|
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 17
Rationale for the Proposal
The fundamental reason for this proposal is that
major challenges with substantial implications for the
well-being of the United States are confronting the
U.S. agricultural, food, and environmental system. A
greater research and development (R&D) capacity is
needed to fuel the necessary advances in science and
technology to address these challenges. These chal-
lenges are broad, and each relates to the entire agricul-
tural and food enterprise and to the environmental and
social quality of the nation. An overview of the
challenges is contained in Chapter 4; a brief synopsis
of each follows:
Competitiveness and strong economic perform-
ance are crucial for the economic vitality of U.S.
agriculture and for agriculture's capacity to provide
low-cost, nutritious food to consumers: increasing the
efficiency and profitability of the food, fiber, and
processing industries; reducing the environmental costs
of such actions as pesticide use and waste manage-
ment; making available, and using, modern equip-
ment and technology that have state-of-the-art control
and management systems and sensors.
Contributing to human health and well-being is
the goal of the entire agricultural and food system:
increasing the nutrient availability of all foods; mak-
ing optimally nutritious foods conveniently available
to all Americans even while social patterns are chang-
ing; and elucidating the full relationship between diet
and health.
Natural resources stewardship is necessary for
maintaining the health of the environment: providing
the basis for prudent long-term production systems
and resource sustainability; minimizing direct costs to
producers for maintaining environmental quality and
indirect costs suffered by consumers when environ-
mental quality is diminished; and ensuring high envi
17
ronmental quality, with its concomitant benefits for
food, soil, and water.
One way to deal effectively with the challenges and
with the myriad of specific research needs is to exploit
current opportunities in science and technology by
expanding the nation's R&D system.
This chapter presents the rationale for all aspects of
the proposal except for that on program areas and sci-
entific opportunities (which are discussed in Chapter
51:
· Support for fundamental science is mainly a fed-
eral responsibility.
The agricultural, food, and environmental re-
search system requires a substantial increase in fund-
ing to conduct the needed research programs and to
cover the necessary program areas adequately.
The money should be new funding, not redi-
rected funding.
Responsibility for administering the additional
funds should lie with the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA).
The increased funding should be for competitive
grants, not for some other form of allocation.
· Competitive grants to principal investigators
should be complemented by multidisciplinary and
research-s~engthening grants.
A FEDERAL INITIATIVE
Funding for research in science and technology
comes from the state, private, and federal sectors.
However, primary responsibility for supporting fun-
damental research that benefits the nation as a whole
has traditionally been assumed by the federal govern-
ment; and neither the states nor the private sector can
OCR for page 18
18
be expected to underwrite a marked expansion in the
overall science and technology effort in agriculture,
food, and the environment.
State Sector
States are highly unlikely to provide additional
funds for research, nor should they be asked to do so.
First, state expenditures for agricultural research are
already significant. Second, and even more important,
the research to be funded by the program proposed here
is of national importance rather than of directly local or
state importance.
Mainly through their land-grant universities, the
states already do more than half of all research related
to the agricultural, food, and environmental system.
Since 1972, only about 30 percent of the states' re-
search funding has come from all federal sources (about
two-thirds of that from USDA). In 1988, when total
funding for state research was $1,674 million, the states
themselves provided $822.8 million, the federal gov-
emment $577.3 million, and industry $99 million; the
remainder came from sales and other income. Of the
federal funding, $383.5 million came from USDA
through formula and other funds and $45.4 million
came through USDA competitive grants (see Appendix
A). Given the pressure on states to fund state respon-
sibilities that are continuously increasing, they will
almost certainly not tee able to increase their proportion
of research funding.
For program reasons, too, funding for this expanded
research program is a federal, not a state, responsibility.
The research to be funded by the expanded competitive
grants program will not-even in mission-linked and
research-strengthening grants fund research that is
narrowly focused on local, state, or regional needs.
Rather, it will increase the fundamental understanding
of basic biological and physical phenomena that relate
to agriculture, food, and the environment, thus contrib-
uting substantially to the national base of knowledge
for the agricultural system and strengthen the national
infrastructure of that system.
Private Sector
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
search investments may retrench somewhat in the
years ahead. Even if private sector R&D were to
increase, however, its priorities would not fully match
or encompass national needs because of product de-
velopment and proprietary considerations.
Level of Export
The capacity of private firms to support R&D is a
function of their gross sales, their profits, and the
percentage of either gross sales or pretax profits that a
company is willing to invest in R&D. The percentage
of commitment of R&D funds ranges among compa-
nies. As one might expect, to remain competitive and
profitable, industries that place relatively less empha-
sis on new technology tend to invest a smaller portion
of their sales and profits in R&D; high-technology
industries with higher returns in dynamic markets
invest more heavily.
The food and the paper and forest products indus-
tnes fall within a group of industries in which R&D
investments are relatively low (see Table 3.1~. These
two industries spent 9.4 and 10.3 percent, respec-
tively, of pretax profits on R&D in 1987. This repre-
sents the lowest level of R&D by all industries sur-
veyed except for nonbank financial institutions. Not
surprisingly, high-technology industries with patent
protection and proprietary technologies were found to
commit 30 to 50 percent or more of pretax profits to
R&D (aerospace, 86.7 percent; chemicals, 31.8 per-
cent; computers, 60.3 percent; health care, 52.6 per-
cent).
Prospects for Growth
In the decade ahead, the following factors are likely
to affect industrial R&D (see Appendix B):
· Public policies that affect cropping patterns,
natural resource stewardship goals, and the manner in
which food safety and environmental problems are
addressed.
· Public sector R&D priorities and accomplish
ments.
Tax and monetary policy, general economic
Like the state sector, the private sector plays a vital conditions, and interest rates.
role in ongoing agricultural, food, and forestry research · Trade policies, both domestic and international.
activities. However, it, too, cannot be expected to Policies affecting trade in technology and intel
underwrite a marked expansion in the nation's overall
science and technology effort in agricultural, food, and
environmental research. Indeed, private sector re- national.
lectual property.
Governmentregulations, both domestic and inter
OCR for page 19
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
TABLE 3.1 Private Sector Sales, Profits, and R&D for Selected Major Industries, 1987
(in millions of dollars)
Net
Industrial Sector Gross Sales Profits
R&D
Expense
Percent R&D
of Pretax
Profits
Aerospace $88,435.1$2,824.7$3,865.4 86.7
Automotive 246,847.411,125.58,653.0 54.6
Chemicals 112,053.17,403.84,168.3 31.8
Computers 107,976.88,836.28,804.1 60.3
Consumer products 71,288.83,302.71,426.1 25.1
Personal care 35,879.91,450.5968.7 38.2
Electrical and electronics 95,625.74,283.15,055.6 71.2
Fooda 88,622.63,362.0578.4 9.4
Fuel 285,216.35,493.71,906.2 12.2
Health care 70,252.76,404.15,554.9 52.6
Manufacturing 64,650.82,170.81,462.6 40.2
Metals and mining 26,028.1583.8306.3 31.7
Nonbank financial 9,698.3767.657.4 6.4
Paper and forest products 42,071.22,456.6429.3 10.3
Telecommunications 52,551.13,278.02,909.5 55.9
NOTE: Industry composites are Strom Business Week (see Source below).
aThe food industry composite includes 25 companies with gross sales of $88.6 billion, including two seed companies
(whose percent R&D of pretax profits are 50.9 and 86.8) and several major food processors and manufacturers
representing all segments of the industry.
SOURCE: Business Week. June 20, 1988. A perilous cutback in research spending. Pp. 139-162.
Gross and net farm Income, and export demand
and performance.
Corporate consolidations and methods of financ-
ing mergers.
Various scenarios for the relationship between
these policy and economic factors, on the one hand,
and sales, profits, and private sector R&D, on the
other, are presented in Appendix B. If a strong and
sustained economic recovery in the farm sector in the
l990s were coupled with expanded crop production,
private sector R&D might rise by as much as 9 to 13
percent. But such an eventuality, although possible, is
not highly probable. Rather, a continued period of
little or no increase in commodity prices is more
likely, which may hold down increases in production
levels. In addition, public policies and regulations
may impose new costs related to food safety and
19
natural resource stewardship. In this unfavorable
scenario, private sector R&D might decline by 5 to 7
percent during the next decade.
Focus of Private Sector R&D
Private sector firms finance R&D from the sale of
current products or from investment capital that seeks
a return through future product sales. Thus, industrial
R&D usually emphasizes areas of commercial or
near-term interest and may give only modest attention
to areas of research that however important are
not related to a marketable product or service. Such
areas will probably be addressed only by publicly
funded R&D programs.
The following list of some research areas relevant
to alternative agricultural practices illustrates the large
number of research areas that are important to the
OCR for page 20
20
long-term economic and environmental performance
of U.S. agriculture and that need public funds:
Interactions among cropping pattems, tillage,
soil fertility, and nonchemical pest control methods
and the effects of such practices and interactions on
farm profitability, water quality, and the long-term
productivity of soil and water resources.
