4
Structural Impacts of Public Investment in Agricultural Research
This chapter analyzes the public research portfolio and its structural implications. It first reviews the array of public-sector responses to structural issues and provides examples that illustrate public-sector efforts to monitor and analyze structural trends, serve the needs of diverse constituencies, and understand the effects of drivers of structural change. Next, the chapter compares empirical data on allocation of research spending among various research categories between 1986 and 1997. This section draws broad conclusions about the distribution of investments in the portfolio and their changes over time, with particular attention to research investments likely to better serve diverse producers or to incur structural change (based on the analysis in Chapters 2 and 3). In-depth analysis of investments in environmental research provides an example of a public-sector research investment that is likely to serve producers outside mainstream agriculture. Finally, innovative funding mechanisms are described as possible avenues for addressing structural issues.
PUBLIC-SECTOR RESPONSES TO STRUCTURAL ISSUES
Structural and distributional issues have increasingly become focal areas for the public sector. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (U.S. Congress, 1996) and the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act (AREERA) of 1998 (U.S. Congress, 1998) highlight the importance of these issues. AREERA authorizes coordinated programs to improve the viability of small and medium-sized operations and to support minority-serving institutions. FAIR established a competitive-education-grants program for Hispanic-serving institutions, and it mandated representation by minority-serving institutions on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board.
Public-sector research that responds to structural issues can be broadly categorized into three major areas (Box 4–1): research to monitor and analyze structural variables; research that serves needs of diverse constituencies; and research to further explain other drivers of structural change, including the influence of alternative policy instruments on structural change (Chapter 5). Box 4–1 lists general examples of public research efforts to address those issues.
BOX 4–1 Public-Sector Responses to Structural Issues Research Monitoring Structural Change
Responding to Diverse Needs
|
Drivers of Structural Change
|
|
Recommendation 8
The public sector should continue to acknowledge the importance of structural change in agriculture. ERS and NASS should continue to monitor and analyze structural change and its causes.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INVESTMENTS
This section documents the committee’s analysis of the public-sector agricultural research portfolio. It includes a time-series comparison of agricultural research spending between 1986 and 1997 and an analysis of the 1999 investment portfolio subsequent to the 1998 reorganization of the Current Research Information System (CRIS). The committee relied heavily on CRIS, and the next section provides background on the choice of its use as a data set.
Current Research Information System
CRIS is the USDA’s documentation and reporting system for continuing and recently completed research projects in agriculture, food and nutrition, and forestry. Information is reported to the CRIS database by USDA intramural research agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, state land grant colleges and universities, 1890s institutions, state schools of forestry, schools of veterinary medicine, and USDA grant recipients. A variety of funders, including federal, private, and state sources, support projects reported to CRIS. For example, in FY 1999, USDA funding supported about 37 percent of the total research reported to CRIS. State
appropriations accounted for about 35 percent; nonfederal funding sources, including private-sector sources, accounted for about 16 percent; and agricultural research funded by other federal agencies accounted for about 12 percent (USDA, 1999f).
The committee acknowledges several limitations of the CRIS data set. First, there are institutions, including private-sector institutions, that do not report to CRIS that do perform agricultural research with public funds. Second, information reported to the CRIS is not always reliable, and the classification of research into categories can be misleading. Third, the database does not comprehensively report agricultural research funding from state or other federal sources, although it does include some agricultural projects supported by federal agencies other than USDA. Despite these limitations, CRIS is the only uniform, longitudinal database available in which data are disaggregated by funding source, institution performing the research, and research program area.
Public Research Spending, 1986 and 1997
The committee used CRIS data to compare the distribution of funds from various sources among research areas for two years, 1986 and 1997, chosen for data compatibility (USDA, 1986; 1997b). The data are categorized by research subject and research goal. The information is summarized in Tables 4–1 and 4–2. Table 4–1 compares the distribution of public funds for agricultural research by commodity in 1986 and in 1997, and Table 4–2 compares the distribution of public research funds by goal. The committee’s analysis presents the summary of total public research funds (state and federal). Although the committee did not disaggregate the data at the state and federal levels here, general observations are offered about state-level funding as a percentage of total state resources in particular areas and state funding relative to federal spending within an area.
