# NATIONAL INSTITUTE

**FOR**

**FOOD AND AGRICULTURE**

### A PROPOSAL

#### REPORT OF THE

#### RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS

#### TASK FORCE

#### OF THE

#### UNITED STATES

#### DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTRE

**July 2004**

## 

*[Contents]{.underline}*

**REPORT OF THE USDA RESEARCH, ECONOMICS**

**AND EDUCATION TASK FORCE**

*Members:*

**USDA RESEARCH, ECONOMICS AND EDUCATION TASK
FORCE**................................. 3

*Acknowledgements:*

**INDIVIDUALS WHO ASSISTED THE TASK
FORCE**...................................................... 4

*Legislative Charge:*

**THE MANDATE OF THE TASK FORCE;**

**THE AMENDED MANDATE OF THE TASK
FORCE**...................................................\... 5

*Executive Summary:*

**RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK
FORCE**............................................................. 9

*Introduction:*

**FIVE CONVICTIONS THAT UNDERLIE THIS
REPORT**................................................. 12

*Chapter 1:*

**MODELS OF FEDERALLY SUPPORTED LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH**
...........................\... 15

*Chapter 2:*

####### THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (NIFA) ............................ 16

*Chapter 3:*

####### THE MISSION OF NIFA............................................................................................. 17

*Chapter 4:*

**ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESS OF
NIFA**.................................................. 27

*Chapter 5:*

####### THE ARGUMENT FOR MERIT REVIEW BY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS.............................. 33

*Chapter 6:*

####### NIFA'S ROLE IN THE FEDERAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE ........................................... 35

*Chapter 7:*

**THE
BUDGET**...........................................................................................................
39

*Chapter 8:*

**LEGISLATIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS**.....................................................................\....
42

*Chapter 9:*

**WHY A NEW INSTITUTE IS
NECESSARY**.....................................................................
44

**APPENDICES AND FIGURES**

> Figure
> 1............................................................................................
> .................. 46
>
> Appendix 1:
>
> VISION STATEMENT
> ...........................................................................................
> 47
>
> Appendix 2:
>
> PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING FOR AGRICULTURAL
> R&D..................................... 48
>
> Appendix 3:
>
> COMPARATIVE FUNDING
> ....................................................................................
> 52
>
> Appendix 4:
>
> SUMMARY OF PAST REPORTS
> ..............................................................................
> 57
>
> Appendix 5
>
> CONSULTANTS TO THE TASK FORCE
> ....................................................................
> 61

**ACRONYMS**............................................................................................................
63

**ENDNOTES**..............................................................................................................
64

*[Members]{.underline}\**

######## THE USDA RESEARCH, ECONOMICS

**AND EDUCATION TASK FORCE**

**Dr. Nancy M. Betts**

Associate Dean and Director, Agricultural Research Division\
University of Nebraska -- Lincoln

**Mr. Michael Bryan**

President

BBI International

**Mr. Richard Coombe**

Watershed Agricultural Council

**Dr. William Danforth, Chair**

Chancellor Emeritus

Washington University

**Dr. Victor L. Lechtenberg**

Vice Provost for Engagement

Purdue University

**Dr. Luis Sequeira**

Professor Emeritus

Bacteriology and Plant Pathology

University of Wisconsin -- Madison

**Dr. Robert F. Wideman\
**Professor

Center of Excellence for Poultry Science\
University of Arkansas

**Dr. H. Alan Wood**

Director

The Life Sciences & Biotechnology Institute

Mississippi State University

\*For further information about any member of the Task Force, please
contact Kathryn Boots, USDA, at 202-720 5923 or <katie.boots@usda.gov>.

*[Acknowledgements]{.underline}*

The Task Force is grateful to the many individuals who assisted us in
our work by giving us encouragement, advice and information. We have
listed many of these individuals in the final appendix to the report,
entitled "Consultants to the Task Force."

We especially thank Dr. Joseph J. Jen, Under Secretary for Research,
Education and Economics, for his guidance, for his wisdom, for helping
us understand departmental matters, and for our meeting with leaders of
the Research, Education and Economic functions. We are also grateful to
R. Ronald Bosecker, Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics
Service; Colien Hefferan, Administrator, Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service; Susan E. Offutt, Administrator,
Economic Research Service; and Caird E Rexroad Jr., Acting Associate
Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, for speaking to us. Ms.
Katie Boots, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Research,
Education and Economics, gave us her unflagging support and provided
direction that was instrumental in helping us best comply with our
charge.

Several individuals from outside the USDA made enlightening
presentations to us: Martin Apple, President, Council of Scientific
Society Presidents; Mary Clutter, Assistant Director, Biological
Sciences Directorate, National Science Foundation; Anthony Fauci,
Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
National Institutes of Health; Peter Raven, Director, Missouri Botanical
Garden; and Mary Wooley, President, Research!America.

We are very grateful to Chris Hasselmann, Ph.D., and Joseph M. Tonon,
Ph.D., for their research, help in preparation of the report, and
general assistance. Mary Ann Noel, special assistant to the chairman of
the committee, was essential to keeping the work on track. Marla Means,
assistant to Ms. Noel, patiently made many corrections to the report.

Karen Keeler Rogers, M.Ed., of KKR & Company, edited the document to
make it more readable.

All of these individuals have been essential to our work. None can be
blamed for any shortcomings.

*[Legislative Charge]{.underline}*

**THE MANDATE OF THE TASK FORCE; THE AMENDED**

**MANDATE OF THE TASK FORCE**

**SEC. 7404. REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE.**

(a) IN GENERAL.---Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
    this Act, the Secretary shall establish a task force to---

> \(1\) conduct a review of the Agricultural Research Service;

and

> \(2\) evaluate the merits of establishing one or more National
> Institutes focused on

disciplines important to the progress of food and agricultural science.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.---

> \(1\) IN GENERAL.---The Task Force shall consist of 8 members,

appointed by the Secretary, that---

\(A\) have a broad-based background in plant, animal, and

agricultural sciences research, food, nutrition, biotechnology, crop

> production methods, environmental science or related disciplines; and

\(B\) are familiar with the role and infrastructure used to conduct

Federal and private research, including---

\(i\) the Agricultural Research Service

\(ii\) The National Institutes of Health

\(iii\) the National Science Foundation

\(iv\) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

\(v\) the Department of Energy laboratory system; or

\(vi\) the Cooperative Sate Research, Education, and

> Extension Service.

\(2\) PRIVATE SECTOR.---Of the members appointed under paragraph (1),

the Secretary shall appoint at least 6 members that are members of the
private sector or come from institutions of higher education.

\(3\) PLANT AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES RESEARCH.---

Of the members appointed under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
appoint at least 3 members that have an extensive background and
preeminence in the field of plant, animal, and agricultural sciences
research.

\(4\) CHAIRPERSON.---Of the members appointed under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall designate a Chairperson that has significant leadership
experience in educational and research institutions and in depth
knowledge of the research enterprises of the United States.

\(5\) CONSULTATION.---Before appointing members of the Task Force under
this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the National Academy
of Sciences and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

\(c\) DUTIES.---The Task Force shall---\
(1) conduct a review of the purpose, efficiency effectiveness, and
impact on agricultural research of the Agricultural Research Service;

\(2\) conduct a review and evaluation of the merits of establishing one
or more National Institutes (such as National Institution for Plant and
Agricultural Sciences) focused on disciplines important to the progress
of food and agricultural sciences, and if establishment of one or more
National Institutes is recommended, provide further recommendations to
the Secretary, including the structure for establishing each Institute,
the multistate area location of each Institute, and the amount of
funding necessary to establish each Institute; and

\(3\) submit the reports required by subsection (d).

\(d\) Reports.---Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of
the Act, the Task Force shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate, and the Secretary---

> \(1\) a report on the review and evaluation required under subsection
> (c) (1);
>
> and

\(2\) a report on the review and evaluation required under subsection
(c) (2).

\(e\) FUNDING.---The Secretary shall use to carry out this section not
more than 0.1 percent of the amount of appropriations available to the
Agricultural Research Service for fiscal year 2003.

**CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1559, EMERGENCY**

**WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS**

**ACT, 2003**

Mr. Young of Florida submitted the following conference report on the
bill (H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for the purposes:

\[Page H3358\]

**CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 108-76)**

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1559), "making
emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for the other purposes", having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment,
insert the following: *That the following sums are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, namely:*

**TITLE I---WAR-RELATED APPROPRIATIONS**

**CHAPTER 1**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

> **TITLE II---MISCELLANEOUS AND TECHNICAL APPROPRIATIONS**

**CHAPTER 1**

**SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES**

**GENERAL PROVISIONS**

SEC. 2101. (a) Section 756 in Division A of Public Law 108-7 is amended
by striking "section 7404" and inserting in lieu thereof "sections 7404
(a)(1) and 7404(c)(1)".

\(b\) Section 7404 (e) Of Public Law 107-171 is amended by striking "0.1
percent of the amount of appropriations available to the Agriculture
Research Service" and inserting in lieu thereof "\$499,000 of the amount
of appropriations available to the Department of Agriculture".

*[Executive Summary]{.underline}*

####### RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Research, Education
and Economics Task Force, appointed by the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture in 2003 at the request of the U.S. Congress,
respectfully recommends the following:

-   The formation of a **National Institute for Food and Agriculture
    (NIFA)** within the USDA for the purpose of ensuring the
    technological superiority of American agriculture. The Institute
    should report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. It should be
    kept separate and managed differently from existing programs so as
    to develop its own culture and establish its own methods of
    operation.

-   The **mission** **of NIFA** should be to support the highest caliber
    of fundamental\* agricultural research in order to:

    -   increase the international competitiveness of American
        agriculture;

    -   develop foods that improve health and combat obesity;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   create new and more useful products from plants and animals;

-   improve food safety and food security by protecting American plants
    and

> animals from insects, diseases, and the threat of bioterrorism;

-   enhance agricultural sustainability and improve the environment;

-   strengthen the economies of the nation's rural communities;

-   decrease American dependence on foreign sources of petroleum by
    developing

> bio-based fuels and materials from plants; and

-   strengthen national security by improving the agricultural
    productivity of

> subsistence farmers in developing countries to combat hunger and the
>
> political instability it produces.

\*Fundamental research is research that addresses the frontiers of
knowledge, while it leads to practical

results and/or to further scientific discovery.

-   NIFA should accomplish its mission by awarding **competitive
    peer-reviewed grants** that support and promote the very highest
    caliber of fundamental agricultural research. The

> members of the Task Force define fundamental science as science that
> advances the
>
> frontiers of current knowledge so as to lead to practical results
> and/or further scientific
>
> discovery.

-   NIFA's mission should **supplement and enhance, not replace**, the
    existing research programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   NIFA should be a **grant-making agency** funding proposals submitted
    by both individual scientists and single and multi-institutional
    research centers.

-   **Mechanisms should be put into place** to assure that the science
    funded by NIFA is both of the highest scientific caliber and
    relevant to national needs and priorities. These mechanisms should
    include:

    -   Committees of Scientists who apply rigorous merit review to all
        proposals.

    -   A Standing Council of Advisers to assure the relevance and
        importance of the science NIFA funds.

-   The **Director of NIFA** should be a distinguished scientist
    appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the
    United States Senate. The Director should be assisted by a Senior
    Staff of highly accomplished scientists.

-   **Three offices of modest size** should be created to assist the
    Director and the Standing Council of Advisors. The offices should
    assure that NIFA-funded research is the most effective for and
    relevant to national needs and priorities. The offices are:

    -   An **Office of Assessment and Scientific Liaison,** which will
        monitor the effectiveness of NIFA's scientific expenditures and
        coordinate its research efforts with those of other public
        research programs in the life sciences.

    -   An **Office of Scientific Personnel,** which will work with
        scientific and agricultural experts to assess the adequacy of
        the numbers and qualifications of scientific personnel in
        agriculture and related fields and will make recommendations for
        training programs should any be necessary.

