|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 51
3
Funding and Institutions
FUNDING BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM
Any strategy to use the tools of biotechnology to advance
agriculture and forestry must address funding and the institutions
of the research system. Funding and institutions are the founda-
tion for progress in biotechnology. These two factors nurture and
shape the development of new knowledge, the training of scien-
tists, and the implementation of technical innovations. As tools
of biotechnology are adapted to the problems of agriculture, new
demands will be placed on the existing arrangement of research
institutions. Similarly, biotechnology also will influence patterns
of funding for research and training and may alter the established
pathways between research discoveries and applications. The pace
at which biotechnology is applied to agriculture depends on how
rapidly the R&D system can incorporate these changes.
This chapter looks at current institutions and funding pat-
terns in agricultural research and how they are changing with the
advent of biotechnology. It examines ways to enhance the roles
of the federal government, states, and private sector in support-
ing biotechnology research. It also calls for greater use of peer-
reviewed, competitive grants to guide the growth of the agri-
cultural biotechnology research system. In addition, it calls for
greater integration of basic and applied research.
51
OCR for page 52
52
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
The Federal-State Agricultural Partnership
The USDA and the land-grant university system, both created
in 1862, have long been the keystones of our national agricultural
research system. This decentralized system creates close ties be-
tween federal and state programs and farmers. Up to now, the
enormous success of U.S. agriculture has been credited to the
strength and character of this network, especially its abilities to
solve important problems and coordinate agricultural research and
extension services at the federal, state, and local levels.
The federal institution chiefly responsible for agricultural re-
search is USDA, which supports research and extension through
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Cooperative State
Research Service (CSRS), the Forest Service, and the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES). ARS and the Forest Service are primar-
ily the in-house research agencies of the department; CSRS and
the CES direct and coordinate federal funds and special grant pro-
grams to the states. At the state level, the land-grant colleges of
1862 and 1890 and Tuskegee Institute support research, training,
and extension programs in agriculture. The State Agricultural Ex-
periment Stations (SAESs) and the State Cooperative Extension
Services, which are partly supported by federal appropriations,
are attached and integrated (with a few exceptions) into the land-
grant universities. Many county governments also are involved in
agricultural extension, but their level of financial support and role
in extension activities varies within as well as between states.
Federal appropriations to the states for research and extension
programs require approval by CSRS or CES. This arrangement
of co-funding by states and the federal government provides an
avenue of input from both sides in the partnership. It is the
basis of a nationally coordinated yet decentralized research and
extension system in agriculture.
It is not easy to characterize the workings of the many priority-
setting mechanisms and processes determining the direction of the
research and extension system. In the federal-state partnership
for supporting agricultural research, state and local concerns have
tended to predominate. This is not surprising because most people
in the system are state and not federal employees. However, the
federal budget-making process has a major impact on the financial
resources available.
OCR for page 53
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
53
A number of organizations act to coordinate planning and set
priorities in the research and extension system. Within the Divi-
sion of Agriculture of the National Association of State Universi-
ties and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), there is the Experiment
Station Corr~rnittee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and the
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). At
the federal level, the 1977 farm bill established a Joint Council on
Food and Agricultural Sciences and a Users Advisory Board to ad-
vise Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture. The membership
of these two advisory groups includes representatives from private
companies, foundations, and non-land-grant universities, as well
as the traditional federal and state agricultural agencies.
Finally, the system includes federal and state legislative com-
mittees and executive institutions that may influence or have bud-
get control over public agricultural research programs and policy.
Also involved indirectly are the General Accounting Office (GAO),
the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), and within the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP).
Past Contributions from Agricultural Research
Historically, agriculture has relied on public investment in
both basic and applied research. This reliance is particularly true
for certain research areas such as cultural practices or fundamen-
tal breeding programs, in which the private sector cannot easily
create a "product" and thus recoup its investment. Studies have
demonstrated that public investment in agricultural research pro-
duces a very high rate of return. Research expenditures worldwide
provide annual rates of return of about 50 percent (Evenson et al.
1979~.
During some periods the rates of return in American agricul-
ture have been even higher. For example, from 1927 to 1950 the
returns of technology-oriented research in agriculture were esti-
mated to be 95 percent. The returns of science-oriented research
were even higher 110 percent. Technology-oriented research was
defined as including such areas as plant breeding, agronomy, an-
imal production, engineering, and farm management. Science-
oriented research included soil science, botany, zoology, genetics,
OCR for page 54
54
A GRICULTURAL BIO TECHNOL OG Y
plant pathology, and plant and animal physiology. The higher re-
turn from science-oriented research is noteworthy considering that
biotechnology relies on a new array of disciplines oriented toward
· -
~aslc science.
