Agricultural Research and Technology

Transfer Policies for the 1990s

March 1990

OTA-F-448

NTIS order #PB90-219981
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Agricultural Research and Technology

Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTA’s Assessment on Emerging

Agricultural Technology-Issues for the 1990s, OTA-F-448 Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1990).

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325
Foreword

Agricultural research and technology transfer policy will be a major subject

of debate in the 1990 Farm Bill. The debate will likely focus on the level

and type of Federal appropriations for and the planning and control of

agricultural research and extension. This report addresses the central

issues in that debate. It was requested as part of a larger study examining

emerging agricultural technologies and related issues for the 1990s by the

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House

Committee on Agriculture.

Although the study will not be completed until later this year, some findings

from the study, provided in this report, are relevant to specific legislation

regarding agricultural research and technology transfer that will be debated

and acted upon in Congress.

In the course of preparing this report, OTA drew on the experience of many

individuals. In particular, we appreciate the efforts of the project’s

consultants and contractors and the assistance of all the workshop

participants who spent two days in September discussing issues and policy

alternatives. We would also like to acknowledge the help of the numerous

reviewers who helped ensure the accuracy of our analysis. It should be

understood, however, that OTA assumes full responsibility for the content

of this report.

( JOHN H. GIBBON S

Director

Ill
OTA Project Staff-Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Michael J. Phillips, Project Director

Marie Walsh, Analyst

Laura Dye, Research Assistant

Carl-Joseph DeMarco, Research Assistant

Susan Wintsch, Editor

Administrative and Support Staff

Nathaniel Lewis, Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, PC Specialist
Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Summary ......................................... .

Issue Areas for the Research and Extension System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................00.

Chapter2. Overview

Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Priority Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........0

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Extension

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer .

Status Quo Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Research and Extension Policy Alternative . . . . .

Competitive Grants Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AppendixA. Glossary of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .00..... .*.* .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AppendixB. Agricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AppendixC. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1

1

6

9

11

12

13

15

16

18

21

27

28

29

36

40

42

47

49

Tables

3-1. Research Priorities, Extension Priorities and Joint Council Priorities . . . . . . . . . . 18

B-1. Federal Expenditures by State for Agricultural Forestry, and Veterinary

Research and Development, As Reported by CRIS, FY86 (in dollars) . . . . . . . 42

B-2. Federal Expenditures by State for Agricultural Forestry, and Veterinary

Research and Development As Reported by CRIS,FY88 (in dollars) . . . . . . . 44

B-3. Top 10 State Agricultural Experiment Stations with Biotechnology Funds

from Federal Sources Other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture

for FY 1986 and 1988 (in dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figures

4-1. Current Organizational Structure for Agricultural Research and Extension . . . . . 28

4-2. Organizational Structure for National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4-3. Organizational Structure for Competitive Grants Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

v
Chapter 1

Summary

A new agenda is emerging for American

agriculture in the 1990s, and there are serious

questions as to whether the current agricultural research and extension system can

respond effectively. Agriculture is changing

in at least two distinct ways. First, agricultural

research is broadening beyond its traditional

focus on increasing production, and more

recently on competitiveness, to also address

issues of food safety and environmental

quality. Technology to increase production in

the future will be developed with increased

attention to food safety and the environment.

Second, agriculture is entering a new technological era – the biotechnology and information technology era – that holds great

promise for enhancing productivity, producing a safe food supply, and sustaining the environment.

Concern is growing that the traditional

agricultural research and extension (AR&E)

system, if unchanged, maybe bypassed by the

broadening research base and emerging technologies. Already one-third or more of

Federal funding of agricultural research is

granted by Federal agencies outside the

United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and non-USDA funding for research

is expected to increase significantly.

Ten of the 57 state agricultural experiment

stations received 75 percent of the Federal funds

for biotechnology research from agencies other

than USDA. It is noteworthy that these 10 experiment stations are those that have basic

science departments within the associated colleges of Agriculture. Unimportant prerequisite

for researchers in biotechnology is training in

basic fields that underpin this technology (e.g.,

cellular physiology, biochemistry, genetics).

These disciplines are generally lacking in colleges of Agriculture. Approximately 40 percent of the Ph.D. ’s currently working in

agricultural research did not graduate from a

college of Agriculture.

All this implies that a broader base for

agricultural research and its funding is evolving. But the research and technology transfer

system is not well structured or coordinated

and this could lead to serious problems.

Without a close working relationship between

basic and applied researchers on U.S. campuses and in Federal agencies, the lag time

between the publication of basic scientific

work and its adaptation into new technology

will increase, damaging U.S. competitiveness.

There is the additional risk that without

strong links between researchers and practitioners, basic researchers might focus on

problems irrelevant to agriculture’s needs or

develop inappropriate approaches to perceived

problems of agriculture. Faculty in fundamental

sciences may not select problems meaningful to

agriculture or design experiments that lead to

readily adaptable solutions.