The development and testing of biologically and
ecologically sustainable production practices, man-
agement support, and diagnostic tools that improve
the options for managing soil nutrients, crop pests, or
animal diseases.
Effects of technological change on patterns of
on-farm and rural employment as they relate to em-
ployment and worker health and safety in agricultural
and forest product industries.
· Analysis and estimation of the costs of off-farm,
nonpoint pollution efforts and policies and the effects
of government programs and policies in shaping on-
farm decisions that, in turn, significantly affect the
attainment of goals for natural resource stewardship
and environmental quality.
Effects of technology and policy on the nutri-
tional attributes of foods and on the health of the
nation's population.
Effects of alternative policies on the perform-
ance of a given sector or across sectors (crop producers
and livestock producers, for example) in relation to
such issues as profitability, environmental protection,
food safety, and human health.
Diffusion of R&D Results
The private sector's focus on areas of commercial
interest is related to another aspect of industrial R&D:
the proprietary nature of some research results. When
scientific and technological advances have prospec-
tive commercial applications, companies withhold
publication of research advances as trade secrets or
until they are assured of patent protection and applica-
tion development.
The proprietary considerations that underlie such
reticence are reasonable and likely to remain strong.
Globally, food product and agricultural input indus-
tries have become more highly competitive; and a
corporation's potential profitability as well as the
markets its products can realistically penetrate in the
United States and abroad will be determined by the
corporation's ability to generate end use new informa
I~ESTING IN RESEARCH
lion in product design, obtain strong patent positions
in emerging areas of technology, and improve its
manufacturing processes. These factors are rein-
forced by the trend toward greater corporate consoli-
dation (see Appendix B).
Federal Sector
The federal governmentrecognizes its responsibil-
ity as a major source of support forbasic research. The
President's budget request for fiscal year (FY) 1990
states, in the special analysis of the research compo-
nents, that "even in an environment of continuing
fiscal austerity, Federal support for basic research,
especially at universities, is an important factor in
generating new knowledge to ensure continued tech-
nological innovation. It is an essential investment in
the Nation's future. The Federal government has
traditionally assumed a key role in support of basic
research because the private sector has insufficient
incentives to invest in such research" (Office of
Management and Budget, 1989, p. J-8~.
As stated above, the substantial increase in support
for competitive grants proposed here would apply to
the entire agricultural, food, and environmental sys-
tem, not to specific applications or geographic areas.
That increase should therefore be funded by the fed-
eral government.
A $500 MILLION INCREASE
This proposal calls for a major expanded invest-
ment to accelerate the rate of discovery in the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental sciences. The pro-
posed increased investment of $500 million is justi-
fied on at least two counts: (1) agricultural research
yields a high rate of return on investment, and (2)
current funding for the agricultural research system
cannot adequately support either the in-depth studies
or the broad scope of science and technology neces-
sary to maintain the competitiveness and sustainabil-
ity of the overall agricultural, food, and environmental
system.
Investing in Agriculture
Investment in agricultural research strengthens both
agriculture and science because progress in agricul-
ture and advances in science are reciprocal. Advances
in science promote progress in agriculture; for ex
OCR for page 21
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
ample, new discoveries in genetics continue to lead to
crop and animal improvements through breeding.
Conversely, research on agricultural problems fre-
quently provides the model system for basic scientific
discoveries; for example, work on potato diseases led
to the discovery of viroids previously unrecognized
disease agents that attack humans, animals, and plants.
Public investments in agricultural, food, and envi-
ronmental research are also warranted because they
have a well-documented high rate of economic return.
The minimum annual rate of return a private company
expects from plant capacity, inventory, or other in-
vestments is 12 to 15 percent. In contrast, each public
dollar (federal plus state) invested in agricultural re-
search results in much higher returns to society through
a net reduction in unit costs; for some investments,
studies have shown that the returns can be as low as 45
percent and as high as 130 percent (Evenson, 1968;
Evenson et al., 1979; Ruttan, 1982; Fox et al., 1987;
Capalbo and Antle, 1988~. Such studies derive the
return to food and agricultural research by estimating
the reduction in costs of consumer products made
possible by efficiency gains following technological
innovations. The benefits from most categories of
food and agricultural technological innovations are
estimated to span 20 to 30 years. Hence, annual
returns compound to several multiples of the initial
Investment.
The public receives this return on investment in
agricultural research not in the form of a dividend
check but at the supermarket checkout counter and in
a myriad of everyday products and activities that
improve the U.S. standard of living and quality of life.
In the United States, food claims a smaller share of
personal consumption expenditures than it does in any
other nation just 17.4 percent in 1988 (Council of
Economic Advisers, 198S, Table B-15, third-quarter
estimate)- and the food is of high quality.
Public R&D investments have other benefits as
well. For example, the resulting expansion of the
knowledge base makes it possible to respond to con-
sumer demands for varied and high-quality produce
year-round, low-fat and low-cholesterol products, more
nutritious snacks, and microwaveable products. Like-
wise, public R&D investment in research on resource
conservation methods and food safety technologies
can help accelerate the adoption of production prac-
tices that are not only sustainable and less likely to
pollute the environment but that are also helpful in
minimizing the chances that microbiological orchemi-
cal contaminants will create a food safety hazard.
21
In addition, food and agricultural research has a
positive effect in terms of the distribution of wealth
and quality of life among all members of society
(White, 1987~. Poorer families andindividuals tend to
spend a higher portion of their disposable income on
food and pay a relatively smaller portion of income in
taxes. Research and other public policies and pro-
grams lower the cost of food, and in this way they
provide a proportionately greater benefit to citizens on
the lower end of the income scale.
Adequacy of Funding
An annual increase of $500 million will enable the
USDA's competitive grants program to meet two
objectives: (1) attract new talent into agricultural,
food, and environmental research and (2) expand the
scope of agricultural, food, and environmental re-
search. The size and duration of grants and the number
of grants available need to be substantially increased,
however, to achieve these objectives. The pool of
talented scientists is large enough to put such an
expanded program to good use.
Three factors determine the amount of support
needed for an expanded competitive grants program:
(1) the size of the average adequate grant for each
grant type, (2) the average adequate duration for each
grant type, and (3) the minimum funding level that is
desirable for each program area and capable of allow-
ing all six program areas to be covered. The number
of grants thus derived is then evaluated for its reasona-
bleness, given the needs of the program areas, the
number of investigators funded in the current com-
petitive grants program, and the availability of scien-
tists to seek the grants. The analysis shows that the
overall $550 million program should support the fol-
lowing:
About 800 principal investigator grants for an
average duration of 3 years. Totalannualexpenditure:
$250 million.
About 180 fundamental multidisciplinary team
grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual
expenditure: $150 million.
· About 60 mission-linked multidisciplinary team
grants for en average duration of 4 years. Total annual
expenditure: $100 million.
· Research-strengthening grants to institutions for
programs and to individuals for fellowships. Total
annual expenditure: $50 million.
OCR for page 22
22
Size and Duration of Grants
The grants awarded by USDA's competitive re-
search grants program have always been characterized
by inadequate size and duration. This is one reason that
the full range of scientific and engineering talent in the
United S tales has not been more involved in research on
food and agricultural problems.
The average annual size of USDA competitive grant
awards per principal investigator is now about
$50,00~an amount too small in most instances to
support research adequately. The cost of conducting
food and agricultural research differs little from the
cost of conducting research in other areas. In fact,
expenses per investigator can be markedly higher in
certain areas of food and agricultural research, in con-
trast to areas in which less equipment and less field
experimentation are necessary. In agricultural, food,
and environmental research today, as in research in
other areas of science, relatively few types of studies
can be adequately undertaken with a research budget of
less than $ 100,000 per year per principal investigator.
To do high-quality research on a grant of $50,000 per
year, most researchers must secure additional support
or in-kind contributions from other sources. Those
funds are often difficult or impossible to get or may
require compromises in the research plan.
Table 3.2 describes what a typical principal investi
. . . ^. ~
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
gator's grant budget would be under $46,000 and
$ 100,000 awards. Table 3.3 delineates the personnel
costs under both award levels to show how limited the
options are with the smaller grant: A principal inves-
tigagor could afford, for example, the assistance of
either a graduate student, a technician, or partial sup-
port of a postdoctoral fellow. In contrast, an award at
the higherlevel would provide a principal investigator
with sufficient funds to pay for research supplies and
to support at least one graduate student, one postdoc-
toral research fellow, or both. This provides a key
means of attracting young scientists to careers in
agricultural and food science. These figures are par-
ticularly sobering since competitive grants are a major
source of support for graduate students the nation's
future scientists.