    -   An **Office of Advanced Science and Application,** which will
        match national needs to research advances in order to help
        facilitate solutions to issues of national importance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   NIFA's annual budget should build to **\$1 billion over a five-year
    period**.

When fully operational, management costs should be limited to 5 percent
of the total budget.

-   NIFA should be **located in Washington, DC** so that it is in close
    proximity to the headquarters of the nation's other publicly funded
    scientific agencies.

-   **NIFA should be independent of all existing management structures
    of the USDA**. By doing so, it will develop its own culture of
    scientific excellence and innovation.

-   Congress should **establish funding that is stable enough to support
    a sufficient number of well-conceived research projects** and give
    NIFA c**lear responsibility for overseeing and managing scientific
    and technical judgments**.

-   **Action** to adopt these recommendations should take place
    **without delay**.

*The full report of the Task Force follows.*

*[Introduction]{.underline}*

######### FIVE CONVICTIONS 

######### THAT UNDERLIE THIS REPORT 

**Five convictions underlie the primary recommendation of this report to
form the National Institute for Food and Agriculture. These convictions
served as guides to the USDA Research, Education and Economics Task
Force as we considered how best to meet the pressing needs of American
agriculture.**

1.  **American agriculture faces critical challenges.**

The Task Force believes there is an impending crisis in the food,
agricultural, and natural resource systems of the United States, which
are currently threatened on several fronts. For example, U.S. soybean
growers are no longer the world's lowest cost producers; exotic diseases
and pests threaten crops and livestock; obesity has reached epidemic
proportions; agriculturally related environmental degradation is a
serious problem for the United States and other parts of the world; and
certain animal diseases threaten human health.

2.  **Continual innovation in agriculture is the key to meeting these
    challenges.**

> The members of this Task Force agree with many Americans that our
> nation's future depends on our ability to innovate. Innovation -- in
> every field -- has been, and continues to be, essential to America's
> success in war and in peace.
>
> Agricultural innovation has served Americans well for generations. It
> has brought hybrid corn, higher yielding wheat, and the "Green
> Revolution" -- all of which enhanced the world's food supply by
> increasing yields on existing acres. Since 1960, the world's
> population has tripled with no net increase in the amount of land
> under cultivation. Currently, because of innovation, only 1.5 percent
> of the population of the United States provides the food and fiber on
> which the rest of us depend. With so few people now involved in
> agricultural production, it is not surprising that many of us overlook
> the central role agriculture plays in maintaining the health and
> welfare of all Americans and in husbanding our land and water so as to
> provide for our children and grandchildren. The question now is: How
> can we best ensure that the innovation, so important in our past,
> continues into the future?

**3. Fundamental scientific research is critical to continued innovation
in American agriculture.**

> Where will the next innovations in agriculture be generated? As in the
> past, many ideas for innovation will evolve from the farmer's
> experience, from the supplier's knowledge, and from the imagination of
> those who turn commodity crops into value-added products.
>
> However, many of the important innovations of the future -- those that
> are totally new, those that solve long-standing problems, and those
> that represent significant breakthroughs -- will come from a deepening
> understanding of how plants and animals reproduce, grow, and mature;
> how they produce nutrients; how they protect themselves against pests
> and diseases; how they utilize water, minerals, and nitrogen from the
> soil; how they interact with the environment, and how they can be
> beneficially modified. Fundamental agricultural research unearths
> these important understandings that can then be linked to the
> practical needs of all Americans. Continued scientific advances, some
> of which will be dependant on ideas and technologies from other
> fields, are necessary to build and replenish the knowledge base
> necessary for practical innovation. Just as modern irrigation draws on
> the water in aquifers, agricultural innovations draw on the well of
> fundamental scientific research.

**4. Opportunities to advance fundamental knowledge of benefit to
American agriculture have never been greater.**

> These expanded opportunities are the result of amazing progress in the
> life sciences over recent decades, thanks in large part to the
> generous support of the federal government through the National
> Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
> New technologies and new concepts have speeded advances in the fields
> of genetics, cell and molecular biology, and proteomics. The
> application of the physical sciences and engineering to the life
> sciences have opened new vistas. Without this reservoir of scientific
> knowledge and new research technologies, we could not make the
> recommendations contained in this report.
>
> Today, much scientific knowledge is ready to be mined for agriculture,
> and science continues to produce new knowledge at an increasing rate.
> Many advances in other life sciences will feed quickly into
> agricultural sciences because all living things share the same genetic
> code and many of the same biochemical processes.
>
> \[See Appendix 1 for our vision of the future of science-based
> agriculture.\]

**5. Publicly sponsored research will be necessary to take full
advantage of the opportunities.**

> The members of the Task Force believe that publicly sponsored research
> will be essential to continued agricultural innovation. Other nations
> recognize this fact, and are making significant investments using
> peer-review to assure that their science is high quality.[^1]
>
> Corporate research is valuable, but the success of American
> agriculture cannot depend only or primarily on corporate research any
> more than the health of Americans can depend only or primarily on the
> research of pharmaceutical companies. For-profit companies must, of
> necessity, focus their efforts on the development of products that
> will provide an adequate return on investment to keep the company
> viable and provide the resources for the development of yet newer
> products; therefore, American companies are not likely to devote
> significant research dollars to the study of the long-term effects of
> agriculture on the environment, the long-term sustainability of
> agriculture, or other matters of public health and welfare. These
> areas of investigation must depend on government-funded research for
> which, fortunately, there is strong public support. (See Figure 1.)

\[See Appendix 2 for a lengthier discussion of this topic.\]

*[Chapter 1]{.underline}*

**MODELS OF FEDERALLY SUPPORTED**

**LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH**

Realizing the need for change in American agricultural research, the
Task Force turned to existing, successful models for guidance. We chose
the NIH and NSF. Both institutions efficiently manage highly
competitive, merit-based, peer-reviewed grant programs that attract and
support the nation's leading scientists. Both encourage open competition
for grants, and both provide grants of sufficient size so that
outstanding scientists from a variety of disciplines are able to carry
out first-class research appropriate to the missions of the agencies.
Most important, the science supported by these two agencies has greatly
benefited the American people.

Modern life science research funded by the NIH and the NSF has provided
the United States and the world with a steady flow of practical
benefits, which is a major reason why these institutions are valuable as
models for NIFA. Their work has led to and continues to lead to
spectacular advances in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of human
disease, such as measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, German measles,
haemophilous influenza type b meningitis, and polio. Physicians can now
control and even cure some cancers, and we have seen dramatic
improvements in the treatment of mental illnesses and in the reduction
of cardiovascular disease. In addition, these federal agencies have
shown the capacity to evolve continuously to meet the new opportunities
and challenges that confront our society.

*[Chapter 2]{.underline}*

**THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE**

**FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (NIFA)**

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the creation of a National Institute for
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) in order to meet the challenges that face
our nation and our world. We propose an adequately funded NIFA that is
structured and managed so as to bring the most advanced modern life
sciences to bear on agriculture.

In the opinion of the Task Force, the creation of a National Institute
for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) that brings into the USDA a new culture
and new operating methods is essential to ensure the innovation in
agriculture needed to ensure our nation's successful future. The name we
recommend -- NIFA -- reflects the primary focus of the Institute:
Agriculture is more than food, but it is difficult to think of the two
separately.

The shape and functions of NIFA are described in the chapters that
follow.

*[Chapter 3]{.underline}*

**THE MISSION OF NIFA**

**RECOMMENDATION: The mission of NIFA should be to support
fundamental**[^2] **agricultural research of the highest caliber in
order to:**

-   Increase the international competitiveness of American agriculture.

-   Develop foods that improve health and combat obesity.

-   Create new and more useful products from plants and animals.

-   Improve food safety and food security by protecting American plants
    and animals from insects, diseases, and the threat of bioterrorism.

-   Enhance agricultural sustainability and improve the environment;

-   Strengthen the economies of our nation's rural communities.

-   Decrease American dependence on foreign sources of petroleum by
    developing bio-based fuels and materials from plants.

-   Strengthen national security by improving the agricultural
    productivity of subsistence farmers in developing countries to
    combat hunger and the international political instability it
    produces.

Each of these areas of research is discussed in the remainder of this
chapter.

**1.** **Increase the international competitiveness of American
agriculture.**

> Agriculture is critical to America's economic strength and balance of
> trade.

-   Farming contributed a total of 0.8 percent to the gross domestic
    product (GDP) in 2001. It further supported an additional 12 percent
    of GDP through food service production, provision, and trade.[^3]

-   Farming employs 1.2 percent of the civilian labor market, and
    supports almost an additional 16 percent through food service
    production, provision, and trade.

-   Agriculture commodities accounted for 5.3 percent (\$52.7 billion)
    of the nation's exports in 2001.[^4]

-   The overall U.S. balance of trade has been in deficit every year
    since 1976, yet the nation maintains a positive trade balance in
    agricultural goods. In 2000, the surplus amounted to \$12.6 billion,
    up from \$10.4 billion in 1999. New specialty products and less
    costly commodities are needed to maintain and further expand this
    advantage.

> American agriculture cannot stand still. As globalization increases,
> so does foreign competition. Inexpensive land and labor provide great
> advantages to many nations, some of which are investing in their own
> research. Low cost soybeans from Brazil, raisins from Chile and
> Turkey, fresh tomatoes from Mexico, apples and tomatoes from China,
> and many other crops from other lands threaten America's trade
> advantages.[^5]
>
> Every nation is working to make its farming more efficient and more
> productive and its agricultural products less expensive. Now and in
> the future, American farm products must be competitive both at home
> and in world markets. America requires highly productive agriculture
> that is well-suited to the nation's various regional climatic and soil
> conditions; that minimizes inputs of energy, water, fertilizers and
> pesticides; that is tolerant, as appropriate, to drought and heavy
> rain, to heat and cold; and that is easy to harvest. The assurance of
> food safety is also critical, as is the development of new specialty
> and value-added crops suitable for various regional growing
> conditions.
>
> A U.S. competitive advantage, once won, will not last because other
> nations will be moving forward as well. Science-based innovation in
> agriculture, therefore, must be constant, with new improvements added
> every year. To meet this challenge, agricultural research must satisfy
> three criteria: 1) It must be scientifically first-rate; 2) It must be
> open to the most innovative ideas; and 3) It must help meet national
> needs. Success will also require persistence because tomorrow's gains
> depend on today's investments; therefore, we must place high priority
> on both important long-term goals and urgent short-term needs.

**2. Develop foods that improve health and combat obesity.**

> In March 2003, Eric M. Bost, Undersecretary of Food, Nutrition and
> Consumer Services, testified that "Poor diets and sedentary lifestyles
> cost this nation dearly in medical costs, in lost productivity, and
> most sadly, in the premature death of over 300,000 citizens
> annually."[^6]
>
> In the last 25 years, obesity has increased markedly in industrialized
> and non-industrialized nations alike. In the United States,
> approximately 65 percent of adults and 15 percent of children and
> adolescents are overweight or obese. Obesity is particularly high in
> women of African-American, Mexican-American and Native American
> descent. It has been linked to a dramatic increase in type-2 diabetes
> as well as asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, and
> kidney disease. Obesity-associated health care costs account for
> approximately 7 percent of national expenditures.[^7] A recent
> report[^8] noted that in the United States, the number of
> obesity-related deaths is second only to tobacco-related deaths.
>
> Leading edge science can help improve the diets and eating habits of
> all Americans. Though research in these areas currently is sponsored
> by the USDA and NIH, NIFA can play an important role by learning how
> foods can be modified to suit the nutritional needs of the American
> public, both those who are healthy and those who are not. For example,
> by modifying fatty acid profiles[,]{.mark} the amount of fat contained
> in both meat and milk may be reduced.[^9]
>
> In the future, modified foods will help treat specific diseases, such
> as diabetes, and help protect people with genetic predispositions to
> certain other illnesses. An important goal is to create satisfying,
> non-allergenic, safe foods with minimal calories and maximum specified
> nutrients -- foods that would promote healthier, longer lives. The
> addition of macronutrients (e.g. protein) and micronutrients (e.g.
> vitamins and minerals) can lead to more nutritious foods, and by
> modifying the composition of meats, scientists may be able to lower
> fat content and increase the heart-healthy ratio of omega-3 to omega-6
> fatty acids. These are only a few ways agricultural science can
> improve the average American's diet.