Ultimately, the private sector could surpass a weak AR&E system. A strong, missionoriented AR&E system is needed to provide

methods, products, and technologies to solve

key agricultural problems. The United States

cannot afford to have a public sector AR&E

system falling behind the private sector and

relegated to a role of simply reacting to,

reviewing, or second guessing private sector

research.

ISSUE AREAS FOR THE RESEARCH

AND EXTENSION SYSTEM

The new agricultural agenda demands

renewed and creative efforts to keep the

AR&E system an effective and viable one for
2. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

American agriculture. A review of the system

points to concern in the following areas:

1. Mission: USDA lacks a statement of goals,

action to achieve stated goals, and systems

to evaluate results against desired outcomes. As a result, no succinct written

statement of the mission or policies of the

AR&E system, or of Science and Education seems to exist within USDA. Without

missions or policies, organizations can only

express vague plans and priorities. It is

very difficult to express commitment to

clientele in terms of programs.

2. Planning: Effective planning directs

resources to priority programs, problems,

and issues in a well-thought, orderly manner. Within Science and Education at

USDA, there are no short- or long-term

plans for coordinating the activities of

SAES, ES, ARS, or NAL. Nor are there

plans for coordinating Science and Education activities with those of other USDA

agencies such as ERS, FS, or its regulatory

agencies.

A number of planning activities exist at

state, multi-state, or regional levels, but

they usually relate to program implementation. Sometimes plans are made by individual scientists or groups of scientists

who have no authority over resources. Significant amounts of planning occur without

necessary commitment of resources to set

goals, implement plans, and measure

progress.

3. Priority Setting: There is little specificity

and clarity in stating priorities for the

AR&E system. Within USDA no set

Science and Education priorities exist. Individual S&E agencies have identified

their own research and research-related

priorities, and developed their own justifications without the benefit of close

coordination among themselves.

A number of advisory groups independently set priorities for the AR&E system. These include the Joint Council on

Food and Agricultural Sciences, the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board, the

Experiment Station Committee on Policy,

the Resident Instruction Committee on

Policy, the International Committee on

Policy, and the Extension Committee on

Policy. However, there is no mechanism

for reaching overall consensus. Stated

needs for research and extension funding

and for renovating facilities or replacing

equipment are not prioritized.

4. Structu re: Structure should facilitate the

carrying out of mission, planning, and

priority setting of the AR&E system. The

present decentralized system is composed

of Federal, state, and local partners. As

research and extension budgets have

declined, there has been increasing competition and division both within S&E at

USDA and within universities. Little

cooperation exists between many colleges

of Agriculture and other colleges such as

Arts and Sciences within the same university. In addition, new structures are evolving outside the traditional AR&E system

as new technology is developed and transferred to the private sector for use.

Extension’s knowledge base, which has

traditionally been drawn from the state

experiment stations, has not kept pace with

today’s scientific advances. Extension runs

the risk of being left out of the research and

problem applications loop in the future.

5“ Funding: There is evidence that the

AR&E system is inadequately funded.

Congress, however, will not increase fund-
Ch. 1–Summary .3

ing as long as it considers the system’s justification for additional funds to be inadequate. Until problems of mission,

planning, priority setting, and structure are

resolved, determining the adequacy of

Federal funding will be difficult.

ALTERNATIVE POLICIES FOR

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER

OTA has identified a clear need for the

AR&E system to have a well-articulated and

coordinated research and technology transfer

policy and proposes three alternatives:

●

●

●

Status Quo Alternative: Continuation

of the current policy as implemented

under the 1985 farm bill.

National Research and Extension

Policy Alternative: Development of a

larger Federal role in planning to align

more closely research to end-user needs,

without necessarily anticipating large

increases in aggregate funding levels.

Competitive Grants Alternative:

Substantially increase the level of

competitive grants research while

continuing current levels of formula

funding and/or appropriated funding for

research and extension.

Status Quo Alternative

Based on the findings in this report and

those of previous OTA reports dealing with

the AR&E system, the likely consequences of

the Status Quo Alternative are:

1. The new era of biotechnology and information technology will likely bypass the

traditional AR&E system. A minority of

the land-grant universities will compete effectively as technological advances are

made in this new era.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Without a clearly enunciated missionoriented policy, the AR&E system will

continue to lack direction.

Planning and priority setting will continue

to be ineffective, with no assurance of follow-through on initiatives and/or recommendations of the Joint Council and/or

Users Advisory Board.

The AR&E system will continue to be

rigidly structured and resistant to change.

Increased emphasis by land-grant universities and USDA on basic research, combined with accelerated technical change

and continued neglect of applied research

needs, will continue to widen the

knowledge gap between research and extension.

National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative

The National Research and Extension

Policy Alternative is a mission-oriented approach designed to increase the AR&E

system’s responsiveness to the needs of the

food and agriculture system. The major components of this system include:

●

●

●

A clearly enunciated mission-oriented

AR&E policy.

A restructured, integrated and

coordinated AR&E planning system.