Research has contributed to increased agricultural produc-
tivity, low and stable food prices for American consumers, and
enhanced competitiveness in world markets. Much of this past
success can be attributed to the "articulation" and "decentraliza-
tion" of the American agricultural research establishment (Rut-
tan, 1982~. The close links among various parts of the system-
basic research, applied research, extension, private industry, anal
farmers were strengthened by the decentralization of authority
to the state and local level. Yet it has also been argued that in this
decentralized research system, basic research has been underval-
ued and underfunded. Some even suggest that this underfunding
of basic research explains, in part, the high rates of return. For
example, spillover of basic biomedical research discoveries benefits
agricultural research, but the costs of such biomedical research are
not factored into rate of return estimates for agricultural research.
Overall, however, the continuous state and federal support for re-
search in the land-grant college system has benefited American
agriculture and society at large for close to a century.
Pressures for Change
Despite the past successes of the nation's agricultural research
and extension system, it is not without its critics and problems.
By the early 1970s there were signs that the unique approach of
the federal-state-community alliance had in an unforeseen way
separated agriculture from the rest of academic science. One anal-
ysis concluded that agriculture "the mother of sciences" was
an island empire, isolated from American academic life and no
longer at the leading edge of scientific progress (Mayer and Mayer,
1974~. Another analysis, known as the Pound Report, argued
that public agricultural research had become highly insular and
divorced from the frontiers of knowledge in the basic biological
sciences (NRC, 1972~. This report and others that followed rec-
ommended strengthening support for the basic plant and animal
sciences (Brown et al., 1975; NRC, 1975; OTA, 1977, 1981; Win-
rock International, 1982~. These reports urged the agricultural
OCR for page 55
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
55
research system to establish new funding programs based on open
competition with scientific merit determined by a process of peer
review-the same process used by other federal agencies to award
research grants in the sciences.
Even as the enormous successes of the "Green Revolution"
were introduced into developing nations around the world, critics
of the agricultural research and extension system were pointing to
problems the system had failed to address. In her famous book
Silent Spring (1962), Rachel Carson called public attention to en-
vironmental issues and the problems created by the widespread
use of pesticides. Agricultural research that had deciphered the
interactions of soil, water supply, climate, and pests in crop pro-
duction now needed to address broader environmental and ecolog-
ical problems. The agricultural research system also was criticized
on the grounds of social equity and social justice. Hard Tomatoes,
Hard Times argued that the A-grant college system, initially
established to serve the mass of rural and agricultural people, had
become a publicly subsidized research arm serving agribusiness
and the large farmer (Hightower, 1973~.
Although buffeted by criticism and increasing public demand
to broaden agriculture's research responsibilities and to encom-
pass scientists from allied disciplines, few dramatic changes in
either the institutions themselves or in funding patterns have been
implemented. The National Agricultural Research, Extension and
Teaching Act of 1977, which is Title XIV of the Food and Agri-
culture Act of 1977 (P.~. 95-113), did authorize a series of new
research and education grants and fellowships. One of these was a
program to support high-priority research through a competitive
grants program available to SAESs, all colleges and universities,
other research institutions and organizations, federal agencies, pri-
vate organizations or corporations, and individuals. Authorization
was made for appropriations up to $25 million for the program in
1978 with $5 million increases in the subsequent 3 years and a
$10 million increase for 1982, for a total of $50 ganglion. However,
actual appropriations made by Congress fell far short: only $15,
$15, $15.5, $16, and $16 million were appropriated for those 5
years.
This lack of commitment to financial support for basic re-
search in agriculture has had cumulative and far-reaching impacts:
"Congress has held research resources constant for 15 years and
OCR for page 56
56
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
since World War IT has slowly politicized and destroyed the mag-
nificent science investment in the old UDSA biological and physical
science bureaus and the successor Agricultural Research Service"
(Bonnen, 1983~.
Demands and pressures on the federal-state partnership and
on the research system as a whole remain. Yet support from the
federal government has not been sufficient to accommodate these
growing needs. At present the opportunities and needs of biotech-
nology in agriculture are being added on top of existing demands
and pressures. In 1983 a report from the Division of Agriculture
of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGC, 1983) called for increased funding by the fed-
eral government of at least $70 million per year in competitively
~. ~. .
