer approaches for dealing with its mission. l Describe the centers of expertise (public and private, land-grant and non-land-grant) relevant to its mission. l Make recommendations regarding the appropriate overall level and mix of available funding. The technical panel would not make finding decisions nor would it be a substitute for peer review of funding proposals. Those responsibilities would continue to lie with the relevant agencies (ARS, ERS, CSRS, FS, ES). However, members of the panel might logically also serve on peer review panels. Reports of technical panels would be transmitted directly to ASEPB to help guide its decisions regarding the research and extension plan. Secretary of Agriculture. The role of the Secretary of Agriculture is to provide leadership and to convince the Administration of the importance of agricultural research and extension functions. The Secretary needs to support the planning process, the overall thrust of the plan, and its major priorities in pleading the case for funding within the Administration. And, the Secretary needs to establish policy regarding the cooperation of all affected Assistant Secretaries. Likewise, ASEPB and the related agencies need to be responsive to the priorities established by the overall political process within which policy and funding decisions are made. AR&E Funding Under the policy of the National Research and Extension Alternative, funding initiatives come directly from ASEPB and from UAC. The Secretary, having overtly adopted the ASEPB policy, would likely support ASEPB recommendations in negotiations with OMB. UAC would be much more active in pressing the case for appropriations with the Administration and the Congress than the current UAB. Its effectiveness would be enhanced by the direct involvement of all major interest groups in research and extension decision processes. This alternative would probably increase the relative importance of competitive-grant funding. More discretionary funds seem to be inherent to a system driven by effective user-

PAGE 37

Ch. 4Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer. 35 oriented planning and by the goal of engaging the best scientists in research and technology transfer activities. Increased competitive grant funds for research and extension, however, would not come at the expense of formula funds in this alternative. The appropriate mix of formula funds and competitive grants would nonetheless be determined by the deliberations of the technical panels, UAC, ASEPB, the Secretary, OMB and the Congress. One of the most agonizing issues would be whether to continue Federal support for AR&E activities in every state. There is no easy answer to this and considerably greater study of this issue is required. A tradeoff between efficiency and the survival of specific state/local institutions could be involved. However, if serious attention is given to the missions, policies, and priorities on a national basis, each state would have an opportunity to establish its own role in the system. Likely Consequences of National Research and Extension Policy Alternative While all USDA research and extension agencies would remain intact, this alternative would change considerably the structure of research and extension, with attendant disruptive effects. These effects may be viewed positively or negatively, depending on ones perspective. However, if the current planning system is acknowledged to be flawed in light of changing conditions and if most of the following predicted consequences occur, then adoption of this policy alternative should have a positive impact overall. Likely consequences are: The role of Federal planningintheAR&E system would increase. Increased emphasis on Federal planning would reduce the dominant role of state-oriented planning, and some responsiveness to local grassroots-expressed needs could decline. However, if the UAC and ASEPB are working properly, increased grassroots responsiveness could be anticipated at the Federal level. The USDA would have an internally consistent AR&E policy. The Secretary of Agriculture would be directly involved in establishing, monitoring, and endorsing AR&E policy. Thus, AR&E would have greater visibility within USDA than it now does. A basis would exist for effective, mission-oriented AR&E planning. Research funding would be allocated towards programs not agencies. The argument that too much planning already exists results largely from the ineffectiveness of current planning and follow-through. Multidisciplinary research would increase. Increased integrationof biological(CSRS, FS and ARS) and economic (ERS) research would occur through ASEPB, UAC and the technical panels. Extension considerations would also bean integral part of the planning process The use of formula funds and competitive grants would be more balanced. Certain research and extension functions could become more concentrated in the hands of agencies and/or institutions that have the greatest expertise. This process is gradually occurring under the status quo policies, but would likely accelerate. Some agricultural research and/or extension components may not be viable at some land-grant universities. Choices would need to be made as to where efforts (expertise) and resources are to be concentrated to secure Federal support that can be matched with state resources. Some institutions may decide not to seek Federal competitive grants for any of their programs. Some may discontinue certain agricultural