**3. Create new and more useful products from plants and animals.**

> Many hopes for agriculture in the future, especially its economic
> aspects, rest on developing the ability to derive new and more useful
> bio-based products from plants and animals. In the past, agricultural
> advances have resulted largely from more efficient production methods
> using improved seeds coupled with inputs of fertilizers, pesticides,
> herbicides and water, which together have increased the quantity and
> lowered the cost of food at home and abroad.
>
> These advances, however, have also increased the financial pressure on
> most family farmers.[^10] For this reason, the importance of
> developing specialty and value-added agricultural products is widely
> recognized. The search is on for new and improved farm products and
> for more creative uses of both traditional and new products. The
> potential is great. Rick Tolman, President of the National Corn
> Growers Association, has said: "Anything that can be developed from
> petroleum can be developed from corn." The same is true for other
> cereals, grains, legumes and oilseeds. Products that are biodegradable
> and recyclable will also add value.
>
> A wide variety of innovative bio-based products from crop plants are
> currently under development. Ethanol production from corn has been
> highly publicized, but there is much other potential as well, such as
> producing low cost pharmaceuticals from plants, egg whites and milk.
> Scientists are doing early work on many other promising value-added
> products, including:

-   soybean-based biomaterials with desirable, rubber-like properties;

-   biodegradable products from corn, such as plastics, solvents and
    disposable foam for packaging, plates and other uses;

-   antibodies and other protein therapeutics produced in corn, tobacco
    and alfalfa for the treatment of human disease;

-   textiles made from corn and other plants that may be used in
    clothing,

> bedding, carpeting and automobile interiors;

-   new fluids developed from oil-seed crops that have excellent
    sun-protective qualities and many potential industrial uses; and

-   products with unique performance characteristics, such as sturdier
    cotton or harder or softer wood.

> Of the next generation of new drugs, more than half are likely to be
> biologicals. These medications are derived from human proteins in a
> process that is lengthy, complex and expensive. The drug industry has
> no quick or economical way to get these critical drugs from the
> microscope to the marketplace. The answer to these problems may come
> from chickens, however. Genetically modified chickens can produce
> human protein in their eggs. If such a process can be made
> commercially viable, biological medications could be produced less
> expensively and in higher volume.[^11]
>
> Innovative products such as these can provide important economic
> benefits to producers and bring new opportunities to small farmers.
> They also can serve as the basis for new regional industries in rural
> areas.

**4. Protect the health of agricultural workers, the general public,
farm animals and crops from natural causes and from terrorist attacks.**

> There are a number of important human health risks that can be
> understood and prevented through innovative agricultural research.
> Some of these risks are:

-   *Prostate Cancer in Farmers.* Farmers are at greater than normal
    risk of prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths
    among American men. The best current information links the incidence
    of prostate cancer in farmers to their use of methyl bromides as
    fumigants and to several widely used insecticides.[^12] Safer
    methods of farming and substitutes for potentially dangerous
    chemicals should be developed.

-   *Food-borne Illness.* The Centers for Disease Control estimate there
    are 76 million cases of sporadic food-borne illnesses in the United
    States each year. These illnesses annually result in 325,000
    hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Innovations flowing from research
    in fundamental agricultural science should significantly reduce the
    number of annual cases, and, therefore, lower the death rate from
    these illnesses.

-   *Antibiotic-resistant Pathogens.* The use of antibiotics in animal
    feed may be causing a significant increase in the number of
    antibiotic-resistant pathogens, which may pose a serious risk to
    human health.[^13] More study is needed to assess the level of
    antibiotic resistance, the risks involved, and what should be done
    about this issue.

-   *Prion Diseases:* Prion diseases, such as bovine spongiform
    encephalopathy (mad cow disease), are on the rise, yet their biology
    is little understood. Agricultural research can provide a wide body
    of scientific information that may help control these diseases and
    help prevent an emergency.

-   *Chemical Food Contaminants.* The effects of chemical contaminants
    in foods, which are of concern to many, are poorly understood and
    require significantly more research.

-   *Animal to Human Disease Transmission.* We need a better
    understanding of the ways disease passes from animals to humans and
    of the risks involved. Influenza, AIDS, SARS, "mad cow disease," and
    West Nile virus are only a few that require intense study.

> There are also significant risks to farm animals and crops:

-   *Foot and Mouth Disease:* Outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease have a
    significant economic impact. For instance, the disease cost the
    European Union \$10 billion in 2001 and it cost the Republic of
    China \$8 billion in 1997.

-   *Avian Flu:* In 2003, eight Asian countries experienced outbreaks of
    avian influenza, apparently spread to domestic livestock from wild
    waterfowl. The consequences were catastrophic. During the first
    three months of the outbreak, 100 million domestic poultry either
    died or were culled to contain the spread. In order to guard against
    epidemics in livestock, it is important to understand more about the
    disease and its reservoirs, how it is spread, and natural and
    induced resistances.

-   *Fungal Diseases of Plants:* Soybean rust is a pernicious fungal
    disease that is extraordinarily destructive. In past outbreaks,
    yield losses have ranged from 10 to 80 percent.[^14] Currently,
    soybean rust is not found in the United States, but its arrival here
    is only a matter of time because the disease, which is airborne,
    already has infected plants in parts of South America. At this time,
    there is only one containment facility in the United States
    authorized to conduct research with this fungus and the plants it
    infects. Considering the virulence of the fungus and the economic
    consequences of its arrival in the United States, it seems clear
    that additional research is needed and needed soon.

-   *Bioterrorism:* Many of the plant and animal diseases cited above
    could be used by bioterrorists against the United States. If we are
    to combat terrorism and protect our people and our food supply, we
    must invest in innovative agricultural research to learn more about
    how diseases spread and how the protective mechanisms of plants and
    animals can be enhanced.

**5. Enhance the environment.**

> The importance of agriculture to the environment cannot be overstated.
> American farmers and foresters own 75 percent of the nation's
> privately held land -- land that is both fragile and irreplaceable.
> Much has been done already. For example, agricultural science has made
> it possible to use no-till farming to help protect currently farmed
> land. New techniques have provided significant increases in yield that
> have enabled America to maintain open space, scenic beauty, wildlife
> habitats, national parks and recreational areas that otherwise would
> be needed for food production.
>
> However, challenges continue. Considered as a whole, agriculture, as
> currently practiced, is not sustainable.[^15] Agriculture uses 70
> percent of the nation's fresh water for irrigation, which drains
> rivers, lowers the water level in aquifers, and increases the mineral
> content of the soil. Fertilizers and insecticides pollute streams and
> rivers. Suburban development and new highways reduce the amount of
> land available for farming. Invasive exotic plants and animals with no
> natural enemies are threatening native populations in many parts of
> the country. And, beyond the farm, stocks of ocean fish are being
> depleted. Much needs to be done, and done quickly, to protect the
> environment.
>
> Other parts of the world also face significant challenges that will
> affect the United States sooner rather than later. To satisfy their
> need for food and fuel, farmers in underdeveloped countries are
> destroying tropical rainforests at an alarming rate. Population
> continues to grow in countries currently unable to feed their people.
> And, as economic standards rise in countries such as the People's
> Republic of China, their inhabitants are demanding better diets that
> include more meat. To satisfy this demand, a greater number of acres
> will be required to raise grain for animal feed, placing even more
> strain on the land. We view this trend as irreversible because nearly
> all
>
> humans will have meat in their diet if they can. Consequently, we must
> further increase the productivity of plants and animals through
> agricultural science in order to alleviate this pressure for land. As
> in the past, our greatest hope for the future will be human ingenuity
> informed by science.

Several examples of the kinds of environmental issues that might be
addressed follow:

-   developing a better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms
    underlying carbon sequestration, which can help reduce agricultural
    production of greenhouse gases and increase soil nutrient quality;

-   finding methods to reduce surface and ground water contamination by
    pathogens, and by phosphorus and nitrogen run-off from animal waste
    and fertilizers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   developing ways to control naturally exotic, invasive or noxious
    plants, insects and microbes to reduce the use of pesticides and
    herbicides; and

    -   enhancing current sustainable agriculture and aquaculture
        technologies.

**6. Strengthen the economies of rural communities.**

The United States has become increasingly urbanized and suburbanized.
This trend, which is likely to continue, and the changing economics of
agriculture threaten the economic health of rural communities whose
vitality is essential for those who live in them and for the nation as a
whole.

To reinvigorate our rural economies, agricultural science must develop
value-added farm products that enable American producers better to
compete in both American and world markets. Value-added, specialty crops
that are well adapted to local climatic conditions, friendly to the
environment and low cost can provide higher yields on existing acres and
a higher margin of profitability for rural communities. By growing
specialty crops for high value markets, farmers can take best advantage
of their specific geographic locations, and by using modern information
technology rural communities will be able to develop networks of
specialty crop centers. Finally, agricultural science also offers
opportunities for developing new forms of processing close to areas of
agricultural production.

**7. Decrease American dependence on foreign sources of petroleum by
developing**

**bio-based fuels and materials from plants.**

Currently the United States depends on petroleum imports for nearly 60
percent of its fuel needs. This undesirable situation combined with
increasing environmental concerns has created an urgent national need
for domestic energy sources that are clean, renewable and economical
enough to be used on a large scale.

For example, using ethanol and biodiesel fuels minimizes the release of
toxic substances into the air, including sulfur, carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide. Such fuels are produced from renewable resources, such
as corn and soybean oil; the crops used to produce them remove more
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than consumption of the fuel adds
back. Several studies have concluded that ethanol can provide about 24
percent more energy when it is burned than is used in its
production.[^16]

> Modern technology is reducing the cost of ethanol production and
> making it a more attractive, affordable fuel alternative. Ethanol
> production is nearly 30 percent more energy-efficient today than it
> was 20 years ago.[^17] Nonetheless, it is important to continue to
> increase the efficiency and lower the cost of ethanol production.

**8. Strengthen national security by improving the agricultural
productivity of**

**subsistence farmers in developing countries in order to combat hunger,
alleviate human misery, and reduce the political instability they
produce.**

Through its foreign policy, the United States has long encouraged
democracy on a world scale. But to be successful as democracies,
developing countries must first become self-sufficient in food
production so that they have a reliable source of adequate nutrition.
Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug often has referred to agriculture as "the
engine of change" for developing countries, asserting that the
establishment of a reliable, cost-effective agricultural base drives
social and economic development. Self-sufficiency in food is almost
always the only practical, effective answer to poverty and recurrent
hunger; subsistence societies do not have the money to import food, and
foreign food aid is always temporary.

> In addition to needing more food, people in developing countries need
> food higher in vitamins, minerals and other nutrients than traditional
> staples, like rice and cassava. Today, agricultural research is
> working to produce genetically modified crops that will provide
> greater quantities of these essential nutrients. Such advances will
> significantly improve the health of millions, particularly that of
> pregnant women, lactating mothers and their children.
>
> Research to increase yield per acre remains important to eliminate the
> need to cultivate marginal land, which will help to relieve some of
> the pressure on the rainforests. Currently, the tons per acre yield in
> Africa is only one sixth that of the United States. Research is also
> needed to alleviate other effects of intensive agriculture, such as
> soil salinization and the erosion of top soil. Still other research is
> focused on providing crops with natural resistance to insects and
> disease, which will reduce the use of chemicals and increase yields.
> For example, cassava seedlings, genetically engineered to resist
> cassava mosaic virus, are currently being field-tested in Kenya. The
> availability of these novel cassava plants may significantly increase
> yields throughout rural Africa and provide people with a more stable,
> environmentally sustainable food source.
>
> Unless agricultural research provides the developing world with seeds
> and technology that can be used locally to produce a steady, abundant
> supply of nutritious food, we can expect to see a significant increase
> in world hunger, retarded physical and intellectual growth, diseases,
> migrations, war and terrorism.