A program's grants should not only be sufficient in
size but they should also be large enough to compete
for the attention of scientists currently working in
other areas. The average size of currentUSDAgrants
$50,00~compares unfavorably with the average
sizes for National Science Foundation (NSF) and
National Institutes of Health ~IH) grants, which are
$69,600 and $154,900, respectively (see Table 3.4~.
The proposed average grant size for the expanded
USDA program - 100,000 per year per investiga-
tor makes the USDA grants not only sufficient but
also competitive with NSF and NIH grants.
TABLE 3.2 What a USDA Competitive Grant Can Buy (in dollars per year)
Average
Grant Size Personnel Equipment Supplies Travel Publication
Miscel- Indirect
laneousa Costs
46,000 23,000 4,600 5,800 1,100 500 4,700 13,200
(28,700- (11,300- (3,000- (1,000- (500- (100- (1,000- (7,800
60,000) 34,000) 9,000) 13,100) 2,000) 600) 15,000) 22,500)
100,000 46,000 11,300 17,000 1,600 800 1,600 27,800
(74,000- (24,800- (3,000- (5,000- (500- (500- (500- (11,000
139,000) 82,000) 29,000) 32,000) 7,000) 1,200) 3,500) 39,000)
NOTE: The sum of all budget categories adds up to more than the average size of a grant because each grant does not allocate monies
to all the budget categories. Only the supplies and indirect costs categories are allocated in all grants. Values in parentheses are ranges.
This category includes equipment maintenance contracts, animal care facility fees, subcontracts to outside services, etc.
SOURCE: Data are based on a review of 20 randomly selected grants and were compiled by the Competitive Research Grants Office,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989.
OCR for page 23
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
TABLE 3.3 Representative Personnel Expenditures under a USDA Competitive Grant (in dollars per year)
23
Average
Grant Size
Total Principal Post
Personnel Investigator doctorate
Graduate Under
Student graduate Technician
46,000
(28,700
60,000)
100,000
(74,000
139,000)
23,000
(11,30~
34,000)
46,000
(24,80~
82,000)
7,800
(4,500
15,000)
13,000
(6,000
30,000)
23,000
(17,00~
28,000)
28,000
(20,000
61,000)
13,000
(4,500
25,200)
15,500
(8,000
3l,000)
3,000
(1,000
5,000)
4,700
(1,500
12,000)
12,000
(2,900
21,000)
20,800
(10,00~
30,000)
NOTE: The sum of all personnel categories adds up to more than the total personnel category because each grant does not allocate monies
to all the personnel categories. Values in parentheses are ranges.
SOURCE: Data are based on a review of 20 randomly selected grants and were compiled by the Competitive Research Grants Office, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989.
TABLE 3.4 Comparison of Competitive Grant Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Health, FY 1988
NIHc
Parameter USDAa NSF Total NIGMS
Number of proposals1,4663,586 19,205 2,709
Number of grants funded339683 6,212 1,044
Percentage of proposals
resulting in grants23.1%19.0% 32.3% 38.5%
Amount requested
(in millions of dollars)
Amount awarded in new grants
(in millions of dollars)
Percentage of requested
amount awarded
Average amount of new awards
(in thousands of dollars/year)$50.0
$339.2 $1,096.7
$37.2
10.9%
$61.5
5.6%
$69.6
$3,728.7$461.5
$1,098.5$167.4
29.0%36.0%
$154.9$156.2
aData represent grants from the Competitive Research Grants Office of the Cooperative State Research Service. They do not include Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Program, Special Research Grants Program, or National Needs Graduate Fellowships.
bData are fornew awards excluding continuation payments forawards made in previous years. Combined data from three of the six divisions
of the Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Includes the Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, Division of Cellular
Biosciences, and Division of Molecular Biosciences.
CData represent grants to individual investigators, which are predominantly grants coded as ROT, and exclude continuation payments for
awards made in previous years. Data from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) are a subset in the total for all of
NIH.
SOURCE: For USDA, adapted from data compiled by the Budget Office, Cooperative State Research Service. For NSF, adapted from data
compiled by the Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. For NIH, National Institutes of Health, Division of Research
Grants. In press. NIH Data Book 1989. Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health.
OCR for page 24
24
The duration of grants is important, too, because
only in a few selected areas of research can significant
experimental results be attained within 1 or 2 years.
Research in genetics and plant breeding that needs
data from at least four or five growing seasons cannot
rationally be proposed for completion within a 2-year
grant period. Similarly, worthwhile projects that
involve extensive field or clinical work require not
only the support of skilled laboratory and field person-
nel but also sufficient time. Another example of
research that requires a longer time frame is the effort
to break through long-standing barriers to knowledge
of basic plant or animal growth processes or barriers to
knowledge of ecosystems for sustainable agriculture-
breakthroughs that are prerequisites to developing
more efficient systems of production. Still another
example of research that requires a longer time frame
is the pursuit of economically viable new uses of
existing crops a pursuit that may entail the applica-
tion of genetic engineering techniques to develop new
traits in plants, agronomic and production research
and plant breeding to bring yields up to profitable
levels, engineering and food processing research to
I - ESTING IN RESEARCH
develop efficient technologies for handling and con-
verting materials, and changes in agricultural com-
modity and conservation policies to accommodate the
needed adjustments in regional cropping patterns.
It is difficult to persuade talented scientists to
invest time in preparing and conducting research
programs when the time allowed for the research is too
short for them to achieve meaningful results and when
there is uncertainty about whether a grant will be
renewed and the funding continued so Mat the work
can be completed. It is also difficult to persuade new
postdoctoral fellows to relocate if they can only be
guaranteed partial support for 2 years. It is difficult,
too, to conduct strong graduate-level research training
programs if only short-term partial funding is avail-
able. These programs generally run at least 3 and
often 4 years, but the average duration of USDA
competitive grants has been 2 years (see Table 3.59.
The difficulty and uncertainty connected with plan-
ning a graduate research program with only 2-year
grants has discouraged many scientists and their stu-
dents from applying for the short-term grants.
The best solution is the most direct one. Average
TABLE 3.5 Competitive Grant Funding per Principal Investigator in Agriculture,
Biology, and Biomedicine, FY 1986
Total Size of
Average Grant Average Award Agency Program
Award Duration (millions of
Sponsoring Agency Dollars (years) dollars)
USDA Competitive Research 46,200b 2
Grants Office
48.8
NSF Directorate for 70,000 2-3248.9
Biological, Behavioral,
and Social Sciences
DOES Biological Energy 72,000 3-3.511.8
Research Division
NIH 164,000 3-3.54,900.0
Values given for FY 1986 awards include both direct and indirect costs.
Average for all grants awarded, including forestry and small business innovation awards.
COnly plant biology- and biotechnology-related grants; the average grant size over the entire Directorate for
Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences was $65,000.
~DOE, U.S. Department of Energy.
SOURCE: National Research Council. 1987a. Agricultural Biotechnology. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
OCR for page 25
RATIONALE FOR TIlE PROPOSAL
TABLE 3.6 Goals for the Distribution of Funds with an Increase in the USDA
Competitive Grants Program to $550 Million
Goal Average Length
Millions Percent of Granta
Type of Grant of Dollars (years)
Principal investigator 250 46 3
Fundamental multidisciplinary
team 150 27 4
Mission-linked 100 18 4
multidisciplinary team
Research-strengthening 50 9 3b
aProgram administrators need maximum flexibility in detennining the appropriate length of grants; the table
shows overall averages.
gibe size and duration of research-strengthening grants, depending on the need for fellowship or program
support.
USDA competitive grants to principal investigators
should be more nearly comparable in duration, as in
size, to the grants made by NSF and NIH (2 to 3 and
3 to 3.5 years, respectively). This change alone will
enable the USDA competitive grants program to go a
long way toward attracting more top-notch, new sci-
entific talent to the sciences basic to agriculture, food,
and the environment. It is a necessary first step in
meeting the research and educational challenges that
lie ahead National Research Council, 1988b).
Number and Size of Grants by Type
Recent funding levels for the USDA competitive
research grants program have ranged from $46.0
million in 1985 to $39.7 million in 1989 (see Table
A.19), and the program has been able to award, on
average, less than 400 grants each year. (See the box
"Counting Grants," and for a comparison of USDA
grants with those of NSF and NIH, see Table 3.4.)
Each year, hundreds of technically meritorious pro-
posals submitted to the USDA competitive grants
program go unfunded, and if funding prospects were
better, many more proposals would probably be sub-
mitted. Given the number of high~uality proposals,
the number, size, and duration of grants in the current
program for even the limited program scope are en-
tirely too small.
Goals for the distribution of funding by type of
25
grant should apply to the total program, not to each of
the six major program areas. The awarding of funds
should be governed by the creativity that scientists
demonstrate in proposing to tackle problems and by
the relevance of the proposals, not by a priori distribu-
tional goals. But the distribution of funds through the
four types of grants would also depend, to some
degree, upon the goals and priorities set for research.
