Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
28 TABLE 3.8 Percentage of Scientists by Field at Four-Year Colleges and Universities Receiving Federal Science Agency Support, 1987 Field of ScienceaPercent Receiving and Selected Number atUSDA Disciplines Colleges/USDA Comp. NSF NIH within Fields Universities Funding Grants. Grants Grants Agricultural scientists8,654 63.33.2 4.8 1.6 Economics-related1,838 68.1NA 1.0 0 Plant biology-related2,511 63.6NA 6.0 1.5 Biological scientists40,416 9.5<0.1 15.8 45.6 Agriculture-related biological6,778 28.2<0.2 17.6 19.2 Plant-related1,098 48.0NA 29.0 5.5 Environmental scientists7,375 4.6<0.1 35.5 1.5 Hydrology and water resources293 23.2NA 27.3 0 All scientists185,746 6.80.2 12.1 18.5 NOTE: NA, Not available; percentage cannot be estimated on the basis of available information. aFields of science are as defined and grouped by the 1987 Survey of Doctorate Recipients conducted for the National Science Foundation by the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council. bPercentage of scientists receiving USDA competitive grants is estimated on the basis of the following assumptions: 70 percent of an average of 425 grants awarded annually are received by agricultural scientists; 30 percent of grants are awarded to agriculture-related biological scientists. These assumptions are consistent with data provided by the Competitive Research Grants Office on the distribution of USDA competitive grant awards. These are not part of the land-grant university agricultural experiment station system. SOURCE: Compiled by Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, based on data front the National Science Foundation. 1988b. Table B-29 in Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States. NSF Report No. 88-331. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation; data were also provided by the Office of Scientific and Engineenng Personnel, National Research Council, derived from a special analysis of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (1989). percent of their total) and about 1,450 biological scien- tists (about 3.6 percent of their total) would be sup- ported. In comparison, about 45 percent of the 40,416 biological scientists conducting research in 1987 re- ceivedNIHgrants. Therefore, the 1,042 grants awarded per year are still insufficient to fund agricultural scien- tists even to the level of NlH's funding of biological scientists and can involve biological scientists only to a very small extent. Thus, 1,042 grants per year should be seen, over the long term, as only a minimum number of grants for the USDA competitive grants program. SUPPORT WITH NEW MONEY This proposal for new funding for an expanded grants program comes at a time of fiscal stringency for INVESTING IN RESEARCH the United States. Yet, the needs and opportunities warrant the proposed action. This section presents three reasons for the need for new, not redirected, funding: (1) the consequences of the past 25 years of no real R&D growth for agriculture, (2) the need to retain the state-federal partnership, and (3) an evalu- ation of the trade-offs required by the fiscal realities. Consequences of the Lack of R&D Growth From l955 through 1965,USDA research budgets grew in real terms, but from 1965 to the present, they have shown no real growth when corrected for infla- tion (see tables in Appendix A). Based on 1982 constant dollars, the purchasing power of USDA re
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL search appropriations in 1965 was $788 million dol- lars; in 1988 it was $778 million. Not only has funding for agricultural, food, and environmental research changed little in absolute terms during the past 25 years, but as a percentage of total federal appropriations for nondefense R&D it has also been unchanged-consistently 5 percent or less. Yet, the environment in which agriculture must operate has changed substantially. The macroeconomic condi- tions that effect the farmer end producer global trade policy, the federal budget, and the value of U.S. currency-have changed a great deal. The regulatory climate is different and in flux, which increases the complexity and expense of doing business throughout the agricultural and food sector. And science and technology continue to evolve, altering farming prac- tices, markets, the cost of inputs, and overall produc- tivity. The lack of real growth in the R&D sector of the agricultural, food, and environmental system has four mayor consequences. First, without the prospect of a sufficient and acces- sible source of funds, the agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research system will find it difficult to bring younger scientists into the system and induce them to establish research careers there. This takes on greater significance since the large cohort of highly produc- tive scientists who have been in the system since the l950s will soon be retiring. Second, without growth, opportunities for gradu- ate education and research experiences within the systemcannotbemaintained. Yet,graduate education is a major product of the U.S. research system. Some would even argue that it is its most important product. Educational opportunities emphasizing agricultural research are the source of the skilled talent on which agriculture depends. Third, the no-growth condition of agricultural R&D funding has, in effect, decreased funding because simply "keeping up" requires spending more than normal inflation would suggest. This is partly because the entire character of science has changed, particu- larly science for agriculture and biology. Instruments, techniques, and supplies have become extremely sophisticated and accurate. as well as much more expensive, so it costs more to perform high-quality science today than it did 10 to 20 years ago. In addition, since many of the problems are now more multifaceted, more emphasis must be placed on mul- tidisciplinary work, and this, too, has raised costs, particularly in the field- and clinic-based studies nec 29 essary to understand the complex phenomena in- volved in agriculture. Moreover, intensifying the consequences of no R&D growth, the price indices for research generally run ahead of normal inflation indi- cators, thus depressing even further the purchasing power of a grant. Fourth, the lack of real growth in federal funding for R&D has meant that new scientific opportunities and necessary new programs have been funded through an internal redirection of federal funding, as is the case for intramural research programs within USDA. Redirection of state funds and the securing of new state