Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