*[Chapter 4]{.underline}*

> **ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESS OF NIFA**
>
> **RECOMMENDATION: The Task Force recommends that NIFA have the
> following key elements that will differentiate it from other programs
> of the USDA and help ensure its success. Each is, in our view, an
> essential part of the whole.**

1.  **The Institute will focus on fundamental scientific research
    related to its mission.**

> We recommend that NIFA focus on fundamental research that will deepen
> understanding of life processes; thereby, helping to assure that the
> nation's needs are met. We also recommend that the Institute fund a
> wide variety of fundamental research projects in the life sciences
> that will forward its mission. The Institute's scientific findings
> should be public and freely available to all.
>
> In setting priorities, NIFA should, while keeping current needs in
> mind, maintain a long-term view. Most important research
> breakthroughs, such has hybrid corn and the "Green Revolution," were
> based on knowledge built over years of patient observation and
> experimentation. Similarly, the advances of future years will grow
> from the knowledge gained today and tomorrow.
>
> We envision NIFA as a source of fundamental research, which, when
> joined with the existing programs of the USDA, land grant
> institutions, farmers, agri-business, environmental organizations, and
> consumer groups, will greatly enhance the effectiveness and public
> benefit of agricultural research.

2.  **NIFA will be a grant-making agency only.**

> Scientists from any field, including those who work in federal, state
> or local government agencies, universities and colleges, research
> institutes, and others whose proposals would benefit agriculture, will
> be encouraged to apply for support from NIFA. NIFA will not support a
> research staff of its own.
>
> The recommendation that NIFA be a grant-making agency only is based,
> once again, on our model institutions, NIH and NSF. In 2002, about 85
> percent of the NIH research budget and about 90 percent of the NSF
> research budget was distributed to areas of highest priority on a
> competitive basis, while, in the same year, only 8.5 percent of USDA
> research dollars were allocated to the merit-review competitive
> process. By concentrating the majority of their research funds in the
> competitive grant-making area, NIH and NSF help ensure that the
> science they support is the best and most effective available.[^18]
> Fundamental agricultural research should be supported in the same way.
>
> NIFA's program of competitive grants will encourage the nation's most
> able scientists to submit research proposals designed to produce the
> fundamental knowledge needed to improve food and agriculture; only the
> best of those proposals will be funded. Once funded, each grant will
> be subjected to periodic review to assess an investigator's scientific
> progress. When the original grant expires, investigators will be
> required to submit renewal proposals, which will be judged against
> both new and renewal proposals from other scientists. As a result,
> NIFA will not be committed to any single project or group of people;
> instead, it will be able to terminate ineffective programs easily and
> reallocate its resources as the nation's needs evolve.
>
> By focusing solely on a competitive grant system that encourages
> fundamental research in the agricultural sciences, NIFA will augment
> the existing strengths of the USDA's in-house research. For instance,
> the USDA's experimental research stations, which are located in
> different parts of the country with different climatic and soil
> conditions, will be essential for turning NIFA-funded discoveries into
> practical applications. Also, Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
> staff will continue to collect and maintain valuable national
> resources, such as data bases and special genetic reservoirs.

**3. NIFA should be administratively separate and report directly to the
Secretary of**

**Agriculture.**

> NIFA should be administratively separate from the USDA's agency of
> Research, Education and Economics (REE). We consider this
> recommendation key to NIFA's success. What is needed is a totally new
> culture and a different approach to setting priorities and making
> decisions. The traditions of the USDA and its methods of managing are
> very well-established and have produced results in the past. Melding a
> new and different approach into existing programs seems to us an
> impossible task.

**4. The Director of NIFA will be a distinguished scientist appointed by
the President and**

> **confirmed by the Senate.**
>
> NIFA's Director should be a distinguished scientist who is trusted and
> respected by fellow scientists, by the administration, and by the
> Congress. NIFA's Director must have a broad and deep understanding of
> science, scientists, and the challenges facing the nation in food and
> agriculture. The Director of NIFA will report to the Secretary of
> Agriculture.
>
> Because we are recommending a new endeavor that must be created and
> nurtured with both vision and care, we believe the selection of the
> first director will be especially critical. We believe that a
> presidential appointment is important for attracting an individual of
> the highest caliber.
>
> We recommend that the director of NIFA serve for a single six-year
> term.

**5. The Director will be supported by a Senior Staff.**

> A staff of highly accomplished scientists will assist the Director.
> Senior staff members will be recruited from the active scientific
> community. Many of these scientists should have rotating appointments
> similar to the model used by NSF. Such a system assures a steady
> influx of program officers familiar with the latest and most advanced
> science.

**6.** **Standing Scientific Committees will assure high quality science
through rigorous merit review.**

> Standing committees of highly qualified non-federal scientists will be
> appointed for four-year staggered terms. *Ad hoc* reviewers will
> supplement the standing committees when grants are submitted that
> require specialized knowledge not represented on the regular
> committees. All proposals not passing scientific muster will be
> declined. All that do pass scientific review will
>
> receive a score based on scientific merit. The approved proposals
> along with their scores will then be passed on to the Council of
> Advisors for final review (see below). We recommend using only
> outstanding non-federal scientists on both the merit review committee
> and on the Council as part of the effort to create a new culture.
>
> NIFA's ability to fulfill its mission to pursue fundamental science of
> the highest caliber -- science with the potential to provide important
> benefits for our country -- depends on stringent merit review. For
> more on merit review, see Chapter 5.

**7.** **A Standing Council of Advisors will assure the relevance and
importance of the**

> **science.**
>
> Though merit review by highly qualified scientists is an essential
> part of a successful research program, merit review alone is not
> sufficient to guarantee the importance of the work for meeting
> national needs; therefore, the Task Force recommends that a Standing
> Council of Advisors, composed both of scientists and stakeholders, be
> formed to help NIFA set its research priorities and debate and judge
> the relevance of its programs. The Council will also review all
> proposals passed by the scientific committees to ensure that the needs
> of the nation are being met. This recommendation is modeled after the
> NIH Councils.
>
> The members of the Council should be highly qualified non-federal
> scientists and distinguished members of the American public, including
> representatives of farm organizations and industry, and persons
> knowledgeable about the environment, subsistence agriculture, energy,
> and human health and disease. We consider face-to-face meetings
> between scientists and stakeholders to be important to the success of
> NIFA. The Council will provide an important interface between
> scientists and stakeholders that will enable NIFA to link national
> goals and realistic scientific opportunities.
>
> We recommend that members of the Council be appointed to four-year
> staggered terms by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the advice and
> consent of NIFA's Director.

**8.** **By virtue of the informational needs that will be placed on the
Director and the**

> **Standing Council of Advisors, three offices of modest size should be
> formed to assist them. These offices will assure that the research
> NIFA funds is the most effective possible in both**

**the short- and long-term.**

> The three offices are:

-   **An Office of Advanced Science and Application, which will closely
    monitor both national needs and advances in research with the goal
    of identifying pressing problems for which solutions are
    realistically achievable by research.**

> This office is designed to bring creative talent together from diverse
> disciplines to bridge potential gaps between fundamental science and
> high-priority practical needs. Its purpose will be to recommend paths
> to bring existing fundamental research to bear on the most pressing
> problems. This office should be organized as follows:

-   It should employ a small, focused staff of rotating experts in
    science and agriculture.

-   Key staff should be drawn from the ranks of active scientists who
    should serve no more than three years in order to assure that NIFA
    benefits from a steady supply of fresh ideas and new scientific
    insights.

-   Work should focus on a limited number of the most urgent problems.
    When required, the Office will assemble intensive study groups who
    will work for a month or more on urgent problems.

-   The Office should make regular reports to the Director of NIFA and
    to the Standing Council of Advisors and, when appropriate, suggest
    new research priorities.

    -   **An Office of Scientific Assessment and Liaison, which will
        monitor the effectiveness of NIFA's scientific expenditures and
        oversee the coordination of its research efforts with those of
        other research programs in the life sciences.**

> The goal of this office will be to assess the effectiveness of NIFA
> programs from two standpoints: First, the quality of the science will
> be evaluated using such tools as are readily available; second, the
> Office will evaluate the contributions of NIFA to the national
> research effort including how it collaborates and cooperates with
> other federal agencies. This office will also encourage cooperative
> approaches among various research agencies.
>
> Since one scientist's work is highly interdependent on the work of
> other scientists, it makes sense to institutionalize this liaison
> function within NIFA instead of relying on *ad hoc* arrangements.

-   **An Office of Scientific Personnel, which will work with scientific
    and agricultural experts to assess the numbers of scientists in
    agriculture and related fields and establish the number that are
    needed.**

> This office will generate data that will assist the Director and the
> Standing Council of Advisors in planning appropriate NIFA fellowship
> and training programs.
>
> The Director of NIFA should have responsibility for ascertaining the
> manpower needs of agricultural research in the areas supported by NIFA
> and, if asked, for other areas of food and agricultural research as
> well. He or she should work with the Standing Council of Advisors to
> plan programs that meet the needs of the future. Portable fellowships
> and training grants to institutions, or a combination of the two,
> could supplement the manpower needs.

*[Chapter 5]{.underline}*

**THE ARGUMENT FOR MERIT REVIEW BY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS**

**RECOMMENDATION: NIFA's success depends on a reliable, well-established
system of soliciting proposals for grants and then submitting each one
to merit review by qualified scientists. All proposals, whether they are
submitted by individuals or institutions, should go through this
rigorous process.**

Merit review of broadly solicited proposals is essential to the success
of NIFA. The Task Force considers this process so important that we have
devoted this chapter to the concept. The goal is to assure that NIFA
receives proposals from any scientist with a promising idea, but funds
only those that pass the quality standards of competent scientists.

We recommend this approach because we believe that the U.S. government
should get the most for its expenditures. Decisions based on unexamined
impressions or personal relationships can lead to unhelpful science and
a waste of resources. We believe the government should support only that
science that has a good chance of forwarding the federal agenda. By
incorporating merit review as a key procedure, NIFA will provide the
nation with the best science for the investment.

In order to understand why we now call for a change, it is important to
explain why we believe agricultural science is managed so differently
from the science of the NIH and the NSF. Agricultural science is the
oldest of the federal scientific programs. It has a glorious history and
embedded traditions; it accounts for much of the innovation that has
supplied the American people with food that is safe, nutritious and
inexpensive. Agricultural science came of age when intelligent lay
people could understand how it worked and how it led to innovations and
improvements in farming. Partly because federal programs evolved in
cooperation with state programs, decision-making was concentrated in the
political arena. This method of decision-making was logical because
politicians and groups representing farmers understood traditional
agricultural science -- they knew what they needed and wanted.

Traditional agricultural science also differs from science conducted by
NIH and NSF because it is place-bound; that is, it differs from one
region to another. The needs of those who grow cotton are

not the same as those who grow blueberries or those who raise chickens.
Soil and climatic differences have determined the necessary research. So
that it might be useful and quickly put into practice, the research has
wisely been tied to extension programs. It made sense and still makes
sense for politicians to defend the science that they believe is needed
by their regions.

But the world changes. Importantly, the underlying science has evolved.
The fundamental life sciences on which so much of the future depends are
now more esoteric and further removed from the day-to-day experience of
lay people. Thus, while traditional agricultural sciences are still
necessary and important, the old methods of decision-making do not work
well with the new sciences involving genetics, cell and molecular
biology, and proteomics. These sciences are difficult to master. The lay
person, even if exceptionally intelligent, can no longer judge the value
of specific lines of research. Only scientists in similar or related
fields can know whether the science is or is not likely to yield any
useful answers. Nor are the fundamental sciences place-bound. The
practical applications may be, but the underlying science is not. For
example, understandings developed from a simple model plant such as
Arabidopsis can be quickly applied to major food crops.

It is for these reasons that the traditional methods of managing and
making decisions about agricultural sciences are not well-suited for
handling the newer life sciences, such as plant and animal molecular
biology. They are better handled by the wide solicitation of proposals
that are then submitted to scientific review as outlined in earlier
chapters.

