|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
INVESTING
IN RICH
A Proposal
to Strengthen the Agricultural'
Food' and Environmental System
Board on Agriculture
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1989
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW · WASHINGTON, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose
members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate
balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee
consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and
engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of
the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National
Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of
engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of
appropriate professions in the exarn~nation of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility
given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon itS own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine.
lbe National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science
and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with
general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering
communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White
are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 89-63090
International Standard Book Number 0-309-04127-9
Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Copyright @) 1989 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process, or in the form of a phonographic recording,
nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or otherwise copied for public or private use without written permission from the
publisher, except for the purposes of official use by the U.S. government.
S036
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, September 1989
Second Printing, October 1989
Third Printing, July 1990
OCR for page R3
Board on Agriculture
THEODORE L. HULLAR, Chairman, University of California, Davis
C. EUGENE ALLEN, University of Minnesota
EDWIN H. CLARK II, Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
R. JAMES COOK, U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Washington
ELLIS B. COWLING, North Carolina State University
JOSEPH P. FONTENOT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
ROBERT M. GOODMAN, Calgene, Inc.
TIMOTHY M. HAMMONDS, Food Marketing Institute
PAUL W. JOHNSON, Iowa House of Representatives
JOHN W. MELLOR, International Food Policy Research Institute
CHARLES C. MUSCOPLAT, Molecular Genetics, Inc.
KARL H. NORRIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (retired), Beltsville, Maryland
CHAMP B. TANNER, University of Wisconsin
ROBERT L. THOMPSON, Purdue University
JAN VAN SCHILFGAARDE, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado
ANNE M. K. VIDAVER, University of Nebraska
CONRAD J. WEISER, Oregon State University
CHARLES M. BENBROOK, Executive Director
JAMES E. TAVARES, Associate Executive Director
CARLA CARLSON, Director of Communications
GRACE JONES ROBBINS, Editor
·~e
111
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Preface
The United States was once much richer than the
rest of the world and, particularly in agriculture, was
more productive. Once, the United States could manu-
facture products that the rest of the world lacked the
technology to make, and could grow and export farm
products in quantities and with a quality that no other
country could match. U.S. exports did not compete
with products from the rest of the world-rather, the
United States was the locomotive of the world econ-
omy.
Now, however, this nation's economic superiority
can no longer be assured. The United States is only
one of several countries of major industrial and agri-
cultural strength. As the United States' almost effort-
less economic superiority was replaced by equality,
the U.S. share of the world's gross national product
fell from more than 50 percent after World War II to
about 22 percent in the late 1980s. The products that
the rest of the world lacked the technology to make are
now made by many countries in a world of increasing
technological parity. Advances in agricultural pro-
duction in the developed and developing regions have
sharply curtailed foreign markets for U.S. farm prod-
ucts. Instead of being a major exporter of raw mate-
rials, the United States is now a major importer of
some products (Thurow, 1989~.
New and complex challenges therefore confront
U.S. agriculture- the challenges of responding to
aggressive competition on a global scale, ensuring
good nutrition and a high-quality food supply for all
our people, safeguarding our natural resources, and
enhancing our environment. But at the same time, we
are still leading the world in the biological sciences
central to our agricultural sector. It is therefore en-
couraging to consider the manifold opportunities for
progress. For example, advances in modern genetics
can be applied throughout the agricultural, food, and
environmental system; and new environmental and
engineering methods can help maintain both the quan-
tity and quality of groundwaters and surface waters.
The challenges confronting agriculture must be
addressed in two stages. First, leadership is required
to set and implement new priorities so that the most
critical problems can be solved and opportunities
exploited. Second, the necessary physical and intel-
lectual resources must be allocated.
In this report, the Board on Agriculture of the
National Research Council presents a proposal for a
major new funding initiative designed to meet these
challenges. The report describes a course of action
that will resolve key problems in agriculture, advance
the sciences that undergird the nation's agriculture
and the quality of U.S. natural resources, and enhance
the nation's well-being. The board calls for a substan-
tial increase in federal funding for research and recom -
mends application of these funds through competitive
grants. At the same time, the board recognizes the
nation's need to meet federal deficit reduction goals
and the need to balance alternative priorities.
Agriculture, as the Board on Agriculture defines it,
encompasses the entirety of the system that grows and
processes food and fiber for the nation. It also encom-
passes the related natural resources, public policy
issues, social systems, and physical and biological
environments. The term agriculture, food, and the
environment is used to communicate the full meaning
of agriculture in this broad sense.
Self-initiated activity of this kind is unusual for the
Board on Agriculture, which generally provides de-
tailed assessments and analyses of issues only at the
request of a federal agency or the U.S. Congress.
However, the significance of agriculture for the U.S.
economy and the critical role of research in ensuring
agricultural progress impelled the board to prepare
v
OCR for page R6
Vl
this proposal. The board believes that now is the time
to take advantage of recent scientific and technologi-
cal advances to solve problems in the areas of com-
petitiveness, the food supply, and natural resources
stewardship. The sectors contributing to the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental research system-the
land-grant universities, other universities, agencies of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the scientific
societies, and others-are also now making the case
for strengthening U.S. agriculture through science.
