|
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 144
D
Statements of Program Objectives
and Funcling Response
A variety of U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) agencies, committees, councils, and private
organizations conduct periodic as well as ad hoc
reviews of agricultural and food science and engineer-
ing priorities. This appendix provides additional
details on some of the most important statements of
systemwide or agency-specific priorities, including
the following:
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) objectives
from its most recent 5-year plan.
Joint Council for rood and Agricultural Sciences
(JCFAS) 5-year plans and annual reports on priority
research.
The Users Advisory Board (UAB) priority state-
ments.
National Agriculture Research Committee, con-
vened by the National Association of State Universi-
ties and Land-Grant Colleges statement of systemwide
· . .
prlontles.
· Areviewoftheimpactofpriority-settingmecha-
nisms on budget allocations.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
The ARS objectives from the agency's 5-year plan
are presented in the report Agricultural Research
Service Program Plan (U.S. Department of Agncul-
ture, Agricultural Research Service, 1983~. An im-
plementation plan to act upon these objectives has also
been published (Agricultural Research Service Pro-
gramPlan: 6-YearImplementationPlan.1986-1992
[U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Re-
search Service, 19851~. The six objectives are de-
scribed here.
The purpose of objective 1 was to develop the
means for managing and conserving the nation?s soil
144
and water resources for a stable and productive agri-
cultural system. There were four approaches for
fulfilling objective 1: (1) develop the technology for
assessing and predicting long-term changes in the
quantity and quality of soil, water, and air resources
available to agriculture; (2) provide the technology
needed for improving, protecting, and restoring the
productive capacity of agricultural soils; (3) develop
improved water management systems and practices to
achieve effective and efficient use of water resources;
and (4) develop improved subsystems and models that
integrate the use of soil, water, and air resources for the
optimal management of major land resource areas.
The purpose of objective 2 was to develop the
means for maintaining and increasing the productivity
and quality of crop plants by four approaches: (1)
broaden the germplasm resources of plants and bene-
ficial organisms to ensure maximal genetic diversity
for improved productivity; (2) select and modify the
germplasms of plants, beneficial organisms, and pests;
(3) develop improved production practices for main-
taining and increasing crop productivity and quality
and for reducing costs; and (4) develop improved
methods for reducing crop losses caused by weeds,
diseases, insects, nematodes, and other pests.
The purpose of objective 3 was to develop the
means for increasing the productivity of animals and
the quality of animal products, which was to be done
by six approaches: (1) increase the genetic capacity of
animals for production; (2) improve the efficiency of
reproduction and reproduction-related biological
processes; (3) improve animal nutrition and feed effi-
ciency to increase productivity and product quality;
(4) develop ways to prevent or control losses from
diseases, parasites, and toxicants and other substances
that limit animal performance and reduce the quality
of animal products; (5) develop a means for control
OCR for page 145
APPENDIX D
ling insects, ticks, and mites that affect animals and
humans; and (6) devise means for improving and
integrating procedures and facilities for production
and transport of animals to increase productivity,
reduce costs, and minimize stresses.
The purpose of objective 4 was to devise means for
improving and integrating procedures and facilities
for production and transport of animals to increase
productivity, reduce costs, and minimize stresses.
This was to be done by four approaches: (1) develop
means for enhancing the inherent properties and uses
of agricultural materials; (2) develop the means for
meeting foreign and domestic user and regulatory
requirements relating to toxic factors in food, feed,
and other agricultural products; (3) develop means for
reducing or eliminating postharvest losses caused by
pests, spoilage, and physical and environmental
damage; and (4) develop the means for increasing the
efficiency of systems for processing, handling, stor-
ing, and distributing agricultural products.
The purpose of objective 5 was to develop the
means for promoting optimum human health and
well-being through improved nutrition and family
resource management, which was to be done by four
approaches: (1) define the nutrient requirements of
humans at all stages of the life cycle; (2) determine the
nutrient content of agricultural commodities and pro-
cessed foods in the form that they are eaten, and
establish the bioavailability of their nutrients; (3)
improve the nutritional status of humans and the well-
being of families by making techniques available for
assessing the effectiveness of nutrition and home
economics programs; and (4) integrate knowledge of
human nutritional needs into the food and agricultural
system.