*[Chapter 6]{.underline}*

**NIFA'S ROLE IN THE**

**FEDERAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE**

> **RECOMMENDATION: NIFA should operate as a key part of the federal
> research enterprise conceived as a whole. More specifically it should
> supplement and enhance, not replace, the existing programs of the U.
> S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, and the
> National Institutes of Health.**

As we envision it, NIFA will operate as a key part of the federal
research enterprise, conceived as a whole. Though it will be
independent, NIFA will be complementary to all current federal research
programs, in particular the USDA (for example, the Agriculture Research
Service; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; the Economic Research
Service; the Food Safety and Inspection Service; the National
Agricultural Statistics Service; and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service), to help provide the fundamental science necessary for their
work. In addition, NIFA will complement and augment the important work
of the Biological Sciences Directorate of the NSF that is responsible
for understanding the genomes of plants and microorganisms; the NIH that
is concerned with overall human health, including food and nutrition;
the Department of Energy that is interested in improved methods for
producing fuels and other new bio-based products; the Centers for
Disease Control that are involved in food safety; the Department of
Homeland Security that is charged with defending our food supply against
terrorist attacks; the Environmental Protection Agency that looks out
for the environment; the United States Agency for International
Development that addresses ways to reduce hunger and malnutrition in
developing countries; and the Department of Commerce that works to
improve foreign trade. It is important to note that none of these
agencies can do an effective job without a constant flow of information
and new ideas from research in food and agriculture. Similarly,
agricultural research cannot proceed apace without benefiting from the
work of other fields and agencies.

NIFA will play an important role in protecting the nation's health,
economy and environment. It will provide the fundamental science base
needed to serve farmers, consumers, environmentalists, and those
concerned with the nation's economy and foreign policy. Its closest
scientific relationship will likely be with the programs of the USDA,
the NIH, and the NSF, but NIFA should also avail itself of the
opportunities for collaborative work with other agencies as well.

We recommend this new Institute with full awareness of the USDA's
significant past and present contributions to American agriculture. U.S.
achievements in agricultural productivity have been called the "Miracle
of American Agriculture."[^19] It has been estimated that every dollar
invested in agricultural research returned \$3.50 to the American
economy within a decade.[^20] For reasons such as these, the USDA should
maintain its broad-based responsibility for managing the essential
infrastructure of American agriculture.

Nonetheless, new challenges mentioned earlier and new opportunities
arising from advances in the life sciences require new approaches.
Federal and state governments have historically accepted the
responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure necessary to sustain
vital agricultural productivity. These investments have for decades
included public support for USDA research, as well as for the Land Grant
system of Colleges and Universities. Now is the time to add a new,
modern element so as to improve upon past successes while addressing the
challenges of the present and the future.

> More specifically, NIFA will interrelate with the USDA, the life
> science components of the NSF, and the NIH in the following ways:

-   **USDA**

> Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists, who are employees of
> the USDA, conduct both fundamental and applied research. Because NIFA
> will not perform research in-house and because all its funds will be
> used for fundamental research via a competitive review process, ARS
> scientists who perform fundamental research will be able to submit
> proposals to NIFA for funding, along with scientists from other
> organizations.
>
> In this way, NIFA will enhance the work of ARS by providing ARS
> scientists with an opportunity for additional funding, and by
> expanding the knowledge base on which they draw.
>
> Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
> programs of the USDA fund research conducted by non-USDA scientists.
> Most of the research funded by CSREES is oriented more toward the
> achievement of practical results rather than the pursuit of
> fundamental knowledge; therefore, the objectives of CSREES and NIFA do
> not conflict.
>
> The program within CSREES that most resembles NIFA is the National
> Research Initiative (NRI), which receives and distributes only about
> 8.5 percent of the total USDA research budget. Historically, NRI
> grants have been small in number and in dollars per grant. In
> addition, overhead reimbursement to institutions that receive NRI
> grants is so low that many institutional leaders discourage their
> scientists from applying for them. As a result, many scientists
> interested in agriculture prefer projects that receive funding from
> NIH or NSF. Moreover, NRI does not have a Standing Council of Advisors
> that includes stakeholders and scientists, nor does it have the
> specific responsibility of relating fundamental research to practical
> needs.
>
> It is important to note that NIFA cannot and will not replace the work
> carried out by ARS scientists across the nation nor will it duplicate
> the practical research and extension programs of land grant
> institutions. While NIFA will address issues that are basic to all
> plants and animals, it will not duplicate nor replace such ARS work as
> adapting fundamental discoveries to regional conditions, taking into
> account soil quality, climate, and the availability of water.
> Therefore, by providing additional support for fundamental research
> related to agriculture, NIFA will enhance current and future USDA
> research.

-   **NSF**

> The NSF funds research in science and engineering. It has a very
> strong program in plant science that includes work on plant genomes.
> NIFA would not duplicate this work.
>
> Rather, NIFA will fund other fundamental research that is relevant to
> the needs of agriculture -- a focus that will result in different, but
> complementary, priorities for the two organizations. While NSF works
> to learn more about the basic science of plants, NIFA will work to
> learn more about plants and animals as they relate to agriculture.
> Research funded by NIFA will complement the science funded by NSF and
> make that research more relevant to agriculture. The NIH and the
> Biological Sciences Directorate of the NSF -- two agencies whose work
> has complemented each other very well -- divide their research
> priorities in a similar way.

-   **NIH**

> The NIH funds fundamental and applied research related to health. NIFA
> will fund fundamental research related to agriculture, and ARS and
> university scientists will apply the results of NIFA research to
> create practical agricultural advances.
>
> Despite this division of responsibilities, there are many
> opportunities for joint or collaborative work between NIFA and NIH
> scientists on important health issues, including obesity, diabetes,
> animal to human transmission of diseases, food safety, and special
> diets for individual health needs. Because both concentrate on the
> life sciences, there are many opportunities for cross-fertilization,
> such as the exchange of information concerning the methods various
> pathogens use to infect plants, farm animals and humans.

*[Chapter 7]{.underline}*

**THE BUDGET**

**RECOMMENDATION: NIFA's budget should build to approximately \$1
billion over a**

**five-year period.**

NIFA's budget is designed to accomplish the following goals:

-   To provide sufficient funds over a long enough period of time to
    accomplish important work that helps address and solve a variety of
    challenges discussed elsewhere in this report.

-   To encourage outstanding scientific talent, wherever that talent may
    be, to work on issues important to agriculture.

-   To adequately reimburse grant-receiving institutions for their costs
    so that deans and presidents will encourage scientists to pursue
    agriculturally related research.

To achieve these goals, we recommend that there be:

-   Project Grants (Grants awarded to one or more principal
    investigators)

    -   NIFA should award 1,000 research project grants annually. This
        number should be sufficient to attract the attention of the
        scientific community and to add significantly to the number of
        scientists engaged in agricultural research.

    -   The average grant size, including overhead, should be \$225,000
        per grant year. These grants would be larger than those awarded
        by NSF, but not so large as those awarded by NIH. We believe the
        recommended average size of a NIFA grant will be sufficient to
        attract qualified scientists and to fund important work.

    -   NIFA grants should be awarded for a maximum of five years, with
        an average award duration of 3.5 years. Appropriate annual
        reports should be required for each award. Training grants will
        be provided as the need arises.

-   Multi-disciplinary Research Center Grants (Grants awarded to a
    number of collaborating investigators)

    -   Beginning in Year Two, NIFA should award 10 research center
        grants until there are a total of 40 funded research centers.
        These centers may be single or multi-institutional.

    -   Research center awards should average \$3 million annually for
        five years.

    -   Assuming there are adequate proposals, research center grants
        should represent about 15 percent of NIFA's total research
        dollars. Merit review by qualified experts will insure that only
        quality proposals are funded.

    -   Research center grants from NIFA should fund coordinated
        cross-disciplinary research programs, an approach NIH and NSF
        have found very useful in advancing science.

-   Indirect Costs (Overhead)

    -   The overhead paid to institutions as part of a NIFA grant should
        be the same as the standard negotiated rates that now apply to
        NIH and NSF grants rather than the current artificially low
        rates associated with USDA research grants.

-   NIFA Management Costs

    -   We assume that NIFA's management costs will represent 5 percent
        of the total budget when the Institute is fully operational.
        This is the same percentage as NSF.

    -   We assume that the management costs will be a higher percent of
        the total budget in the early years.

Though actual budgets need to be worked out with great care, and
defended, we have provided budget estimates below that would fund a
strong NIFA:

**[Model Budget Year 1]{.underline}**

Project Grants: \$225 million

Management Costs: 20 million

**TOTAL: \$245 million**

**[Model Budget Year 2]{.underline}**

Project Grants: \$450 million

Center Grants 30 million

Management Costs: 35 million

**TOTAL: \$515 million**

**[Model Budget Year 3]{.underline}**

Project Grants: \$675 million

Center Grants 60 million

Management Costs: 45 million

**TOTAL: \$780 million**

**[Model Budget Year 4]{.underline}**

Project Grants: \$800 million

Center Grants 90 million

Management Costs: 45 million

**TOTAL: \$935 million**

## [Model Budget Year 5]{.underline}

Project Grants: \$800 million

Center Grants: 120 million

Management Costs: 46 million

**TOTAL: \$966 million**

[Notes: History and Comparative Data]{.underline}

Appendix 3, which compares the size of USDA grants to those of NIH and
NSF, demonstrates why agricultural research has not attracted enough
leading scientists from outside the USDA. Appendix 3 also shows that
growth in research funding available to the USDA has lagged behind the
growth of all other federal non-defense research and development over a
20-year period (0.7 percent average annual growth compared to 2.75
percent.) Comparisons with other agencies are also shown.

*[Chapter 8]{.underline}*

**LEGISLATIVE**

**RECOMMENDATIONS**

**RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the creation of NIFA. Its working
relationship with Congress should be similar to that of the NIH and NSF.
To establish credibility with Congress, NIFA will have a new approach to
setting priorities and making decisions with the goal of ensuring
scientific and programmatic excellence.**

-   **NIFA should have independence within the USDA so that it can
    establish its own culture of scientific excellence and innovation.**

-   **If NIFA is to succeed, Congress must provide new funding that is
    stable enough to support well-conceived research projects; moreover,
    Congress must give NIFA clear responsibility for overseeing and
    managing scientific judgments.**

The above recommendation is made with the following points in mind:

1\. Managing and funding modern biological research is a very different
job from managing and funding traditional agricultural programs and
research.

> To be effective, management and funding of fundamental research
> requires a different kind of partnership with the science community
> than that which has worked for traditional agricultural research.
> Funding decisions concerning NIFA must take the assessments of
> knowledgeable scientists into account, not to set governmental policy
> but to judge the value of science and to weed out applications that
> are neither scientifically sound nor of high enough scientific
> quality. In more traditional areas of agricultural research funding,
> regional needs and priorities are well understood and logically affect
> legislation. On the other hand, fundamental research, by its very
> nature, serves the nation as a whole and provides the knowledge base
> for solving agricultural issues in general, and, therefore, requires a
> different approach to scientific decision-making.

**2.** **History warns that the necessary changes will not be easy.
Competitive, merit-review grants open to all have not fared well in the
agriculture appropriations sub-committees despite past recommendations,
yet these types of grants have been shown by both NIH and NSF to be the
most effective way of attracting American scientists to important fields
of study.**

> Since 1972, numerous reports by the National Research Council have
> recommended ways to restructure agricultural research for the modern
> era (See Chapter 9 and Appendix 4), yet these
>
> reports have had little impact. The traditions of funding agricultural
> research are well established. Innovations, such as the National
> Research Initiative, have not been funded with sufficient resources to
> do the necessary job. In addition, NRI grants have been hampered by
> limitations on the size and length of grants and by artificially low
> overhead allowances.

3.  **There are two important keys to the success of NIFA: A new and
    stable funding stream and a relationship of trust with Congress so
    that scientists decide scientific matters.**

> To achieve these goals, new funding should come through an
> appropriations subcommittee, such as the one that funds the VA, HUD
> and independent agencies, because of that group's experience in
> handling a major research agency, or through the Agricultural
> Appropriations Subcommittee if the members wish to embrace a new
> approach to supporting science.

