|
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 10
The Proposal
The agricultural and food system in the United
States undoubtedly has proved its capacity for provid-
ing food and forestry products in large quantities and
at low prices, for serving as the base for almost 20
percent of the nation's economy, and for capitalizing
on research and development (R&D) to attain excep-
tional levels of productivity. Even as this level of per-
formance continues, however, agriculture and the
associated food-related industries- is facing three
major challenges:
1. Competitiveness and economic performance,
both nationally and globally: U.S . agriculture needs to
be able to sustain itself as a major global leader, thus
contributing to national economic strength and deficit
reduction.
2. Human health and well-being: Convenient
and nutritious food needs to be available to individuals
with a variety of dietary patterns, thus contributing
comprehensively to disease reduction and good health.
3 . Natural resources stewardship: Environmental
quality needs to be enhanced and the high quality of
U.S . naturalresources needs to tee sustained et reduced
costs to producers and the public.
Meeting these challenges will require an effective
national strategy, implemented with ingenuity and
innovation. It will also require major advances in
science and technology on a scale and of a scope not
seen previously. These science and technology ad-
vances are needed throughout the entire agricultural,
food, and environmental system (see the box "Defin-
ing Agriculture" for a definition of and perspective on
this system). Achieving these advances will require a
major additional investment in R&D and the securing
10
of as much talent as possible for the agricultural, food,
and environmental research system.
This proposal calls for an investment in research
for the agricultural, food, and environmental system.
The recommendations of this proposal will, when
implemented, be a major new step for ensuring that
sufficient new knowledge is generated to successfully
address both the continuing national need for high-
performance productivity and the three challenges
identified above.
The recommendations and the specific actions
these challenges call for are set forth in this chapter;
the rationale for them is presented in Chapters 3
through 5. Chapter 6 discusses the institutional and
administrative issues that will arise upon implementa-
tion of the recommendations.
This proposal would stimulate the broad array of
the nation's science and technology expertise to con-
duct fundamental research on issues of national need
and to use new ways of deriving innovative applica-
tions from the knowledge thatis gained. The proposal
does not nor can any single proposal by itself
address all the important needs of the agricultural,
food, and environmental research system. For ex-
ample, the proposal is not intended to provide a
significant new source of funds for state-specific
applications of technology or for regional technology
transfer and educational activities. Those and other
needs will continue to be met principally by activities
of the state agricultural experiment stations, the Agri-
cultural Research Service, the Cooperative Extension
Service, and other components of the agricultural
research, extension, and educational systems. The
goal of this proposal is to create fundamental new
knowledge and tools that will help the entire agricul-
tural, food, and environmental research system meet
its central responsibilities to the nation.
OCR for page 11
THE PROPOSAL
11
Defining Agriculture
Agriculture, as the Board on Agriculture defines it, encompasses the entirety of the system that grows,
processes, and provides food and fiber for the nation. Agriculture also includes the management of natural
resources such as surface water and groundwater, forests and other lands for commercial or recreational
uses, and wildlife; the social, physical, and biological environments; and the public policy issues that relate
to the overall system. All the activities, practices, and processes of the public and private sectors involved
in agriculture and forestry are contained within the system.
In this report, the term agriculture, food, and the environment is used to communicate the full meaning
of agriculture in this broad sense. The term agricultural, food, and environmental research is used to
designate all of the research relevant to the entire system. That research is the focus of this proposal.
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.
Tight budgets havelimited the U.S. government's
capacity to respond to national needs in the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental research system. The
potential to respond is available throughout the na-
tion'sresearch system: in stateland-grant universities
and agricultural experiment stations; in private uni-
versities and not-for-profit institutions; in federal sci-
ence and mission-oriented agencies outside the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA); in USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Cooperative
State Research Service, Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, and U.S. Forest Service; and in
other federal agencies.
The most effective way to enlist science and
technology to more effectively address the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental needs of the nation is
with a competitive grants program that is open to all
scientists and scholars. Under a competitive grants
program, limited funds can be allocated to those
institutions and individuals who, in the judgment of
their peers, have come forward with the best ideas and
who have the capability for advancing science and
addressing the issues. As discussed in later chapters
(see especially Chapter 3), current funding for com-
petitive grants for agricultural, food, and environ
mental research is far too low to meet major national
needs, cover all program areas, and advance new
developments in science.