PAGE 38

36 l Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s l l research and/or extension functions and/or contract for them with other states. Some functions could be performed on a regional basis by mutual consent of those institutions involved. A mechanism would exist through the UAC for more effective user input into AR&E decisions. This may lead to a more effective lobby on behalf of AR&E before the Congress and within the Administration. The technical panels and peer review of competitive grants would buffer this increased political clout and satisfy the need for objectivity in science. Potential would exist for increased financial support for the AR&E system with improved planning, priority setting, and integration of research and extension. COMPETITIVE GRANTS ALTERNATIVE The Competitive Grants Alternative was developed by the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences in the report lnvesting in Research. This proposal recommends: Establishing a $500 million agriculture, food, and environment competitive research grants program within USDA to support national research initiatives in public and private universities and colleges, not-for-profit institutions, and research agencies of the state and Federal Government. The Competitive Grants Alternative would encompass all science and technology relevant to research needs for agriculture, food, and environment ranging from basic biology to the social sciences and public policy. Placing major emphasis on fundamental and mission-linked multidisciplinary research. Mission-linked multidisciplinary grants would be designed to facilitate application of knowledge and the transfer of technology to the user through joint research-extension studies. Providing research strengthening grants to institutions and individual. Increasing the duration and size of grants. Maintaining current levels of formula funds and USDA agency support for research or extension. No change in the Joint Council and UAB structure nor in the overall planning process. Competitive Grants Administrative Structure The Competitive Grants Alternative recommends elevating the Competitive Research Grants Office from its current position in CSRS to agency status within USDAs Office of Science and Education. As such, it would have equal status with ARS, CSRS, ERS, FS, NAL and ES. Otherwise, the structure of USDAs science and education program would remain basically intact (figure 4-3). Differences From National Research and Extension Policy Alternative The Competitive Grants Alternative would not place as much emphasis on planning as the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative, which makes planning the driving force of the system. The driving force in the Competitive Grants Alternative is more money for research. Under the Competitive Grants Alternative, it is assumed that the major problem with the AR&E system is a lack of adequate

PAGE 39

Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer. 37 Figure 4-3-Organizational Structure for Competitive Grants Alternative Executive Office of the President Users + Advisory Board SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment. research funding, not structural problems in implementing a mission-oriented research and extension program as is assumed under the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative. The Competitive Grants Alternative places virtually all of its emphasis upon research. One of its recommendations mentions technology and extension but only in terms of establishing a continuum from research to applications, not in terms of the programs. It maybe concluded that the Competitive Grants Alternative is a research proposal while the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a research and extension proposal. Likely Consequences of the Competitive Grants Alternative l Increased research funds would be available to all public and private universities (land-grant and non-land-grant) and government research agencies able to compete on a scientific basis. While formula fund support would not change, the role of competitive grants funding would be more comparable with what it is in NIH and NSE

PAGE 40

38. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s l The rate of discovery and technological change in agricultural research would accelerate. l Greater potential would exist for dealing with l complex multidisciplinary problems. l While funds would be available for strengthening grants, this proposal would inevitably lead to increased concentration of research talent However, this result may not be unique to this altemative. It has happened l under the status quo and wouldprobably also happen under the research and extension policy alternative. The gap between basic and applied research could be reduced. However, neglect of extension education as a funding target would inevitably lead to a serious gap between research and extension. Nothing is done to improve the planning system and the linkage between planning and execution. There is nothing to assure that funds are allocated to UAB and Joint Council determined priorities. The drain of the best scientific talent away from extension would accelerate as more funds become available for research. And salaries would likely rise in research relative to extension. The best extension scientists would have strong incentives to seek experiment station appointments.

PAGE 41

Appendixes

PAGE 42

Appendix A.-Glossary of Acronyms AASCARR ARS ASEPB BOA CSRS ECOP ERS ES ESCOP FS JC NAL NASULGC NIH NPS NSF OMB RICOP SAES UAB UAC American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable Resources Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council Cooperative State Research Service Extension Committee on Policy Economic Research Service Extension Service Experiment Station Committee on Policy Forest Service Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences National Agriculture Library National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges National Institutes of Health National Program Staff of Agricultural Research Service National Science Foundation Office of Management and Budget Resident Instruction Committee on Policy State Agricultural Experiment Station National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board Users Advisory Council 40

PAGE 43

Appendix B.-Agricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables 41

PAGE 44

42 AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s o 0 0 N -Ia. c u N 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0