.
awarded grants to support research and education programs in
biotechnology related to agriculture. The report also stated that
even a $70 million per year increase would provide funding as-
sistance for only a small portion of the biotechnology programs
needed to augment current agricultural research. Congress re-
sponded to this and other recommendations for increased support
with appropriations in FY85 and FY86 of $20 million to increase
the competitive grants program in agricultural biotechnology. The
federal government has not responded fully to the call for an in-
creased financial comrn~tment for basic agricultural research.
The Emergence of Biotechnology
The emergence of biotechnology has stimulated and strength-
ened the contributions of the basic science disciplines of molecular
biology and molecular genetics to the agricultural research estab-
lishment. It has also placed a stronger emphasis on basic research
in cell biology, physiology, and biochemistry. A complete analysis
and understanding of the structure, function, and regulation of a
gene is usually needed before it can be used for a specific purpose.
Such analysis requires a substantial investment of time, talent,
and funds before practical applications can be devised.
The types of products that can be developed using biotech-
nology depend on earlier investments made in basic research. For
example, scientists spent years isolating, purifying, and charac-
terizing the coat proteins of the foot-and-mouth disease virus.
OCR for page 57
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
57
However, once they had the amino acid sequences of these pro-
teins in hand, it took them only a few months' work with the tools
of biotechnology to prepare subunit vaccines that protect against
this costly cattle disease. Similar progress against other diseases
will depend on obtaining basic knowledge of the disease agents in-
volved. The development of genetically engineered animal growth
hormones and plant herbicide-resistance traits were possible be-
cause of the years of fundamental research invested in trying to
understand the basic biology of these systems.
In addition to requiring a large initial investment to acquire
basic knowledge, biotechnology research approaches shorten the
time between discovery and technology development. This is
bringing about a greater confluence of basic and applied research
interests.
Tools of biotechnology are rooted in discoveries from basic
research investigations conducted by the biomedical research com-
munity. Although agriculture is predicted to be a major bene-
ficiary of the advances brought about by biotechnology (OTA,
1983), the agricultural research system provided very little sup-
port for early developments in biotechnology. Most of the support
for research that established the theories and methodologies of
biotechnology came from the National Institutes of Health (NTH)
and the National Science Foundation (NSF), predominantly in the
form of peer-reviewed, competitive grants. Furthermore, most of
this research was conducted in private and public university de-
partments with little or no direct connection to the agricultural
sector.
Table 3-1 shows levels of support to universities for basic,
applied, and developmental research by the major federal research-
supporting agencies. Although it is often difficult to make sharp
distinctions among these three categories of research, the data
show that, except for the Department of Defense, the USDA gives
the least emphasis to basic research.
A distinguishing feature of biotechnology is that its unique
genetic products are often patentable. Prior to 1970, private sec-
tor agricultural research in the United States placed relatively
little emphasis on developing biological inputs, with the exception
of hybrid seeds, and focused instead on machinery and chemical
inputs. However, the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 and
a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Diamond v. Chakrabarty)
OCR for page 58
.
58
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
TABLE 3-1 Expenditures in FY85 for R&D at Universities
by Major Federal Agencies (millions of dollars
Percentage
Major SupportBasicApplied of Basic
AgenciesResearchResearchDevelopmentTotal Researchi'
-
DOD'108.8178.4352.8940.0 43
DOE211.3124.621.6357.5 59
HHS2,091.4889.2166.93,147.5 66
NASA176.936.541.6255.0 69
NSF943.158.70.01,001.8 94
USDA142.6149.61.0293.2 49
Total funding3,974.11,437.0583.95.995.0
NOTE: DOD = Dept. of Defense; DOE = Dept. of Energy; HHS = Dept. of Health and
Human Services; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NSF = National
Science Foundation; and USDA = U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
a Estimates reflect each agency's classification system and definition of basic and applied
research.
b Basic research calculated as a percentage of total estimated support. Values are rounded to the
nearest whole number.
SOURCE: Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1985? 1986, and 1987,
Volume XXXV, Detailed Statistical Tables. National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.
established the legality of obtaining patents for novel life forms.
These actions have stimulatecl private investment in agricultural
research, and over the past decade, private sector investment in
biotechnology has grown sharply. Yet there have been financial
casualties. It is difficult for a small company to survive the long
gestation period of basic research needed before a product is devel-
oped and profits can be realized. The private sector increasingly
recognizes that its own progress in biotechnology development de-
pends on the progress made in publicly supported basic research.