funds have also occurred through interactions within the state-federal partnership in research. In a very real sense, the agricultural research sector has already been redirecting its funds. However, new demands are being made on the research system. For example, new information and analysis are required within the regulatory environ- ment. Much more caution and thoroughness are required in developing and using new technologies, such as biotechnology for plants and animals, than have been required for conventional plant and animal breeding in the past. And there are research questions connected to the relationship between agriculture and the environment-for example, when the environ- ment is actually or potentially polluted by the contin- ued use of pesticides and natural and chemical fertil- izers, by agricultural and food processing wastes, and by leachates. Thus, when viewed from a number of perspectives, the current no-growth policy in agricultural R&D is putting at risk the vitality of the entire U.S . agricultural and food enterprise. State-Federal Partnership The partnership between the states and the federal government in research, development, and applica- lion related to the agricultural and food sector involves both state end federal agencies and scientists. Through the state agnculturalexperiment stations (SAESs) and Cooperative Extension Service systems, it involves the land-grant universities, the colleges of 1890, and the Tuskegee Institute; through the Agricultural Re- search Service, Cooperative State Research Service, Extension Service, and, to some extent, the Economic Research Service and U.S. Forest Service, it involves USDA. The partnership is strong and well estab- lished, and one of its key elements is collaboration in research and application. This collaboration is helped
30 by the fact that the federal government provides each state with formula funds that the state matches or exceeds. In 1988 the federal contribution of formula funds for research ($201.8 million) funded only 12 percent of the SAKS research program of $1,674 million (see Tables A.14 and A.15~. States use a large portion of their total research funds to do research that is relevant to the entire nation. Although valuable, this research has been done at the expense of state responsibilities for technology devel- opment and application, for site-specif~c research, and for stronger linkages between research and extension. One recent example of nationally relevant research by states is biotechnology research, which many states have emphasized and which, in most instances, is fundamental research. The significance of an ex- panded USDA competitive grants program is that it would use federal funds to provide major necessary support for fundamental research of national value, thereby lessening some of the competition for state funds, which could then appropriately be applied, in part, to state and regional problems. The state-federal partnership has been, and will continue to be, a key factor in converting research results, whether fundamental or applied, into tech- nologi~es and knowledge that are usable by producers and processors and then, through the cooperative extension system, in getting them applied. There are no excess funds in this partnership for doing this essential job. As noted elsewhere in this proposal, if funds are taken away from the partnership or redi- rected to other activities-even to an expanded com- petitivegrantsprogram thenation's capacity to keep research, development, and application flowing will be diminished. Fiscal Realities Finally, there is the matter of fiscal realities: Is funding available? Where would it come from? What are the implications of shifting funds from one pro- gram to another? At this time of fiscal constraint, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government must reduce the national debt and at the same time set priorities among competing federal expenditures to enact programs that maintain the welfare, infrastruc- ture, security, and continued economic growth of the United States. They must also address public con- cerns for maintaining global competitiveness, increas INVESTING IN RESEARCH ing the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply, and protecting environmental resources. The goal of simultaneously reducing expenditures and attending to essential national needs requires fiscal prudence. Trade-Offs Given the current era of fiscal constraints, this proposal for an increased investment in the agricul- tural, food, and environmental research system re- quires that several possible trade-offs be considered. The $500 million for competitive grants could come from sacrificing other USDA research pro- grams. Can some current research programs be dis- continued in an effort to strengthen competitively supported research? The necessary funds could be directed to re- search from other USDA budget categories. Com- modity price supports, for example, have decreased from $26 billion to $11 billion during the pest 3 years, as U.S. agricultural export prices have improved. Should $500 million of those savings and of future budgetary savings be redirected toward research, or should they be directed toward reducing the national debt, toward some combination of the two, or toward progress outside of agriculture? The funds couldbe shifted from other parts of the federal budget into USDA. Does the consistently high return on the agricultural research investment over- ride the need for funds in other areas of national interest? The investment in agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research could be deferred until deficit re- duction has been achieved. But investing new funds now can hasten future economic growth and scientific benefits. What will be gained-or lost by postpon- ing the investment? Redirection within the USDA Research Budget As discussed above, the USDA research budget has not increased in real purchasing power for the past 25 years. Thus, agricultural research is already substan- tially underfunded, given the continuing needs and the many new needs. It follows that a redirection of funds within an appropriation that is already too small will not allow the agricultural, food, and environmental research system to address fully the challenges con- fronting it. However, some might argue that current
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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 ~
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
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.
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.