Indeed, concurrent with and wholly independent of
the board's initial work, a group of state agricultural
research leaders discussed a need for action similar to
that proposed here.
Investing in Research is the latest in a series of
Board on Agriculture reports that began with the 1972
Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Subsequent reports
dealt with problems of world food production, genetic
vulnerability, genetic engineering, natural resources,
education in agriculture, control of pesticides in food,
designing foods, and research priorities. Investing in
Research builds upon that foundation.
Chapter 1, the executive summary, summarizes the
proposal for an expanded competitive grants program
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and an
infusion of new money into it. Chapter 2 presents the
proposal and describes its major parts. Chapter 3
PREFACE
explains the rationale for major points of the proposal.
Chapter 4 gives a review of the major challenges
facing the agricultural, food, and environmental sys-
tem. Chapter 5 delineates the six program areas
necessary to encompass the needs of the system satis-
factorily. Chapter 6 outlines the institutional and
administrative issues involved in the implementation
of He proposal. The report concludes with a set of
appendixes covering funding trends for the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental sector, budget priori-
ties; current program objectives; and other documents
relevant to this report.
The board expect~indeed, welcomes and en-
courages-discussion and refinement of this proposal
and then implementation of its recommendations.
This proposal presents an investment opportunity
in the classic sense. The investment entails some risk
and will not produce immediate results. Yet, it will
provide the basis for a new competitive position for
agriculture, an improvement in human health and
well-being, and improved stewardship of our natural
resources.
Strengthening, revitalizing, and energizing U.S.
agriculture will be difficult but far from impossible.
We have done it before.
Theodore L. Hullar
Chairman
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgments
The Board on Agriculture's proposal to strengthen
the agricultural, food, and environmental research
system is the synthesis of the creative thinking and
ideas of the many individuals and organizations that
share our concerns about quality science and innova-
tion. We thank all those who generously contributed
their thoughts, expertise, time, and encouragement.
These individuals include representatives of pro-
fessional societies; leaders of the state agricultural
experiment station system; faculty members and sci-
entists at a number of universities; and senior scien-
tists at the National Institutes of Health, the National
Science Foundation, and the U.S. Deparunent of
Energy. We especially thank administrators and sci
entists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture not only
for their assistance in data compilation but also for
their insights.
The efforts of countless individuals throughout the
scientific, agricultural, and public policy communi-
ties are far greater than can be represented by the
contents of this book. For all those who are committed
to a strong U.S. agricultural system, we thank you.
The members of the Board on Agriculture also
acknowledge the contributions of the staff in prepar-
ing this proposal. We extend special appreciation to
Maly Lou Sutton, whose diligence carried us through
many drafts in the process of attaining our final report.
·e
V11
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Contents
Preface.
1 Executive Summary 1
Urgency for Change, 1
The Proposal, 3
Rationale for the Proposal, 5
Fiscal Realities, 7
Conclusion, 8
2 The Proposal ........
An Expanded Public Investment, 11
Program Areas and Scientific Scope, 12
Types of Grants, 13
Attention to Multidisciplinary
Research, 14
Strengthen Institutions and Human
Resources, 14
Size and Duration of Support, 15
3 Rationale for the Proposal .........
A Federal Initiative, 17
A $500 Million Increase, 20
Support with New Money, 28
A Central Role for USDA, 32
The Role of Competitive Grants, 34
Attention to Multidisciplinary
Research, 39
Strengthen Institutions and Human
Resources, 41
.v 5
10
..... 17
4 Challenges Facing the Research System . . . 42 A
Competitiveness and Economic
Performance, 42
Human Health and Well-Being, 48
Natural Resources Stewardship, 52
IX
Program Areas and Scientific
C~portunities .....................
Program Areas, 57
Plant Systems, 58
Animal Systems, 61
Nutrition, Food Quality, and
Health, 63
Natural Resources and the
Environment, 69
Engineering, Products, and Processes, 76
Markets, Trade, and Policy, 79
Relationship between Program Areas
and Recognized Priorities, 81
Relationships among the Six Major
Program Areas, Scientific Disciplines,
and National Priorities, 81
Science and Technology Budget
Priorities, 84
Conclusion, 86
. . . 57
6 Institutional and Administrative Issues
Program's Location in USDA, 87
Program Transitions, 89
Need to Manage for Multidisciplinary
Success, 91
Program Evaluation and
Accountability, 92
APPENDIXES
Public and Private Sector Programs and
Funding Trends ................
B Private Sector Research Activities and
Prospects ..........................
Charles M.Benbrook
. . .. 87
.. 95
128
OCR for page R10
x
Setting and Acting upon Budget
Priorities ....................
D Statements of Program Objectives and
Funding Response ................
REFERENCES
CONTENTS
....... 139
· -
. 144
... 153
OCR for page R11
INVESTING
IN ARCH
A Proposal
to Strengthen the Agricultural'
Food' anc} Environmental System
OCR for page R12