In a period when a major new area of science is first
being explored like plant molecular biology prin-
cipal investigator and fundamental multidisciplinary
team grants will probably be the types most commonly
sought and awarded. When new plant biotechnolo-
gies are being adapted and assessed for widespread
commercial use, a different mix of grant types will be
expected, including mission-linked multidisciplinary
team grants.
The distribution of funds by grant type and across
the six major program areas will also be influenced by
the priorities of the executive and legislative branches
of the federal government. Growing concern about
both the protection of water quality and changes in
global climate, for example, might lead to an increase
in the funding appropriated to the natural resources
and the environment program area.
Targets for the distribution of funds by type of go ant
arepresentedinTable3.6. These are goals to strive for
rather than binding rules, and they apply only to a fully
funded program. The emphasis given to principal
OCR for page 26
26
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
Counting Grants
Within each fiscal year, funds are obligated to new grants, continuing grants, and supplemental funding.
In counting and comparing the total number of proposals submitted, grants awarded, and grants funded, one
runs the risk of mixing apples with oranges. Most grants cover a time period of more than 1 year, and a grant
awarded for a 3-year period, for example, may appear in the statistics overtime either as one grant or as three
grants, depending on whether it is a simple or a continuing grant. In the case of a simple grant, the full 3 years
of funding are obligated in 1 fiscal year, so the grant appears only once in the statistics. But in the case of
a continuing grant with incremental funding from different fiscal years, the grant counts over time as three
grants, even though ~ went through only one competition (the first year). Supplemental funds are small
additions to a grant to cover an unanticipated need to complete the research, such as the need to purchase
a special instrument.
Thus, statistics on the SUCCESS rate of grant applications can compare the number of proposals received
and reviewed within a fiscal year with the number of new grants competitively awarded in that year, but not
with the total number of grants funded during that same year. The USDA Competitive Research Grants Office
makes simple grants and has few, if any, continuing grants. In contrast, both NSF and the institutes at NIH
obligate roughly two-thirds of their funds to continuing grants in each fiscal year. The data presented in Table
3.4 include only proposals and grants that were competitively reviewed in FY 1988.
investigator grants is appropriate because scientists-
indeed, scholars as a group-work particularly well in
individual creative endeavors, pursuing their own
interests to achieve maximum progress. In the NSF,
NIH, and USDA competitive research grants pro-
grams, principal investigator grants have been, and
continue to be, highly successful in advancing sci-
ence, and they constitute the primary basis of research
progress. They must be given a major emphasis in the
expanded USDA competitive grants program.
Assuming that a principal investigator grant repre-
sents funding for one senior scientist, a student, and a
technician for 3 years; that a fundamental multidisci-
plinary team grant represents funding for at least two
collaborating senior scientists and staff for 4 years;
and that a mission-linked multidisciplinary team re-
search grant represents funding for a team headed by
four senior investigators for 4 years, then one can
construct a table (see Table 3.7) showing the estimated
number of grants and scientists that might be funded
after the expanded competitive grants program reaches
its fourth grant~ycle year. Since the size and duration
of research-strengthening grants will vary depending
on the need for fellowship or program support, their
number is not included in the estimates in Table 3.7.
Thus, a $500 million increase added to the current
appropriation of approximately $50 million would
provide approximately 1,042 grants to be awarded
each year, not counting research-strengthening grants.
The expenditure per "rant would very from an average
of $312,000 per 3-year grant for a principal investiga
tor ($104,000 per year) to $1.6 million per 4-year
mission-linked multidisciplinary team research grant
($100,000 per year per investigator). Still excluding
research-strengthening grants, an estimated 4,832
principal investigators or senior scientists would be
supported in any 1 year more than five times the
number under the current program (which supports
about 850 scientists per year: about 425 scientists
working in the first year of a 2-year grant and 425 in
the second year). The more than doubling in the
average annual size of grants of principal investigators
would also allow the investigators to secure the help of
several thousand more laboratory technicians, post-
doctoral assistants, and graduate students (see Tables
3.2and3.3~.
In comparison, NIH awards about 6,000 grants
annually. Theselastan average of3 years end provide
about $160,000 annually per ~ant, generally to one
principal investigator. About one-third of the propos-
als submitted each year to NIH result in grant awards.
NSF awards about 2,200 biosciences grants each
year twice the number proposed for the expanded
USDA program; about 20 percent of the proposals
result in grant awards. (For comparative data for FY
1988, see Table 3.4.)
The estimates in Table 3.7 of the funding available
for grants do not account for the administrative cost of
the program. If the administrative cost is 3 percent,
then $15.5 million must tee subtracted from the award
totals, removing funding equivalent to 150 investiga-
tors from the total of 4,832 researchers.
OCR for page 27
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
Availability of Scientists
The current pool of talented scientists is more than
sufficient to ensure a strong response to the expanded
program by top-quality scientists. This conclusion is
based on the size of the pool of agricultural and
biological scientists who are expected to be interested
in the expanded program. This group is already
interested in the current program, as indicated by the
high proportion of proposals judged meritorious that
go unfunded each year. The proposed expansion in
program scope and the increased size and duration of
grants should secure their interest even more. In
addition, the proposed expansion will also provide for
graduate assistantships and postdoctoral appointments
that will maintain a continuing influx of high-quality
young scientists. Comparable data for physical and
social scientists and engineers cannot be examined
because the scope and emphasis of the current pro-
gram do not attract their attention, but it is wholly
reasonable to expect them to be highly interested in the
27
expanded program, as they are for comparable NSF
and NIH programs.
As Table 3.7 shows, the estimated 1,042 grants
awarded per year would support 4,832 scientists. This
represents 56 percent of the 8,654 agricultural scien-
tists working in traditional agricultural science fields,
mainly at land-grant universities (Table 3.8~. How-
ever, the grants will also go to scientists outside the
traditional agricultural science fields, just as grants in
biomedicine go to scientists both inside and outside
biomedical fields. To illustrate the potential involve-
ment of scientists outside traditional agricultural sci-
ences, consider only the 40,416 biological scientists
(see Table 3.8~. If all 4,832 grants were awarded to
these scientists, the US DA program would tee support-
ing about 12 percent of them. But, of course, a mix of
scientists will be supported. If the proposed program
were to fund agricultural and biological scientists in
the same proportions as at present (about 70 percent of
the grants now go to scientists at land-grant universi-
ties), then about 3,382 agricultural scientists (about 39
TABLE 3.7 Estimated Number of Grants and Scientists Supported through a USDA Competitive Grants
Program of $550 Million Per Year
Type of Grant
Total New
Funding
(in millions
of dollars)
Total
Award/GranP
(in thousands
of dollars)
Number of
New
Grants/Year
Number of
Active
Grits.
Number of
Researchers
Receiving
Suppo~ear
Principal
investigator $250
Fundamental mulh
disciplinary
team
Mission-linked mulii
disciplinary team 100
Research
strengtheningC 50
150
$312
833
1,612
NA
8002,400 2,400
180720 1,440
62248 992
NANA NA
Total 550 1,042 3,368 4,832
Assumptions used in making calculations, in addition to the distribution of funding among grant types shown in Table 3.6, are as follows:
(1) Principal investigator grants: one principal investigator per grant, $100,000 per year, average length of 3 years. (2) Fundamental
multidisciplinary team grants: average of two principal investigators per grant, each at $100,000 per year; for this calculation average length
is assumed to be 4 years. (3) Mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants: average of four principal investigators, each at $100,000 per year,
average length of 4 years.
bEstimates based on the number of new grants awarded each year times the average length of grant.
CResearch-strengthening grants would vary in size and number and are not estimated here (NA, not applicable).
OCR for page 31
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
funding is less than suitably used. Atleast three points
should be made in response.
First, many observers believe that the political
prospects for redirection are nil to modest.
Second, any funds derived from redirection within
the USDA research budget would diminish the capac-
ity of the research and delivery system itself. It is this
very system that is responsible for capturing the re-
sults from competitively funded, formula- and state-
funded, and other research, formulating them into
technologies and applications and then delivering
them to users. Redirection of funding would under-
mine not only the system's capacity for innovation but
also continuing efforts to strengthen its research capa-
bilities. Thus, taking funds from the research and
delivery system would diminish it precisely when it
needs to be more effective.
Third, redirection runs the risk of destroying some
of the"muscle" of quality research in intramural and
formula-funded research while attempting to cut out
any 4`fat.''
The proposed increase in funding for competitive
O ~
research grants is justified. This proposal strongly
recommends against the redirection of funds within
the USDA research budget for the reasons given
above. If no growth in the USDA research budget is
possible, then decisions to redirectUSDA's research
funds are judgments that elected and other public
officials may choose to evaluate.
Investment of Subsidy Savings
As U.S. agriculture gradually returns to economic
health and as global commodity prices increase, the
federal budget appropriations currently needed for
price support programs may be released. If that
occurs, pant of this funding should be reinvested in
research programs that can strengthen the knowledge
that supports the production of agricultural commodi-
ties and the food and fiber industries of the country.