Although Tables 4–1 and 4–2 show data for just two years, they illustrate general trends from which we can deduce several patterns of allocation. Most funds were devoted to research on agricultural commodities—both plants and livestock. These subjects received 53.86 percent of research funding (sum for categories 3 through 7 in Table 4–1) in 1986, but that funding dropped to 50.61 percent in 1997. Commodity research is applied, and it tends to result in biologic and agronomic innovation (including new uses for agricultural products). Most of the expenditure, 37.33 percent in 1986 and 33.42 percent in 1997 (sum for categories 4, 5, and 6) went to research on field crops, dairy, beef, poultry, and swine. States also appropriated the largest share of total state resources to research on agricultural commodities. Relative to federal sources, state
TABLE 4–1 Historic Allocation of Public Research Funds by Commodity
Classification category |
Percentage of total public fundsa |
Difference |
||
|
1986 |
1997 |
|
|
1. |
Water, air, soilb |
9.07% |
10.91% |
1.84% |
2. |
Forests, wildlife, fishc |
12.80% |
15.07% |
2.27% |
3. |
Fruits, vegetables, ornamentalsd |
13.12% |
13.22% |
0.10% |
4. |
Field cropse |
19.59% |
17.90% |
−1.69% |
5. |
Dairy and beeff |
11.05% |
9.26% |
−1.79% |
6. |
Poultry and swineg |
6.69% |
6.26% |
−0.43% |
7. |
Other animalsg |
3.41% |
3.97% |
0.56% |
8. |
Equipmenti |
0.74% |
0.38% |
−0.36% |
9. |
Economic, nutrition, marketingj |
9.67% |
9.80% |
0.13% |
10. |
Weed, seeds, plantsk |
6.48% |
5.89% |
−0.59% |
11. |
Othersl |
7.38% |
7.34% |
0.04% |
Total (percent) |
100.00% |
100.00% |
0.00% |
|
Total (nominal 1,000 dollars) |
$1,764,129 |
$2,721,509 |
$957,380 |
|
aTotal public funds represent the sum of USDA-appropriated funding, CSREES-administered funding, other USDA funding, other federal funding, and state appropriations. “Other nonfederal funding” (including self-generated funds, funding from industry grants or agreements, and miscellaneous funds) is not included in the total. bSoil and land; water; watersheds and river basins; air and climate; recreation resources. cTimber forest products; range; wildlife and fish. dCitrus and tropical-subtropical fruit; deciduous and small fruits and edible tree nuts; potatoes; vegetables; ornamentals and turf. eCorn; grain sorghum; rice; wheat; other small grains; pasture; forage crops; cotton; cottonseed; soybeans; peanuts; other oilseed crops; tobacco; sugar crops; miscellaneous and new crops. fBeef cattle; dairy cattle. gPoultry; swine. hSheep and wool; honeybees and other pollinating insects; other animals. iFarm supplies and facilities; housing and equipment. jFood; people as individuals; family members; farm as a business; socio-political organization; agricultural economy U.S.; agricultural economy foreign; farm cooperatives; other marketing, processing, and supply firms; marketing systems. kWeeds; seed research; biologic cell systems; plants. lExperimental design/statistical methods; invertebrates; microorganisms and viruses; animals (vertebrates); research on research; management; research equipment and technology; unclassified. SOURCE: Adapted from FY 1986 unpublished tables and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997b. Selected CRIS Funding Summaries, FY 1997, Table C: National Summary USDA, SAES, and other institutions by commodity. |
TABLE 4–2 Historic Allocation of Public Research Funds by Goal
Research Problem Area |
Percentage of total public fundsa |
Difference |
||
|
1986 |
1997 |
|
|
1. |
Sustainable resources managementb |
14.23% |
15.40% |
1.16% |
2. |
Disease controlc |
23.38% |
24.60% |
1.22% |
3. |
Enhanced productivityd |
32.86% |
26.57% |
−6.29% |
4. |
Improved productse |
9.20% |
9.69% |
0.49% |
5. |
Improve marketingf |
2.62% |
2.57% |
−0.05% |
6. |
Expand export marketsg |
1.43% |
1.01% |
−0.42% |
7. |
Improve health and nutritionh |
7.11% |
7.91% |
0.80% |
8. |
Assist rural Americansi |
2.22% |
2.09% |
−0.12% |
9. |
Community improvementj |
6.95% |
10.16% |
3.21% |
Total (percent) |
100.00% |
100.00% |
0.00% |
|
Total (nominal 1,000 dollars) |
$1,764,129 |
$2,721,509 |
$957,380 |
|