A combination of formula and

competitive grant funds consistent with

the conclusions of the planning system.

AR&E Policy

The first, and perhaps the most important

component of the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a statement of

clearly enunciated policy supported by the

Secretary of Agriculture. It will emphasize that:
4 ● AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

Research and extension will be integral

to carrying out all aspects of agricultural,

food, trade and rural policy.

The research and extension functions of

USDA will be operated according to a

comprehensive and coordinated plan.

These functions willbe mission-orientedwith

significant user influence on the planning

process as well as on the resulting

research and education programs.

The research and technology transfer

functions will be carried out by those

scientists/institutions deemed to be the

most competent, capable and efficient in

achieving mission-oriented objectives.

Research and Extension Policy Planning

System

The proposed policy statement implies a

user-oriented research and extension system

that places increased emphasis on competitive grants in research and extension

programs. The key operating components include:

. Users Advisory Council (UAC)

. Agricultural Science and Education

Policy Board (ASEPB)

. Technical Panels

. Existing research and extension agencies

Federal research and extension planning

activities would be operationally centered in

ASEPB, even though the planning process

itself would begin in the UAC, in keeping with

the user- and mission-oriented basis of the

system. Research and extension agencies at

the Federal, state, and local levels would also

have planning functions.

Users Advisory Council. UAC would be

independent of USDA and its role would be

expanded considerably beyond that of the current Users Advisory Board (UAB). Its

primary functions would include:

Identification of important research and

technology transfer problems. (Same as UAB)

Development of recommendations on

goals and funding levels. (Expanded

role)

Coordination of industry support for

agricultural research and extension at

the Federal level. (Expanded role)

Evaluation of results. (Expanded role)

UAC board members would be elected to

represent, and would serve at the pleasure of:

private agribusiness firms and associations;

farmers and farm organizations; public interest groups; foundations; and government action agencies. Each major group could

include specialized segments. For example,

agribusiness might include a representative

from suppliers of inputs, food processors, and

exporters. The total membership on UAC

probably should not exceed 25.

Agricultural Science and Education

Policy Board. ASEPB would be the research

and technology transfer planning center for

USDA. It would be chaired by the Assistant

Secretary for Science and Education and

would include the following members who

would be appointed by the Secretary of

Agriculture, or other relevant agency head in

the case of NIH and NSF:

●

●

●

●

Administrator of each USDA research

and technology transfer agency (ARS,

CSRS, ERS, ES, FS, NAL)

Assistant Secretary for Economics

ESCOP chairmanor designated representative

(experiment station representative)

ECOP chairmanor designated representative

(extension representative)
Ch. 1–Summa~. 5

RICOP chairman or designatedre representative

(resident instruction representative)

One 1890 university dean or designated

representative

AASCARR chairman or designated

representative (nonland-grant representative)

NIH director or designated representative

NSF director or designated representative

ASEPB Functions. ASEPB would

manage the Federal research and extension

mission-oriented planning process, and oversee the allocation of grants for research and

technology transfer functions. Specific functions include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Establishment of Goals

Establishment of Priorities

Maintenance of Intelligence System

Creation of Technical Panels

Assignment of Responsibility

Evaluation of Results

AR&E Funding

Funding initiatives would come directly

from ASEPB and from UAC. Since the

Secretary would overtly adopt the ASEPB

policy, he/she should be more inclined to support the recommendations of ASEPB within

the Administration and the Congress.

Likely Consequences of the National Research

and Extension Policy Alternative

● A basis would exist for effective

AR&E planning in a mission-oriented

context. In contrast to the present

system, research funding would be

allocated to programs, not agencies.

●

●

●

●

●

●

The argument that too much planning

already exists stems largely from the

ineffectiveness of current planning

and follow-through.

The USDA would have an internally

consistent AR&E policy. The Secreta~

of Agriculture would be directly

involved in establishing and endorsing

AR&E policy.

Multidisciplinary research would likely

grow. Increased integration of

biological (CSRS, FS and ARS) and

economic (ERS) research would occur

through ASEPB, UAC and the technical

panels.

The use of formula funds and competitive

grants would be more balanced.

Potential would exist for increased

concentration of research and extension

at specific locales within the system.

This is occurring now, but the process

would likely accelerate under this

alternative.

A mechanism would exist through the

UAC for increased and more effective ffectif

user input into AR&E decisions.

Potential would exist for increased

financial support for the AR&E system

with improved planning, priority setting,

and balance between research and

extension.

Competitive Grants Alternative

The Competitive Grants Alternative was

developed by the Board on Agriculture of the

National Research Council, National

Academy of Sciences. This proposal recommends:

Establishing a $500 million agriculture,

food, and environment competitive research

grants program within USDA. It would en-
6 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

compass all science and technology relevant

to research needs for agriculture, food, and

environment, from basic biology to social

sciences and public policy. Grants would be

open to researchers in public and private

universities and colleges, not-for-profit institutions, and research agencies of the state

and Federal government. Major emphasis

would be placed on fundamental and missionlinked multidisciplinary research. Missionlinked multidisciplinary funding would be

designed to facilitate application of

knowledge and the transfer of technology to

the user through joint research-extension

studies.