*[Chapter 9]{.underline}*

**WHY A NEW INSTITUTE**

**IS NECESSARY NOW**

For decades the United States has led the world in agricultural
innovations and in agricultural production, thanks in large part to the
leadership of the USDA. Yet, as noted in earlier chapters, American
agriculture must now surmount many new challenges, for example,
increasingly efficient foreign producers, rising concerns about food
safety, the need to preserve the environment, American dependence on
foreign sources of petroleum, and other concerns described earlier.
Fortunately, today's challenges can be met by applying fundamental life
science to agriculture.

This Task Force concludes, along with a number of experts we consulted
and with the prior groups that have examined this issue, that America is
not optimally exploiting current scientific opportunities to speed
agricultural innovation. It is not hard to describe what should be done
to develop the necessary scientific base, for in similar life science
arenas, the NIH and the NSF have already shown the way. We need to
develop a well-financed program, invite the nation's leading scientific
talent to propose research that will address important agriculturally
related issues, and, finally, select the best proposals for funding by
relying on competitive scientific and programmatic review.

Unfortunately, despite the recommendations of very good reports dating
back to 1972, there has been little change in the pattern of
Congressional funding or the USDA's management of agricultural research.
For example, our recommendations track closely an important
recommendation from the 1972 report: (See also Appendix 4.)

> "Recommendation
>
> [That the USDA seek a greatly increased level of appropriations for a
> competitive grants program, which should include support of basic
> research in the sciences...that underpin the USDA mission...\[Grants\]
> should be available to scientists in the USDA, in land-grant and non
> land-grant public universities or colleges and in private universities
> or colleges, institutes, and other agencies. The Committee recommends
> that this program be administered in such a way that research
> proposals are subjected to evaluation by peer panels of selected
> scientists...and that the administration should not be the same as
> that making allocations for USDA in-house research]{.underline}"
> (1972: p.49). Emphasis in the original.

Due in part to subsequent inaction, there has been a loss of confidence
in the research sponsored by the USDA. A majority of those with whom we
have consulted believe that the monies appropriated for agricultural
research have not been spent as well as they should be. Whether one
thinks these views are valid or not, the results are evident.
Appropriations for agricultural research have grown little in constant
dollars in the last 20 years despite the increase in both need and in
opportunity. In turn, low levels of funding have delayed scientific
progress and further eroded the reputation of agricultural research.

Yet, the need for fundamental research grows every day. Opportunities
for progress have been lost. America cannot wait to be surpassed by
other countries that use less expensive labor to make effective use of
past American innovations, to deplete our supplies of fresh water, or be
struck by bioterrorism.

More than 30 years have passed since the 1972 report. We are alarmed
that so little progress has been made. We are convinced that -- for the
good of the nation -- action must be taken now. We have faith that
America's response will be appropriate.

**[Figure 1]{.underline}**

**Public Support for Basic Research**

Even if it brings no immediate benefits, basic science research, which
advances the frontiers of knowledge, is necessary and should be
supported by the federal government.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.09375in" height="4.081944444444445in"}

Source: "Taking our Pulse: The Parade/Research!America Health Poll"
conducted by Charlton Research Company, 2004

**[APPENDIX 1: Vision Statement]{.underline}**

If the United States is to meet the current and future challenges of
agricultural research, the agriculture of 2024 must be vastly different
from today. We envision that higher productivity per acre will have
lowered costs and improved American competitiveness, while, at the same
time, agricultural incursions into forests, wetlands and outdoor
recreational space will have been lessened. A steady flow of innovations
will have provided American farmers and consumers with new and
specialized products designed to be competitive in the marketplace.
Rural areas will have had opportunities to create jobs and capture
economic gains from these new products. Americans will be eating more
nutritious foods with higher quality proteins and vitamins, and special
foods will be available for individualized needs. Collaboration between
agricultural and medical scientists will have contributed to reduced
obesity through the development of satisfying foods that have fewer
calories. The food supply will be much safer than it is today, with
effective vigilance against bioterrorism.

There will be new strategies to increase resistance to disease in plants
and animals, and a deeper understanding of how to prevent transmission
of disease from animals to humans. New bio-based products will have been
developed from plants and animals, including new renewable fibers with
differing desirable qualities, low-cost pharmaceuticals and vaccines,
and fuels from biomass that bring the hope for "green energy" to life.
Great advances will have been made toward the production of hydrogen
from sunlight. The environment will be enhanced by limiting water,
pesticide and fertilizer inputs. Agriculture will be more sustainable,
and it will no longer drain aquifers, deplete the topsoil, or pollute
rivers and oceans. The nation will be well on the way to using renewable
resources in ways that can be sustained generation after generation.
Finally, new and improved crops will be available to combat hunger in
developing nations.

We believe that our vision is realistically obtainable. It will succeed
by attracting the most creative scientific minds to agricultural
research that are necessary for creating the knowledge to improve
agriculture. Because agriculture is a life science, all of the work
already accomplished in understanding the biology of viruses, bacteria,
animals and humans is relevant and can be applied to agricultural
research.

While we are hopeful and optimistic, we are also very aware of the
challenges facing American agriculture and all Americans if nothing is
done. We fear that maintaining the *status quo* will result in a loss of
competitiveness for American agricultural products in the national and
international marketplaces, a continuing erosion of our environment, and
a food supply that will be increasingly at risk.

**[APPENDIX 2: Public and Private Funding of Agricultural Research and
Development]{.underline}**

An understanding of the responsibilities of the federal government, the
states and the private sector in performing and funding agricultural R&D
is important. These issues are presented in a thoughtful and helpful way
in a paper by Keith Foglie, *et al,* for the Economic Research Service
of the USDA. (AER-735)

Briefly, private R&D is commercially oriented. Companies, which must
hold down costs, concentrate R&D funds on research that is likely to
result in sales and profits, preferably on research that will lead to
intellectual property that can be protected by patents. They are little
interested in research that will benefit their competitors. For example,
more than 40 percent of private agricultural R&D budgets is invested in
product development, compared with less than 7 percent in public
agricultural research. (AER-735) The directions of agricultural research
performed by industry are shown in Figure 1.

# *[Industry, federal and state funding for agricultural research]{.underline}*

The traditional role of the federal government has been to support
research that would not normally be funded by private industry because:

1.  The knowledge produced is available to all and, therefore, is not
    proprietary, or

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  The new knowledge is in areas that have no profit potential, such as
    deeper understanding of environmental impact and more nutritious
    crops for subsistence farmers, or

2.  The time and effort needed to develop new knowledge is too long for
    the time horizon of a commercial venture.

In general, most fundamental research falls into one or more of these
categories.

The states, which have long partnered with the federal government in
support of agricultural research, have incentives to invest in research
that will benefit producers of that state. This type of research tends
to be more downstream and applied rather than fundamental. Consequently,
there are appropriate roles for all three historic partners.

Figure 2 (from AER-735) shows the flow of funds in the three sectors in
1992.

# *[Trends in funding agriculture R&D]{.underline}*

In recent years, public funding has been decreasing in constant dollars
as a result of lack of growth in federal funds and tight state budgets.
Private funding has grown dramatically, and by 1997 it outpaced public
funding by \$1.3 billion (\$4.5 billion versus \$3.2 billion). See "The
Seed Industry in US Agriculture" by Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, USDA/ERS,
Jan 2004. As a comparison, the USDA spent only \$1.74 billion in 1997.

# *[Comparison with health R&D]{.underline}*

We believe that there are parallels between agriculture research
conducted by the USDA and agri-business, and health research, conducted
by NIH and the pharmaceutical companies. In both cases, government and
corporate research function best when each plays a different, but
synergistic, role.

According to a news release issued by the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturer's Association (PhRMA), its member companies invested an
estimated \$33.2 billion "in discovering and developing new medicines"
in 2003. That same year, the NIH spent over \$23 billion. Data on state
expenditures are not available. One can calculate from the above
information, however, that the percentage of federal to private
expenditures in health is 0.69, while in agriculture, it is only 0.39.
We argue that the science and the use of science is similar in the
health and agricultural fields and should be funded similarly.

> **[Figure 2]{.underline}**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.09375in" height="4.159722222222222in"}

Source: Economic Research Service. Data derived from Klotz, Fuglie, and
Pray (1995).

**[Figure 3]{.underline}**

**Sources and flows of funding for agricultural research in 1992**

^1^ Includes research by Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service,
Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Library.

^2^ SAES's are State agricultural experiment stations; coop. instit.
include the 1890 schools, forestry schools and veterinary schools.

> Sources: Economic Research Service. Data for Federal and State
> research expenditures derived from the USDA, Inventory of Current
> Research; data for private sector/industry research expenditures
> estimated from Klotz, Fuglie and Pray (1995).

**[APPENDIX 3: Comparative Information]{.underline}**

1.  For 20 years, the research budget of the USDA has:

    a.  Lagged behind the research budgets of NIH, NSF and NASA. Figure
        1 shows the cumulative growth of R&D funding for the four
        agencies.

    b.  Lagged behind the growth of all federal non-defense research and
        development. See Figure 2.

    c.  Barely kept ahead of inflation during a time when both
        opportunities and challenges have grown dramatically. Since
        1983, the average annual increase (based on constant 2000
        dollars) at each agency has been:

> NIH: 5.73%
>
> NASA: 3.17%
>
> NSF: 2.43%
>
> USDA: 0.70%
>
> Non-Defense R&D overall: 2.75%

2.  Individual grants through USDA are small compared with other federal
    grants (Table 1), a situation that discourages scientists from
    applying and prompts them to do research that can be funded by NIH
    or NSF. As a result, excellent scientists are enticed away from
    problems of special interest to agriculture.

3.  Low overhead reimbursement makes the grants expensive to the
    scientists' institutions, causing many institutional leaders to
    discourage their scientists from applying to USDA, thus making it
    less likely that the research will be performed by our best and
    brightest scientists.

**[Figure 4]{.underline}**

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.580555555555556in"
height="4.508333333333334in"}

**[Figure 5]{.underline}**

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.122916666666667in"
height="4.072222222222222in"}

