1
The National Research Initiative: Rationale, Development, and Context
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was the first federal agency to sponsor extramural scientific research as mandated by the Hatch Act of 1887. However, only since 1978 has USDA employed competitive grants that rely on applicant review by scientific peers and that allow participation of those outside traditional agricultural research institutions. Until that time, USDA had funded research at its Agricultural Research Service laboratories and provided annual grants to each of 54 state agricultural experiment stations. Other public and private universities, though engaged in fundamental research important to agriculture, were generally excluded from USDA support. In response to calls for agriculture to adopt the competitive, peer-reviewed grant system used in other areas of science, authorization for such grants was introduced in the 1977 farm bill (National Research Council, 1972, 1975). However, subsequent appropriations provided only limited funding for competitive grants at USDA. The size of the grants and the range of scientific fields funded were greatly restricted in a program that received less than $50 million annually.
In 1989, the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture issued the report Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and Environmental System (National Research Council, 1989). The board recommended USDA's investment in research be increased to include a competitive grants program funded at $500 million annually, that its scientific scope be expanded into six broad areas of endeavor, and that the awards be made available through four types of grants. The six areas of research were to include plant systems; animal systems; nutrition, food quality, and health; natural resources and the environment; engineering, products, and processes; and markets, trade, and policy. The four grant types were to include those to individual principal investigators; multidisciplinary teams of investigators conducting
fundamental research at the intersection of disciplines; multidisciplinary teams pursuing mission-linked research; and, institutions and individuals whose research capacity could be strengthened.
Adopted first in the president's budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 1991, the board's recommendations were incorporated into the 1990 farm bill as the National Initiative for Research on Agriculture, Food, and the Environment (NRI). The history of funding for the NRI is chronicled in Table 1.1 as the Competitive Grants Program of USDA's Cooperative State Research Service. Congressional appropriators responded to the administration's FY 1991 request for $100 million by increasing the previous year's allocation of $42.5 million to $73 million. In FY 1992, the administration sought to add $50 million in pursuit of the goal of a $500-million competitive grants program. In spite of both Bush and Clinton administrations' requests for funding at considerably higher levels, the NRI received $97.5 million in each of FY 1992 and FY 1993 and $112.2 million in FY 1994 and a likely $103 million in FY 1995.1
Although growth in any federal program in an era of constrained funding is remarkable, the NRI is still far from meeting its goal of ambitious expansion. Both the Bush and the Clinton administrations specifically identified the NRI as a productive federal investment in the nation's future. The president's budget request has each year sought stronger growth in the NRI than the Congress has been willing to provide. The design of the NRI, as recommended by the board and embodied in the farm bill, envisions a sophisticated use of innovative grant mechanisms deployed across a broad spectrum of science. Consequently, the scale of the NRI's operation directly determines the scope of the research endeavor. Given that the NRI program level has not been much more than $100 million in each of the past 2 years, the opportunities envisioned for it have yet to be realized.