Such redirection is appropriate because the research
will directly benefit those commodities: the increased
knowledge will be the basis on which profitability is
increased and new uses for agricultural commodities
are created.
Investment Using Non-USDA Funds
Beside reinvesting savings from the decreases in
subsidy payments, another possibility is reinvestment
from other nonresearch portions of the federal budget.
31
This alternative may be possible, but it would require
major budgetary decisions and analyses that are out-
side the scope of this proposal.
There is also the possibility of reinvesting other
parts of the nondefense federal R&D budget into this
expanded program. While possible, this would be a
difficult and unreasonable thing to do at the lame the
nation as a whole is trying to reinvest in its research
infrastructure and the federal government is commit-
ted both to doubling the NSF budget and to funding
major research initiatives in relevant areas, such as the
human genome project.
Investment Now
For three reasons, a $500 million increase in re-
search funding is needed at this time. The first reason
is economic, the second is scientific, and the third
combines both.
First, agricultural research gives a high return on
investment (see"Investing in Agriculture" in the section
"A $500 Million Increase" above3, and the high return
strongly confirms the economic value for the nation of
investing in agricultural and related research. In
addition, investment in the environmental component
of the system will have a substantial direct monetary
value as less expensive and more effective environ-
mental management systems are used (involving more
effective, less environmentally problematic fertiliz-
ers, insecticides, and herbicides and their integrated
systems). Furthermore, money spent ensuring envi-
ronmental quality for the agricultural and food system
will keep problems from building and will thus save
on future remedial costs.
A second reason for increasing research funding by
$500 million now is the combination of existing pro-
gram needs and scientific opportunities applicable to
agriculture: Increased funding can be used to major
advantage. The necessary scientific talent in the
physical, biological, engineering, and social sciences
as well as in agriculture and related disciplines is
also available and ready to compete for this new
funding. Moreover, USDA has shown that it can
professionally administer and manage a competitive
grants program.
The third reason that this substantial increase should
be enacted in a single year is a reflection of the
broadened scope of agricultural, food, and environ-
mental research and of the importance of sustained
agricultural advancement for the U.S. economy. The
agribusiness complex contributes an estimated 18
OCR for page 32
32
percent of the gross national product (Harrington et
al., 1986~. Farming itself accounts for 2 percent; the
'`upstream" industries that supply farming equipment,
feed, seed, fertilizers, and financing account for about
2 percent; and the "downstream" industries that retail,
transport, process, and manufacture products from the
commodities supplied by farms account for the re-
maining 14 percent. In addition, the ties between
farming and its linked industries continue to increase
because the value added to agricultural products be-
yond the farm continues to increase. For example, the
activity in `'downstream" industries, corrected for
inflation, doubled from 1960 to 1980.
In 1987 the U.S. gross national product was $4.5
trillion (Council of Economic Advisers, 1989~. The
18 percent contributed by the agribusiness complex
would be roughly $815 billion. This means that the
estimated $1.04 billion in 1990 federal obligations for
agricultural R&D (Office of Management and Budget,
1989) represents a research investment of less than
0.13 percent of agriculture's annual contribution to
the gross national product. In light of the value of the
agricultural complex to the U.S. economy, a major
investment in research seems appropriate. The in-
crease will thus provide substantial economic benefits
for the nation.
Given the overall fiscal problems facing the nation,
the appropriation of the full $500 million increase may
not be possible in 1 year. Even so, a commitment of
this magnitude is essential, and any stepwise increase
in funding should reach the full increased amount as
soon as possible, preferably within 3 years. The
actions taken by the federal government should also
firmly state the goal of increasing the investment in
research through competitive grants.
A CENTRAL ROLE FOR USDA
The competitive grants program proposed here
should be the responsibility of USDA. The specific
organizational environment for the proposed expanded
program within USDA is analyzed in Chapter 6. This
section discusses some of the reasons for locating the
program in USDA and then surveys the kinds of links
the expanded program could be expected to have with
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the SAESs,
the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) system, and
other federal agencies.
First, the expanded program should be placed in
USDA because the U.S. Congress has designated it as
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
the federal agency responsible for advancing the agri-
cultural sciences and developing technology appli-
cable to food, fiber, and forest product industries and
for responding to issues-such as environmental
concerns related to the production and processing
sectors. The department has special responsibilities
and expertise in agricultural production, food safety,
environmental protection, and human nutrition. Its
. . . ~ .
mission agencies ant programs focus on conserving
resources, tracking nutritional status, enforcing qual-
ity standards and grades for food and forest products,
guarding against the spread of disease, managing
forests and wildlife, and helping marketing systems
work more efficiently. The department administers
several programs that develop new knowledge and
technology and other programs that help refine tech-
nology and transfer it into widespread use.
Second, USDA has responsibility for the national
laboratories for agricultural research (ARS), for fed-
eral agricultural regulatory and economic analytical
services, and-in cooperation with the states-for the
network and capacity for transferring technology to
productive use. That network includes the ARS, the
SAESs, and CES. It also extends outward to other
federal agencies.
Third, USDA has proved itself able to manage a
competitive grants program characterized by high
quality, timeliness, and professionalism.
Linkages with ARS
The mission of ARS is to develop, refine, and adapt
science and technology to advance USDA's basic
goals. Well over half of the federal government's
current investment in food and agricultural R&D goes
to support ARS research basic, applied, and mul-
tidisciplinary. Ongoing ARS programs correspond
closely to the proposed six major program areas.
ARS scientists can participate in the expanded
competitive grants program by applying for grants, by
identifying the mission-linked research needs and
priorities of USDA and other federal agencies, and by
serving on peer review panels. ARS scientists and
engineers have experience in key engineering disci-
plines, instrumentation, new product and process
development, natural resource stewardship, and other
critical areas. Moreover, ARS scientists are among
those most familiar with mission agency needs and
with ongoing government regulatory, grading, and
related program activities.
OCR for page 33
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
Linkages with State Agricultural
Experiment Stations
SAESs encompass those faculty and scientists at
land-grant and similarly chartered universities who
are involved in the agricultural research system and
who generally receive part of their support from state
and federal funds appropriated to the SAESs. A major
fraction of all public funding for research on agricul-
ture and food is spent through the SAESs, and the
combined state and federal support for the SAESs is
approximately three times the federal support for ARS
(see tables in Appendix A). The work of the SAESs
involves basic research on fundamental biological
processes, more applied work on the problems and
issues confronting agricultural and food production
systems, and technology development and application
(aided by the CES and the private and federal sectors).
Many SAKS scientists have combined teaching, re
. . .
search, or extension appointments.
Strong collaborative relationships exist between
SAKS and ARS scientists throughout the country.
Many ARS scientists are located at universities and
may even have adjoining laboratories with their SAKS
colleagues.
The role of the SAESs and their participating
scientists has become broader, not narrower, in recent
years. They are involved not only in their traditional
responsibilities in agricultural research but also in
laboratory-based fundamental research such as mo-
lecular and cellular genetics, and they interact closely
with non-SAES biological scientists. Concurrently,
SAKS scientists are also involved in the assessment
and implementation of agricultural policy issues. For
example, throughout the SAKS, extensive work has
been done to respond to issues on water quality,
pesticide use, and the competitiveness of agriculture.
In addition to competing for grants from the ex-
panded competitive grants programs, SAKS scientists
will have important roles to play in serving on com-
petitive grants program advisory committees and peer
review panels, defining program priorities, identify-
ing mission-linked research issues, and reviewing
multidisciplinary research proposals.
Important but sometimes ignored in the university-
based agricultural research system are the scientists
who are not operationally within the SAKS system but
who are interested in and contribute to research impor-
tant to agriculture. This group includes scientists at
the land-grant universities outside the colleges of
33
agriculture, human ecology, and veterinary medicine
and scientists at non-land-grant universities, both
public and private. This group must be seen as
potential collaborators with USDA in developing and
applying new results and technologies to the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental system.
Linkages with the Cooperative Extension Service
The CES, assisted by the Extension Service of the
USDA, brings research applications and education to
users and communicates users' special needs to the
research community. The CES uses a network of
extension specialists and county-based agents who are
supported through combinations of federal formula
funds, state funds, and county or regional funds. This
confederation of extension agents is unique in provid-
ing the communication and education link between
users and researchers.
In an expanded competitive grants program, the
CES system would have a particularly critical role in
mission-linked team research projects. These projects
would be multidisciplinary, would range from basic
laboratory research to applied laboratory and field
work, and would include a knowledge and technology
transfer component. Because many SAKS scientists
have partial extension responsibilities, they are also
well positioned to help plan and carry out both the
applied research and the technology transfer compo-
nents of mission-linked multidisciplinary team re-
search.
