Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 185
Appendix C.10
Agricultural Research Service
Beginning in 1998, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) mounted a
cooperative program with scientists in Russia, as well as with scientists in other
independent states that emerged after the splintering of the USSR in 1991. The
Department of State provided the funding. The International Center for Science
and Technology (ISTC) in Moscow conducted onsite administration of projects.
The objectives of the program were to (1) advance agricultural science by sup-
porting the development and application of new expertise of Russian scientists,
(2) enhance the effectiveness and productivity of ARS research programs that
could benefit from extension of activities to Russia, (3) improve the economy
of Russia through use of technological advances in Russian agriculture, and
(4) reduce the global threat from biological weapons by focusing attention on
civilian uses of technologies of concern while ensuring security of dangerous
pathogens.
Implementation focused on scientist-to-scientist collaboration with active
participation by both sides in jointly designed projects. Projects were funded
through grants, usually at a level of about $300,000 over 3 years. Most of the
funds were committed to Russian laboratories. ARS limited the funding of its
own laboratories to no more than 17 percent of the total funds for any project
(commonly, $40,000 over 3 years). This amount could support travel and inci-
dental costs incurred by ARS participants. ARS scientists generally considered
such projects to be a part of their personal research programs.
Project selection and approval was a two-step process, driven largely by the
ARS collaborators. Brief preliminary proposals developed by either side, which
had support by the ARS scientists and concurrence by the ARS national program
185
OCR for page 186
186 APPENDIX C.10
leader, were considered for support as a direct extension of the ARS program.
External peer review was not utilized.
For successful preliminary proposals, the first step was funding of a visit
by the cooperating Russian scientists for 1 to 3 weeks to the research facility of
the ARS scientist. If the ARS or Russian scientists were not enthusiastic about
cooperation after this visit (e.g., a mismatch of capabilities and interests), the
process would stop. Otherwise, a full proposal was prepared in ISTC format and
reviewed by the governments of the two countries and the ISTC according to
ISTC’s established procedures.
The ARS review focused, among other things, on compliance with various
guidelines, including animal care and use. A requirement for reciprocal yearly
visits was included in the proposal. If a proposal was received from a Russian
scientist and no U.S. collaborator was named, an effort would be made to locate
ARS scientists with relevant skills. Once the proposal was approved, the ISTC
then played a key role in providing oversight and resolving problems directly with
Russian project participants.
Russian scientists who were struggling financially and who were outside the
mainstream of international collaboration enthusiastically greeted the first official
visits to their facilities by ARS personnel. It was immediately apparent to the
American visitors that the Russian laboratories had well-trained scientists and
resources, including pathogen collections that could provide a basis for produc-
tive cooperation. The first four projects were approved in 2000 at two Russian
laboratories. From 2000 to 2011, about 50 projects were established at Russian
laboratories. The program in Russia and other countries that emerged from the
USSR has involved more than 30 ARS laboratories and 27 counterpart institutes,
with more than 1,300 participating scientists.
Funds expended by ARS through 2011 totaled $48.2 million, with 45 percent
of these funds directed to projects in Russia. Most of the funds were expended
in a 7-year period, from 2000 through 2006, when funding available to the ARS
for the program totaled $5–6 million annually. Then funding levels dramatically
decreased as the priorities of the Department of State changed.
STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES TO COOPERATION
Surveys of American scientists involved in the program indicated that the
strength of the program was the high quality of scientist-to-scientist interac-
tions that was achieved in almost every case. The principal investigators from
both countries contributed to the design of the project, agreed on objectives and
procedures, and supported the work throughout the project. Reciprocal visits
were considered by most to be not just an adjunct to electronic communications
but the true core of the collaboration. In addition, many scientists on both sides
reported the building of personal relationships that went well beyond the content
of the project.
OCR for page 187
APPENDIX C.10 187
Of course, there were significant challenges. Movement of biological materi-
als was difficult and was not always sufficiently considered in the development
of projects. Some laboratory facilities and vivariums in Russia needed to be
upgraded to meet U.S. standards, an issue not always sufficiently considered at
the outset. Some Russian laboratories were reluctant to consider cooperation, or
such cooperation was discouraged by governing agencies in Russia. Publication
of results in international journals was difficult (or a low priority) for some Rus-
sian laboratories. This topic deserved discussion at the outset of projects.
There were enthusiastic reviews by almost all participating scientists on both
sides. Of the 50 Russian projects, 40 were extended beyond the initial 3-year
period, thus providing good evidence of support by collaborators and the authori-
ties from both countries. Many Russian institutes benefited from improved physi-
cal facilities and equipment provided through the cooperative projects. However,
this statistic does not adequately reflect the strength of the personal relationships
formed and the value of such relationships to future research and transparency
in science.
Sustainability of projects remains an issue. Few mechanisms for funding of
applied projects in agriculture exist in either Russia or the United States. Many
promising collaborative projects ended. They could have been continued on a
productive basis if financial support had been available. While limited support
has been obtained for a few projects, the level of collaboration is unlikely to
reach earlier levels.
The original program was considered successful in achieving its objectives,
and some aspects of the program can serve as models for future collaborative
efforts. At the same time, however, sustainability of research programs in this
field is not likely in the absence of a continuing source of government funding.
SOURCE: Information provided by Agricultural Research Service, March 2012.
OCR for page 188