Other recommendations include:

● Provision of researchstrengtheninggrantsto

institutions and individuals.

. An increase in the duration and size of

grants.

● Continuation of present levels of formula

funds and USDA agency support forresearch

or extension.

. Maintaining the Joint Council and UAB

structure and the overall planning process

now in place.

Differences Between the Competitive

Grants Alternative and the National

Research and Extension Policy Alternative

The Competitive Grants Alternative

would place less emphasis on planning than

the National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative, which would make planning the

driving force of the AR&E system. The

primary emphasis and driving force in the

Competitive Grants Alternative is more

money for research; it assumes that a lack of

adequate research funding is the major problem with the AR&E system. Structural

problems in implementing a mission-oriented

research and extension program are instead

highlighted under the National Research and

Extension Policy Alternative. The Competitive Grants Alternative places virtually all of

its emphasis on research. In short, it is a research proposal whereas the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a

research and extension proposal.

Likely Consequences of the Competitive

Grants Alternative

●

●

●

●

●

●

More funds would be available to all

public and private universities and

government research agencies able to

compete on a scientific basis. This

would greatly accelerate agricultural

research, rates of discovery and

technological change without changing

formula fund support.

Potential for dealing with complex

multidisciplinary problems would increase.

While funds would be available for

strengthening grants, this proposal

would inevitably lead to increased

concentration of research talent.

The basic/applied research gap could be

reduced. However, neglect of technology

transfer as a target for grant funds would

inevitably lead to a serious gap between

research and extension.

No changes would be made to improve

the planning system or the linkage

between planning and execution.

Nothing assures that funds will be

allocated to the UAB - and Joint

Council-determined priorities.

The drain of the best scientific talent

away from extension would accelerate as

more funds become available for

research.

CONCLUSIONS

Three alternatives have been described

and the likely consequences of instituting

each identified. It will be difficult for the
Ch. 1–Summa~ ● 7

current AR&E system to be effective in meeting the challenges facing American agriculture in the 1990s. In this regard, either of the

other two alternatives represents an improvement over the Status Quo Alternative.

Questions remain as to whether a responsive mission-oriented system could be

achieved by major structural change as implied by the National Research and Extension

Policy Alternative, by increased research

funding as implied by the Competitive Grants

Alternative, or by a combination of the two. It

is clear that without increased appropriations,

structural change of the type contemplated by

the National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative will be required to obtain a mission-oriented system.

Increased mission-orientation and

responsiveness could be realized by combining structural change with more competitive

grant money. Imbalances between research

and extension could be remedied by opening

up the competitive grants process to the

development and implementation of innovative extension programs. And, it seems likely

that these improvements could be accomplished with a less than $500 million increase in appropriations for competitive

grants.
Chapter 2

Overview

The U.S. food and agricultural sector

enters the decade of the 1990s facing many

new problems and issues that will challenge

the agricultural research and extension

(AR&E) system. A major focus of the system

has been to increase productivity on a continual basis. In the decade of the 90’s productivity will continue to be a concern, but

additional concerns for food safety and for

the environment will become equally important.

Agricultural productivity gains are slowing throughout the world. The slowdown,

however, is more pronounced in the United

States than elsewhere (16). As the U.S.

agricultural sector slips from global leadership, its role in strengthening the nation’s

economy could decline. At the same time,

however, consumers domestically and abroad

are increasingly concerned about the safety of

the food supply, and demand is growing for

more emphasis on producing a safe and

nutritious food supply at relatively low cost.

There is also increasing concern that gains

in agricultural productivity not come at the

expense of the environment or of biological

and genetic diversity. Contaminants from a

variety of current agricultural practices negatively affect water quality; certain agricultural

practices also contribute to the release of

greenhouse gases, possibly changing global

atmosphere.

Meeting the challenges posed by these

broadening concerns will require an AR&E

system with an effective national strategy. It

will also require advances in science and technology of a scale and scope the system has not

previously experienced.

Fortunately, the food and agricultural sector stands on the threshold of a new technological era – the biotechnology and

information technology era. This represents

the third major technological era of the century following the mechanical era (1920-1950)

and the chemical era (1950-1985). Biotechnology (recombinant DNA, cell biology,

genetic manipulation) and information technology (artificial intelligence, expert systems,

computers, networks) hold great promise for

solving problems in the food and agriculture

sector.

A pressing question is whether the AR&E

system is capable of capturing the potential

these new technologies promise. The

development of these promising technologies

will require a different environment than that

of previous technological eras. Agricultural

scientists will need to thoroughly understand

the basic science underlying the technology

and the AR&E system will have to be flexible

and adaptive.

This report focuses on two major challenges to the AR&E system: 1) a broadening of

problems to solve and 2) the advent of new

technologies for solving these problems. The

report identifies the problems these challenges bring to the system and concludes with a

set of alternatives for structuring a national

agricultural research and technology transfer

policy that will help the system meet the needs

of the next decade.