Thus, in biotechnology there appears to be an alliance emerg-
~ng between public sector basic science and private sector technol-
ogy development. For the most part, these alliances in biotech-
nology include new participants who have not been part of the
traditional agricultural research establishment. Their work and
interests complement rather than replace the traditional, public
and private agricultural research establishment.
The major issue facing the application of biotechnology to agri-
cultural problems is how to strengthen and link the new and tra-
ditional research elements. Advances in basic biological research
and applications of the tools of biotechnology are increasing the
.
OCR for page 59
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
59
demand for both public and private sector applied research aimed
at technology development and transfer. Meeting this demand is
an urgent but formidable task, and will require a significant in-
vestment in training and institutional development for research
and technology transfer.
INSTITUTIONS THAT SUPPORT
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
To examine the type of institutions needed to advance agri-
cultural biotechnology, this section looks at who is conducting
and funding agricultural research. It then examines the types of
institutional and funding changes needed to apply the tools of
biotechnology to agriculture more rapidly.
USDA is the primary federal agency supporting agricultural
research, but it is only one element in the nation's research system.
Other federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE),
EPA, NTH, NSF, and even the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) make direct and indirect contributions of
varying degrees of importance. In addition, the states and the
private sector provide extensive support for agricultural research.
Together, this combination of federal, state, and private support
has brought about significant progress in agriculture. Applying
this same level of investment to biotechnology could revolutionize
agriculture.
The following discussion highlights the major institutions that
support research related to agriculture and gives some indication
of their involvement in biotechnology. For federal agencies, the
total FY86 appropriation is given in parentheses. However, many
of these agencies have only a minor interest in agriculture, and an
even smaller interest in biotechnology, so only a small fraction of
their research funds are used for these purposes.
Federal Agencies
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricullural Research Service. The ARS is the primary in-
tramural research agency of the USDA. It conducts research on a
range of topics including soil and water resources, environmental
quality, the biology and production of crop plants and animals,
OCR for page 60
60
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
pests, nutrition, marketing, and international trade. With an
annual budget that just reached half a billion dollars (FY86 ap-
propriation: $509.7 million), the ARS supports a network of 133
research centers located across the United States and abroad. Re-
search programs are generally national in perspective and include
high-risk, long-range research as well as applied goals. In addi-
tion, the ARS maintains genetic stocks of farm animals and plant
collections in clonal and seed repositories.
Biotechnology research represents only a small part of the total
agricultural research funded by USDA through ARS. According
to data collected by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO,
1985), as of October 1984, ARS reported that it was conducting
183 biotechnology research projects with an estimated cost in
FY85 of $26.4 million. Data collected the following year put the
estimated FY85 expenditure for biotechnology research at $24.5
million (GAO, 1986~.
Cooperative State Research Service. The CSRS administers
federal funds provided for agricultural research at the SAESs and
other eligible institutions (FY86 appropriation: $288.7 million).
CSRS also participates in the national system of agricultural re-
search planning and coordination, facilitating cooperation among
state institutions as well as between state institutions and their
federal research partners. In most states, federal funds account for
less than one-third of the SAESs' total operating costs.
More than half of the federal CSRS appropriation is dis-
tributed under the Hatch Act (FY86 appropriation: $155.5 mil-
lion). Hatch funds go to the states based on a formula estab-
lished by Congress that considers the size of each state's rural
and farm populations. The SAESs allocate the money for desig-
nated projects according to their own priorities. Federal McIntire-
Stennis funds support forestry research at SAESs (FY86 appro-
priation: $13.0 million). A third category of support to SAESs
are Special Grants (FY86 appropriation: $28.6 million), usually
awarded by Congress and directed to specific agricultural problems
at eligible cooperative institutions.
The CSRS Competitive Research Grants (FY86 appropria-
tion: $42.3 million plus $6.5 million for forestry grants) are peer-
reviewed and awarded on a merit basis to competing research
OCR for page 61
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
TABLE 3-2 Competitive Grant Funding per Principal
Investigator in Agriculture, Biology, and Biomedicine
\
61
Sponsoring Agency
USDA
NSF
DOE: Biological Energy Research Division
NIH
Average Grant
Award per Yeara
(FY86 Awards)
$ 46,200b
70,000C
72,000
164,000
a Values given include both direct and indirect costs.
b Competitive Research Grants Office, Forestry, and Small Business
Innovation Research Grants.
C Plant biology and biotechnology-related grants; the average grant size
over the entire Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences
was $65,000.
SOURCE: Personal communications from agency program directors,
1987.
scientists throughout the U.S. scientific community. Competi-
tive grants are given for research projects in animal and plant
biotechnology, pest science, animal science, plant science, human
nutrition, and forestry. (The forestry grants are a separate ap-
propriation from the U.S. Forest Service, as will be described.)