Though USDA's competitive grants program has doubled in size since the inception of the NRI, it accounts for less than 10 percent of the total USDA research budget of $1.8 billion annually (CRIS). Competitive grants are one of four major federal funding mechanisms for agricultural science (Table 1-1). Intramural research, conducted primarily at the facilities of the Forest Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the Economic Research Service, receives more than one-half the USDA total, about $990 million annually
TABLE 1-1 Major USDA Funding Mechanisms for Agricultural Research
|
|
Intramural |
|
|
Formula |
|
Competitive |
Special |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Year |
ARS |
FS |
ERS |
NAL |
CSRS |
ES |
CSRS |
CSRS |
ES |
CSRS |
ES |
Total |
|
1980 |
358.0 |
95.9 |
35.2 |
7.3 |
152.4 |
200.7 |
15.5 |
15.2 |
78.3 |
2.8 |
6.5 |
967.8 |
|
1981 |
404.1 |
108.4 |
39.5 |
8.2 |
165.2 |
217.6 |
16.0 |
18.2 |
80.1 |
1.3 |
5.9 |
1,064.5 |
|
1982 |
423.2 |
112.1 |
39.4 |
8.2 |
180.4 |
232.6 |
16.3 |
23.1 |
76.8 |
0.8 |
6.3 |
1,119.2 |
|
1983 |
451.9 |
107.7 |
38.8 |
9.1 |
187.2 |
247.6 |
17.0 |
27.8 |
75.6 |
0.3 |
5.4 |
1,168.5 |
|
1984 |
471.1 |
109.4 |
44.3 |
10.4 |
193.6 |
253.2 |
17.0 |
26.5 |
75.6 |
0.6 |
5.5 |
1,207.2 |
|
1985 |
491.4 |
113.8 |
46.6 |
11.5 |
197.1 |
260.2 |
53.8 |
32.0 |
77.6 |
1.5 |
5.9 |
1,291.4 |
|
1986 |
483.2 |
113.6 |
44.1 |
10.8 |
189.0 |
260.2 |
48.8 |
30.2 |
78.9 |
1.6 |
5.5 |
1,265.9 |
|
1987 |
511.4 |
126.7 |
44.9 |
11.1 |
189.0 |
254.1 |
46.7 |
55.1 |
78.6 |
2.9 |
6.3 |
1,326.8 |
|
1988 |
544.1 |
132.5 |
48.3 |
12.2 |
201.8 |
260.8 |
45.4 |
51.8 |
80.2 |
4.1 |
16.9 |
1,398.2 |
|
1989 |
569.4 |
138.3 |
49.6 |
14.3 |
202.8 |
260.8 |
39.7 |
41.9 |
82.0 |
6.4 |
18.6 |
1,423.8 |
|
1990 |
593.3 |
150.9 |
51.0 |
14.7 |
202.8 |
265.1 |
42.5 |
73.1 |
86.4 |
8.2 |
18.2 |
1,505.7 |
|
1991 |
631.0 |
167.6 |
54.4 |
16.8 |
212.0 |
276.4 |
73.0 |
78.6 |
103.4 |
9.7 |
18.7 |
1,641.6 |
|
1992 |
668.4 |
180.5 |
58.7 |
17.8 |
220.3 |
288.5 |
97.5 |
87.1 |
110.0 |
10.6 |
20.9 |
1,760.2 |
|
1993 |
668.0 |
182.1 |
58.9 |
17.7 |
220.3 |
288.5 |
97.5 |
73.4 |
118.0 |
10.5 |
18.4 |
1,753.4 |
|
1994 |
691.6 |
192.5 |
55.3 |
18.3 |
225.9 |
298.1 |
112.2 |
72.9 |
117.4 |
12.1 |
19.1 |
1,815.3 |
|
1995a |
708.6 |
204.0 |
53.7 |
19.7 |
225.9 |
298.1 |
130.0 |
29.7 |
121.4 |
1.3 |
13.2 |
1,805.6 |
|
Abbreviations: Values denote millions of dollars. ARS, Agricultural Research Service; FS, Forest Service; ERS, Economic Research Service; NAL, National Agricultural Library; CSRS, Cooperative State Research Service; ES, Extension Service. a President's request. Source: Data were provided by the USDA Office of Budget Policy Analysis. |
||||||||||||
|
Screening for Bovine Leukemia Animals that are sick suffer unnecessarily and are less productive than those that are healthy. Treatment for disease may require medication, injected or ingested by the animal in feed. As with humans, it is the case with animals that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Animal scientists and public health officials have consequently sought to eradicate disease (hog cholera is one success story) and to prevent its introduction to this country. However, control of many diseases still depends on understanding causes and predicting the susceptibility of animals. Bovine leukemia virus, for example, can make dairy cows severely ill or it can cause chronic infection that significantly lowers milk production. But only some cows contract leukemia. Why? NRI-supported researchers have identified the gene many cattle carry that confers resistance to this virus. The presence of this gene can be identified by testing cattle using techniques of molecular biology that examine the animals' DNA. Consequently, it should be possible to develop a screening test that allows the farmer to select for breeding those animals that will pass resistance to their offspring. |
(Current Research Information System, 1994). Formula funds, for research and technology transfer and education, in the amount of about $525 million are distributed to the states each year according to formulas related to the size of farm and rural populations. Approximately one-third of the remaining $450 million is accounted for by congressional earmarks to specific research universities or entities for specific projects, and the other two-thirds to targeted federal initiatives to support international treaty obligations and the like.