The CES has communications networks for foster-
ing and using new knowledge, refined technologies,
and improved production methods. Extension person-
nel can also help recognize and pursue opportunities
for partnerships between the public and private sectors
and for dialogue among state and federal agency
. . . . . .
personne , interested citizens, private organizations,
and industrial leaders.
Linkages with Other Federal Agencies
There is substantial cooperation and communica-
tion between USDA research agencies and most other
federal research agencies. The Joint Council for Food
and Agricultural Sciences, in particular, has been
helpful in fostering interagency communication about
overall scientific activities and priorities, and the
Users Advisory Board provides helpful analyses. An
expanded USDA competitive grants program will
OCR for page 34
34
have a more important government-wide role in ad-
vancing the science and technology capability relative
to the needs of several mission agencies (e.g., the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration for food safety, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for environ-
mentally safe methods of pest control, and the U.S.
Department of Energy for biological energy sources
and waste management). As this occurs, USDA will
have more opportunities to receive input from active
scientists in other agencies and to coordinate research
activities and exchange research information-par-
ticularly with NSF and NIH- in the day-to-day plan-
ning and administration of competitively awarded
programs.
THE ROLE OF COMPETITIVE GRANTS
Competitive grants are not the only mechanism for
distributing the new $500 million allocation for re-
search, but they are best suited to stimulating new
research activity in specific areas of science. This
section discusses the federal R&D funding mecha-
nisms and covers in detail the particular advantages of
competitive grants.
Federal R&D Funding Mechanisms
The federal investment in agricultural, food, and
environmental research is distributed by four different
funding mechanisms: intramural research conducted
by USDA staff, formula funds to the SAKS s, grants for
special R&D initiatives, and competitive grants.
Intramural Funding
Intramural funding is the principal form of support
for ARS, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Economic
Research Service and provides their long-term, mis-
sion-oriented research activities with the stability that
is essential for continuity of effort.
Agricultural and food research activities that re-
quire a steady effort over many years to obtain signifi-
cantresults are often pursued most affectively through
intramural and formula funding mechanisms. Ex-
amples include long-term breeding programs that select
and breed plants and animals for desirable traits over
several generations, soil and water conservation re-
search that must focus on how to stabilize land or
protect water quality, and nutrition research on the
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
effects of dietary patterns on physiological develop-
ment as children move into and through adolescence
and in the aging population.
In addition to long-term research projects and re-
search studies that require extended monitoring pro-
grams, intramural funding also maintains the research
talent and infrastructure necessary to respond rapidly
to national or regional emergencies, such as pest
outbreaks.
Formula Funding
Formula funds are federal allocations to the SAKS
in each state and territory. These allocations require
matching state support. The formula refers to the
distribution of the federal payments to each of the
states and territories. Congress last revised the for-
mula in 1955. (See Appendix A for details of the
formula.)
Formula funding provides a relatively stable re-
source base and is an important source of support for
a variety of important activities, including long-term
studies; for the more applied research that helps states
meet their responsibilities for food safety, nutrition,
pesticide safety, and animal care and disease preven-
tion and for assisting states working on multistate,
regional problems; as well as for graduate student
training.
Special Grants
Special research grants are a flexible and adaptive
funding mechanism to target new resources to pariicu-
larly pressing problems that are often specific to a
single state or region of the country. For example,
agronomic or pest problems would demand in-depth
knowledge of the local or regional production prac-
tices as well as knowledge of natural resource condi-
tions and limitations, pest pressures, and economic
and policy considerations. Such problems typically
demand swift action and may be only periodic. These
grants generally last for a finite period of time, some-
times only 1 year, and they are usually specifically
identified in the appropriations bill for USDA re-
search.
Competitive Grants
Competitive grants are the proven and most appro-
priate mechanism to attract and retain people from
throughout the nationts scientific community to do
OCR for page 35
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
top-quality fundamental research and the more ap
plied research in promising areas of science and tech
nology. Grants are awarded on the basis of quality and
technical merit, as judged by experienced scientists
serving on peer review panels. The peer review
process is used to select research that is both relevant
and of high scientific quality. The annual cycle of
proposals and awards keeps the focus on research that insufficiently funded, or not awarded. Funding for
is at the forefront of science and technology. lengthy research, such as that for long-te~m plant,
Research in genetics, chemistry, economics, and animal, social, and ecological studies, is sometimes
applied mathematics are examples of areas that are not more difficult to secure through competitive research
location-specific and in which the pursuit of agricul- grants; thisis usually deals with through a combination
rurally related basic research can contribute to future of renewal grants and institutional support. Securing
advances in agriculture across the nation. support for multidisciplinary work through competi
Competitive grants have been used with high effec- live grants is allegedly difficult because the evaluation
tiveness by NSF and NIH. The strengths of the paradigms often come from single disciplines end the
competitive "rants funding mechanism are elaborated scientists on peer review panels may from single
in a subsequent section. ~~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
35
can be particularly onerous when the duration of
grants is too short, as is now the case with the USDA
competitive grants program. There is also some
uncertainty and anxiety about the continuity of fund-
ing, particularly at the time of renewal; some institu-
tions try to handle this uncertainty by providing bridg-
ing support in the event that the renewal is late,
FY 1988 Distribution of Funds
In FY 1988, the combined research outlays for
ARS and the Cooperative State Research Service
(CSRS) totaled $911.5 million. Of these outlays,
$559.5 million (61 percent) went to ARS and $352
million (39 percent) went to CSRS (see Table A.5~.
For CSRS, FY 1988 expenditures totaled $383.5
million (see Table A.14), slightly higher than the FY
1988 budges obligations (see thebox"Appropriations,
Obligations, and Expenditures" in Appendix A). Of
these expenditures, formula funds accounted for $201 .8
million (53 percent), competitive grants $45.4 million
(12 percent), and special grants $51.8 million (14
percent) (see Table A.14~.
The Advantages of Competitive Grants
The competitive grants mechanism is advocated in
this proposal because it has three major strengths:
Responsiveness and flexibility
· Talent and openness
Balance among funding mechanisms
Before discussing the strengths, one should note
the reservations some people have about the competi-
tive grants mechanism. Some believe that an inordi-
nate amount of time is required to prepare applications
for competitive grants and their renewals; this burden
disciplines and the scientists on peer review panels
may not be equally knowledgeable in all the disci-
plines covered by the proposal.
Some people are also concerned that competitive
grant research programs avoid applied research. That
concern is understandable and was unavoidable in the
past because competitive grants from NSF are in-
tended for research at the forefront of a discipline and
not for mission-oriented research; and the mission of
NIH competitive grants is biomedical, not agricul-
tural, problems. In an expanded competitive grants
program in USDA, the mission will be agriculture, and
the distinction between basic and applied research
should not be of concern. The distinction should be
between high-quality and relevant research, on the
one hand, and pedestrian and inappropriate research,
on the other. In agricultural, food, and environmental
research, many of the more interesting problems are in
settings that have en applied character (such as ecosys-
tem studies in relation to sustainable agriculture);
these kinds of studies are intended to be funded under
the proposed competitive grants program within
USDA.
Some of the conditions noted above, such as the
time required to prepare competitive grant proposals
and the risk of losing continuing support, are neces-
sary to ensure the highest quality of science. Other
conditions, such as those dealing with multidiscipli-
nary and applied research, can be suitably dealt with
by new approaches like those presented in this pro-
pos~.
Notwithstanding the reservations, competitive
grants are the preferred way to award the funds for the
research envisioned by this proposal.
OCR for page 36
36
Responsiveness and Flexibility
A key strength of the competitive grants funding
mechanism is responsiveness end flexibility. Respon-
siveness and flexibility jointly are the ability to iden-
tify and support potentially important areas of re-
search areas that are emerging but that have not yet
been designated significant. Responsiveness means
being hospitable to-and strongly encouraging-work
at the forefront of an area of science.
The basis of the competitive research grants system
is doing a definable piece of work within the bounds
set by the grant's funds and duration. Virtually by
definition, competitive grants programs have the
capacity to be responsive. Future funding can be
redirected without unduly disrupting previously funded
research studies. Over relatively short periods the
program can significantly and systematically change
the emphasis on the area of research to be funded. Its
commitments are for finite lengths of time and for
relatively small amounts of money. Thus, such a
program is less likely to get locked into supporting
research whose relevance to significantproblems might
become marginal as advances are made elsewhere in
science or as social needs or economic opportunities
change. It can afford to support risky but potentially
promising work and to make awards to promising but
not yet fully established younger scientists.
A competitive grants program can also be respon-
sive to changing USDA mission agency needs by
making additional or new grant support available in
particular program areas. Such needs can be high-
lighted in annual program announcements, and efforts
can be made to notify the science and engineering
communities of the new program areas. Notwith-
standing the desire to respond to new opportunities
and to change as needs dictate, frequent and extensive
shifts in priorities should be avoided because continu-
ity and stability are hallmarks of high-quality science.