9
Chapter 3

Problems and Issues Challenging

Agricultural Research and Extension

The twin forces of a broadening of research problems facing American agriculture

and the advent of a new era in technology pose

significant challenges to the research and extension system. Can the system readily adapt

to this new agenda?

Evidence exists that it will be difficult. For

example, researchers who want to adopt

plant-cell biotechnology need education and

training in the basic fields that underpin this

technology. Cellular physiology, biochemistry,

genetics, and microbiology are not generally

found within colleges of agriculture at landgrant universities.

This problem in agricultural education

notwithstanding, the application of biotechnology to agriculture will proceed at a rate

commensurate with its benefits and with the

abilities of the private sector to market a

product both in the United States and elsewhere. Because many businesses are now

global, adoption rates will be similar

worldwide (18).

There are several indications that adoption of biotechnology may bypass the traditional agricultural research and extension

system if changes are not made:

1. At least one-third of the Federal funding of

agricultural research is granted by Federal

agencies outside of USDA (Appendix

Tables B-1 and B-2). Therefore, USDA is

no longer viewed as the only agriculture

research-granting agency.

2. Ten of the 57 state agriculture experiment

stations received the bulk of Federal funds

for biotechnology from research agencies

other than the USDA (Appendix Table B3). These 10 experiment stations are the

3.

4.

same ones that have basic science depart

ments within the associated colleges o

agriculture. A direct relationship seems to

exist between an institution’s ability to cap

ture Federal grants for biotechnology and

the strength of its basic science com

ponent.

A survey in 1987 concluded that 40 percer

of the Ph.D.'s working in agricultural re

search did not graduate from a college c

agriculture. At least 8,000 active agricul

tural scientists earned Ph.D.’s outside c

applied agricultural disciplines (12).

The agriculture private sector seems to b

granting more research funds to educa

tional institutions other than colleges c

Agriculture. Land-grant universities ar

receiving funds for basic science researc

but most recipients are faculty in the co’

lege of Arts and Sciences, not faculty i

colleges of Agriculture (9).

An argument can be made that this situa

tion does not need fixing, that a much broade

base for agricultural research is evolving

However, this is risky. There is a lag tim

between “the publication of basic scientif

work and its development into a technolog

by applied agricultural public and private se

tor researchers. Without a close workin

relationship between basic scientists and al

plied researchers on U.S. campuses and i

Federal agencies, information transfer an

technology development will be no faster her

than anywhere else researchers read basi

scientific journals. The United States will no

obtain a lead-time advantage for its inves

ment without on-campus or inter-agency in

tegration of basic and applied research, an

technology transfer that operates in partner

ship with research development.

27-690 - 90 - 2 : QL 3
12 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

In addition, scientists unfamiliar with

agriculture may work on problems irrelevant

to agriculture’s needs or develop inappropriate approaches to solving the problems

of agriculture. Faculty in fundamental sciences are not necessarily concerned with practical applications of their research and

experiments, and they are frequently unaware

of the real needs of agriculture.

A strong, responsive agricultural research

and technology transfer system is also needed

to complement private sector research. The

research investment by the private sector is

substantial today, and the private sector

operates quite independently of the landgrant and USDA research establishment.

The United States cannot afford to have a

public sector research component that lags

behind the private sector, one relegated to a

role of simply reacting to, reviewing, or

second guessing private sector research.

What is needed is a publicly supported system

that provides new methods, products and

technologies.

For one thing, the private sector will use

biotechnology primarily to protect and extend

its investment in current products. This is a

natural and predictable response. Little incentive exists for a chemical company to

develop a plant that needs few chemical inputs. Similarly, little incentive exists for a

seed company to develop a plant with drought

tolerance but reduced yield. This is merely to

recognize the purpose of business and the

need to protect shareholder values. Publicly

supported research needs to provide the technical foundation for a continuous new array of

technologies to reduce input costs, to develop

new uses of existing crops as well as new crops,

and to help make agriculture more environmentally benign.

THE FUNCTIONS AND

CHALLENGES OF RESEARCH AND

EXTENSION

Providing a strong public sector research

and extension system means focusing on the

continuum of technological change. The

process of achieving technological change in

agriculture involves three basic steps, each a

component of the research and extension system:

1. basic research- discovery of new knowledge,

concepts, and relationships;

2. applied and developmental research:

●

●

●

development of ideas, concepts, and

relationships into products (outputs of 

technology);

adaptation of new technologies to

various agroecosystems; and

maintenance of newly achieved

productivity in the face of evolvingpests,

disease, decline in soil fertility, and

other factors (sometimes referred to as

maintenance research).

3. adoption of products or processes (transfer

of technology).