Funding for the competitive grants program increased from $16.4
million in 1984 to $51.7 million in 1985, but declined to $48.8
million in 1986. Of the 1985 funding, $19.2 million was for a
component of the grants program to specifically support biotech-
nology research. This represented 32 percent of the grants and
37 percent of the program funds awarded. In 1986, $18.0 mil-
lion was allocated for biotechnology research, which is 36 percent
of the program funds awarded. Thus, biotechnology-related re-
search now constitutes a major part of the research supported by
this grants program. Competition is keen for competitive research
grants; only 19 percent of the proposals submitted in all areas were
funded in 1985 and 1986. The average grants awarded in 1985 and
1986 were $102,000 and $92,400, respectively, for 2 years or about
$51,000 and $46,200 per year (Table 3-2~; these amounts are far
short of the level of funding required by a modern laboratory to
do top-quaTity research in any of the fields represented.
OCR for page 79
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
TABLE 3-8 A Companson of Data on Funding Levels Available for FY84
and FY85 on Biotechnology and Agnculturally Related Biotechnology
Research by Selected Sources
79
Sponsor
AGRICULTURALLY RELATED BIOTECHNOLOGY
USDAa
Agncultural Research Service
Cooperative State Research Service:
Competitive Research Grants Office
Hatch Act and Special Grants
SAKS (nonfederal support) b
State funding
Industry
Private industry
ALL BIOTECHNOLOGY a
EPA
FDA
NIH
NSF
Amount
(millions of dollars)
24.5
30.0
18.4
17.3
5.6
1~0.0
1.5
2.6
1,849.5
81.6
NOTE: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FDA = Food and Drug Administration;
and SAKS = State Agncultural Expenment Stations.
a FY85. Competitive Research Grants Office funding includes both specific biotechnology
grants and additional biotechnology-related research covered by its other grants. Funding by
non-USDA federal agencies may include some agriculturally related biotechnology research.
SOURCE: Government Accounting Office, 1986.
b FY84 data.
C Estimate based on data from the Agncultural Research Institute, 1985. A Survey of U.S.
Agncultural Research by Private Industry III. Bethesda, Md.
SOURCE: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1985.
information does give some indication of what different govern-
ment agencies estimate they spend on biotechnology (see Tables
3-2 and 3-8~.
Ultimately, the important consideration is the availability of
adequate funding to support significant advances in biotechnol-
ogy. What does it cost to make progress in agriculturally related
biotechnology? The following is one estimate of the price tag on a
discovery in biotechnology of value to agriculture.
OCR for page 80
80
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPING A DISCOVERY INTO A RESEARCH TOOL:
THE COST OF THE AGROBACTERIUM TI PLASMID
How much does it cost to take a discovery in molecular biology
and develop it into a useful biotechnology? To arrive at an answer,
other questions must be considered. For instance, how many sci-
entists are working, in how many laboratories, and over how many
years? How do you account for the related basic knowledge that
laid the foundation for the discovery? How do you define what
other variables are involved in calculating the true costs?
The Agrobacterium Ti plasmid is one of the earliest biotech-
nology success stories in plant research and is a classic example
of how happenstance combines with years of effort to provide a
useful research tool. The route to the discovery began at the turn
of the century, with research on a plant disease called crown gall.
USDA scientists discovered that Agrobacter'?~m [umefaciens was
the disease agent. By the 1940s, about 20 scientists concentrated
in three laboratories (one in the United States and two in France)
were actively studying fundamental aspects of the disease. By the
late 1960s the worldwide effort had grown to include about 40
researchers in 10 different laboratories.
At first, the work was of interest to only a small group of people
studying plant diseases. Then in 1979, following the discovery that
the bacterium was actually transferring genetic material to higher
plants, the research effort exploded. Scientists quickly saw the
practical potential of this mechanism for gene transfer. About
40 scientists worked in 10 laboratories for 4 years reconstructing
the Ti plasmas as a plant gene transfer system. Throughout the
early 1980s, laboratory studies related to plant gene transfer and
to the Ti system occupied the talents of up to 250 additional
scientists. By 1986, at least 300 people working in about 25
laboratories worldwide were conducting research on both applied
and fundamental aspects of the Ti plasmid system. The annual
estimated cost of this research worldwide was about $45 million.
(This amount assumes an average expense of $150,000 per scientist
per year.)