This proposal calls for an overall increase in
funding for agricultural, food, and environmental
research, but not for a redirection or reallocation of the
funds now being used to support research and educa-
tion programs. New funding is called for because,
although attracting the much-needed new talent to this
area of research will provide substantial benefits lo the
nation, it will not by itself respond to major national
needs. Advances in knowledge need to be comple-
mented by research, education, and delivery mecha-
nisms that will enable farmers, consumers, managers,
and administrators to develop, adopt, and use the new
knowledge and technology in their day-to-day activi-
ties. The only way to give full and timely application
to the scientific and engineering progress that will be
made through the competitive grants program is by
maintaining and strengthening the existing research
and education programs, including formula-funded
programs.
The current system) for putting research results
into practice is effective, especially in light of the
many complexities of adaptation that arise from re-
gional differences.2 With the demands on the system
increasing while resources remain level, however, the
system is under stress. Weakening it by diverting
federal formula or ARS funds to other programs-
even to an expanded competitive grants program-
makes little sense; and politically, the attempt to do so
would be destructive. The state and federal funds
supporting the current system of technology develop-
ment and transfer should be continued. Thus, new
funds not reallocated funds-are needed for the
expanded competitive grants program proposed here.
OCR for page 12
12
PROGRAM AREAS AND SCIENTIFIC SCOPE
The expanded competitive grants pro-
gram should encompass all the science
and technology that are relevant to agri-
culture, food, and the environment. For
tius to be done, six program areas should
be established: (1J plant systems; (2)
animal systems; (3J nutrition, food qual-
ity, and health; (4) natural resources and
the environment; (5) engineering, prod-
ucts, and processes; and (6) markets,
trade, and policy.
The boundaries of agriculture now far transcend
the activities of planting and harvesting crops and
raising livestock. Agriculture includes all dimensions
of the agricultural, food, and environmental system.
Activities in agriculture and forestry can have a major
influence on environmental quality,~the biodiversity
and stability of ecosystems, and water quality. These
activities can also have long-term effects on global
changes, such as those involving the greenhouse ef-
fect on climate, ultraviolet radiation, and acidic depo
sltlon.
Accordingly, the science and technology related
to the agricultural, food, and environmental system
now extend beyond plant and animal science to in-
clude, for example, ecology and environmental stud-
ies; engineering, management, and information sys-
tems; economics, sociology, andcommunity develop-
ment; biomedicine and human nutrition; and biotech-
nology, food technology and processing, and decom-
position of wastes.
The existing USDA competitive grants program,
which was established in 1978, has limited its grant
awards to only three areas: (1) plant science, which
includes molecular biology, genetics, plant physiol-
ogy, and plant-pest and environmental stress interac-
tions; (2) animal science, with a grant program that
was introduced in fiscal year (FY) 1985 and is sched-
uled for a substantial increase in funding in the Presi-
dent's proposed FY 1990 budget;3 and (3) human nu-
trition, with a few important areas of research, particu-
larly nutrient availability, receiving modest support in
some program years. There was also a short-lived and
severely underfunded forestry grants program that,
among other things, stimulated research with the po-
tential to hasten progress in the genetic improvement
of tree varieties for commercial forest plantings.4
The expanded competitive grants program should
cover the entire agricultural, food, and environmental
WRESTING IN RESEARCH
system and should therefore support work not only in
the three areas currently receiving support but in all six
program areas listed above. Similarly, the program
should embrace all necessary science and technology
disciplines needed for each of the six program areas.
For example, engineering and economics are both
necessary when new cropping systems and new prod-
ucts are considered; veterinary medicine, immunol-
ogy, and epidemiology are integral to animal systems;
the physics and chemistry involved in transport phe-
nomena in porous media, as well as in soil science, are
directly relevant to water quality, sustainable agricul-
tural systems, and waste management; and operations
research, applied mathematics, computer and infor-
mation sciences, engineering systems, and robotics
are relevant to environmental management and post-
harvest processing. Furthermore, many of the prob-
lems are multifaceted and are properly addressed in
integrated multidisciplinary studies (as proposed be-
low).
By embracing all of the program areas and open-
ing the competitive grants program to scientists and
scholars in all relevant disciplines, the expanded
competitive grants program will, for the first time,
support the range of science relevant to agriculture and
be available to the broad community of scientific
researchers.
The six program areas proposed here cover not
only the current program areas of the Competitive
Research Grants Office but also the program priorities
of the Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sci-
ences and the strategic plan of the ARS (see Chapter
5~. Research topics within the six proposed areas
would include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. Plant Systerns:5 Plant gene expression and
genetic diversity; the genetic and biochemical basis of
important crop plant traits and advanced plant breed-
ing systems; crop plant use of energy and nutrients;
plant-pest interactions and biocontrol systems; crop
plant response to environmental stresses; the econom-
ics of cropping systems and practices; the biological
basis of forest and range productivity; new food and
industrial uses of plant products.