The purpose of objective 6 was to develop the
means for integrating scientific knowledge of agricul-
tural production, processing, and marketing into sys-
tems that optimize resource management and facili-
tate the transfer of technology to users. This was to be
done by developing integrated systems for the effi-
cient production, processing, and marketing of agri-
cultural products.
JOINT COUNCIL FOR FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
JCAFS's 5-year plan for 1988 to 1993 identified
seven critical societal concerns on which the USDA's
R&D programs should focus and was put forth in the
145
Five-Year Plan for the Food and Agricultural Sci-
ences: A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture (U.S.
Deponent of Agriculture, Joint Council for Food
and Agricultural Sciences, 1980~. These seven con-
cerns were as follows: (1) restoring a competitive and
profitable agricultural system; (2) revitalizing rural
areas of the United States; (3) maintaining water qual-
ity; (4) enhancing the future through biotechnology;
(5) advancing knowledge and scientific expertise in
the agricultural sector; (6) understanding food, diet,
and health relationships; and (7) managing germplasms
and maintaining genetic diversity.
It is interesting to assess these 5-year priorities in
contrast to annual priorities.
The fiscal year ~Y) 1987 priorities were to (1)
increase agricultural profitability through manage-
ment; (2) improve water quality and management; (3)
expand biotechnology efforts on plants, animals, and
microbes; (4) develop the necessary scientific and
professional human capital; and (5) improve human
nutrition and understanding of the relationship be-
tween diet and health.
The FY 1988 priorities were to (1) enhance profit-
ability in the agricultural system; (2) expand biotech-
nology to enhance the benefits from plants and ani-
mals; (3) improve water quality and management; (4)
strengthen the development of professional and scien-
tif~c expertise; (5) enhance productivity and conserva-
tion of soils; (6) expand domestic and foreign markets
and uses for agricultural and forest products; (7)
preserve plant germplasms and beneficially improve
plants; and (8) improve human nutrition and the under-
standing of the relationship between diet and health.
The FY 1989 priorities are to (1) maintain and
preserve water quality; (2) expand biotechnology and
its applications; (3) develop and maintain scientific
knowledge and expertise; (4) improve understanding
of food, diet, human nutrition, and health relation-
ships; (5) sustain soil productivity; (6) assess new and
expanded uses for agricultural products; (7) preserve
germplasms and genetically improve plants; and (8)
improve food processing, quality, distribution, and
safety
USERS ADVISORY BOARD
Agency Budget Recommendations
The UAB has reviewed the President's FY 1989
budget for the USDAin theAppraisal of the proposed
OCR for page 146
146
1989 Budget for Food and Agricultural Sciences:
Report to the President and Congress (National
Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory
Board, 1988~. Whilegenerallysupportingtheproposals
ofthe executive branch, the UAB has made suggestions
for (1) the best ways to utilize the level of funding that
has been called for and (2) some ways in which in-
creased funding or shifting of funds between catego-
ries would allow the USDA to do a better job of
achieving the nation's agricultural priorities.
Agricultural Research Service
The UAB endorses the administration's $20.2
million funding increase for ARS, but proposes some
reallocations and restrictions. Specific recommenda-
tions include continued comprehensive planning for
research; increased interdisciplinary efforts; manda-
tory peer review; economic impact analysis of pro-
posed research; renovation of the Beltsville, ~y-
land, research facility; closing or consolidation of
excess laboratory facilities; shifting of $10 million
from plant research to animal science research; and
giving top priority to research on alternative uses for
agricultural products.
Cooperative State Research Service
The UAB would increase the Cooperative State
Research Service (CSRS) budget by $3 million and
reallocate some funds among program areas. This
would provide an additional $6 million for animal
health and disease research, $3 million for aquaculture
research, $3 million for higher education programs,
and $338,000 for rangeland research.
Economic Research Service
The UAB proposes a reallocation aimed at equal-
izing funding between two Economic Research Serv-
ice divisions and stresses the need to focus on agricul-
tural labor issues.
Extension Service
The UAB proposes a shift of funds from food and
nutrition education to programs directed toward agri-
culture and natural resources. Thereallocations would
provide $7 million for pest management, $10 million
for water quality, and $2.8 million for renewable
resources.
WRESTING IN RESEARCH
U.S. Forest Service
The UAB suggests shifting $6 million to the
Cooperative State Research Service to fund a forestry
competitive grants program. The UAB also suggests
several high-priority forestry issues that the agency
should emphasize.
Human Nutrition Information Service
The UAB supports the proposed Human Nutrition
Information Service budget and suggests that the
agency set research priorities through strategic plan-
ning, track major market shifts, increase cooperation
with other agencies, and devote more time to commu-
nicating its findings to the public.
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
COMMITTEE
Table D.1 provides a list of 21 initiatives and
objectives of the National Agricultural Research
Committee, which is convened by the National Asso-
ciation of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
A REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF PRIORITY
SETTING MECHANISMS ON BUDGET
ALLOCATIONS
The impact of a specific recommendation or or-
ganization's activities on bringing about change in
funding priorities is often difficult to trace. A few
notable exceptions can be cited, including the biotech-
nology initiative led by the Experiment Station Com-
mittee on Policy in the mid-1980s, the Resident In-
stn~ction Committee on Policy's advocacy of a higher
education fellowship program, and the Carnegie Insti-
tution report A Nation at Risk (1984), which galva-
nized public concern about the inadequate state of
public education.
One approach to gauge the impact of priority-
setting mechanisms on funding decisions is to isolate
and analyze actual significant changes in funding
levels that have occurred from one budget to the next.
Typically, the U.S. Congress will state in conference
and full committee reports its reasons for cutting or
expanding an existing program or initiating a new one.
It may cite a particular report, or a set of recommenda-
tions offered by an advisory body. In most cases
several reports and recommendations lie behind any
major shift in priorities. Table D.2 summarizes sig
OCR for page 147
APPENDIX D
TABLE D.1 National Agricultural Research Committee Initiatives and Objectives
147
1. Maintain and protect water quality and quantity
Groundwater quality
Water quantity
Water use efficiency
Conservation practices
Water use policy
Household water use
Biotechnology
Plant productivity
Plant disease resistance
Nutritional quality of plants
Biological control of pests
Biologically active materials
Diagnostic and immunologic products
Animal disease resistance
Animal development and productivity
Impacts of biotechnology
3. Genetic improvement of economically
important plants
Gene characterization
Germplasm acquisition and maintenance
Plant breeding
Resistance to pests
Soil microorganisms
Consumer preferences
New uses for plant products and
components
4. Sustaining soil productivity
Erosion-soil property relationships
Soil conservation policy
Soil conservation economics
Status of soil productivity
Tillage management interactions
Soil dynamics
5. Improved management of crop pests and
diseases
Incidence, prediction, and management
Pesticide and pest management
Quantifying constraints to plant
productivity
Epidemiological systems
Biological control techniques
Integration of pest management into crop
production systems
6. Food processing, preservation, and quality
enhancement
Processing and preservation
Quality enhancement
Food safety
By-products and the environment
7. Animal efficiency in food production
Animal genetics
Reproductive physiology
Animal nutrition
Animal protein and lipid synthesis
Animal management systems
8. New and expanded uses for agricultural and
forest products
New and alternative crops
Processing technologies
Added value
9. Integrating agricultural technologies
Assessment of new technologies
Market forces and enterprise profitability
Capital investment and financial
requirements
Integrated systems
Alternative systems
Optimal input systems
10. Interrelationships of food and the nutritional
and health status of humans
Human nutritional requirements
Dietary practices
Nutritional quality of foodstuffs
Bioavailability of nutrients
Health influences from diet
11. Marketing of agricultural and forest products
Supply, demand, and price relationships
Grades and standards
Market efficiency and performance
International market development
Madcet strategies and power
Consumer preferences and quality
12. Animal health and disease
Immunological advances
Integrated health management
Epidemiology of animal diseases
Residue and toxicology studies
13. Impact of agricultural and forestry policy on
global markets
Commodity, factor, and financial
Market relationships
Political economy of domestic and foreign
commodity policy
Table D.l continues
OCR for page 148
148
TABLE D.1 (Continued)
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
Comparative productivity growth and
competition in world markets
Impacts of emerging technological changes
for public policy
Policy and institutional design
14. Rural family and community well-being
Economic alternatives and diversification
Family stress factors
Displacement assistance
Resource management
Environmental and safety factors for
families ~
Organizing capacities and governance of
communities
Interdependence among agriculture,
families, and communities
15. Agricultural and forestland use
Land use policies, land values, and tax base
Land use alternatives
Recreation resource management
Consolidation of forestland and agricultural
land information
16. Energy-efficient systems
Efficient plant and animal production and
processing systems
Efficient energy conversion technologies
Alternative sources
Extraction procedures and practices
17. Sensors and computing systems for food and
agriculture
Sensor technology development
Electronic systems for plant and animal
production
Electronic systems for food processing
18. Productivity of rangeland and pastureland
Rangeland ecology and management
Plant-animal interactions
Water management
Plant improvement
Weed and brush management
19. Forest productivity
Silvicultural techniques and practices
Genetics and superior tree production
New processes, products, and uses for
wood
Forest health
20. Effects of atmospheric deposition on
ecosystems
Chemical exposures
Amount-response relationships
Accumulation of toxicants in plants and
animals
21. Plants for the urban environment
Plant materials
Management and maintenance strategies
SOURCE: Adapted from Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy. 1988. Table 5 in Research Initiatives: A Midtenn
Update of the Research Agenda for the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. College Station, Ted.: Texas Agricultural Experunent Station.
nificant shifts in USDA research funding priorities
since FY 1983.
One of the important organizations that influences
the priority-setting process is the Joint Council for
Food and Agricultural Sciences. JCFAS was estab-
lished in 1977 by the U.S. Congress to facilitate
coordination and prioritization of research, education,
and technology policy among the agencies of USDA,
other federal agencies, and state performers of re-
search and extension activities.
JCFAS developed its first 5-year plan for the food
and agricultural sciences in 1984, and has since issued
an updated 5-year plan on a biennial basis (see discus-
sion earlier in this appendix). In addition, JCFAS
publishes a yearly report to the secretary of agriculture
on priorities for research, extension, and higher educa-
tion. These reports articulate national research and
education priorities and offer recommendations re-
garding how federal research activities should be
redirected or focused to better address top-priority
issues. The evolution in the priorities notedin six most
recent annual priorities reports (1985-1990), in con-
trast to the most recent 5-year plan issued in 1988, is
summarized in Table D.3.
The priorities identified by JCFAS in annual and 5-
year reports reflect its sense of changing scientific
needs and opportunities. Two of the top priorities
listed in the 1988 5-year plan were not among the top
OCR for page 149
APPENDIX D
TABLE D.2 Significant Annual Shifts in Funding Priorities in USDA Research Agency Budgets, FY 1983-
FY 1989
149
ARS
CSRS
Fiscal Funding Change Funding Change
Year Area (millions of dollars) Area (millions of dollars)
1983 Basic research + 9.6 Hatch Act + 3.4
Animal health + 4.0 Cooperative forestry
Range and pasture + 0.5 research - 1.2
NAGS + 3.8 1890 institutions + 0.2
Acid precipitation + 0.9 Plant science com
Land and water petitive grants + 6.4
conservation + 5.1 Animal health formula
Human nutrition + 1.0 funds - 5.8
1984 Basic animal Animal science
biotechnology + 0.8 competitive grants + 4.5
Basic plant Animal health formula
biotechnology + 1.3 funds -5.8
Postdoctorate
fellowship ~ 0.5
Basic postharvest
resources
Exports + 1.0
Grain quality + 0.6
Human nutrition + 1.2
1985 Basic animal science + 0.4 Hatch Act + 3.0
Livestock disease Cooperative formula - 0.3
diagnosis + 0.2 1890 institutions + 0.5
Animal genetic Animal science
disease resistance + 0.4 competitiveness + 4.5
Agricultural systems + 0.6 Biotechnology +28.5
Plant germplasms + 0.6 Animal health formula - 5.8
Plant protection + 0.6
Biocoatrol + 0.4
Soil fertility + O.6
Soil erosion + 0.5
Basic postharvest + 0.9
Basic postharvest
exports + 0.8
Strengthening of
1890 institutions + 2.0
Graduate fellows - 5.0
1986 Groundwater quality + 0.5 Eliminate special grants -28.5
New methods for Eliminate section 1433
SCS resource formula funds - 5.76
assessments + 0.5 Reduce higher education
Plant germplasms + 3.2 funding - 5.8
Table D.2 continues
OCR for page 150
150
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
TABLE D.2 (Continued)
ARS CSRS
Fiscal Funding Change Funding Change
Year Area (millions of dollars) Area (millions of dollars)
Animal health + 0.75
Alternative
quarantine treatment 0.5
1987 Plant germplasms + 3.5 Eliminate special grants
New products and ~ funds -30.3
uses +10.0 Eliminate 1983 formula
funds - 5.7
Reduce higher education
(elimination of graduate
- training and Moms
Nelson programs) - 5.S
Reduce competitive grants
(elimination of
categories designated
by U.S. Congress) - 1.8
1988 Plant germplasms + 7.3 Increases of formula
Improve meat quality programs + 8.3
through reduction Eliminate special grants -52.0
of fats +2.1 Compeutive grants for
Planning for con- plant science centers + 3.9
struction of new Eliminate Section 1433
National Seed Storage formula funds - 5.5
Lab (instead of plant Reduce higher education - 5.6
gene germplasms) + 1.0
1989 Groundwater quality + 5.0 Reduce forestry formula - 4.5
Global change + 0.7 1890 institutions
Food safety + 4.5 and Tuskegee
Repair and University + 2.0
maintenance + 4.0 Eliminate Section 1433
formula funds - 5.5
Reduce higher education - 5.4
Reduce special grants - 44.5
Competitive grants +12.1
Increases directed land for:
Plant science centers
Animal science
Biotechnology
Global change
NOTE: Abbreviations: NPGS, National Plant Germplasm System; SCS, Soil Conservation Service.
SOURCE: Adapted from data provided by the Office of Budget, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Agnculture, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
OCR for page 151
APPENDIX D
TABLE Do Evolution of Research Priorities in Reports of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural
Sciences: Ranking of 1988 5-Year Research Priorities in Annual Priorities Reports, 1985-1990
1988 5-Year Priorities
Annual Priorities Ranking
1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985
Restoring a competitive and
profitable agricultural system a a a a a a
Revitalizing rural areas of
the United States.
Maintaining water quality
Enhancing the future
through biotechnology
Advancing knowledge and
. . ~ . .
sclentlilc expertise In
agriculture
Understanding food, diet, and
health relationships
Managing germplasms and
maintaining genetic diversity
a a a
1 J
2 2
a a a
~2 4 7
2 3 1
3 4 4 3 3C
4 4 8 5 6 6
5 7 7 a a a
aWas not included among the top-ranked priorities, was included in a listing of other priorities, or was included as an aspect of other
. . . . .
lsted pnont~es.
bRanldngs involved emphasis Al water quality management in 1985 and 1986.
Identified in 1985 as plant molecular biology research.
SOURCE: National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board. 1987. Appraisal of the Proposed 1988 Budget for
Food and Agricultural Sciences: Report to the President and Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
priorities identified for 1989 and 1990: revitalizing
rural areas of the United States and restoring interna-
tional competitiveness. Rural development has not
been cited as a top-priority concern in any of these
years, apart from the 1988 5-year plan. Some priori-
ties emerge quickly but prove to be short-lived, such
as competitiveness. Other categories, such as devel-
oping biotechnology, maintain a fairly consistent
ranking. Few priorities, however, have shiftedconsis-
tently in the annual ranking of priorities. Water
quality is the one exception, rising steadily from
seventh place in 1985 to first in 1989 and 1990.
While Table D.3 provides a useful snapshot of how
JCFAS perceives budget priorities, it does not contain
information on how budget allocations actually shifted
in response to a perceived change in priorities. This
response can be gauged, at least crudely, by contrast-
ing significant changes in USDA research expendi-
tures for FY 1983 to FY 1989 (see Table D.2) to
151
changes in JCFAS priorities (see Table D.3~. Recent
changes in funding priorities suggest that three of
seven priority issues identified in the JCFAS annual
reports have received little or no new funding (com-
petitiveness, revitalizing rural areas of the United
States, understanding diet and health); some areas
receiving increased funding were not among JCFAS 's
top priorities (new uses and climatic changed. In-
creased funding for research in two areas preceded
identification by JCFAS as a top priority (biotechnol-
ogy and germplasms); in one case (water quality),
funding increases appeared to follow in a logical
sequence after identification as a top-prionty research
need. In the case of the priority of advancing knowl-
edge, the funding response has been modest and
intermittent.
Funding changes are noted below in each of the
seven top-prionty areas of research identified in the
1988 JCFAS 5-year plan (see Table D.3~.
OCR for page 152
152
1. RestoringCompetitiveness.Thisissueemerged
as priority number one in the 1987 and 1988 annual
JCFAS reports. There was little or no change in
funding directed toward this issue in subsequent
budgets. One executive branch initiative relevant to
competitiveness was advanced by the Extension Ser-
vice. The extension competitiveness end profitability
initiative has not received significant new funding to
date.
2. Revitalizing Rural Areas of the United States.
This 5-year plan priority was not previously identified
in earlier annual JCFAS priority reports, nor did it
warrant mention as a top priority in the 1989 and 1990
reports. There has been little or no new or redirected
funding devoted to research on this issue.
3. Maintaining Water Quality. Water quality has
risen steadily in the relative rankings since 1985.
Modest new funding for groundwater quality research
in ARS ($0.5 million) was included in the FY 1986
budget, and a more substantial increase was included
in the FY 1989 ARS budget ($5 million). The Presi-
dent's proposed FY 1990 budget includes $10 million
in additional funding for ARS water quality research
and just under $4 million through the CSRS and $5
million through the Extension Service. This is the one
top-priority area in which increases in appropriated
funds appear to be responsive to JCFAS priority
reports.
4. Enhancing the Future through Biotechnology.
Since the mid-1980s, biotechnology has been identi-
fied consistently as a highly significant scientific
opportunity for food and fiber industries. The first
new funding for plant and animal biotechnologies was
included in the FY 1984 budget for ARS ($1.3 and
$0.8 million, respectively). The FY 1985 CSRS
budget for the competitive grants program included
I - ESTINC IN RESEARCH
the major increment of new funding for biotechnol-
ogy: $28.5 million. Since FY 1985, no major new
funding has been appropriated for biotechnology, and
considerable slippage (about 30 percent) has occurred
in the level of competitive grants available forbiotech-
nology research.
5. Advancing Knowledge and Expertise. This pri-
ority led to the initiation of the USDA higher educa-
tion fellowship program in FY 1984. The ARS ex-
panded its fellowship program in FY 1988 to include
a total of 100 fellows. Efforts have been under way for
4 years to expand the higher education fellowship
program and secure funding for institutional strength-
ening grants.
6. Understanding Diet and Health. This priority
has risen to number four among annual priorities. No
new funding has been devoted specifically to this
areas, although considerable scientific effort supported
by animal science and human nutrition funding from
ARS and CSRS has been directed toward understand-
ing diet and health.
7. Managing Germplasms. Within the ARS budget,
increases for the National Plant Germplasm System
were appropriated in FY 1983, prior to its identif~ca-
tion as a top-priority issue in 1986. Further modest
ARS budget increases were provided in FY 1985 and
FY 1986, and there were major increases in FY 1987
and FY 1988 ($3.5 million and $7.3 million, respec-
tively).
One advantage of competitive grants programs is
the ability to quickly adjust research priorities by
calling for proposals in areas of particular need. The
six major competitive grant program areas proposed
here would ensure opportunities to support cutting-
edge science and technology development in each of
the top-priority areas identified by JCFAS.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
agricultural research
