Investing in the National Research Initiative: An Update of the Competitive Grants Program in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1994)

The Board on Agriculture has argued that the NRI is a most effective way to develop the new knowledge base and human talent the agriculture industry needs to achieve national goals for health, the environment, and agriculture. Though it has yet to attain its recommended funding level, the NRI has emerged as a most dynamic component of the USDA agricultural research program. Here, the development of the program content and its administration are reviewed, starting with the USDA competitive grants program at its inception in 1978 to its expansion in and authorization as the National Research Initiative in the 1990 farm bill.

Global food shortages in the early 1970s stimulated concern about the adequacy of the scientific knowledge base as a foundation for future global food security (National Research Council, 1975, 1977). When the Congress in the 1977 farm bill directed USDA to establish a competitive grants program, its stated objective was to stimulate the development of fundamental scientific knowledge important to agriculture by adding extramural grant support—the approach used successfully by the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health—to the traditional USDA portfolio. However, fiscal constraints and philosophical differences within Congress and the agricultural research community on the breadth or specificity of research-program funding impeded the growth of the USDA competitive grants program.

Initially, the USDA competitive grants program authorized support for plant science and nutrition only. In 1985, the scope was expanded by the farm bill with a biotechnology initiative that included animal science. During its first decade, funding for competitive grants at USDA remained a minor component of USDA research expenditures, accounting for about 5 percent of the total. Within the modest dimensions of the program, philosophical differences have been reflected in the variation of focus of grant categories between quite specialized and much broader subject areas. Congressional appropriators added specific research topics in FY 1985, with new funding—$28 million—restricted for use on investigations having to do with the boll weevil/bollworm, pine bark beetle, and gypsy moth; soybean research; alcohol fuels; brucellosis; and acid precipitation. A restricted program related to problems posed by stratospheric ozone depletion, assessing the effects of ultraviolet light on crops. was added in FY 1989. Although several of these specialized and restricted programs have continued in the current NRI, a few, such as those in the three insect-specific categories, have been folded into a broader-based program on plant pest science. In general, the science community has argued that congressional appropriations should support competitive grants in broad topic ar-

eas in order to generate fundamental knowledge rather than target specific problems in agriculture through the restriction of competitive grants.

The debate over the proper focus of agricultural research funding has not been strictly academic. Between FY 1980 and FY 1993, USDA outlays for agricultural research and development increased in real terms by less than 10 percent (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Even without the claim of competitive grants on an essentially fixed budget, tension would have existed among those who advocate growth in intramural funding or increases for state formula grants or increases in special grants. Adding competitive grants to the mix during a period of revolutionary advance in biology only exacerbated the competition for support. Over the past decade, the record shows that growth in special grants and competitive grants has exceeded that in intramural support and formula grants (see Table 1-1).

The 1990 farm bill's authorization of the NRI closely followed the recommendations in the board's report (see Appendix) in terms of the six broad program areas, four grant types, and an expanded public investment to $500 million annually. In addition, the Congress specified target shares for the four grant types to include not less than 30 percent for multidisciplinary research, 20 percent for mission-linked research, and 10 percent for strengthening grants. The legislation also directed USDA to emphasize, where appropriate, research that enhanced agricultural sustainability.

For the first year of the NRI—FY 1991—the appropriation was $73 million. This was almost doubled from the FY 1990 appropriation for competitive grants of $42.5 million. With increased funding in FY 1991, the NRI was restructured and expanded to include four of the six recommended program divisions (plant systems; animal systems; nutrition, food quality, and health; and natural resources and the environment). Grant programs in the remaining two divisions (markets, trade, and policy; and processing for value added) were added the following year. At a program level of about $100 million over the past few years, congressional appropriations have allocated about 40 percent of the grants funded to the program area of plant systems, 25 percent to animal systems, 20 percent to natural resources, 7 percent to nutrition, and 4 percent each to processing for value added and to markets, trade, and rural development.

In implementing an expanded NRI, USDA invited the agricultural community and researchers to a series of workshops, intended to provide guidance in identifying high-priority research areas relevant for agriculture, food, and the environment. The subsequent requests for grant proposals reflected much of the advice gleaned in the workshops, including the following.

• Emphasize in instructions to reviewers—in all programs—the goal of sustainability.
• Emphasize in instructions to reviewers the goal of enhancing international competitiveness for the United States in programs such as processing for added value.
• Emphasize food safety as a critical aspect of a healthy food supply.
• Call for research on forest species in the three program areas of natural resources, plants, and processing for added value.
• Identify the need for research on global change.
• Stress the relevance of social and economic research in all the grant areas.

In recent years, the NRI has had approximately $90 million to dispense in competitive grants, after accounting for administrative expenses and funds directed for other uses. Funding is now available in each of six broad grant types. An early indicator of success of the NRI might be the interest it generates among scientists in the broad research community, whose willingness to apply for grants is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for productive science.