2. Animal Systems: Cellular and molecular basis
of reproduction, growth, lactation, and disease; nutri-
tional attributes of animal products; nutritional and
environmental effects on livestock production sys-
tems; economics of animal production systems, nutri-
ent sources, and animal health care practices; wildlife
and fisheries management; identification of the genes
OCR for page 13
THE PROPOSAL
responsible for improved production traits or resis-
tance to disease.
3. Nutrition, Food Quality, and Health: Chemi-
cal residues (natural and man-made), microbial con-
taminants, and foodborne illnesses; methods of iden-
tifying population subgroups that are genetically pre-
disposed to diet-related diseases; links between diet
and health; bioavailability of nutrients; dietary needs
and sensitivities of specific subgroups of the popula-
tion; methods of achieving quality control in food
processing; improved packaging, preservation, trans-
portation, and preparation of foods.
4. Natural Resources and the Environment:
Fundamental structures and functions of ecosystems;
biological basis of sustainable production systems;
methods of minimizing the loss of soil resources and
the negative environmental effects of agricultural and
forestry practices; maintenance of biodiversity in
forests and croplands; options to improve the energy
and water use efficiencies of crop and forest produc-
tion systems; global climatic effects on agriculture
and forestry; development of a land stewardship and
an environmental ethic within U.S. society.
5. Engineering, Products, ar~lProcesses: Novel
uses of traditional crops, animals, forest trees, by-
products, and natural resources; systems of planting,
harvesting, processing, and marketing new crops;
more cost-effective harvesting, manufacturing, and
production and quality control procedures using sen-
sors, biotechnological probes, robotics, expert sys-
tems, and diagnostic tools; new hazard and risk assess-
ment and mitigation procedures; options to improve
the energy efficiencies of farming and industrial ac-
tivities and to produce energy from renewable bio-
mass derived from agricultural and forestry activities;
recycling of municipal and food processing wastes.
6. Markets, Trade, and Policy: Interactions of
technology, policy, and economics; advanced sys-
tems and tools to manage investments and make
decisions on choices and applications of technology;
optimal strategies for entering new overseas markets;
methods of adopting new technologies and agricul-
tural systems; new approaches to economic develop-
ment in rural areas of the United States and in devel-
oping countries.
TYPES OF GRANTS
In each of the six program areas, four
types of competitive grants should be
available: (1J principal investigator
grants, (2)fundamentaI multidisciplinary
13
team grants, (3)
~ussion-linked multidis-
ciplinary team grants, and (4J research-
strengthening grants.
A crucial aspect of a competitive grants program
is the types of grants it makes available. In the current
USDA program, grants for principal investigators
predominate. The expanded program would offer
four types of grants, giving scientists a range of
options for pursuing critical areas of fundamental
research, problem-solving or mission-oriented re-
search, and technology development and adaptation.
Two of the four types of grants principal inves-
tigator grants and fundamental multidisciplinary team
grants- are intended to advance science and can be
thought of as science-driven. They will support indi-
viduals and teams carrying out fundamental research
relevant to agriculture, food, and the environment.
The other two types of grants mission-linked mul-
tidisciplinary team grants and research-strengthening
grants-are more applied or problem-driven. The
four grant types are defined as follows:
1. Principal investigator grants will be awarded
to individual scientists or to two or more principal
investigators working collaboratively as co-principal
investigators within the same discipline or in closely
related disciplines. Grants for principal investigators
are the foundation of the highly successful competi-
tive grants programs in the United States and are the
major way to attract talented scientists to research
areas. Because oftheinherently individualistic way in
which research scientists work and the extraordinary
success of comparable competitive grants programs,
the principal investigator grant is to be the primary
type of grant awarded.
2. Fundamental multidisciplinary team grants will
support basic, i.e., fundamental, research conducted
by a team of collaborating scientists from two or more
distinct science or engineering disciplines integrated
into a single plan of study. The research will focus on
answering importantbasic scientific questions that are
involved in understanding a biological phenomenon,
such as disease resistance, or that are applicable to
phenomena central to an overall agricultural, food,
and environmental system, such as the biogeochemi-
cal principles of agricultural ecosystems.
3. Mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants
will also support multidisciplinary work. The work
will be conducted on major science and engineering
questions of national import, basic to understanding
the phenomena being studied, and will be linked to
OCR for page 14
14
more applied problems. Examples of mission-linked
problems are agricultural production and harvesting
systems, including issues of soil and water sustaina-
bility; food processing and the improvement of health
through dietary modifications; and diversification of
the economic base in rural areas by developing value-
added industries, including new crops, new uses for
crops, and recreational opportunities. A prerequisite
for this type of grant will be links extending from basic
research to applied research and technology develop-
ment and transfer, forming a continuum of results and
applications. Moreover, an important component of
the proposal should be linkage to a state agricultural
experiment station, a cooperative extension program,
industry, or an ARS or other government laboratory,
which should include matching grants or in-kind
support.
4. Research-strengthening grants, too, will be
mission-linked. Their purpose is to increase the re-
search capacity of institutions, departments, and pro-
grams as well as that of individuals. They will address
the need for a more competitive state and regional
research infrastructure and the need for more qualified
research scientists. Institutions that are both focused
and committed but that lack a sufficient research
capacity may receive program grants to develop re-
search capabilities in areas of special need. Predoc-
toral students and postdoctoral research associates in
program areas that need human resources will receive
fellowships from institutions, enabling them to up-
grade their ability to perform research related to agri-
cultural, food, and environmental needs. However,
under this expandedcompetitive "rants program, these
fellowships will not be the sole, and may not even be
the major, source of support for higher education:
Most individual and multidisciplinary competitive
grants should routinely include funds to support gradu-
ate students and research fellows, and the USDA
fellowship program should also be continued and
expanded.
Research-s~engthening grants should notbe made
or used for conswuciion, renovation, or other major
capital expenditures. Equipment to help improve the
use of existing expertise and facilities would be an
appropriate use of monies from these grants.
The expanded USDA competitive grants pro-
grarn should allow applicants to seek any one of the
four grant types in each of the six major program areas.
Goals for the distribution of funding by type of grant
(see Chapter 3) should apply to the total program, not
to each of the six program areas separately.
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
ATTENTION TO MULTIDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH
The expanded competitive grants pro-
gram should put major emphasis on sup-
porting both fundamental and mission-
linked multidisciplinary research teams.
Up to 50 percent of the funding awarded
for USDA's competitive grants should
support multidisciplinary research.
Fundamental research done by an individual sci-
entist within one discipline or by a small group of
scientists in closely related disciplines has always
been, and will remain, a cornerstone of scientific
advancement.6 However, many fundamental scien-
tific and technological questions in food and agricul-
ture-and certainly the more applied problems are
multifaceted. Making steady progress to resolve these
questions and problems requires that several scientific
disciplines be integrated and managed to ensure col-
laboration and synergy. Thus, it is appropriate and
necessary to establish multidisciplinary grants and
award a significant portion up to 50 percent-of the
funding for the program through fundamental mul-
tidisciplinary team grants and mission-linked mul
. . . .
t~d~sc~pl~nary team grants.
An expanded competitive grants program that
targets funding and attention to multidisciplinary grants
will encourage and stimulate research on problems
that require the combined skills from several disci-
plines. This will help focus attention on issues that
cross several disciplines. The emphasis on multidis-
ciplinary research approaches may also modify some
of the procedures and criteria for evaluating proposals
and awarding grants. For example, the makeup of peer
review panels can be modified or augmented so that
people experienced in managing and working on
multidisciplinary teams will be evaluating multidisci-
plinary grant proposals.
STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONS AND
HU1VIAN RESOURCES
Research-strengthening grants to insti-
tutions and individuals should be a key
component of an expanded competitive
grants program.
Academic institutions are not equally capable of
pursuing research. Yet, an academic institution needs
research strength if it is to participate in the national
OCR for page 15
THE PROPOSAL
scientific agenda, as it surely should. Small to mid-
sized academic institutions in rural areas warrant
special consideration and investment through a pro-
gram of research-strengthening grants.
The expanded competitive grants program can
lessen the unevenness in the research capability among
U.S. academic institutions by strategically investing
in the infrastructure and by attracting more talented
young scientists and engineers to pursue careers in the
agricultural, food, and environmental sciences. Re-
search-strengthening grants are intended to improve
the research capability at academic institutions and in
departments that aspire to, but have not attained,
nationally recognized R&D capability. They are also
intended to increase the training and experiences
available to pre- and postdoctoral fellows in agricul-
tural, food, and environmental research.
These research-strengthening institutional grants
are conceived of as being comparable in purpose and
value to those offered through the National Science
Foundation's (NSF' s)ExperimentalProgram to Stimu-
late Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, and
they could be managed like the EPSCoR grants or like
those offered through the training grant programs of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The fellowships are meant to complement exist-
ing USDA fellowship programs, which should be
continued. Areas emphasized for fellowships should
be those in which it is necessary to ensure future
scientific talent and those in which fields of knowl-
edge are rapidly expanding. A primary goal of the
fellowship programs should be to attract and retain
top-quality scientific talent for the agricultural, food,
and environmental research system.