Adding up the costs of the research directly related to the
development of the Ti plasmid gene transfer system gives only a
general estimate of the expense of developing one technical break-
through in biotechnology. Much of the research using the Ti
OCR for page 81
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
~1
plasm~d in plant gene transfer is being supported either by private
industry or by competitive grants to universities.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
As stated earlier, the commitment to basic research is key to
applying the promise of biotechnology to agriculture. Future di-
rections and applications, as well as new technologies, will emerge
from fundamental studies of metabolic pathways and the regula-
tion of growth and development funded by federal research agen-
cies. Private industry and state governments cannot be expected
to invest significantly in such long-term, high-risk research. Up-
front investment in the future of agricultural biotechnology is a
federal responsibility.
Gl~z~rl~r I Jan A h ~ an ohli cation to ster, un its support of
biotechnology research. USDA could increase its emphasis on
biotechnology in two ways: by adding more money or by redirect-
ing existing money. Any increase in funding at USDA should not
come at the expense of appropriations to other federal agencies
that support research relevant to agriculture. Redirection of some
existing research program funds must also occur within the USDA
budget to heighten the priority given to biotechnology. This redi-
rection can be done most effectively by a substantial increase in
research awards through the Competitive Research Grants Once
Program.
~O
Greater emphasis is needed on agricultural biotechnology with-
in both the USDA and the NSF to maintain the nation's com-
petitive position in agriculture, technology, and world markets.
Given the current average cost of $173,000 per year to support a
research scientist at an SAKS and a projected demand for 3,000
active scientists working in biotechnology research related to agri-
culture (see Chapter 4), federal funding should be increased in
this area to about $500 million per year by 1990. This support
should be administered by the primary federal agencies support-
ing agricultural biotechnology (USDA and NSF) in the form of
peer-reviewed, competitive grants.
Integration of Agricultural Research Disciplines
Agricultural research depends on basic science, applied sci-
ence, technology development, and technology transfer (including
OCR for page 82
82
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
extension). In realigning the research system to promote advances
in biotechnology, communication must be maintained among ba-
sic researchers, applied researchers, and the farmers and private
companies who use the technology. If the system is to be effective,
we must strengthen both the links among disciplines of science
supporting agriculture and the links between basic and applied
research and technology development and transfer.
Integration of different disciplines is important because it fa-
cilitates the blending of skills and knowledge. For example, the
fields of biology and chemistry have been integrated in biochem-
istry. Cytology and genetics have come together to provide new
insights into gene identification. In addition, the already hybrid
fields of biochemistry and chemical engineering have joined forces
in developing bioprocess and fermentation technology. Integra-
tion of basic and applied research and technology development
and transfer is particularly important in biotechnology because
this field has developed from the confluence of basic science and
technology development.
Integration of research from basic science, to applied science,
to technology development, and then to technology transfer has
traditionally been carried out by land-grant universities, and these
institutions will continue to play an important role in the future.
Yet new institutional forms are now emerging outside the tradi-
tional land-grant system as efforts mount to improve efficiency
in the development of profitable technology. These new forms of
integration are being encouraged in part by the rapid growth of
private sector research in biotechnology.
LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES
Land-grant universities are well suites! to foster the inte-
gration of research to develop and apply biotechnology because
of their tripartite structure teaching, research, and extension.
Land-grant universities with strong basic science departments are
able to mount a continuum of activities ranging from fundamental
research, to applied research, and then to extension. Coopera-
tive extension provides a feedback mechanism to let researchers
know whether the technologies they develop are appropriate to the
needs of their clientele. Because of federal budget cuts in formula
funding for both research and extension, the research programs
OCR for page 83
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
83
of these land-grant universities depend increasingly on financing
through competitive grants from both public and private sources.
Although this increased dependence on grants should improve the
quality of scientific research, feedback between the clientele and
scientists has been weakened considerably. Thus, both the quality
of research and its relevance to the end users must be taken into
consideration in the research review process.
To foster the integration of research, there must be an envi-
ronment within the university that encourages cooperation across
departments and colleges, and across basic and applied research
entities. A key to this environment is the recruitment of high-
quaTity faculty in all areas. The reward system of the university
should also be responsive to and supportive of integrated programs
if these are to succeed.
Integration in agricultural research should be promoted and
supported. Universities need to establish graduate programs that
cut across departmental lines; recognize and reward faculty contri-
butions to cooperative research programs; promote collaborative
projects and exchanges between researchers in land-grant univer-
sities, non-land-grant schools, industry, and government laborato-
ries; and recruit faculty to create interdisciplinary research teams
that can attract competitive funding.