PAGE 45

New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1,309,000 4,435,000 5,289,000 1,917,000 4,649,000 2,480,000 2,255,000 4,904,000 3,518,000 1,003,000 2,790,000 1,956,000 3,845,000 5,138,000 1,424,000 1,178,000 3,387,000 2,909,000 2,171,000 4,064,000 1,262,000 0 861,000 756,000 32,000 171,000 139,000 325,000 266,000 0 0 0 0 51,000 281,000 164,000 17,000 2,000 55,000 0 1,034,000 0 139,485,000 11,873,000 93,000 748,000 392,000 218,000 332,000 276,000 792,000 714,000 568,000 34,000 583,000 0 226,000 480,000 146,000 148,000 119,000 327,000 46,000 871,000 0 19,502,000 230,000 143,000 484,000 118,000 304,000 330,000 47,000 354,000 13,000 67,000 22,000 181,000 334,000 532,000 185,000 16,000 432,000 329,000 272,000 489,000 148,000 1,632,000 6,187,000 6,921,000 2,285,000 5,456,000 3,226,000 3,419,000 6,239,000 4,099,000 1,104,000 3,394,000 2,137,000 4,456,000 6,431,000 1,919,000 1,359,000 3,940,000 3,620,000 2,489,000 6,457,000 1,409,000 13,361,000 184,212,000 566,000 1,175,000 1,867,000 272,000 138,000 163,000 551,000 447,000 0 0 0 0 83,000 2,176,000 452,000 56,000 1,168,000 713,000 163,000 720,000 0 2,198,000 7,362,000 8,788,000 2,557,000 5,594,000 3,389,000 3,970,000 6,686,000 4,099,000 1,104,000 3,394,000 2,137,000 4,539,000 8,607,000 2,371,000 1,415,000 5,108,000 4,333,000 2,652,000 7,177,000 1,409,000 30,829,000 215,041,000 187,000 11,587,000 7,043,000 402,000 36,000 334,000 4,349,000 2,049,000 0 207,000 34,000 0 301,000 4,987,000 1,745,000 186,000 3,368,000 2,789,000 65,000 11,736,000 502,000 2,385,000 18,949,000 15,831,000 2,959,000 5,630,000 3,723,000 8,319,000 8,735,000 4,099,000 1,311,000 3,428,000 2,137,000 4,840,000 13,594,000 4,116,000 1,601,000 8,476,000 7,122,000 2,717,000 18,913,000 1,911,000 7.8 61.1 44.5 13.6 0.6 9.0 52.3 23.5 00.0 15.8 1.0 00.0 6.2 36.7 42.4 11.6 39.7 39.2 2.4 62.1 26.3 aHatch includes Hatch Fundsand Regional Funds administered byCSRS. L COMPare Competitive Research Grants administered by the Competitive Research Grants Office ofCSRS. cSPGT are Special Grants administeredby CSRS. Other CSRS includes Mclntire-Stennis Funds (Forestry), EWns-AHen Funds (1890 Colleges and Tuskegee institutes), andAnimal Health Funds, (Veterinary Science) and any Other aRsadministered funds not included in HATCH, COMP, and SPGT. ~otal CSRSisthesumofHATCH, COMP,SPGT,andotherCSRS. CGCAare grants, contracts and cooperative agreements administered byUSDA agencies other than CSRS. gTotal USDA is thesum oftotal CSRSand CGCA. Other federal aregrants, contracts, and cooperative agreements administered byfederal agencies otherthan USDA. Total federal isthe sumoftotal USDAand other federal. jpercent oftotal from other federal isother federal divided by total federal multiplied bylw. SOURCE: Compiled from Inventory of Agricultural Research, FY86, USDA/CSRS. 110,799,000 325,840,000 34.0

PAGE 46

44 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s m 00000000 0 . . 000000 0000000 0 0 0 00000 0 00000 0 0 00000 0 00000 0 0

PAGE 47

App BAgricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables .45 m N N N .K ii m s

PAGE 48

Table B-3Top 10 State Agricultural Experiment Stations with Biotechnology Funds from Federal Sources Other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture for FY 1986 and FY 1988 (in dollars) State 1986 1988 California Colorado Indiana Michigan New York North Carolina Texas Utah Washington Wisconsin Total for 10 SAES Total SAES a 3,339,550 519,316 1,466,903 1,580,824 2,931,892 774,460 1,534,105 268,955 466,789 3.232.370 16,115,164 20,954,078 3,965,419 1,387,628 3,129,294 993,944 2,337,641 1,338,578 1,466,137 1,288,030 1,090,447 3.240,762 20,237,880 27,563,761 Proportion of 10 SAES To total (Percentage) 77 73 a Data was unavailable for the SAES from AL, AK CN, DE, DC, ID, NV, NM, ND, VT, and WY. SOURCE: Compiled from Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture: Issues and Policies, Progress Report VIII, Nov. 1989, NASULGC.

PAGE 49

Appendix C.-Workshop Participants Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s Workshop Norman Berg Severna Park, MD Donald Bills Agriculture Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Beltsville, MD Patrick Borich Director Cooperative Extension Service University of Minnesota Lucas Calpouzos School of Agriculture California State University Mary Carter Associate Administrator Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Neville Clark Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas A&M University Arnold Denton Senior Vice-President Campbell Soup Company Camden, NJ Chester T. Dickerson Director Agricultural Affairs Monsanto Company Washington, DC Catherine Donnelly Associate Director Agriculture Experiment Station College of Agriculture& Life Science University of Vermont Jeanne Edwards Weston, MA W.P. Flatt Dean College of Agriculture University of Georgia Ray Frisbe 1PM Coordinator Department of Entomology Texas A&M University Paul Genho National Cattlemens Association Deseret Ranches of Florida St. Cloud, FL Robert Heil Director Agricultural Experiment Station Colorado State University Jim Hildreth Managing Director Farm Foundation Oak Brook, IL Verner Hurt Director Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Mississippi State University Terry Kinney York, S C Ronald Knutson Professor Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University William Marshall President Microbial Genetics Division Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Johnston, IA Roger Mitchell Director Agricultural Experiment Station University of Missouri Lucinda Noble Director Cooperative Extension Cornell University Ithaca, NY 47