Providing opportunities within the agricultural,
food, and environmental research system for women,
minorities, and disabled individuals must be a goal for
all programs, and certainly for the expanded grants
program proposed here. Research-strengthening grants
should be a major means to this end.
If as much as 10 percent of competitive grants
program funding is allocated to research-strengthen-
ing grants, the program will significantly broaden the
nation's scientific base by providing scientific capa-
bilities that will likely pay significant dividends.
SIZE AND DURATION OF SUPPORT
The size and duration of USDA competi-
tive grant awards should be substantially
increased. The average size of a grant
should be at least $100,000 per year per
15
principal investigator; the duration of a
grant should be at least 3 years and as
many as 5 years.
The size and duration of the awards a program
offers are critical to its ability to attract top-quality
scientific end engineering talent. Atpresent, too many
leading scientists and institutions pass up the opportu-
nity to compete for the limited, short-term funding
available from the USDA competitive grants pro-
gram. Those who do secure funding must cope with
inadequate budgets and little assurance of continued
support.
To rectify this situation, the USDA competitive
grants program should award grants that enable effec-
tive conduct of research and that are more nearly
comparable in size and duration to the grants awarded
by NSF and NIH theinstitutions with the largess end
most successful grants programs in the United States.
This change alone will do much to attract more top-
quality and new scientific talent into the agricultural,
food, and environmental system and to further stimu-
late and reinforce the talent already in the system.
Ideally, under an overall program of $550 mil-
lion-$50 million from the current program, $500
million from the proposed increase-$250 million in
grants averaging about $100,000 per year and lasting
an average of 3 years would be allocated to principal
investigators; $150 million in grants lasting an aver-
age of 4 years would be allocated to fundamental
multidisciplinary teams; $100 million lasting an aver-
age of 4 years would be allocated to mission-linked
multidisciplinary teams; and $50 million would be
allocated to recipients of research-strengthening grants
(to institutions for programs and to individuals for
fellowships).
NOTES
1. The currentsystem includes state, federal, and
private scientists such as state agricultural experiment
station scientists, cooperative extension service spe-
cialists and advisers, ARS scientists, and their counter-
parts in the private sector. The publicly funded com-
ponents are supported by a mixture of state appropria-
tions, federal formula funds to the states, the research
budget of ARS, and funding from commodity groups
and industry.
2. Examples of applications distinct to particular
regions are the breeding of salt-tolerant cultivars for
western soils with a high salt content; the development
of soil erosion control systems that are effective in
OCR for page 16
16
regions experiencing potentially high rates of both
wind and water erosion; and the identification of pest
and plant disease control practices that are effective,
safe, and profitable in regions with diverse indigenous
pests, soils, and climates.
3. The $8.0 million increase proposed in FY
1990 in animal science competitive grants funding
results in large part from the proposed inclusion under
the competitive grants program of the Section 1433
program, which distributed about $5.0 million annu-
ally from 1984 to 1988. Congressional response to the
proposal to transfer the funds is uncertain.
4. It shouldbe noted thatcurrentplantand animal
.
science competitive grants programs cover only por-
tions of the proposed plant and animal systems pro-
gram areas (for example, veterinary medical issues are
not now included) and that the current biotechnology
program applies to five of the six proposed program
areas but only partially and partially to the sixth
proposed program area (markets, trade, and policy)
(see Chapter 5 for a discussion).
WRESTING IN RESEARCH
5. The term systems as used here has two mean-
ings: (1) The crop plant or animal of interest is part of
a larger biological system that includes relationships
with other plants, animals, insects, or microbes-
relationships that can be either beneficial or harmful.
(2) The resolution of problems such as disease control
or improved quality in crop plants and animals will
require an integrated approach that combines exper-
tise ranging from economics to biochemistry. (Plac-
ing organisms or phenomena in a systems context is
particularly relevant to the new category of multidis-
ciplinary grants; see later sections of the chapter).
6. This has been the case in all areas of science,
including those closely related to agriculture, food,
and the environment. For example, basic research has
helped scientists to understand gene transfer mecha-
nisms in plants, develop and refine analytical chemis-
try methods, understand the physiology of plant re-
sponses to stress, describe the mechanisms important
to animal and human reproduction, and develop con-
trols for human and animal viruses.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
grants program