aTotal public funds represent the sum of USDA-appropriated funding, CSREES-administered funding, other USDA funding, other federal funding, and state appropriations. “Other nonfederal funding” (including self-generated funds, funding from industry grants or agreements, and miscellaneous funds) is not included in the total. bEnsure a stable and productive agriculture for the future through wise management of natural resources. cProtect forests, crops and livestock from insects, diseases and other hazards dProduce an adequate supply of farm and forest products at decreasing real production costs. eExpand the demand for farm and forest products by developing new and improved products and processes and enhancing product quality. fImprove efficiency in the marketing system. gExpand export markets and assist developing nations. hProtect consumer health and improve nutrition and well-being of the American people. iAssist rural Americans to improve their level of living. jPromote community improvement including development of beauty, recreation, environment, economic opportunity, and public services. SOURCE: Adapted from FY 1986 unpublished tables and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997b. Selected CRIS Funding Summaries, FY 1997, Table D: National Summary USDA, SAES, and other institutions by research problem area. |
sources for production agriculture accounted for half or more of the total funding in many categories of production agriculture (data not shown).
Funding for research on field crops decreased from 19.59 percent in 1986 to 17.9 percent in 1997. The field crop sector is expected to continue toward increased size of operations and declining number of producers.
Specialty commodities (fruit, vegetables, ornamentals, and specialty animals: categories 3 and 7) received 16.53 percent of total public funding in
1986 and 17.19 percent in 1997. State funding for research on specialty commodities accounted for about a fifth of total state resources, about half of the total funding allocated to specialty commodities from all public sources, and was concentrated in a small number of states (data not shown). Total spending on specialty commodities relative to total commodities (sum of categories 3–7) increased from 31 percent of commodity spending (16.53/53.86) in 1986 to 34 percent of commodity spending (17.19/50.61) in 1997. Markets for some of those commodities are less saturated, and demand is more elastic than for major commodities; thus, specialty commodities could provide expanding sources of earning and value added to farms.
Less funding went to research on poultry and swine than to research on dairy and beef cattle. The poultry and swine industries have become industrialized (much of their output is produced through contracting or by vertical integration), whereas dairy and especially beef producers have retained competitive structures. Some of the major integrators of poultry and swine (e.g., Purdue Chicken, Tyson) have their own research facilities; dairy cooperatives generally fund public-sector research.
Little public funding was allocated in either year for basic mechanical or chemical research.
Finally, a modest but growing share of the research budget (from 9.67 to 9.8 percent) was allocated to economics, nutrition, and marketing (category 9, Table 4–1). The research results produced in those areas generally could be useful for small and large producers alike; however, results tend to be used more by producers with larger farms and more education.
Table 4–2 compares the distribution of public research funds by research problem area in 1986 and in 1997. The data suggest that the major goal of agricultural research is to increase production. That goal includes disease control, enhanced productivity, and development of new products. We observed a reduction in the allocation of resources to improved production categories from 65.44 percent (sum of allocations for problem areas 2, 3, and 4) of the budget in 1986 to 60.86 percent of the budget in 1997.
Improved marketing of food and fiber both in the United States and abroad (categories 5 and 6, Table 4–2) received a modest share of the budget—4.05 percent in 1986 and 3.58 percent in 1997. Low prices and unfavorable market conditions are major problems in agriculture (Gardner, 1992), and more research in this area could improve the income and welfare of farmers. Although marketing research could benefit all farms, some will undoubtedly help small farms remain competitive. Nonetheless, larger farmers have a greater incentive to use the information.
Finally, modest shares of research funds went to rural development projects (categories 8 and 9, Table 4–2), which received 9.17 percent of funds
TABLE 4–3 Allocation of Public Agricultural Research Funds, 1999a
SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999f. Selected CRIS Funding Summaries, FY 1999, Table D: National Summary USDA, SAES, and other institutions by research problem area. [Online] http://www.cris.csrees.usda.gov/star/cristin.htm. |
in 1986 and 12.25 percent in 1997. Relative to federal sources, state sources accounted for approximately half of the total in these categories. The increase in public funding could have structural implications, to the extent that alternative rural livelihoods could improve as a result of the research. Small, part-time farmers would benefit from the results.
Public Research Spending, 1999
A revised CRIS taxonomy was approved by the CRIS Enhancement Steering Committee in 1998 (USDA, 1999f). Table 4–3 shows the allocation of funds to research problems by major topic area and by subcategory.
The new structure allows useful insight about allocations both by crop and by objective. Production issues, including plants, animals, and economic markets and policy, received 62.45 percent of total funding. The balance went to areas that do not contribute directly to agricultural production but that address environmental, engineering, nutritional, and social concerns of the agricultural and food sector.
A small but substantial share, 16.93 percent, was allocated to projects on natural resources and the environment. Although engineering received only 2.22 percent of the total funding, more than a third of that went to environmental engineering topics, including waste disposal, recycling, and reuse.
A significant share, 14.35 percent, was allocated to development of new products, to studies of economic markets and policy, and to studies of family and community systems. The largest portions of economic funding were allocated to natural resources and environmental economics. Environmental, consumer, and community resource and development economics received about 2 percent of the total public funding. Production and business economics received only 0.8 percent of the total public funding. Nutrition received 9.13 percent of the funding, of which 3.49 percent was allocated to food safety; the rest went to studies of human nutrition and health.
In summary, production agriculture, a significant force in encouraging structural change, remains the dominant recipient of public research funding. Crop protection, supply increase, and the development of new products are related major targets. However, the share of research funding allocated to production agriculture decreased from 1986 to 1997. Of the research
dedicated to commodity production, specialty commodities received an increasing share of the portfolio; field crops research drew less; and poultry and swine research decreased relative to research on dairy and beef cattle. Our analysis also indicates that the public sector spends only a small proportion—less than one percent—on development of mechanical innovations (0.74 percent in 1986 and 0.38 percent in 1997), which are more likely to benefit large farms than small ones. Research areas that are likely to benefit small and underserved farms and large farms alike—economics, nutrition and marketing, and specialty commodities—received increasing attention. Our analysis also demonstrates that research on resource conservation, rural development, and improved health and nutrition is increasing. Those areas are likely to be scale neutral, so they will benefit diverse constituencies equally. Changes are slowly occurring in the process of broadening the criteria for setting research priorities. The committee encourages the public sector to continue in this direction.
PUBLIC RESEARCH AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
One way to evaluate the structural implications of public-sector research is to consider its relative contributions to developing knowledge and basic components of technology, such as those that support environmentally sustainable alternative agriculture. These are of interest to small-scale farmers, organic farmers, and others outside the commercial mainstream. The extent to which publicly funded research supports environmental technology is an indicator of its support for these constituencies. Mainstream agriculture also is adopting many of those technologies in response to more stringent environmental regulations. Alternative technologies include biologic pest control and IPM strategies (as alternatives to the use of chemical pest controls); the use of symbiotic microorganisms, including nitrogen-fixing bacteria (as alternatives for chemical fertilizers); on-farm composting and biodegradation of organic wastes (as an alternative to dumping or disposal); soil conservation tillage (as alternatives to conventional tillage); and management-intensive rotational grazing (as an alternative to open grazing or confinement).
The second column of Table 4–4, which relies on the CRIS database1, shows a large number of current USDA-funded intramural and extramural research projects on topics that are crucial for alternative agriculture.
The record of U.S. patents granted from 1975 through 1998 for most of
1 |
In each area listed in Table 4–4, the numbers of current publicly funded research programs were searched by research area code number and by technology keyword in the online CRIS database. |
TABLE 4–4 Selected Alternative Agricultural Technologies: Current USDA-Funded Projects and Total Patents Granted, 1975–1998, by Type of Organization
Alternative Agricultural Technology |
Total number of research projects at USDA and Land Grant Universities in 1999 (CRIS Dataa) |
Number and Share of Public-Sector Patents Granted (1975–1998): Universities and Public Research Institutions (Micropatent Data) |
Number and Share of Private-Sector Patents Granted (1975–1988): Individuals, Private Firms, Corporations (Micropatent Data) |
Biocontrol of plant pathogens |
161 |
60 (37%)b |
101 (63%) |
30 |
22 (11%) |
186 (89%) |
|
Biocontrol of insectsc non-Bt |
362 |
50 (30%) |
116 (70%) |
Biocontrol of weeds |
146 |
38 (62%) |
23 (38%) |
Encapsulation and delivery technologies for biocontrol applications |
35 |
36 (32%) |
76 (68%) |
Insect pest management |
1044 |
51 (57%) |
38 (43%) |
Nitrogen fixation (including nitrogen-fixing bacteria) |
390 |
13 (34%) |
25 (66%) |
Beneficial soil microorganisms and bioinnoculants (not including nitrogen-fixing bacteria) |
165 |
15 (27%) |
40 (73%) |
On-farm composting and biodegradation |
604 |
N/Ae |
N/A |
Conservation tillage and no tillage |
492 |
N/A |
N/A |
Alternative Agricultural Technology |
Total number of research projects at USDA and Land Grant Universities in 1999 (CRIS Dataa) |
Number and Share of Public-Sector Patents Granted (1975–1998): Universities and Public Research Institutions (Micropatent Data) |
Number and Share of Private-Sector Patents Granted (1975–1988): Individuals, Private Firms, Corporations (Micropatent Data) |
Intensive rotational grazing |
121 |
N/A |
N/A |
Total Number of Research Projects of All Types, 1999 |
17,320 |
N/A |
N/A |
Overall Distribution of Public to Private Recipients of U.S. Patents in 1984f |
|
(3%) |
(97%) |
aUSDA FY1999 CRIS data (USDA, 1999f). bPercentages of patents for each technology are in parentheses. cTotal percentages calculated from statistical reports by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1975–1998. dThis category does not include any transgenic applications of Bacillus thuringiensis. eNot applicable. f1984 was chosen as a representative, midrange year. |
the alternative agricultural technologies (columns three and four of Table 4–4) illustrates the historic division of labor between the public and private sectors in developing technologies. The distribution of patents particularly demonstrates the large role of public-sector research in generating alternative agricultural technologies. Using the Micropatent database of front-page data for U.S. patents, technologies were searched by keyword and then expanded to include both cited and citing patents. Patent search results in each category were examined individually and inappropriate matches were discarded.
Table 4–4 suggests that USDA and the land grant universities are involved in the science of alternative agriculture, funding the science to create technologies that are more responsive to the needs of farmers outside the large-scale mainstream and making American agriculture more environmentally sound. The proportion of intellectual property created by the public sector in alternative technologies is generally an order of magnitude higher than a baseline proportion of all U.S. patents from 1984, the mid-sample year; only 3 percent of all U.S. patents in that year were assigned to
the public sector. In some areas that are crucial to alternative agriculture, however, the percentage of technology assigned to the public sector is much higher. For example, the public sector has about 37 percent of Bt biocontrol patents, 62 percent of patents on biocontrol of weeds, and 34 of patents on nitrogen-fixation patents.
STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH FUNDING MECHANISMS
Research funding mechanisms are shifting the programmatic focus toward structural issues. The USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) recently began to increase funding relevant to structural issues and to the research needs of small farms. In addition, new funding mechanisms, such as USDA’s Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), now encourage multistate, multidisciplinary, and multifunctional (linking research and extension) activities. Working across state lines and across disciplines could be a way to mobilize research and extension processes that offer viable alternatives to more constituencies. It is important to recognize, however, that unless limited-resource farmers are specifically considered, cross-state or cross-disciplinary collaboration also can provide technology and processes of engagement that primarily benefit large farms. The next sections describe competitive-grants programs, and Box 4–2 provides examples of research for those programs that responds to structural issues.
Fund for Rural America
The Fund for Rural America, authorized under the 1996 FAIR act, was created to expand economic opportunities for rural Americans (U.S. Congress, 1996). Starting in 1997, one-third of the fund, $33.3 million annually over 3 years, was dedicated to research, education, and extension grants in the areas of international competitiveness, profitability, and efficiency; environmental stewardship; and rural community enhancement. Portions of the $33.3 million in discretionary funding were targeted to research, education, and extension programs. This included $4.5 million in technical assistance and training for an outreach program for socially disadvantaged Americans and $12.8 million in research, education, and extension programs for priority areas, including telecommunications research and research on counteracting concentration in the livestock sector. The 2001 program will award some $9.5 million to integrated research and extension projects that focus on preserving the economic viability in rural communities, tracking demographic changes and rural community innovations.
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
IFAFS, authorized by Congress in 1998, is a competitive-grants program that gives priority to interdisciplinary, multistate, multi-institutional proposals integrating agricultural research, extension, and education. Distributional concerns related to the viability and competitiveness of small-and medium-sized farms are highlighted among the six priority programs. In FY 2000, 19 grants—representing 16 percent of the total funding of $120 million—were awarded in this category.
In the first round of IFAFS funding in 2000, 17 percent of the total funding went to projects (15 percent of all projects) that had the phrases “small farm” or “underserved population” in the title (USDA, 2000d). More than half of the IFAFS proposals are still oriented toward production and to commodity subject matter that does not specifically acknowledge structural issues (USDA, 2000d).
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
In 1991, Congress created the National Research Initiative (NRI), an expanded competitive-grants program at USDA. The NRI was funded in FY 2000 at $119 million. In 1999, a goal was established to award up to $5 million of the NRI for small farm research projects (OFRF, 1999). A National Research Council panel also identified needed research on the effects of the changing farm and agribusiness structure that could be addressed by NRI (NRC, 2000a). Research relevant to small farms was funded by several NRI programs in FY 2000 and reported by USDA at $3.4 million. In its FY 2001 program description, NRI encourages research proposals that assess and evaluate “impacts of industrialization on industry structure and performance” and “impacts of public policy alternatives on industry structure” (USDA, 2000c).
BOX 4–2 Research Funding and Structural Change Fund for Rural America Many of the fund’s competitive grants have been awarded for research on structural and distributional issues relating to small producers and disadvantaged groups (1997 funding cycle):
|
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Many IFAFS competitive grants have addressed structural and distributional issues relating to small producers and disadvantaged groups (2000 funding cycle).
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program Research awards in the NRICGP 2000 funding cycle also addressed structural issues and small-farm needs:
|
Although these public-sector competitive grants programs account for only about 10 percent of all publicly funded agricultural research ($2.8
billion in FY1999), they increasingly address issues relating to small and medium-sized farmers, respond to concerns of underserved constituencies, and encourage a closer linkage of extension and research in multistate, multidisciplinary, and public and private efforts emphasizing research that bears on the structure of agriculture.
Recommendation 9
The public sector should continue to experiment with research approaches—including multifunctional partnerships that link research and extension, partnerships that link the public sector with the private and nonprofit sectors, multi-state cooperation, and multidisciplinary collaboration—as instruments for serving small farms, minority farmers, and other underserved producers. The public sector should evaluate the potential and effectiveness of these research approaches to serve these constituents.
SUMMARY
Public research is responding to a broadening of criteria for priority setting in research, which has implications for the structure of agriculture. This is occurring in three major areas: research to monitor and analyze structural variables; research to serve the needs of diverse constituencies; and research to further understand drivers of structural change other than research and development.
An analysis of the public-sector research portfolio demonstrates that although production agriculture still dominates, its share has decreased over time. Funding for research on specialty commodities, which offer opportunities for smaller growers to capture value, has increased relative to funding for research on other commodities, such as field crops. Support for chemical and mechanical research is minimal, whereas research on issues likely to benefit small and underserved farms as well as large farms—for example, natural resources and the environment, marketing, and rural development—is increasing. An analysis of research on environmentally sustainable technologies indicates that the public sector has played a major role in generating these technologies, many of them useful to farmers outside the commercial mainstream.
Innovative funding mechanisms integrating research and extension and fostering multidisciplinary research are suggested as possible avenues toward more effective investigation of structural questions.