Discovery is the primary function of basic

research. Most basic research has traditionally been done in the public sector. There

seems to be a general assumption that the

private sector will not support sufficient

amounts of high risk basic agricultural research because that research is unlikely to

yield a near term payoff. However, this assumption is now being challenged by large

private sector investments in biotechnology

and information technology.
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging AgricuhuralRe search and Extension ● 13

Developmental and applied research is

conducted by both the public and private sectors. The marked increase in the quantity of

applied private sector research has led some

to suggest that the public sector support for

agricultural research might logically be

reduced. Such a suggestion, however, is overly simplistic. Most private sector applied research is aimed at development of ideas,

concepts, and relationships into new products.

The private sector directs little effort to the

adaptation of new technologies to a specific

agroecosystem or to defense of newly

achieved productivity gains (maintenance research) (14, 17).

The function of encouraging technology

adoption traditionally has been shared by the

public and private sectors. In the public sector, extension educators work directly with

farmers to test and demonstrate the usefulness of new products. Private firms tend to

concentrate their adoption strategies on more

conventional promotion and advertising

strategies.

The effort and resources required to

achieve a technological breakthrough, as a

general rule, increase over time. This is true

because the simpler problems naturally tend

to be solved first. More difficult problems

require more complex tools and analysis and,

thus, a larger commitment in research and

extension time, effort, and resources. This is

becoming clear as agriculture enters the

biotechnology era. To achieve the benefits of

this era, large investments must be made in

basic research and research techniques.

Laboratories and equipment will be more

complex and expensive. Scientists with

modern biotechnology research skills must be

trained for agricultural research, and existing

agricultural scientists will need new training.

Technology users will also have to be further

educated if they wish to adopt and use the

more complex new technologies effectively.

The research and extension system thus

faces numerous challenges. These evolve

around five issue areas: mission, structure,

planning, priority setting, and funding of the

AR&E system.

MISSION

A recent General Accounting Office

(GAO) review of USDA management found

that the Secretary of Agriculture faces a formidable task: to mobilize a large work force

in 36 USDA agencies to implement policies

and programs under rapidly changing conditions in the face of many internal and external

constraints. Despite dramatic changes in the

food and agricultural sector, USDA’s basic

organizational structure has changed little.

Its agencies are tradition bound and highly

resistant to change. This rigidity and lack of

flexibility, the report goes on to say, reduce

the ability to redirect the allocation of scarce

human and financial resources within the

Department (22).

UOSDA’s stucture has served its clientele

well m a period dominated by domestically

oriented agricultural policies. However,

when faced with more complex problems and

changing international conditions, USDA’s

great size and structural diversity present

problems. The agency will have difficulty

directing the growing number of important

cross-cutting issues that demand a higher degree of interagency, intergovernmental, and

interdisciplinary cooperation than has previously been required.

The GAO review concludes by stating that

to begin to address these weaknesses, the

Secretary needs to develop and clearly articulate an agenda for USDA focused on important cross-cutting issues and on improved

management systems. The agenda should include a statement of 1) goals, 2) actions to
14 Ž Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

achieve the stated goals, and 3) management

systems to monitor implementation and

evaluate results against desired outcomes.

Without such an agenda, it is not surprising that no clearly defined or written mission

or policies exist for the AR&E System, USDA

Science and Education or related programs.

Within USDA, individual research agencies

have mission statements but most are not

comprehensive. A mission statement should

set out the goals and objectives of the organization and strategies to achieve them.

Critical to any mission statement is a set of

policies that define procedures, responsibilities, authorities, and operational factors

that relate to the fulfillment of the mission and

to “day-to-day” activities. There must also be

a process for keeping the mission, policies,

and clientele updated regularly. The mission

statement for the Agricultural Research Service comes the closest to meeting these

criteria.

Perhaps because they lack similar statements, some agencies seem to be “all things to

all people.” Without mission and policies, organizations can only express vague plans and

priorities and it is difficult to define their

clientele. The respective research organizations have a hard time understanding clearly

the roles, responsibilities, and clientele of

their sister organizations. Likewise, it is difficult for the public, industry, and technologytransfer organizations to understand and

support agricultural research.

A mission statement is critical for Extension. Currently, its programs encompass

agriculture and natural resources, home

economics, 4-H youth, and rural community

development. As the number of U.S. farms

decline and as urban populations expand,

Extension’s clientele has become more urban

in its orientation. To many Extension has

become an institution trying to be “all things

to all people.” This development has led to

friction between Extension and its traditional

agriculture clientele in the 1980s (15).

Congress in the 1985 Food Security Act

directed a number of questions at the

Cooperative Extension System. Among these

were: a) what is Extension’s mission and who

are its clientele, b) how should Extension be

organized and structured, c) what is its role in

technology transfer and applied research, and

d) how does Extension develop new educational methods to meet the needs of its traditional clientele on declining numbers of

mid-size farms. These questions were particularly directed at state programs because

they are responsible for program delivery.

If Extension is to escape the "all things to

all people” label it will need to develop a

mission statement and criteria that will limit

its programs to definable priorities and goals.