NEW INSTITUTIO NAL F O RMS
New institutional forms can be created to help facilitate the
integration of biotechnology research. One example is the creation
of centers focused on one or more specific agricultural issues. The
publicly supported Michigan Biotechnology Institute (discussed in
Chapter 5) is one example of a center that integrates basic and
applied research. This center, located near Michigan State Uni-
versity, focuses on the applications of biotechnology to renewable
resources that benefit the state. It conducts both basic and applied
research aimed at developing and patenting new technologies and
products. If this organization is successful, similar institutions are
certain to develop.
Other linkages are being established between applied research
institutions or businesses and basic research centers. For example,
OCR for page 84
84
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
the Rockefeller Foundation Is funding a program on biotechnol-
ogy for rice, which will link the work of scientists at the Inter-
national Rice Research Institute in the Philippines with that of
scientists in basic research laboratories in the United States and
Europe. The seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
has given a grant to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York
and will station one of its scientists at this basic research institute.
Other collaborative research programs, such as the Cornell Univer-
sity Biotechnology Program (discusser] in Chapter 5), link private
company researchers and university basic research programs.
NEW APPROACHES TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Several steps could be taken to encourage the integration of
research. Federal and state governments should support the es-
tablishment of collaborative research centers, promote interdisci-
plinary conferences and seminars, support sabbaticals for govern-
ment scientists and other exchange and retraining programs with
universities and industrial laboratories, and provide funding for
interdisciplinary project grants.
GRANTS FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
In biomedical sciences and human health, it is not uncommon
for articles published in scientific journals to have a half dozen
or more coauthors. Multiple authorship often reflects productive
interdisciplinary collaboration. In the agricultural sciences, the
tradition of individual achievement is still strong. There should
be a significant increase in grants designed to encourage inter-
disciplinary research, such as those sponsored by the McKnight
Foundation (see Chapter 4~.
COLLABORATIVE GROUPS AND EXCHANGES
The land-grant universities potentially have a strong capacity
for interdisciplinary and collaborative research efforts in agricul-
tural biotechnology. Private universities, in contrast, have few
agricultural science-related disciplines. However, private univer-
sities do have reservoirs of talent in basic sciences that are es-
sential for biotechnology development. It would be highly ad-
vantageous for the development of agricultural biotechnology to
OCR for page 85
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
85
promote both Tong-term collaborations and temporary exchanges
among land-grant and other public and private research univer-
sities. For instance, USDA agronomists and other agricultural
scientists should be encouraged to take sabbaticals at non-land-
grant institutions. Longer term collaborative projects between
land-grant and non-land-grant institutions would help pave the
pathways of information exchange.
Exchange of personnel between public-sector research insti-
tutions and private companies engaged in research should also be
encouraged. Research in the private sector tends to have a stronger
focus on teams, and the reward system is often more conducive to
interdisciplinary research.
LARGE LABORATORY GROUPS
Large, autonomous laboratory groups can also function effec-
tively to pursue some biotechnology-oriented research goals. Such
groups are especially needed at universities that have limited fac-
ulty in areas such an plant science. A large laboratory with 15 or
more scientists will have the manpower and resources to attack
research problems that cannot be effectively handled by small
laboratories or by individual scientists working in isolation.
RESEARCH CENTERS
The NSF has been instrumental in setting up 11 Engineering
Research Centers, each of which is based at a university selected
through rigorous competition. These centers receive substantial
funding from industry as well as from the federal government.
They bring together academic and industrial researchers to attack
specific scientific problems in a multidisciplinary setting. Exam-
ples of this approach initiated in biotechnology include MIT's
Biotechnology Process Engineering Center and Cornell's Biotech-
nology Research Program. The center concept can be extended to
integrate basic science and technology development activities.
OCR for page 86
86
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
RECOMM} :NDATIONS
LINKING AND INTEGRATING RESEARCH
The tools and approaches of biotechnology are equally relevant
to science-oriented research and technology-oriented research. Bio-
technology can strengthen as well as benefit from improved link-
ages between basic scientific research and research to adapt tech-
nology to agricultural problems. Equally important, different dis-
ciplines within biology and agriculture can collaborate to integrate
knowledge and skills toward new advances in agriculture.
New approaches to agricultural research are needed to es-
tablish strong and productive linkages between basic science and
its applications as well as interdisciplinary systems approaches
that focus a number of skills on a common mission. Just as
biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and fields of medicine
have successfully joined forces to solve medical problems, integra-
tion of these scientific disciplines for agricultural research must be
promoted and supported by appropriate recognition and reward
through university, industry, and government channels.