So, while competitive grants are not the only mechanism for distributing allocations for agricultural research, the board argued in its earlier report that "they are best suited to stimulating new research activity in specific areas of science" (National Research Council, 1989, p. 34). The relatively small role that competitive grants plays in the USDA science funding portfolio thus results in the nation's incomplete realization of the program's unique contributions. The competitive grants mechanism was advocated in Investing in Research because of three major strengths that work toward attainment of the goal of stimulating advancement in new areas of science, thus pushing back the frontier on which technological innovation depends: competitive grants (1) exhibit responsiveness and flexibility, (2) attract the best talent through open competition, and (3) balance and complement research performed in other set-
tings (through formula or special grants at universities or through intramural funds at federal facilities).
The responsiveness and flexibility of competitive grants provide the means to identify and support potentially important areas of research—areas that are emerging hut that have not yet been widely recognized as significant. By drawing on leading scientists to conduct peer review of grant applications, the NRI gains a perspective on science informed by those most intimately involved with and knowledgeable about new opportunities. Responsiveness means being hospitable to—and strongly encouraging—work at the forefront of an area of science. Program announcements can be adjusted each year in response to new developments, and funding patterns thus will reflect redirection as science opportunity dictates.
Compared to other funding mechanisms, competitive grants have the potential advantage of being able to attract a broad range of scientists to the agricultural, food, and environmental system and to retain their interest. By promoting talent and openness, the NRI
- expands opportunities for scientists who are currently involved in agricultural research;
- draws productive, proven scientists from other areas, such as molecular biology or genetics, into agricultural research;
- attracts and retains younger scientists in agricultural research; and
- eases financial and institutional barriers impeding participation of women, under-represented minorities, and disabled individuals by providing them with greater opportunities for research.
Each of the four funding mechanisms now supporting agricultural, food, and environmental research has a valuable role to play in ensuring that the nation's needs are met. All four are necessary to ensure that both basic and applied research programs thrive, to support the development and transfer of new technologies, and to meet the immediate and often unpredictable needs created by agricultural pests or the vagaries of weather. Competitive grants can contribute by attracting new talent into the research system and helping agriculturalists take greater advantage of the developments rapidly occurring across all areas of science.
The contributions of competitive grants have been documented in other areas of science, such as biomedicine, that have relied extensively on competitive, peer-reviewed funding. Even at the outset of the NRI program, other federal agencies with strong records in meeting national needs allocated a much larger portion of their research and development expenditures through the competitive grants mechanism: the National Institutes of Health allocated 83 percent and the National Science Foundation, 90 percent (National Research Council, 1989, p. 37). The applied, regional, and site-specific nature of many agricultural, food, and environmental research and engineering issues makes it
|
Combining Natural Resistance and Natural Enemies What happens when you combine a predator capable of reducing the pest population in a cotton field and a partially resistant variety of cotton that slows the pest population's growth rate? A combination of low-level resistance that synergizes and can effect a long-term decrease of possibly 60 percent in the pest population. Because pests rapidly adapt to single-gene resistance, some plant breeders now believe that partial resistance may offer long-term benefits, while single plant genes that cause high pest mortality do not. The tools of genetic engineering now offer the choice of setting levels of insect resistance high or low. Today the prime candidate genes for high or low expression are those from a bacteria that code for caterpillar-and beetle-specific toxins (i.e., Bacillus thuringiensis). The bacterial toxins have proved highly specific for targeted insect pests and are benign to humans and the environment. NRI-funded field tests have revealed synergistic interactions between natural enemies and tobacco plants (a model system) that expressed low levels of the bacterial toxin. A new computer model that simulated the synergism between the natural enemies and the partially resistant plants indicated that the presence of natural enemies may speed up, slow down, or have no effect on the rate of pest adaptation to the toxin. Ongoing research on this NRI grant is aimed at testing the results of the computer model so that problems and benefits of high and low levels of resistance can be judged more realistically. Research will focus on two of the most destructive agricultural insect pests in the United States—the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) and the tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens), also known as the cotton bollworm. By developing computer models and rigorously testing predictions, scientists can offer sound advice to genetic engineers attempting to produce pest-resistant crops. |
appropriate for a considerable portion of agricultural research funding to continue moving into the system through federal and state formula funds and other noncompetitive means. Nonetheless, there remains considerable scope for expanding the NRI at USDA.