Extension’s traditional focus has been agriculture and natural resources, and it is in these

areas that Extension has made its greatest

contributions in the past. As each state becomes more urban, Extension resources are

increasingly drawn away from farmers and

rural families. Extension must decide

whether this trend will continue. If so, the

programs displacing agriculture and natural

resource programs should have the same

quality research and knowledge base, and they

should have a high probability of making an

impact on high priority problems.

Mission Issues

In defining the mission of the AR&E system, USDA Science and Education and related programs several questions arise. Some

of the them are:

1. Can mission statements and attendant

policies related to research and extension

be developed for USDA agencies (S&E,

CSRS, ES, NAL) and other agencies

receiving Federal funds?
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and ExtensionŽ15

2. How can the mission statement be used to

assist in setting priorities, allocating

resources, and defining clientele?

3. Who should be involved in development of

specific missions, policies, and identification of clientele?

4. What management structure should be

responsible for maintaining and updating

mission and policies?

PLANNING

Effective planning allocates available

resources to priority programs, problems, and

issues. Within Science and Education at

USDA no short- or long-term plans exist to

coordinate the activities of SAES, ES, ARS or

NAL (7). Nor are there plans to coordinate

the activities of these agencies with those of

other USDA agencies such as ERS, FS, or the

regulatory agencies. For example, in the

report Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain for

International Trade, OTA identified research,

extension, economic, marketing, transportation, and regulatory strategies to meet the goal

of enhancing quality. But no apparent plans,

incentives, or mechanisms exist for coordinating the expertise from Federal, state or private

research and research-related groups to address international trade or similarly complex

problems.

Occasionally, agencies develop joint functional plans to address a problem. For example, there are joint plans involving ARS

and ES in a technology transfer system.

Similar planned programs between ARS and

NAL relate to dynamic information storage

and retrieval systems. ARS is the only S&E

agency that has maintained an updated six

year program plan that covers all research

programs in the agency. This is complemented by a set of agency policies that assures the maintenance of a functional

planning system.

Science and Education at USDA has established a Board of Directors for the purpose

of developing and approving plans for the

allocation of competitive grants for national

research initiatives within USDA (to be discussed later). The Board is comprised of the

administrators of ARS, CSRS, ERS, ES, FS,

and NAL; it is chaired by the Assistant

Secretary for Science and Education. This is

clearly a step in the right direction for effective planning. It is, however, only for the purpose of allocating competitive grant funds.

The Board does not address the planning and

allocation of intramural and other grant funds

in the system. It also does not formally coordinate with other Federal food and agriculture research funding agencies such as NIH

and NSF.

There are a number of planning activities

at state, multi-state, or regional levels but

these usually relate to program implementation, e.g., the Integrated Pest Management

Program. Sometimes plans are made by individual scientists or groups of scientists

without authority over resources. Commonly,

there is a great deal of planning without the

necessary commitment of resources for goal

development, implementation, and monitoring. Plans are not effectively impacting key

decision points locally or nationally.

Extension has historically not been a topdown planning organization. Much planning

is done at the local level through advisory

committees. Hence, local priorities and

needs have been expressed more than nation-
16 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

al ones. National planning takes place as local

and state needs are consolidated and incorporated into a framework of issues likely to

receive national attention for funding. There

has been little interactive planning between

Federal and state partners (15).

Planning Issues

To develop effective planning within the

AR&E system, a number of issues need to be

addressed. They include the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

6.

7.

How can meaningful short- and long-term

plans for research and extension be

developed?

How can local and state priorities be adequately reflected in national issues?

How can accountability be built into the

planning process to assess progress

towards goals and objectives?

How can a multidisciplinary approach

towards planning be accomplished?

Can plans be developed that identify program changes (reduction or expansion) as

budgets increase or decrease?

What is the role of the Joint Council and

Users Advisory Board in the planning

process?

Who (which groups or individuals) should

be responsible for initiating planning?

PRIORITY SETTING

In a system that does not have a clearly

defined mission or effective planning, it is not

surprising to find a lack of specificity and

clarity in stated priorities. Within USDA

there are no set Science and Education

priorities. Individual S&E agencies have

identified their research and research related

priorities independently of one another, and

each has developed its own justification. A

number of groups have laid out priorities for

the system, including the Joint Council, Users

Advisory Board, Experiment Station Committee on Policy, Extension Committee on

Policy, and Resident Instruction Committee

on Policy among others; but no explicit agreement exists among them nor was it sought. No

priorities are assigned the stated needs for

research and extension funding, facility

renovations and new equipment. Within

S&E, no apparent efforts have been made to

set broad priorities (such as export marketing,

or conversely, conservation of resources), or

to prioritize sub-problems (such as food safety

or soil erosion). In addition, problems have

not been defined in terms of measurable

goals. Thus, recognition of water quality as a

problem has not led to questions like “how can

nitrate levels in well water be reduced by 25

percent by 1993?” And there is little, if any,

indication of the program changes that would

be necessitated by lack of funding.