PAGE 50

48 l Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s Susan Offutt Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC Dave Phillips President National Association of County Agents Lewistown, MT Jack Pincus Director of Marketing Michigan Biotechnology Institute Lansing, MI Dan Ragsdale Research Director National Corn Growers Association St. Louis, MO Roy Rauschkolb Resident Director Maricopa Agricultural Center Maricopa, AZ Alden Reine Dean Cooperative Agricultural Research Center Prairie View A&M University Prairie View, TX Grace Ellen Rice American Farm Bureau Federation Washington, DC Robert Robinson Associate Administrator Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Jerome Seibert Economist Department of Agricultural Economics University of California-Berkeley Keith Smith Director of Research American Soybean Association St. Louis, MO William Stiles Subcommittee Consultant Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture Committee on Agriculture U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC William Tallent Assistant Administrator Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Jim Tavares Associate Executive Director Board on Agriculture National Research Council Washington, DC Luther Tweeten Anderson Chair for Agricultural Trade Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Ohio State University Walter Walla Director Extension Service University of Kentucky Tim Wallace Extension Economist Department of Agricultural Economics University of California-Berkeley Fred Woods Agricultural Programs Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington DC John Woeste Director Cooperative Extension Service University of Florida

PAGE 51

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Bonnen, James T, A Century of Science in Agriculture: Lessons for Science Policy, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, December 1986, pp. 10651080. Braha, Habtu and Luther Tweeten, Evaluating Past and Prospective Future Payoffs from Public Investments to Increase Agricultural Productivity Technical Bulletin T-163 (Stillwater, OK: Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma State University, 1986). Fox, Glenn, Robert Evenson, and Vernon Ruttan, Balancing Basic and Applied Science: The Case of Agricultural Research, Bioscience 37:507-509, 1987. Hildreth, R. S., Legitimacy and Support for Extension: A Policy Issue (New Orleans, LA: National Public Policy Education Conference, September 20, 1989). Holt, Don, Mechanisms for Federal Funding of Agricultural Research and Development (Champaign-Urbana, IL: Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Illinois, 1989). Huffman, Wallace E. and Robert E. Evenson, Supply and Demand Functions for Multiproduct U.S. Cash Grain Farms: Biases Caused by Research and Other Policies, American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, August 1989, pp. 761-73. Kinney, Terry, Agricultural Research Issues for the 1990s, a background paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s, September 1989. Knutson, Ronald D., Alternative National Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies, a background paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Re9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. search and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s, September 1989. Marshall, William, The Changing Technology Environment, a background paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s, September 1989. NASULGC, Strategic Investments for Agricultural Research, Extension, and Higher Education (Washington, DC: National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1989). National Research Council, Investing in Research (Washington, DC: Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences, 1989). National Research Council, Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists (Washington, DC: Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences, 1988). Offut, Susan, The Changing Budget Environment for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer, f a background paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s, September 1989. Ruttan, Vernon W., Agricultural Research Policy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1982). Siebert, Jerry, TechnologyTransfer Issues for the 1990s, a background paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s, September 1989. Tweeten, Luther, f The Competitive Environment for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer," a background paper prepared for the Office of Technology As49

PAGE 52

50. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s 17. 18. 19. sessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s, September 1989. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology Public Policy and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture, OTA-F-285 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, A Review of U.S. Competitiveness in Agricultural Trade, OTA-TM-TET29 (Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing 0ffice, October 1986). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Agricultural Postharvest Techno logy and Marketing Economics Research, OTA-TM-F-21 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1983). 20. 21. 22. 23. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural Research System, OTA-F-155 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1981). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, National Initiatives (Washington, DC: USDA, February 1987). U.S. General Accounting Office, US. Department of Agriculture Interim Report on Ways to Enhance Management, GAO/RCED-90-19 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989). Wadsworth, H. A., Opportunities for Public Policy Education in the Extension Initiatives (New Orleans, LA: National Public Policy Education Conference), September 20, 1989. NOTE: Copies of this Special Report Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTAs Assessment on Emerging Agricultural Technology Issues for the 1990s can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, GPO stock No. 052-003-01182-4. 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1990 27-690 : QL 3


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ENPROWJFN_8RSA3Z INGEST_TIME 2017-05-24T21:15:58Z PACKAGE AA00055526_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES