|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. 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 1
1
Executive Summary
This is the technological age. It is also an age of
opportunity. U.S. agriculture continuously evolves,
but the pace of change is now more dramatic than ever.
In the life sciences, new knowledge and instrumenta-
tion are rapidly expanding the understanding of plants,
animals, and microbes; providing new opportunities
to control disease and pests; and improving the quality
of agricultural and food products. Equally complex
changes are occurring in international trade, where the
new rules of the global marketplace are transforming
old patterns of competition.
In the agricultural system, as with other segments
of U.S. industry, the problems of the twenty-first
century intensify more quickly than ever before, and
opportunities mustbe seized immediately, before their
peak of potential benefit has passed. The ability of the
United States to resolve the spectrum of issues and
related problems in agriculture nutrition, econom-
ics and international trade, production efficiency,
natural resources conservation, control of pollutants,
and others-depends on depth of knowledge, the
available tools and technologies, and the skill and
insight to apply them.
The United States needs to invest in the future-in
human capital and the scientific knowledge base-to
revitalize and reinvigorate one of its leading indus-
tries, the agricultural, food, and environmental sys-
tem, in its broadest sense. A sound investment strat-
egy for research is fundamental to sustain economic
performance, to respond competitively to the increased
economic strengths and manufacturing capacities of
other nations, and to maintain the U.S. quality of life.
The commitment called for in this proposal should
therefore be part of a national agenda to strengthen the
United States.
URGENCY FOR CHANGE
Major challenges confronting the nation now cen-
ter on the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural prod-
ucts in global trade, the safety and quality of the U.S.
food supply, and the management and sustainability
of the country's natural resources.
Competitiveness
The United States faces new and aggressive com-
petition from abroad. The balance of trade has gone
from positive to negative, making the United States a
debtor nation. The strong role that agricultural exports
played in the U.S. balance of payments has weakened.
U.S . global competitiveness in agricultural commodi-
ties and food products has eroded because of increased
costs of production at home and heightened competi-
tion from foreign producers in the marketplace. Given
the high U.S . production capacity, regular surpluses of
major commodities, and the imperative of deficit
reduction, the needs for profitable new uses for agri-
cultural products, more cost-efficient production, and
new markets remain high.
Human Health and Well-Being
Nutritious and high-quality food is available to
U.S. citizens. However, problems are arising that
must be resolved, such as excessive fat in the diet, the
incidence of microbial contamination, and pesticide
residues on food.
U.S. citizens consume too many saturated fats.
Although red meat and dairy products provide 36
1
OCR for page 2
2
percent of food energy and 100 percent of certain
nutrients, they also contribute more than half of the
total fat, nearly three-fourths of the saturated fatty
acids, and all of the dietary cholesterol in the U.S. diet
(National Research Council, 1988a). Agricultural
research is focusing on ways to produce leaner ani-
mals and to process nutritious foods with reduced
levels of saturated fats and cholesterol.
Salmonella species and CampyIobacterjejuni from
all sources are each responsible for up to 2,000 cases
of gastroentenc disease per 100,000 people per year in
the United States (National Research Council, 1985a).
Illnesses caused by these microorganisms tend to be
most severe among the very young, the very old, or
patients with immunosuppressive diseases. New re-
search can determine points at which known patho-
gens enter the food supply and can contribute to
improving methods for detection, monitoring, and
control.
Although potential cancer risks from ingesting
pesticides in the diet are small in comparison with the
potential risks from other known causes of cancer, the
pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables are a grow-
ing public concern. Research can provide new in-
sights into levels of dietary risk and can identify new
alternatives that will ensure the producer a high-
quality crop while reducing the need for pesticide
. .
application.
Natural Resources and the Environment
Concern for prudent natural resources stewardship
and a clean and sustainable environment is now focus-
ing on issues such as contamination of surface water
and groundwater by natural and chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and sediment; the continued abuse of frag-
ile and nutrient-poor soils; and suitable disposal of
municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes.
Water pollution is probably the most damaging and
widespread environmental effect of agricultural pro-
duction. Various estimates of the potential financial
costs of surface water contamination from agricultural
production are in excess of $2 billion per year. Ground-
water is the source of public drinking water for nearly
75 million people. This fact is significant because
accumulating evidence indicates that a growing number
of contaminants from agricultural production are found
in underground water supplies. Although research is
being conducted in these areas, a major increase in
support will be required to adequately investigate and
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
apply new knowledge and technologies to curtail
surface water and groundwater contamination.
Soil erosion remains a serious environmental prom
lem in parts of the United States, even after 50 years of
state and federal efforts to control it. New data
indicate that the intensive tillage practices associated
with continuous monoculture or short crop rotations
may make soils more susceptible to erosion. New
knowledge will provide improved ways to estimate
erosion, decrease the displacement of soils by wind
and water, and develop federal policies for conserving
fragile lands.
Waste disposal facilities all over the United States
are reaching their capacities to contain and decompose
plant and animal residues, pesticides, food processing
wastes, sewage, and industrial sludges. Research in
the agricultural, food, and environmental sciences can
help minimize the production of waste materials,
develop technologies to increase recycling, and de-
velop improved systems for ecologically safe waste
disposal systems.
New Knowledge
Solving the problems of competitiveness, a high-
quality food supply, and natural resources and the
environment will require much more new knowledge
than was required to solve previous problems. An
example illustrates the point Genetically engineered
biocontrol agents for pest management are now being
designed on the basis of current knowledge, but it will
likely take a 10-fold increase in understanding of the
biology of such agents and their survival and action in
various ecosystems before such engineered biological
control agents can be effectively developed and used.
The knowledge needed must come from a number of
disciplines, such as biochemistry, genetics, physiol-
ogy, plant pathology, entomology, plant biology,
ecosystems analysis, agronomy, and economics,
among others. The specific disciplinary knowledge
must then be integrated into effective production
systems. The knowledge required far transcends that
necessary for the current chemical-based technolo-
gies.
The necessary new knowledge is unlikely to be
acquired and expediently applied without substantial
new funding.
This proposal for investment in research for the
agricultural, food, and environmental system aims to
establish the new knowledge base necessary to ad-
dress the problems.
OCR for page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of this proposal~s well as the chal-
lenge it presents~is to mobilize the nation' s scientific
and engineering communities to advance the quality
of agriculture, the food supply, and the environment.
This proposal presents a program to strengthen the
focus of U.S. science on agriculture. The premise is
that a judicious but substantial increase in research
funding through competitive grants is the best way to
sustain and strengthen the U.S. agricultural, food, and
environmental system.
Implementation of this research proposal will
Capture the proven high economic return on
investment in agricultural research.
Secure for agricultural research a full array of
talent from the entire U.S. science and technology
research sector.
Expand knowledge in all the disciplines under-
pinning agriculture while also contributing to ad-
vances in other broad areas such as biomedicine,
ecology, engineering, education, and economics.
This proposal, which is composed of the following
specific elements, should be evaluated as a singular
strategy for action.
An Expanded Public Investment
Research support for agriculture, food,
and the environment should be increased
by $500 million annually. This increase
should support competitive grants ad-
rrunistered through the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Competitive Research
Grants Office.
This competitive grants program should be in-
creased to support the need for research in public and
private universities and colleges; not-for-profit insti-
tutions; the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
~JSDA's) Agricultural Research Service, Economic
Research Service, and U.S. Forest Service; and other
research agencies of the state and federal govern-
ments.
Funds should come from new monies, not from the
redirection or reallocation of existing research and
education programs, including formula-funded pro-
grams.
3
Program Areas and Scientific Scope
The expanded proposed corn~etitive
grants program should encompass all
science and technology relevant to re-
search needs for agriculture, food, and
the environment. To do this, six program
areas should be established: (1) plant
systems; (2) animal systems; (3) nutri-
tion,food quality, and health; (4) natural
resources and the environment; (5) engi-
neering, products, andprocesses; and (6)
markets, trade, and policy.
Agriculture has vastly overgrown its early bounds
of planting and harvesting crops and nurturing live-
stock as sources of food and fiber. It is a major
influence on and component of industry, world trade,
and global ecology. The six program areas establish
a framework that will accommodate all areas of re-
search relating to agriculture, food, and the environ-
ment. Research in the six program areas using all
relevant disciplines of science and technology is es-
sential to solve current and emerging problems.
Examples of some of the major topics within the six
program areas are as follows.
· Plant Systems: plant genome structure and func-
tion; molecular and cellular genetics and plant bio-
technology; plant-pest interactions and biocontrol
systems; crop plantresponseto environmental stresses;
improved nutrient qualities of plant products; and new
food and industrial uses of plant products.
· Animal Systems: cellular and molecular basis of
animal reproduction, growth, disease, and health;
identification of genes responsible for improved pro-
duction traits and resistance to disease; improved
nutritional performance of animals; and improved
nutrient qualities of animal products.
· Nutrition, Food Quality, and Health: microbial
contaminants and pesticide residues related to human
health; links between diet and health; bioavailability
of nutrients; postharvest physiology and practices;
and improved processing technologies.
· Natural Resources and the Environment: funda-
mental structures and functions of ecosystems; bio-
logical and physical bases of sustainable production
systems; minimizing soil and water losses and sustain-
ing surface water and groundwater quality; global
climatic effects on agriculture; forestry; and biologi-
cal diversity.
OCR for page 4
4
· Engineering, Products, and Processes: new
uses and new products from traditional crops, animals,
by-products, and natural resources; robotics, energy
efficiency, computing, and expert systems; new haz-
ard and risk assessment and mitigation measures; and
water quality and management.
· Markets, Trade, and Policy: optimal strategies
for entering and being competitive in overseas mar-
kets; new decision tools for on-farm and in-market
systems; choices and applications of technology; and
new approaches to economic development and viabil
ity in the rural United States and developing nations.
Grant Types
In each of the six program areas, four
types of competitive grants should be
available: (1) principal investigator
grants, (2)fundamental multidisciplinary
team grants, (3) ~russion-linked multidis-
ciplinary team grants, and (4) research-
strengthening grants.
Principal investigator grants should support indi-
vidual scientists orcoinvestigators working within the
same, or closely related, disciplines. Principal inves-
tigator grants are the foundation of the highly success-
ful competitive grants programs in the United States,
and they are the major way to attract and retain
talented scientists and their students into areas of
research.
.. . .. ~.
Fundamental multidisciplinary team grants should
support collaborating scientists from two or more
a~sc~punes focusing on basic science or engineering
questions. It is often at the juncture of disciplines that
new discoveries and research strategies are made.
Mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants
should support multidisciplinary research focusing on
more applied problems of national significance and
should be linked to, among others, the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES), the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), and industry. Funding through this
grant type will facilitate the application of knowledge
and the transfer of technology to the user through joint
research-extension studies.
Research-strengthening grants should competi-
tively support institutions through program grants and
individuals through fellowships to increase the U.S.
research capacity.
INFESTING IN RESEARCH
Attention to Multidisciplinary Research
The expanded competitive grants program
should give major emphasis to supporting
both fundamental and mussion-linked
multidisciplinary research teams. Up to
50 percent of the funding awarded for
USDA's competitive grants should sup-
port multidisciplinary research.
The significance of multidisciplinary research to
the success of the competitive grants program cannot
be overemphasized. Many fundamental scientific and
technological questions-and certainly He more ap-
plied problems~re multifaceted. To deal with their
inherent complexity and diversity, it is necessary to
establish multidisciplinary grants and make them a
major feature of the expanded program.
Strengthening Institutions and Human Resources
Research-strengthening grants to institu-
tions and individuals should be a key
component of an expanded competitive
grants program.
Research-strengthening grants are essential for two
reasons. Grants to institutions improve the research
capability at institutions and in departments that aspire
to, but have not attained, nationally recognized re-
search and development (R&D) capabilities. Fellow-
ships increase the training and experiences available to
pre- and postdoctoral fellows in agricultural, food, and
environmental research. Expanding the number of
women, underrepresented minorities, and disabled
individuals in the research system must be integral to
the entire program. The research-s~engthening grant
is a major way to provide those opportunities. The
grants are not intended to be used for buildings or major
capital expenditures.
Size and Duration of Support
The size and duration of USDA competi-
tive grant awards should be increased
substantially. The average size of a grant
should be at least $100,000 per year per
principal investigator; the duration of a
grant should be at least 3 and as many as
5 years.
OCR for page 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The size and duration of awards reflect the capabil-
ity of a program to attract top-quality scientific and
engineering talent. TheUSDA Competitive Research
Grants Office should award grants that are adequate to
conduct effective research and that are comparable in
size and duration to those awarded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), the two institutions in the United
States with the largest and most successful grants
programs. The proposed changes in size and duration
will attract more top scientists in a variety of disci-
plines and thus increase the capacity to educate their
students-the nation's future scientists.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
Key parts to the rationale for the expanded program
include the need for a federal initiative; the need for a
large increase in funding; the justification for new
money, not for the redirection of current funds; the
suitability of USDA as the central agency for the
expanded program; and the appropriateness of com-
petitive grants as the funding mechanism.
A Federal Initiative
A federal initiative for increased research support
is needed because the issues and fundamental research
needs are national in scope, and the nation as a whole,
not just a state or region, is the beneficiary. In add-
ition, states lack the funding to advance basic science
across the full range of areas requiring immediate
attention. In the private sector, the rate of R&D
growth, which has been strong since the mid-1970s, is
likely to level off in the decade ahead, and it may de-
cline somewhat. Moreover, private sector research is
focused on creating opportunities to market products
and services, whereas much of the research most im-
portant to society and the nation is not market-related.
A $500 Million Increase
A $500 million increase in research funding is
justified for at least three major reasons. (1) The
pervasive needs and problems require large amounts
of new knowledge and technology for theirresolution,
as discussed earlier. (2) Agricultural research pro-
vides a high return on investment. (3) The agricultural
research system, as presently funded, is unable to
provide the necessary financial support for the quality,
s
amount, and breadth of science and technology neces-
sary to address the problems.
Agricultural research characteristically gives a high
annual return on investment, more than 45 percent
(Fox et al., 1987~. The contributions of research
conducted within the competitive grants program will,
in addition, bring advances not only to agriculture,
food, and the environment but also to other scientific
disciplines and other sectors of society. Discoveries
that were made in efforts to resolve agricultural prob-
lems have already led to major advances in biology
and medicine. Findings from research with plant
models, for example, will lead to advances in the
understanding of basic genetics and gene expression.
Over time, the research results and their application
will significantly decrease both regulatory and envi-
ronmental costs.
Adequate funding through the six proposed pro-
gram areas must be available to support the best and
brightest researchers currently working in agriculture
and to attract top researchers in other disciplines who
have not previously participated in USDA programs.
Current funding cannot do either.
Researchers' proposals for scientific inquiry are
currently funded at levels that are too low to meet the
demands of high-quality science. The average
annual grant size from USDA is $50,000, in contrast
to average annual grant sizes of $71,300 from NSF and
$154,900 from NIH. USDA grants average 2 years in
contrast to 3 years or more for NSF and NIH. In
addition to funding grants at a higher level, both NSF
and NIH fund a much larger number of grants. In
fiscal year 1988, USDA awarded approximately $40
million for competitive grants, in contrast to the $265
million awarded by the Directorate of Biological,
Behavioral, and Social Sciences at NSF and the $632
million awarded by the National Institute for General
Medical Sciences (NIGMS), which is only 1 of the 12
institutes of NIH. All of the institutes that make up the
NIH together awarded $6.4 billion in competitive
research grantsin 1988. Research supported byNIGMS
is broad, covering all areas of fundamental biomedical
science that bridge the responsibilities of all the insti-
lutes within NIH. Research supported by theUSDA's
competitive grants program is narrow, covering only
some of the six program areas recommended in this
proposal.
The proposed increase of $500 million would
expand the current competitive grants program level
of $50 million to an annual total of at least $550
OCR for page 6
6
million. The overall $550 million program should
support the following four types of grants:
1. About 800 principal investigator grants for an
average duration of 3 years. Total annualexpenditure:
$250 million.
2. About 180 fundamental multidisciplinary team
grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual
expenditure: $150 million.
3. About60 mission-linked multidisciplinary team
grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual
expenditure: $100 million.
4. Research-strengthening grants to institutions for
programs and to individuals for fellowships. Total
annual expenditure: $50 million.
The expansion of USDA's competitive grants pro-
gram by $500 million from its current level of $50
million will enable USDA to significantly support the
innovative science that is poised to proceed as soon
as funding can be obtained.
Support with New Money
Support of the competitive grants program with
new money will reverse the consequences of no R&D
growth in agriculture and sustain the state-federal
partnership.
The publicly funded research system has not been
able to investigate many scientific questions compre-
hensively because fiscal constraints have allowed little,
if any, real growth in R&D expenditures. From 1955
through 1988, research funding for USDA remained
virtually stable in constant dollars, corrected for infla-
tion. The purchasing power actually decreased, and
higher costs are associated with the potent but costly
instruments and supplies required by today ' s research-
ers. In 1988 USDA's total annual R&D funding was
only 4.6 percent of the total R&D funded by the federal
government, exclusive of the Department of Defense.
Unfortunately, the lack of growth in USDA's support
for R&D from 1955 through 1988 did not allow suffi-
cient advancement in scientific knowledge. The agri-
cultural sector cannot progress under the current level
of funding; it can only fall behind.
The lack of real growth in R&D expenditures dur-
ing the past 30 years has slowed research within U.S.
agriculture and other areas of science. Opportunities
are missed, such as the relatively slow application of
biotechnology to agricultural issues; problems have
increased, such as the need for new uses for commodity
crops and for improved new crops for better nutrient
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
composition and postharvest quality. At the same
time, however, science and technology in other coun-
~ies are advancing rapidly. Without a new infusion of
funds, there will be insufficient support for the tal-
ented researchers with new ideas that can refuel scien-
tific advancement in U.S. agriculture. Furthermore,
without new funding, prospective students and new
Ph.D. graduates will not be attracted to careers in
agriculture or retained in them.
Most states support research at land-grant univer-
sities and state agricultural experiment stations
(SAESs) far in excess of the matching formula funds
they receive from the federal government. A substan-
tial portion of this state support goes to research on
fundamental scientific problems of national impor-
tance. Increased federalsupport for competitive grants
will ease that burden and allow more of the state funds
to be used for problems specific to that state or region.
Redirection of funds from intramural or formula-
basedprogramstocompetitivegrants wouldbecounter-
productive. The delivery system SAKS scientists
and extension specialists and advisers, in combination
with government and the private sector is already
unduly stressed, and redirection would exacerbate
staffing insufficiencies for ARS, CES, and SAESs.
The Central Role of USDA
USDA is the federal agency responsible for ad-
vancing the agricultural sciences and developing tech-
nology applicable to food, fiber, and forest product
industries. It is the entity best suited to administer the
agricultural, food, and environmental competitive
grants program.
The competitive grants program will warrant status
as an independent office within USDA's Office of
Science and Education, setting its administrator on a
par with the administrators of the Agricultural Re-
search Service, Cooperative State Research Service,
and Extension Service as the managers of USDA's
science, education, and training activities. As the
USDA competitive grants program grows from about
$50 million to $550 million in annual awards, changes
in administrative procedures and institutional rela-
tionships will be essential.
Competitive Grants
The competitive grant is the proven and appropri-
ate mechanism to stimulate new research in high-
priority areas of science and engineering. It is flexible,
reaches a large pool of talented scientists, and pro
OCR for page 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vices a balance to the overall research program, thereby
ensuring high-quality research.
Responsiveness and flexibility in altering the di-
rection of exploratory research are critical to scientific
excellence. A competitive grants program capitalizes
on the skills and experiences of leading scientists in
recognizing the need for new directions in science.
Because funding commitments to any one project are
for only 3 to 5 years, this mechanism is flexible and
responsive to rapid advancements in science, thereby
allowing resources to be targeted at the most promis-
ing areas of scientific research in each grant cycle.
Sufficient funding over an adequate period of time
is the best way to attract talented scientists from a
variety of disciplines. The expanded competitive
grants program will more adequately support research-
ers within the agricultural research system and will
also open the system to scientists from other disci-
plines who have not previously participated in the
USDA grants program. These scientists should tee, but
are not now, applying their skills to agricultural re-
search.
An expanded competitive grants program will
provide the needed balance among the funding mecha-
nisms that support USDA R&D: intramural pro-
grams, formula funding, special grants, and competi-
tive grants. Competitive grants are a significant source
of funding within other federal agencies. At NIH and
NSF, 83 and 90 percent of R&D support, respectively,
is distributed through competitive research grants. At
USDA, however, less than 6 percent of R&D support
is so distributed. USDA should not attempt to mirror
NIH and NSF in the proportion of funds it distributes
on a competitive basis. Problems specific to certain
crops, technologies, and regions are often best ad-
dressed through formula funds or special grants. Long-
range research, such as the development of improved
plant and animal germplasms, or tracking of the diets
and nutritional status of a group of children as they
grow, for example, are more effectively supported on
a continuing basis through intramural funding. With
full funding of this proposal, the annual investment in
R&D by USDA would rise to $1 .54 billion from $1.04
billion (Office of Management and Budget, 1989),
and the $550 million in competitive grants would then
account for approximately 35 percent of USDA's re-
search expenditures.
FISCAL REALITIES
The recommendation for a major increase in fund-
ing of competitive research grants for agricultural,
7
food, and environmental research comes at a time of
overall fiscal constraint for the nation. Elected and
public officials must reduce the national debt and at
the same time set priorities among competing federal
expenditures to enact programs that maintain the
welfare, infrastructure, security, and continued eco-
nomic growth of the United States. As a part of that
they must also address public concerns for maintain-
ing global competitiveness, the safety and nutritional
quality of the food supply, and environmental re-
sources. The goal of reducing expenditures while
allocating funds for essential programs thus requires
fiscal prudence.
Trade-Offs
Political leaders will need to consider the proposal
for an increased commitment to agricultural, food, and
environmental research against a background of po-
tential trade-offs. What are these trade-offs?
· The additional $500 million could come from
sacrificingotherUSDAresearch programs. Can some
current research programs be discontinued in an effort
to strengthen competitive grants research?
The necessary funds could be directed to re-
search from other USDA budget categories. Com-
modity price supports, for example, have decreased
from $26 billion to $11 billion during the pest 3 years,
as U.S. agricultural export prices have improved.
Should $500 million of those savings and future
budgetary savings be redirected toward research,
toward reducing the national debt, toward a combina-
tion of the two, or toward progress outside of agricul-
ture?
· The funds could be shifted from other parts of the
federalbudgetinto USDA. Does the consistently high
return on the agricultural research investment over-
ride the need for funds in other areas of national
interest?
· The investment in agricultural, food, and envi-
ronmental research can be deferred until deficit reduc-
tion has been achieved. But investing new funds now
can hasten future economic and scientific benefits.
What will be gained-or lost-by postponing the
investment?
Redirection within the USDA Research Budget
For the past 25 years the USDA budget for research
has not increased. Actual monetary increases have
barely kept up with inflation. In 1965 the USDA
OCR for page 8
8
research budget had the purchasing power of $788
million in 1982 dollars; the 1988 research budget was
valued at $778 million in 1982 dollars. In reality, any
past changes in agricultural research priorities had to
come from the redirection of funds within the research
budget. Further redirection by increasing the invest-
ment in competitively awarded grants does not ad-
dress the problem of the continued federal underin-
vestment in research through USDA. It also raises the
real risk of destroying some of the "muscle" of current
high~uality research in intramural and formula-funded
research in attempts to cut out any "fat."
Without some real growth in the USDA research
budget, there can be no realistic opportunity to broaden
the scope of science contributing to agricultural, food,
and environmental research. Many of the new scien-
tific opportunities that require costly supplies and
instrumentation will have to remain unexplored, and
few multidisciplinary research teams will be able to be
formed to attack the multifaceted problems of com-
petitiveness, food quality, and natural resources con-
fronting agriculture.
The proposed increase in funding for competitive
research grants is justified. This proposal stands
strongly against reallocation within the USDA re-
search budget for the reasons given above. If no
growth in the USDA research budget is possible, then
decisions to redirect funds are judgments that elected
and other public officials may choose to consider.
Reinvesting Subsidy Savings
As U.S. agriculture gradually returns to a state of
economic health and as commodity prices return to
free-market conditions, the federal budget appropna-
tions currently used for price support programs may be
targeted for budgetary savings. Part of these savings
should tee reinvested in research programs to strengthen
the knowledge that supports the nation's food and
fiber industries.
Federal Investment
Investments in agricultural research in the United
States have consistently shown high returns, as noted
previously. Such data demonstrate that an increased
investment in the agricultural, food, and environ-
mental research system will be paid back rapidly in
economic development and other public benefits.
The U.S. gross national product in 1987 was $4.5
trillion (Council of Economic Advisers, 1989~. Of
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
that, the agribusiness complex contributed approxi-
mately 18 percent, or roughly $815 billion (Harring-
ton et al., 1986~. The current annual federal invest-
ment in agricultural R&D is about $1.04 billion less
than 0.13 percent of agriculture's annual contribution
to the gross national product.
A major increase in research funding of $500
million is needed at this time. The scientific opportu-
nities exist today to use this increased funding wisely.
The needed scientific talent is available now, primar-
ily through thenation'sexistingscientistsin thephysi-
cal, biological, engineering, and social sciences, as
well as those in agriculture and related disciplines,
who are ready to compete for this new funding. In
addition, as noted above, increased funding will also
ensure the flow of young scientists into agriculture-
related research areas.
To achieve the maximum effect, this substantial
increase should be enacted in a single year as a
reflection of the value of the broadened scope of
agricultural, food, and environmental research and the
importance of the sustained advancement of this sys-
tem to the U.S. economy.
Given the overall fiscal problems facing the nation,
the appropriation of the full $500 million increase may
not be possible in a single year. Even so, a commit-
ment of this magnitude is essential. Any stepwise
increase in funding should provide the full increase as
soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, and be
balanced to address the needs and opportunities in
agriculture, food, and the environment.
CONCLUSION
Agriculture is the world's oldest and largest indus-
try, and it has been a highly successful industry in the
United States. The United States is endowed with
perhaps the world's most extensive and abundant
complement of soils, water, and climate favorable for
agricultural production. Still, several other countries
have tremendous natural assets to draw upon in devel-
oping productive agricultural industries. One domi-
nant factor stands out in making possible the remark-
able pace of development of agriculture in this country
in contrast to that in other countries the early and
very strong support given to agriculture by the U.S.
government. Agriculture was the first end for along
OCR for page 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
time,-the major federally supported scientific effort.
It is significant that early federal support was not
directed primarily toward infrastructure investments
that yielded only quick benefits. Rather, support was
broad, and a large proportion was directed toward
research and education.
The decision to provide federal support for a strong
U.S. agricultural system was made by the Congress
127 years ago through the Morrill Act of 1862. Now
is the time to make a renewed investment in U.S.
agriculture, one that will ensure its worldwide leader-
ship role in the coming decades.
As aleader, the United States calls upon its agricul
9
tural and food system to compete in a free-market
world. But U.S. farmers cannot compete with the
price of labor in many countries, where it is far lower
than that in the United States. And, for the same
reason, they cannot compete with the cost of fertile
land in other countries. The single resource thatU.S.
farmers can draw upon to capture the leading edge is
science and technology. The U.S. government must
help to provide an environment where U.S. producers
and processors can compete. The most effective way
to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system is to capi-
talize on science and technology by investing strongly
in agricultural, food, and environmental research.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
grants program