**[Table 1: FY 2001 Competitive Grant Awards -- NIH, NSF &
USDA]{.underline}**

+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Agency               | Total | Num | Av    | A   | A      | M     |
|                      | Award | ber | erage | ver | verage | edian |
|                      | Spe   | of  | Total | age | Annual | A     |
|                      | nding | Awa | Grant | Du  | Award  | nnual |
|                      |       | rds | Awa   | rat |        | A     |
|                      | (Mill |     | rd^1^ | ion |        | mount |
|                      | ions) |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| NIH                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Competitive External | \$16, | 46, | \     | 3   | \$3    | na    |
| Grants               | 784.7 | 845 | $1,28 | .60 | 58,303 |       |
|                      |       |     | 9,890 | yrs |        |       |
| (all types)          |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Research Projects -- | \$8,  | 26, | unk   | unk | \$3    | na    |
| type R01             | 092.6 | 173 |       |     | 09,196 |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| NSF                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Competitive Grant    | \$3,  | 20, | \$32  | 2.9 | \$1    | \$8   |
| Awards               | 342.6 | 932 | 9,443 | yrs | 13,601 | 4,612 |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Division: Biological | \$    | 3,  | \$44  | 3.1 | \$1    | \$10  |
| Sciences             | 486.0 | 456 | 3,923 | yrs | 43,201 | 8,333 |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| USDA -- CSREES       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| National Research    | \     | 597 | \$18  | 2.4 | \$     | na    |
| Initiative           | $97.4 |     | 8,116 | yrs | 78,382 |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Program: Animals     | \     | 90  | \$21  | 2.5 | \$     | \$8   |
|                      | $19.5 |     | 6,564 | yrs | 87,994 | 6,000 |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Program: Plants      | \     | 69  | \$15  | 2.2 | \$     | \$7   |
|                      | $10.5 |     | 1,987 | yrs | 74,168 | 0,461 |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| [Higher and Longer   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Term                 |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Awards]{.underline}  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| NSF                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Special Competition  | \$    | 85  | \     | 3.5 | \$4    | \$24  |
| Awards               | 137.2 |     | $1,61 | yrs | 61,053 | 3,877 |
|                      |       |     | 3,686 |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| USDA^2^              |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Initiative for       | \$    | 98  | \     | 2.9 | \$4    | \$31  |
| Future Agriculture & | 115.4 |     | $1,17 | yrs | 05,891 | 4,138 |
| Food Systems         |       |     | 7,084 |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Notes:               |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| ^1^ This figure is   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| derived from the     |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| data listed in the   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| reports cited below. |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| For NIH and NSF, it  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| is the Average       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Annual Award times   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| the Average          |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Duration. The USDA   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| *NRI Annual Report*  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| provides the NRI's   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| average award; the   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| program averages     |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| were calculated      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| based on the         |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| abstracts of funded  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| research.            |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| ^2^ The IFAFS        |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| program was created  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| in 1998 to examine   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| critical emerging    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| agricultural issues  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| such as: future food |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| production, food     |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| safety,              |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| environmental        |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| quality, natural     |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| resource management, |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| and farm income. The |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| program's funding    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| has been blocked by  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| the House            |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Appropriations       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Committee since      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| 2001. As a result,   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| USDA is no longer    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| accepting proposals  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| under this program.  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+
| Sources:             |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| [NIH]{.underline}    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Total Award Spending |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| (total cost          |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| obligations), Number |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| of Awards:           |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <http://grants1.n    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| ih.gov/grants/award/ |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| trends/fund9202.htm> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Average Total Cost:  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| http://              |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| grants1.nih.gov/gran |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| ts/award/trends/avga |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| wdsrgcurrcon9702.htm |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Average duration:    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <http://grants1.nih  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| .gov/grants/award/re |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| search/avglen01.htm> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| [NSF]{.underline}    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Competitive Grant    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Awards: Summary of   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| FY 2003 Budget       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Request to Congress  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| (contains revised    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| figures for FY       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| 2001).               |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <ht                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| tp://www.nsf.gov/bfa |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| /bud/fy2003/profile> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Division of          |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Biological Sciences: |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Summary of FY 2003   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Budget Request to    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Congress (contains   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| revised figures for  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| FY 2001)             |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <http:/              |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| /www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| /fy2003/nar_bio.htm> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Special Competition  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Awards: FY 2001      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Abstracts of Funded  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Awards, available    |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| at:                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <http://www.ns       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| f.gov/bio/award.htm> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| [USDA]{.underline}   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| NRI: FY2001 Annual   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Report, and FY 2001  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Abstracts, available |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| at:                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <http://www.r        |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| eeusda.gov/nri/pubs/ |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| annreport/2001.pdf>; |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <h                   |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| ttp://www.reeusda.go |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| v/nri/pubs/abstracts |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| /programlinks01.htm> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
|                      |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| IFAFS: FY 2001       |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| Abstracts, available |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| at:                  |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| <http://www          |       |     |       |     |        |       |
| .reeusda.gov/ifafs/> |       |     |       |     |        |       |
+----------------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+--------+-------+

**[Table 2: Total R&D by Agency, 1973-2003]{.underline}**

**(Constant 2000 Dollars in Billions)**

  -------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------- -------------------
  [Year]{.underline}   [NIH]{.underline}   [NSF]{.underline}   [USDA]{.underline}   [NASA]{.underline}   [DOE]{.underline}   [DOD]{.underline}

  1976                 7.35                2.17                1.68                 11.46                9.96                32.69

  1977                 7.64                2.23                1.67                 11.68                12.78               35.32

  1978                 8.14                2.26                1.81                 11.57                14.48               34.22

  1979                 8.48                2.21                1.88                 12.00                14.32               34.10

  1980                 8.11                2.15                1.68                 12.34                13.57               32.99

  1981                 7.64                2.05                1.75                 11.83                13.18               37.18

  1982                 7.44                1.96                1.67                 9.23                 10.88               41.95

  1983                 7.87                2.06                1.72                 5.31                 10.03               45.97

  1984                 8.44                2.28                1.78                 5.46                 10.29               50.98

  1985                 9.13                2.46                1.74                 6.17                 10.36               55.42

  1986                 9.02                2.33                1.60                 6.21                 9.23                58.33

  1987                 10.26               2.45                1.75                 6.94                 8.69                59.51

  1988                 10.50               2.41                1.70                 7.11                 8.83                57.85

  1989                 10.82               2.52                1.63                 8.48                 8.96                55.27

  1990                 11.05               2.36                1.67                 9.69                 9.52                51.59

  1991                 11.89               2.51                1.84                 10.76                9.72                49.28

  1992                 12.43               2.55                1.96                 11.04                10.51               48.81

  1993                 12.49               2.54                1.85                 11.13                9.40                49.05

  1994                 12.76               2.73                1.86                 11.46                8.25                43.25

  1995                 12.74               2.84                1.76                 11.19                7.59                41.83

  1996                 13.16               2.76                1.71                 10.87                7.23                41.22

  1997                 13.62               2.70                1.74                 10.43                6.93                41.51

  1998                 14.05               2.68                1.67                 10.45                6.81                40.27

  1999                 15.48               2.76                1.70                 10.03                7.19                40.13

  2000                 17.23               2.93                1.78                 9.49                 6.96                39.96

  2001                 18.86               3.16                2.08                 9.42                 7.37                40.71

  2002                 21.15               3.27                2.17                 9.49                 7.76                46.05

  2003                 23.58               3.25                1.89                 9.52                 7.42                48.87
  -------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------- -------------------

> Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
> Reports I -- XXVI, based on OMB and agency budget data as reported in
> National Research Council 2003, Table F-2; deflator F-11

**[APPENDIX 4: A Summary of Past Reports]{.underline}**

A large number of prior reports have underscored the importance of
research in agriculture and the need to improve how it is carried out.
Given the Task Force's current mandate, five prior reports and one
academic article seem most relevant.

The five reports, all produced by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), are: 1) Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (1972); 2) Investing in Research: A Proposal
to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and Environmental System (1989);

3\) National Research Initiative: A Vital Grants Program in Food, Fiber,
and Natural-Resources Research (2000); 4) Publicly Funded Agricultural
Research and the Changing Structure of U.S. Agriculture (2002); and 5)
Frontiers in Agriculture Research: Food, Health, Environment, and
Communities (2003). The article, "The Agricultural Grants Program,"
(1981) was published in the journal Science.

The reports summarized below clearly indicate that the need for a
well-funded and effective competitive grants program has been evident
for at least 30 years.

***[Reports]{.underline}***

> 1\. *Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture (1972)*

This report by a distinguished panel of the National Academy of Sciences
took note of the challenges to American agriculture and the state of
agricultural research. Excerpts follow:

"The practice of agriculture has long outgrown the individual farmer and
his art...It requires research, policy and programs sufficient to
challenge the best efforts and minds of America."

"\[The Committee\] has found many programs of
excellence...Acknowledgement must also be made of findings that indicate
that much of agricultural research is outmoded, pedestrian, and
inefficient, and that bold moves are called for in reshaping
administrative philosophies and organizations, in establishing goals and
missions, in training and management of research scientists, and in
allocation of resources."

"...grossly inadequate support was given to the basic sciences that
underpin agriculture..."

"It is not sufficient for the programs of agricultural research to be
directed only to the pressing needs of the hour...there must be
information generated with which the pressing needs of future
generations will be met."

"Recommendation

[That the USDA seek a greatly increased level of appropriations for a
competitive grants program, which should include support of basic
research in the sciences...that underpin the USDA mission...\[Grants\]
should be available to scientists in the USDA, in land-grant and non
land-grant public universities or colleges and in private universities
or colleges, institutes, and other agencies. The Committee recommends
that this program be administered in such a way that research proposals
are subjected to evaluation by peer panels of selected scientists...and
that the administration should not be the same as that making
allocations for USDA in-house research.]{.underline}" (Underline present
in original report.)

> 2\. *Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural,
> Food, and Environmental System (1989)*
>
> This document from the National Research Council (NRC) reports that in
> the areas of nutrition, international trade, natural resource
> conservation, and control of pollutants, the problems confronting
> agriculture are compounding more rapidly than they ever have in the
> past. The report finds that "Solving the problems . . . will require
> much more new knowledge than was required to solve previous problems."
> (p. 2)
>
> The report states "U.S. farmers cannot compete with the price of labor
> in many countries, where it is far lower than in the United States.
> And, for the same reason, they cannot compete with the cost of fertile
> land in other countries. The single resource U.S. farmers can draw
> upon to capture the leading edge is science and technology." (p. 9)
>
> To promote solutions to the above problems, the report makes a number
> of suggestions. The most important are: 1) The amount of money
> allocated to agricultural research should be dramatically increased.
> 2) The best way to improve agricultural research is to fund it through
> competitive grants, i.e., peer-reviewed science.
>
> 3\. *National Research Initiative: A Vital Grants Program in Food,
> Fiber, and Natural-Resources Research (2000)*
>
> The purpose of this study was to evaluate the national research
> initiative. The report found that many new opportunities and
> challenges confront agricultural research.
>
> At the time the report was written (2000), USDA spent about \$1.7
> billion a year on research. Of this, only \$120 million was spent on
> competitive grants. The remainder of the \$1.6 billion that USDA spent
> on research was "distributed non-competitively through intramural
> research grants to USDA staff, formula funds to state agricultural
> experiment stations, and special grants for targeted initiatives and
> direct grants to states." (p. 2) The report states that such practices
> are at odds with the way most publicly supported research is funded,
> and it asserts that "merit-based peer-reviewed research . . . could
> have profoundly beneficial effects in the United States and the rest
> of the world." (p. 2)
>
> The National Research Initiative (NRI) is seen as a pilot program that
> has garnered some success given its very limited resources. In fact,
> the committee found that the NRI is in decline because of the size of
> the program, the short duration of individual grants, and the low
> overhead allowance. The conclusion is that "the location of the NRI
> within the USDA organizational structure suggests that the USDA and
> Congress place a higher priority on formula funds, special grants, and
> intramural research than on extramural, merit-based peer-reviewed
> research." (p. 4)
>
> The committee makes a number of recommendations, including: 1) That
> high-risk research with potential long-term payoffs be undertaken. 2)
> That the distribution of all research funds be done through
> merit-based peer review. 3) That stakeholders be more engaged. 4) That
> priority-setting be improved. 5) That a new institutional structure is
> needed if merit-based peer-reviewed research is to flourish.
>
> The executive summary of the report concludes with a dire warning for
> Congress and the American public. It states: "The food, fiber, and
> natural-resource system is too important and too fundamental to future
> national security and stability not to have its own research program
> that focuses explicitly on high-risk problems with potential long-term
> payoffs...Without a dramatically enhanced commitment to merit-based
> peer-reviewed food, fiber, and natural-resources research, the nation
> places itself at risk." (p.14)
>
> 4\. *Publicly Funded Agricultural Research and the Changing Structure
> of U.S. Agriculture (2002)*
>
> The mission of the committee that conducted this study was to
> "...examine whether publicly funded agricultural research has
> influenced the structure of U.S. agriculture..." (p. 2)
>
> Among the committee's findings are that: 1) "public-sector
> agricultural research is an important, but not an exclusive factor in
> structural change" (p. 5), and 2) "publicly funded research is
> important to the public good." (p. 7)
>
> The committee goes on to make a number of suggestions as to how
> agricultural research can be improved. They suggest that public-sector
> research be broadened beyond productivity and efficiency; that
> stakeholder needs and knowledge be incorporated into the research
> agenda; and finally that underserved populations also benefit from
> agricultural research.
>
> 5\. *Frontiers in Agriculture Research: Food, Health, Environment, and
> Communities (2003)*
>
> At the request of Congress, the NRC undertook "a study of the United
> States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Research, Education and
> Economics (REE) mission area." (p. 1) They were also tasked with
> providing "recommendations for future opportunities and directions."
> (p. 1) In the report, the NRC finds that agricultural research is
> being transformed and that a new focus is needed.
>
> The committee felt many new challenges confront agricultural research,
> including the globalization of food production and its implications,
> the identification of emerging pathogens and other hazards in the food
> supply, nutrition and human health, protection of the environment, and
> the strengthening of rural communities.
>
> Because much of the benefits from this research, in particular that
> related to public health and the environment, are widely distributed,
> it is difficult for any private firm to capture the revenue that such
> benefits generate. Thus, the report concludes that research in such
> fields as public health and the environment will not be conducted
> unless it is undertaken by the public sector.
>
> The National Academy of Sciences calls for a new vision in
> agricultural research. To this end, they make a number of
> recommendations. Some of these are that Congress should increase
> funding for agricultural research; that competitive grants, i.e.
> peer-reviewed science, should be broadly embraced in agricultural
> research; that there should be balanced stakeholder input; that more
> links should exist between the NSF, NIH, Department of Energy and
> USDA; and that new leadership is needed.
>
> In essence, the NRC argues that a new agricultural research model is
> needed.