A further aspect of responsiveness is the capacity to
promote communication and links across scientific
disciplines and between program sectors. Such com-
munication and links are built into the administra-
tive processes of the program at every stage. People
from various disciplines and from all segments of the
scientific community academia, industry, and gov-
emment are necessarily brought together to discuss
and refine program priorities, establish proposal re-
view criteria, and serve on peer review panels. Scien-
tists who submit grant proposals receive constructive
critiques on their proposals from peer review panels
WRESTING IN RESEARCH
end administrative staff. Even the process of develop-
ing proposals particularly those involving multidis-
ciplinary team research requires considerable dia-
logue.
Talent and Openness
In addition to its responsiveness and flexibility, an
expanded USDA competitive grants program will
have the advantage of being able to attract additional
scientists to the agricultural, food, and environmental
system and to retain them. It will do so by expanding
opportunities for scientists who are currently involved
in agricultural research; by drawing productive, proven
scientists from other areas into agricultural research;
by attracting and retaining new, younger scientists
into agricultural research at the beginning of their
careers; by removing financial and other barriers
impeding women, underrepresented minorities, and
disabled individuals and providing them with greater
opportunities for research; and by encouraging and
supporting work across all the program areas areas
in which many scientists both inside and outside
agriculture are strongly interested.
An expanded competitive grants program offers an
important new opportunity for top-quality scientists
currently involved or interested in agricultural re-
search to be significantly more involved. This is
particularly important for
scientists who are involved with USDA's current
program: the grants are too limited in funds and time;
· scientists working in plant biology: funding
from both USDA and NSF is altogether too limited;
scientists involved in animal-oriented studies:
the biomedical programs of NIH are not applicable to
their research unless the animal biology they are
studying is congruent with the human and medical
focus of NIH; and
· scientists wishing to study environmental, engi-
peering, markets and trade, or social and policy issues:
normal funding sources from USDA are not available
for those scientists outside the ARS-CSRS research
system, and for those who are already part of that
system, funding is limited.
New talent will be attracted to research important
to agriculture because people throughout the science
and engineering communities both new, younger
scientists and established scientists will,perhaps for
the first time, seriously consider how they could
OCR for page 37
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
participate in agricultural research and, reciprocally,
how their research activities could advance the sci-
ence and technology interests relevant to U.S. agricul-
ture, food, and the environment. An illustration of this
kind of successful involvement is NIH's use of com-
petitive grants to attract and retain researchers for
biomedical science. NIH grants are one of the main
reasons for the exceptional advances recently made in
understanding molecular and cellular genetics and in
elucidating the biology of growth and development-
advances that lie behind the development of the entire
biotechnology industry.
The competitive grants approach is successful for
biomedicine and should be equally so for agriculture.
For that to occur, however, it will be necessary to make
the size and length of the grants competitive with other
grant forms and thereby secure the interest and com-
mitment of researchers.
As important as attracting and retaining new talent
is the need to encourage and support members of
groups that have not traditionally been part of the
agricultural, food, and environmental system: women,
underrepresented minorities, and disabled individu-
als. Relative to their proportion of the general, univer-
sity, or research community populations, these groups
have been significantly underrepresented in the scien-
tific disciplines involved in agriculture.
Evidence suggests that many women, members of
other underrepresented groups, disabled individuals,
and young scientists trained in basic science depart-
ments outside colleges of agriculture are discouraged
from pursuing careers in food and agricultural scien-
tific disciplines because of the lack of financial support
in the system and, in some cases, because of their sense
that greater professional challenges can be found
elsewhere (National Research Council, 1988b). This
proposed grants program would help significantly in
addressing this need.
Thus, a competitive grants mechanism gives scien-
tists and scholars in public and private universities,
government laboratories, and not-for-profit research
locations a fair and equitable chance to obtain addi-
tional support. The benefits of increased funding
would be distributed widely. The openness of the
competitive grants mechanisms is important for at-
tracting top-quality scientists to agricultural research.
Balance among Funding Mechanisms
Each of the four funding mechanisms now support-
ing agricultural, food, and environmental research has
37
a valuable role to play in ensuring that the vital basic
(or fundamental), applied, technology development
and transfer, crisis driven, and long-term forms of
research are being met. Different needs are best met
by different funding mechanisms. The most immedi-
ate ways of doing this are to (1) attract new talent into
the research system and (2) help active scientists take
greater advantage of the developments rapidly occur-
ring across all fields of science. Both of these can best
be done with competitive grants, yet the presentUSDA
competitive grants program now awards far too few
grants to fully perform the task. Moreover, at present
there is marked imbalance across federal funding
mechanisms (see the section "Federal R&D Funding
Mechanisms" above).
In terms of total public and private support for all
components of the agricultural, food, and environ-
mental research system, competitive grants play an
even more modest role. Total support for agricultural,
food, and environmental R&D within ARS, CSRS,
and the SAKS s was about $2.2 billion in 1988, but only
2.5 percent of that was awarded competitively. (The
$2.2 billion includes about $900 million from USDA
and about $1.3 billion from state governments, com-
modity organizations, and product sales and other
private sources.)
Other agencies with a strong record in advancing
science and meeting national needs allocate a much
larger portion of their R&D expenditures through the
competitive grants mechanism: NIH allocates 83
percent and NSF allocates 90 percent (see Table 3.9~.
The applied, regional, and site-specific nature of many
agricultural, food, and environmental research and
engineering issues makes it appropriate for a consid-
erable portion of total agricultural research funding-
perhaps one-third to two-thirds, depending on the area
of science-to continue moving into the system through
federal and state formula funds and other noncompeti-
tive mechanisms. The $1.2billion in state government
and private support to SAESs is outside the pool of
funds that might be allocated competitively and na-
tionally.~
One way to redress the imbalance is to secure more
competitively awarded support for agriculture from
other agencies (principally NSF and NIH). Although
support from these sources has been crucially impor-
tant in advancing basic science in fields key to agricul-
ture, food, and environmental research, it is generally
directed at priorities and applications other than those
most critically needed to advance the agricultural and
food sector. In addition, competition for these funds
OCR for page 38
38
-
Cq
Lo
-
- o
o
W
Cq
o
I:
·_
-
00
An
-
A:
~o4
o
o
W
m
CQ
.~
Cal
I:
~4
an
be
it:
TIC
w
Cat
hi;
. ~ L
·~= ~
hi O == ~
O ~ ~ ~
W C_)
0 As
NEW
~ L
W ~
5 ~
:= .c
Cat
G) ~
O (V L4
~ PA C:
- , A
~ ~ o
oo 0 oo
oo ~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ oo
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~oo
o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~
_ tn _
rA
VJ
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1
~ O~ ,,8, c,> ~ 1 ~o' 8 1 1
c<, ~ <)
~:
L4
=4
~0
c:
L4
1 Y~
l 3
! _
l ~
L4
P~
-
o
C)
-° ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~
1 C~ ~ 00 ~ w)
1 8 '~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~ 0
', ~ _.
I
', tn 1 ~ w) °°
~ ~1tn C-1
== <)
^ a~
~c)
2 ~ ~
~y~ CO
_ 3 ,, ~ 5 ~ ~
~ ° sm~o
C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4'
ln
00
00
00
8 ~ ~ ~
=, ~ ~Co~ t
~oo
l
.
~_
C ~W
.= ~
o ~ ~o
e ~ U ~u `,
-
E~
D
,~ f:
, ~ - 0
00 a
~ Z ~
~ ~ . .
~ ~ =-.s
~ _4 0 C~
O Cts ~
_ _ U) ~
~ C3=
E ~ _
£
~ ~ P!
2_=
e U'
~ o Z.
~ ~ ~ X
o 9 ~ '~ ~
V, ~ C ~ ~C
o, o~
-
y ~ C
;,
== ..
3 ~ _ _ ~ ~ .
3 5 E ~ 2 ~c ~ ~
c' 5 ~ 5 5 8 E E
', 5 ~, E e g 8 ~
OCR for page 39
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
is increasing. Much of the knowledge and techniques
discovered by scientists who received NSF and NIH
grants can be applied to agricultural research. An
expanded USDA grants program will increase the
application of this new knowledge to address the
needs of the agricultural, food, and environmental
system. Reciprocally, scientific developments brought
about by USDA-supported work will advance funda-
mental knowledge, for example, by increasing the
understanding of genetic, physiological, and ecologi-
cal processes.
A second way to obtain a better balance among
funding mechanisms is to redirect funding currently in
the intramural, formula fund, or special grants pro-
grams to competitive grants. But such redirection, as
noted earlier, would likely damage the agricultural
research system as a whore. Furthermore, es problems
become more complex and as more rapid responses
are needed to keep up with global competition, it will
be essential to keep the ARS, SAKS, and CES sectors
as fully funded as possible, lest their ability to accept
and use new knowledge, develop new technologies,
and help with technology application decreases even
further.