First, universities should establish graduate programs that
cut across departmental lines; recognize and reward faculty contri-
butions to cooperative research programs; promote collaborative
projects and exchanges between researchers in land-grant univer-
sities, non-land-grant universities, industry, and government lab-
oratories; and recruit faculty to create interdisciplinary research
programs that can attract competitive funding. Faculty should be
selected by departments or groups representing two or more disci-
plines (e.g., genetics and entomology or biochemistry and botany).
Second, federal and state governments should support the
establishment of collaborative research centers, promote interdis-
ciplinary conferences and seminars, support sabbaticals for gov-
ernment scientists and other exchange and retraining programs
with universities and industrial laboratories, and provide funding
for interdisciplinary-program project grants.
OCR for page 87
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
87
PEER AND MERIT REVIEW
A peer and merit review process must be used to assess and
guide the development of the agricultural biotechnology research
system, including all steps from basic science to extension.
The participants and procedures in the review process should
be organized to match the nature of the tasks and programs re-
viewed and must include individuals outside the organization as
well as experts from relevant disciplines and from basic and applied
research programs.
Efforts must be made to broaden the expertise represented on
review panels in order to best examine the quality and relevance of
work with minimal bias. The benefits of peer and merit review-
properly done and heeded are continuous monitoring of research
advances; more efficient, relevant, and higher quality research; and
increased communication and respect among scientists.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
It is logical that primary funding for agricultural biotechnol-
ogy should be achieved through the USDA. Unfortunately, funding
for both intramural and extramural basic research within USDA
is well below that of other federal agencies. USDA has recognized
the need to support basic research and is attempting to do so,
albeit not as rapidly as might be optimal. Funding increases are
needed. Allocation of new and even redirected funding should be
based principally on competitive peer and merit review.
Any increase in funding at USDA should not come at the
expense of appropriations to other federal agencies that support
biological research relevant to agriculture. This is because it is not
always clear where innovation applicable to agricultural biotech-
nology might arise. However, some existing research program
funds should be redirected within USDA to heighten the prior-
ity given to biotechnology. USDA should also emphasize related
fundamental research on animals and plants, the lack of which is
impeding the application of biotechnology to livestock and crop
improvement.
Funding for competitive grants through USDA must be of a
size and duration sufficient to ensure high-quality, efficient research
programs. The recommended average grant should be increased
OCR for page 88
88
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
to $150,000 per year for an average of 3 years or more. This level
of funding is consistent with the current average support per prin-
cipal investigator used by industry and USDA/ARS intramural
research programs. The duration of these competitive grants is
also in accord with the recent recommendation:
Of equal importance with the level of funding is the stabilization of federal
support to permit more elective use of financial and human resources....
Federal agencies ishould] work toward an average grant or contract duration
of at least three, and preferably five, years. tWhite House Science Council,
1986)
The committee recommends that competitive grants by all
agencies in the federal government for biotechnology research re-
lated to agriculture total upwards of $500 million annually, a level
that could support 3,000 active scientists. This level of support
should be achieved by 1990, primarily through competitive grants
administered by USDA and NSF.
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS' ROLE
States should continue to strengthen their already major role
in agricultural research and training through their support of uni-
versities and research stations that conduct regional research.
They should continue to focus on identifying regional interests
and on supporting the training of personnel needed in agriculture.
The states should also evaluate programs in agricultural biotech-
nology and the role such programs can and will play in each state's
economy.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR'S ROLE
The private sector's traditional emphasis on product devel-
opment is not likely to change, even though there h" been a
dramatic increase since 1980 in private sector investment in high-
risk basic research in agricultural biotechnology. Because public
sector investment provides skilled manpower and the knowledge
base for innovation, industry should act as an advocate for publicly
supported training and research programs in agricultural biotech-
nology. Industry can also support biotechnology research through
direct grants and contracts to universities, cooperative agreements
with federal laboratories, and education to inform the general pub
kc about the impacts of agricultural biotechnology.
OCR for page 89
FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONS
89
Foundations should be encouraged to support innovative sci-
ence programs in order to maximize their potential for having sub-
stantial influence in important areas. The McKnight Foundation's
interdisciplinary program for plant research and the Rockefeller
Foundation's efforts to accelerate biotechnology developments in
rice are noteworthy examples. Other foundations should address
equally important experiments in technology transfer and exten-
sion for agricultural biotechnology.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
agricultural biotechnology