***[Article]{.underline}***

> *"The Agricultural Grants Program" (1981)*
>
> In this article from *Science*, the publication of the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), David Krogmann and
> Joe Key discuss the increasing need for peer-reviewed science to take
> hold in agricultural research. They point out that peer-reviewed
> science has not been fully embraced at the USDA for political,
> institutional and administrative reasons, but that because there have
> been a few USDA pilot programs that included peer-reviewed science, we
> have a wonderful natural experiment between formula funds and special
> grants in comparison with competitive peer-reviewed science. What we
> learn from that experiment is that "basic research seems to prosper by
> minimizing administrative direction and maximizing the opportunity of
> the investigator to exploit new opportunities" (p. 182); thus, if
> research is to flourish, it needs to be done in a competitive
> environment.

***[Conclusion]{.underline}***

Much can be learned from the above article and reports. The themes that
resonate most clearly are

1\) that the U.S. is seriously under-funding agricultural research; 2)
that competitive, merit-reviewed grants are important to advancing
agriculture research; and 3) that a new model for agricultural research
is needed.

Clearly, money is essential, but it is not enough. To successfully
address the challenges and problems identified in the above reports, it
is necessary -- in addition to funding -- to create a new institutional
model that embraces competitive, peer-reviewed science as one of its
fundamental planks.

**[APPENDIX 5: Consultants to the Task Force]{.underline}**

The USDA Research, Education and Economics Task Force was appointed by
Secretary Ann Veneman on January 21, 2003, at the request of Congress. A
list of members and their affiliations appears below. The Task Force met
four times: July 31, 2003; October 27, 2003; January 28, 2004, and April
20, 2004. The members studied past reports and information from the
USDA, NSF, NIH and other sources. Members of the Task Force, singly or
in groups, consulted with 68 knowledgeable people. We are grateful to
Joe Jen, Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics, and
Katie Boots, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary, for their
guidance and help.

**Bruce Alberts**, President, National Academy of Sciences

**Martin Apple**, President, Council of Scientific Society Presidents

**Terry Barr**, Chief Economist and Vice President, National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives

**Roger Beachy**, President, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center

**John Becherer**, Chief Executive Officer, United Soybean Board

**Robert Bertram**, International Research and Biotechnology Specialist,
U.S. Agency for International Development

**Dennis Bier**, Director, Children's Nutrition Research Center at
Baylor College of Medicine

**Kerry Bolognese**, Director, Federal Relations, National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

**Kathryn Boots**, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Research
Education and Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture

**R. Ronald Bosecker**, Administrator, Research Education and Economics,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Rodney Brown**, Deputy Under Secretary for Research Education and
Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Steve Censky**, Chief Executive Officer, American Soybean Association

**Mary Clutter**, Assistant Director, Biological Sciences Directorate of
the National Science Foundation

**Thomas Cooley**, Director, Office of Budget, Finance and Award
Management, National Science Foundation

**Janice Dahl**, Executive Director, United Soybean Board

**Bryan Dierlam**, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Cattlemen's
Beef Association

**Mark Drabenstott**, Vice President and Director, Center for the Study
of Rural America

**Mitchell Dubensky**, Director, Forest Resources Environment, American
Forest and Paper Association

**Ken Duberstein**, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Duberstein
Group

**Anthony Fauci**, Director, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health

**Kirk Ferrell**, Vice President of Public Policy, National Pork
Producers Council

**Carol Tucker Foreman**, Director, Consumer Federation of America's
Food Policy Institute

**Howard Garrison**, Director, Public Affairs, Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology

**Richard Glass**, Vice President, Research and Development, National
Corn Growers Association

**Barbara Glenn**, Director, Animal Biotechnology, Biotechnology
Industry Organization

**Carrie Golash**, Senior Science Policy Analyst, Federation for
American Societies for Experimental Biology

**Michael Goldblatt**, Former Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency

**Randy Green**, United Egg Producers

**Teresa Gruber**, Executive Vice President, Council for Agriculture,
Science and Technology

**Colien Hefferan**, Administrator, Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service

**Lawrence Heider**, Executive Director, Association of American
Veterinary Medical Colleges

**David Hess**, Director, Office of Natural Resource Management, U.S.
Agency for International Development

**Charles Hess**, Former Dean of the College of Agriculture and
Environmental Sciences, University of California-Davis

**Randall Huffman**, Vice President of Scientific Affairs, American Meat
Institute Foundation

**Joseph Jen**, Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Chandler Keys**, Vice President of Government Affairs, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association

**Rick Kirckoff**, Executive Vice President and CEO, National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture

**Ganesh Kishore**, Vice President, Agriculture and Nutrition,
DuPont/Solae

**Samuel Klein**, Director, Washington University Center for Human
Nutrition

**John Marburger**, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

**Dale Maronek**, President, Council for Agriculture, Science and
Technology

**Ian Maw**, Director, Academic Program for Agriculture and Natural
Resources, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges

**C. Peter McGrath**, President, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

**David Meeker**, Interim Scientific Liaison, Federation of Animal
Science Societies

**Katy Moffett**, Director, PAC and Grassroots, American Forest and
Paper Association

**Harley Moon**, Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources, National
Academy of Sciences

**Andrew Natsios**, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International
Development

**Mortimer Neufville**, Vice President, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

**Susan Offutt**, Administrator, Economic Research Service

**Mike Phillips**, Executive Director, Food and Agriculture, BIO

**Steve Pretanik**, Director of Science and Technology, National Chicken
Council

**Lowell Randel**, Meyers and Associates

**Peter Raven**, Director, Missouri Botanical Garden

**Caird Rexroad, Jr**., Acting Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Research Service

**Frederick Rickles**, Executive Director, Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology

**Paul Rodgers**, Deputy Director of Policy, American Sheep Industry

**Gerald Rushin**, American Veterinary Medical Association

**Philip Schwab**, Science Policy and Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Department of Agriculture

**DeAnn Stish**, Director, Congressional Affairs, American Forest and
Paper Association

**S. Richard Tolman**, Chief Executive Officer, National Corn Growers
Association

**Jim Travis**, Federal Government Affairs, Monsanto

**Tom Van Arsdall**, Staff, [National Coalition for Food and Agriculture
Research](http://www.ncfar.org/)

**Virginia Weldon**, Former Member, President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology

**Leah Wilkinson**, Associate Director of Food Policy, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association

**Terry Wolfe**, Member, Board of Directors, Illinois Corn Marketing
Board

**Mary Woolley**, President, Research!America

**Richard Wootton**, Director, Extension and Outreach, National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

**Catherine Woteki,** Dean of the College of Agriculture, Iowa State
University

**[ACRONYMS]{.underline}**

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ARS Agricultural Research Service

CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

ERS Economic Research Service

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NASA National Aeronautic and Space Administration

NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

NIH National Institutes of Health

NRC National Research Council

NRI National Research Initiative

NSF National Science Foundation

REE Research, Education and Economics

SAES State Agriculture Experiment Stations

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

**ENDNOTES**

[^1]: See, for instance, Jeffrey Mervis and Dennis Normile. "Agencies
    Embrace Peer Review to Strengthen Research Base." *Science*. 279
    (1998): 1471 -- 1473., and Richard Stone. "Germany Puts Money on
    Peer Review." *Science*. 278 (1997): 792 -- 794.

[^2]: ^^Fundamental research is research that addresses the frontiers
    of knowledge, while it leads to practical results and/or to further
    scientific discovery.

[^3]: Economic Research Service, USDA. "Food and Fiber System Important
    Part of Economy" Rural America. 17:1, Spring 2002. Table 1.
    Available on-line @: [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications.rural
    america/ra171/ra171g.pdf](http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications.rural america/ra171/ra171g.pdf).

[^4]: Economic Research Service, USDA. "Food and Agricultural Exports
    Increased in 2000 at a Greater Rate than Imports, Reversing a 5-year
    Trend." Rural America, 17:1, Spring 2002. Table 1. Available on-line
    @:
    <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ruralamerica/ra171/ra171h.pdf>.

[^5]: *New York Times,* Mar. 22, 2004.

[^6]: Under Secretary Eric M. Bost, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
    Services, testimony before Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
    Development, March 20, 2003. Prepared statement available on-line @:
    <http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/Speeches/CT03203.html>. See also
    Allison, D.B., Fontaine, K.R., Steverns, J., and Van Itallie, T.G.
    "Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States" JAMA
    1999; 282:1530-1538.

[^7]: See "Obesity and the Environment -- Initiatives of the National
    Institute of Environmental Health Services." 2003.

[^8]: Mokdad, Ali H., Marks, James S., Stroup, Donna F., Gerberding,
    Julie L. "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000" *JAMA*
    2004; 291:1238-1245.

[^9]: For more on this, see
    [www.fass.org/government/csreesfs.htm](http://www.fass.org/government/csreesfs.htm).

[^10]: See Hightower, Jim. *Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times*. Cambridge:
    Schenkman Publishing Company, 1973.

[^11]: For more on this, see the following article at

    [www.animalbiotechnology.org/ani_bio.asp?news_id=818&mode=showarticle&show=false](http://www.animalbiotechnology.org/ani_bio.asp?news_id=818&mode=showarticle&show=false)

[^12]: For more on this, see
    <http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/methyl-bromide-ext.html>;
    also see the National Cancer web site.

[^13]: New England Journal of Medicine 345:1147-1154, 2001; Stuart B.
    Levy, *The Antibiotic Paradox: How the Misuse of Antibiotics
    Destroys Their Curative Powers,* 2^nd^ Edition, Perseus Publishing,
    2002.

[^14]: See <http://www.planthealth.info/rust/rust.htm>.

[^15]: Tilman, David, et al. "Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global
    Environmental Change." *Science*. 292 (2001): 281 -- 284.

[^16]: Shapouri, Duffield, Graboski. "USDA Estimating the Net Energy
    Balance of Corn Ethanol." July 1995.

[^17]: Shapouri, Gallager, Graboski. "USDA Ethanol Cost of Production
    Study." January 2002.

[^18]: See page 30 in Frontiers *in Agricultural Research*. National
    Research Council: 2003.

[^19]: Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, 1972.

    ^?^ See Fuglie, Keith., Ballenger, Nicole., Day, Kelly., Klotz,
    Cassandra., Ollinger, Michael., Reilly, John., Vasavada, Utpal., and
    Yee, Jet. "Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private
    Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions" Agricultural
    Economics Report No. 735. May 1996.

    ^?^ For instance, see Jeffrey Mervis and Dennis Normile. "Agencies
    Embrace Peer Review to Strengthen Research Base." *Science*. 279
    (1998): 1471 -- 1473., and Richard Stone. "Germany Puts Money on
    Peer Review." *Science*. 278 (1997): 792 -- 794.

[^20]: See Fuglie, Keith., Ballenger, Nicole., Day, Kelly., Klotz,
    Cassandra., Ollinger, Michael., Reilly, John., Vasavada, Utpal., and
    Yee, Jet. "Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private
    Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions" Agricultural
    Economics Report No. 735. May 1996.