Figure 2-1

In 1978, there were 1,125 applications versus 225 awards; in 1980, 625 applications  versus 225 awards; in 1982. 760 applications versus 230 awards; in 1984, 875  applications versus 230 awards; in 1986, 1,640 applications versus 450 awards; in 1988,  1,575 applications versus 425 awards; in 1990, 1,800 applications versus 425 awards, in 1992,  2,900 applications versus 800 awards. Source: Anne Datko, 1994, The National Research  Initiative Competitive Grants Program, Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department  of Agriculture, personal communication.

In each year since the inception of USDA competitive grants in the 1970s, the number of applicants has outnumbered the number of grants awarded by two-to-one and, more recently, by as much as four-to-one (Figure 2-1). After the NRI was authorized, applications increased over previous years by about one-third. Attracted by the NRI's goal of increasing the size of each grant made (as well as the overall number), scientists have requested, in aggregate, more than five times the amount actually available for grants (Figure 2-2).

This high demand for NRI grants has persisted in recent years despite the imposition by congressional appropriators of a cap on the allowable indirect cost that can be included in each grant. Capping the reimbursement to the home university may increase the amount available to the investigator, but the costs must be absorbed by the institution nonetheless. So, the cap on indirect costs may either be viewed as a way of leveraging limited NRI funds or as a way to achieve cost-sharing with participating universities. If this latter per-

Figure 2-2

In 1978, requested amounts (in millions of dollars) totaled $175 versus $15 available funds;  in 1980, $100 requested versus $15 available; in 1982, $150 requested versus $15 available;  in 1984, $175 requested versus $20 available; in 1985, $490 requested versus $50 available;  in 1986, $360 requested versus $60 available; in 1990, $410 requested versus $60 available;  in 1991, $650 requested versus $75 available, in 1992, $605 requested versus $100 available. 

Source: Anne Datko, 1994, The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program,  Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication.

spective is true, then it might be that the number of NRI applicants would be even higher if it were not for the cap on indirect costs. Anecdotal evidence supports the perception that it is investigators at private universities who are most likely to have decided against applying for the restrictive NRI grants.

The identities of those who do not apply for NRI grants are, of course, difficult to discern, but the institutional affiliations of those who do apply is as follows: slightly less than 75 percent come from land grant colleges and universities; private and other public institutions submit about 16 percent of all applications; federal laboratories (mostly those of the Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service) submit about 6 percent of the total; the remaining 5 percent of individuals come from industry and other nongovernmental research organizations (Figure 2-3). In general, grants are awarded to each

Figure 2-3

Institutional affiliations of those applying for NRI grants for fiscal year 1993.  Values are percentages. Source: Source: Anne Datko, 1994, The National  Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, Cooperative State Research  Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication.

type of organization in about the same proportion as represented by applications.

In the pool of applicants each year, about two-thirds are submitting new proposals (Figure 2-4). Another one-fifth are turning in proposals revised in response to peer reviews of an earlier submission. About one-tenth are seeking renewal of multiyear projects. In FY 1993, some 30 panels of peer scientists were assembled to review about 3,000 grant applications. Ultimately, just under 800 grants were funded at an average of $110,000 each.

The contribution of the NRI's extensive review process to the quality of science should not be overlooked. Although aimed directly at the proposals submitted, a reviewer's constructive criticism improves an investigator's understanding of the chosen research field as well as the methodology of investigation. Likewise, participation as a peer reviewer maintains a scientist's incentive to remain abreast of developments in a scientific field. And, as noted in Investing in Research, the system of peer review promotes communication and links across scientific disciplines and between program sectors. Individuals from all segments of the scientific community—academia, industry, and government—come together to discuss and refine program priorities, establish proposal review criteria, and serve on peer review panels.

In FY 1993, $92 million was awarded in 790 grants in six program areas. Two-thirds of the total funding supported fundamental research and the other

Figure 2-4

Number of new, resubmitted, and renewed applications for NRI grants for  fiscal year 1993. Values are percentages. Source: Source: Anne Datko, 1994,  The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, Cooperative State  Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication.

one-third supported mission-linked research. Similarly, two-thirds of the funds went to single-discipline grants and another one-third to multidisciplinary grants. It is not the case, however, that all the fundamental science grants were awarded to single-discipline projects or that all the mission-linked proposals were multidisciplinary. The NRI design provides for fundamental and applied research by multidisciplinary teams.

Both the traditional agricultural and the broader scientific research communities have demonstrated interest in competing for grants under the NRI. Although it is a straightforward matter to document the volume of grant applications, judgments about quality are necessarily more subjective. There is consensus among NRI staff and panel members and managers that ''good to high'' characterizes the overall quality and relevance of the proposals being received and that the quality has been increasing each year. The failure of a scientist to receive funding is not necessarily an indication that a poor proposal was submitted. The judgment is that, in most program areas, increased funding would at least double the acceptance rate. To date, scientists at the land rant institutions have been the major beneficiaries of the NRI, but as awareness

of the program's existence spreads, broader participation can be expected, especially with continued growth in the funds available in total and with a resolution of the restriction on indirect cost reimbursement.