It has been suggested, for example, that USDA
might allocate all its research support through a na-
tional competitive grants program. If that were done,
just under one-half of total state and federal agricul-
tural research support would be competitively awarded.
But doing that would require the ARS to close and
would completely eliminate formula funds and spe-
cial grants. That would be a mistake. Competitive
grant program expenditures should grow relative to
those of the intramural, formula, and special grant
funding mechanisms but should neither replace nor
dwarf them.
Given the needs and opportunities, at least 35
percent of the total USDA investment in R&D should
be awarded nationally through competitive grants.
Although 35 percent for competitive grants is consid-
erably lower than the percentages in NSF and NIH, it
is more than seven times USDA's current level of 5
percent.
ATTENTION TO MULTIDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH
Multidisciplinary research is the term used in this
39
common research problem and that has an integrated
plan of study. A multidisciplinary project requires
research "in" the disciplines and at the same time
draws research and results "from" the disciplines to
form a study that integrates the disciplines and results
to examine systematically the various facets as well as
the totality of the problem. As used here, multidisci-
plinary research designates both cross-disciplinary
and interdisciplinary research, even though the three
terms have somewhat different meanings.
The attention given to multidisciplinary research in
the proposed expanded program for agricultural, food,
and environmental research is based on the premise
that many of the most significant, interesting, and
difficult problems be they fundamental or mission-
linked-are inherently multifaceted. Four examples
illustrate the point:
· Understanding the dietary patterns appropriate
for good health requires research in biochemistry,
physiology, genetics, nutrition, psychology, and soci-
ology.
Understanding plant pathogenesis requires re-
search in plant pathology, biochemistry, plant biol-
ogy, cell biology, ecology, and population biology.
Developing sustainable animal agricultural sys-
tems requires research in agronomy and soil science,
ecology and ecosystems analysis, animal nutrition,
population and community biology, economics, and
other disciplines.
Controlling the postharvest losses of crops in-
volves a combination of the ability to resolve engi-
neering problems in the harvesting, sorting, and re-
frigerating equipment and an understanding of certain
aspects of plant breeding, genetics, pathology, nutri-
tion, toxicology, and plant science; only such a com-
bination can address crop quality, control of posthar-
vest diseases, nutrient loss during storage, and control
and detection of mycotoxins.
.
To realize the full potential of science and technol
ogy in agricultural, food, and environmental research,
the USDA competitive grants program should direct
up to 50 percent of its support to multidisciplinary
research (through multidisciplinary team grants, both
fundamental and mission-linked). This emphasis is
meant to stimulate more multidisciplinary team re
search and to strongly encourage it among senior
scientists.
proposal to describe research that combines expertise The word team in multidisciplinary team research
from two or more disciplines into a shared focus on a implies that there is more than one senior scientist or
OCR for page 40
40
principal investigator. As described earlier in this
chapter, fundamental multidisciplinary team grants
are conceived of as the involvement of, on average, at
least two senior scientists as principal investigators;
and multidisciplinary mission-linked teams would
involve about four senior scientists (see Table 3.7~.
But the terms team and multidisciplinary may also
suggest the concept of a research center. That associa-
tion is incorrect, however, because center implies a
larger research group, a more permanent or long-term
association, and a physical facility, whereas the mul-
tidisciplinary team grants proposed for the USDA
competitive grants program are intended to go to small
teams of probably two to four scientists and to extend
for no longer than one grant cycle, with the possibility
of one renewal. The association of multidisciplinary
team with center should be avoided.
Both types of multidisciplinary "rants proposed for
the competitive grants program will involve multidis-
ciplinary team research and will address fundamental
science and engineering questions. The difference
between them is that fundamental multidisciplinary
grants should be for pioneering research at the fore-
front of science and engineering disciplines. Mission-
linked projects should address major science and
engineering questions and perform basic research on
understanding the phenomena being studied. They
are also to link the work with more applied problems.
Examples of mission-linked projects might be re-
search that addresses both the source of the commod-
ity and the market for a new product by studying the
enzymatic, microbiological, or genetic basis for new
uses of commodity materials or by combining agro-
nomic, economic, and ecosystem research to deter-
mine the optimum balance of components for a more
sustainable and profitable crop and animal agricul-
tural system.
The key aspect of mission-linked multidisciplinary
grants-their direct connection to the more applied
problems-can be facilitated, and in some cases en-
sured, if teams applying for grants of this type are
required to include people from the applications sec-
tor. Such people could be from private industry (e.g.,
from a food processing company), from government
(e.g., a department of agriculture or health), or from a
land-grant university (e.g., from cooperative exten-
sion).
In multidisciplinary team research, the proposed
research can be carried out only with the full interac-
tion and integration of the combined expertise and
I^ESTING IN RESEARCH
talents of the members of the team. If the proposed
research can be conducted by the team members
separately, it does not qualify as multidisciplinary
team research.
Multidisciplinary team research presents a number
of conceptual and practical difficulties. Chief among
them are issues of leadership, management, coordina-
tion, rewards, and satisfaction. Scientific problems
and their relation to new research findings-evolve
continuously, sometimes rapidly, and keeping up
requires good coordination and the ability to change
research plans expeditiously, as necessary. In addi-
tion, integrating the work of several researchers, even
those with a common plan of study, constitutes a
personal, managerial, and leadership challenge to
principal investigators; when there are several princi-
pal investigators, coordination, discussion, and agree-
ment usually take more care and time than when the
research is directed by a single principal investigator.
Then, too, rewards, advancement, and satisfaction
within the profession and within the university envi-
ronment, and sometimes within the industrial or gov-
emmental environment, have traditionally been based
on work done individually, not that done as part of a
team. All of these difficulties together constitute a
management and leadership challenge for an institu-
tion, and resolving the difficulties is essential for the
long-term success of multidisciplinary team research.
Granting agencies have customarily awarded grants
to single investigators within one scientific discipline;
thus, the reviewing mechanisms are generally set up
on a disciplinary basis. Involving reviewers from
several rather different disciplines is considerably
more difficult. Reviewers must give careful consid-
eration to the composition of the research team; the
quality and creativity of the scientific approaches
being proposed; the extent of direct working involve-
ment by the appropriate individuals, agencies, and
institutions; and the ability to manage the project
effectively. For the Wanting agency, managing the
review of multidisciplinary team grants is exception-
ally important. Some of the management issues are
discussed in Chapter 6.
Notwithstanding the difficulties, multidisciplinary
research is clearly worth doing because of the multi-
faceted nature ofthe problems both the fundamental
and the more applied problems that are common in the
agricultural, food, and environmental system. It is
also worthwhile because of the unexpected synergism
and creativity that good collaboration may generate.
OCR for page 41
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONS AND
HUMAN RESOURCES
The proposed research-strengthening grants have
two goals: (1) to help institutions and academic
departments develop competitive research programs
in areas of research important to their regions and (2)
to attract more talented young scientists and engineers
into careers in high-priority areas of national need in
the agricultural, food, and environmental sciences.
Thus, two types of research-strengthening grants would
be offered:
1. grants to institutions and academic departments
and programs to strengthen the capacity and competi-
tiveness of their research in areas significant to their
region; and
2. fellowships to broaden and strengthen the hu-
man resources in the agricultural, food, and environ-
mental system.
Grants to institutions, departments, and programs
would be for research program development, retrain-
ing, and instrumentation (but not for buildings and
capital expenditures). These grants would be targeted
at institutions that aspire but are currently unable-
to develop nationally competitive proposals to submit
to federal funding agencies. Many agricultural, food,
and environmental issues are unique to certain re-
gions; so the whole system land-grant universities,
state colleges, and private universities will become
stronger and more responsive as a broader array of
41
institutions attain the capacity to compete for grants on
a national basis. These grants would thus help over-
come the geographic and institutional unevenness in
the nation's ability to pursue research and technology
development. NSF'sExperimentalProgramtoStimu-
late Competitive Research initiative could serve as a
good model.
In some cases, the need for a research-strengthen-
ing grant will be revealed when reviewers identify
specific weaknesses or constraints in a grant proposal.
A proposal may go unfunded, for example, because
investigators either lack access to a certain instrument
or research method or have inadequate experience in
using it. Or an investigator or research team may not
display enough familiarity with related scientific
developments or with multidisciplinary research. In
such cases, a research-strengthening grant could prove
to be appropriate and constructive support.
Fellowship support would be for both graduate and
postdoctoral research studies. These fellowship ok
portunities would supplement, not replace, USDA's
successful and nationally competitive higher educa-
tion fellowship programs (National Research Coun-
cil, 1989c).
NOTE
1. In virtually all of the states there are systems of
peer review for allocating state and industrial support.
Further, some of the SAKS use internal competitive
grants programs to allocate portions of their state and
industrial support.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
multidisciplinary team