Extension’s response to the concerns

raised in the 1985 Food Security Act (discussed earlier) was a strong attempt to

develop priorities. The effort was sponsored

jointly by Extension Service and the Extension Committee on Policy (ECOP). It emphasized the efficiency, accountability, and

clarity of Extension’s mission and its goal of

making innovative program changes to meet

the issues of the 1990s. Issues were identified

with input from clientele and Extension staff

across the United States. A number of hearings were held around the nation to secure

additional input. The result of this process

was the publication of the report Cooperative

Extension System National Initiatives in conjunction with a national seminar that signaled

Extension’s commitment to the changes identified in the report and that outlined its plan

of action.

The nine identified initiatives in the report

encompass programs already offered by Extension. They identify critical issues and

problems, describe what Extension will do,
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension Ž 17

provide potential impacts of successful implementation, and provide examples of model

programs.

The nine initiatives are well motivated and

a step in the right direction. However, taken

together they are too all-encompassing. The

first and foremost concern is funding for initiative programs. It is highly unlikely that

new Federal funds will be forthcoming in the

near future because the executive and legislative branches are dealing with the difficult

budget deficit problem. Many state and local

governments face similar budgetary constraints. It may well be that funds will have to

be reallocated to accomplish even part of the

new initiatives, particularly if budgets decline.

Another concern is that no process exists

to reallocate funds to the most critical issues.

Currently, all nine initiatives are treated with

equal weight. Some mechanism is needed to

force priority setting among and within initiatives and to reallocate resources to those of

higher priority. The initiatives assume that

local priorities are the same as national ones.

Criteria and mechanisms are also needed to

balance local and state priorities with national

ones and to resolve differences if conflicts

arise. A critical question is whether these

initiatives are intended to direct resources

from a national viewpoint or merely to provide a descriptive framework into which states

can fit their self-determined programs. In the

absence of a mechanism to force action in

guiding and planning resource use, the latter

seems to be the outcome whether or not it is

the intent.

Questions arise about the specificity of the

goals in several initiatives and about whether

the impacts described can be measured in

specific and meaningful terms. At present, no

process exists to reevaluate priorities and

reallocate resources to meet new and emerging priorities. Evaluations should estimate

what impacts the initiatives have had and indicate whether goals have been reached and

problems solved. They should serve as a basis

for program adjustments or termination o:

programs and reallocation of resources. This

process is critical if the initiatives are to reach

their full potential as a priority setting and

planning tool.

Because priority-setting efforts are uncoordinated within the AR&E system, extension and research priorities do not match well

A comparison of the extension initiatives, research priorities and Joint Council priorities

are shown in Table 3-1. Wadsworth (1989)

concludes that “... over half of the Extension

Initiatives will not be supported by research

priorities.” Wadsworth attributes the difference in priorities to the mismatch between

the mission-orientation of extension and the

disciplinary/basic research orientation of the

experiment stations. There is evidence that

the Joint Council attempted to bridge the gap

between research and extension. It is not

clear, however, what changes were made in

either extension or research priorities after

the Joint Council report was released.

Priority-Setting Issues

To develop clearly stated and specific

priorities for the AR&E system, a number of

questions arise. They include the following:

1.

2.

3.

1. Is it possible to develop a single set of

national priorities for the research and extension system indicating the role, responsibilities, commitments and funding needs

of each component?

Should priority setting be a top-down, bottom-up or a peer determined process, or

some combination of these?

Can priorities be set for national, regional,

or local needs without the benefit of clearly
18 ● AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

stated missions and policies for the research and extension system?

4. What mechanisms and criteria should be

used to rank one priority over another?

5. How can national priorities be incorporated into state and local programs?

6. How can extension priorities be incorporated with those of agencies with research and education responsibilities?

STRUCTURE

Structure should facilitate the carrying out of

mission, planning, and priority setting of any institution. It is important to ask from time to time

what purpose an institution should serve and how

best to structure it to fulfill that purpose.

The present AR&E system is decentralized, being composed of Federal, state, and

local partners. Decentralization has advantages and drawbacks. One advantage is

responsiveness to local problems. However,

a major drawback of a decentralized system is

the difficulty of coordinating programs to address problems that extend beyond county,

state, or regional boundaries. It is also difficult to evaluate local and state efforts in

terms of national problems such as the competitiveness of the food and agriculture sector, improvement of the environment, and

safety of the food supply. With a decentralized system, changes are not easily made at the

national level. This may be in part because

funding is partitioned into Federal and state

appropriations, formula funds, competitive

grants, special grants, and private funding.

Local organizations may also resist structures

and courses of action that are seen as weakenTable 3-l-Research Priorities, Extension Priorities, and Joint Council Priorities

NARC Research Priorities Extension Priorities Joint Council priorities

Water Quantity and Quality

Biotechnology

Genetically Improved Plants

Soil Productivity

— Pest Management

Food Processing and Preservation

Agricultural Product Diversification

Animal Efficiency in Food Production

Animal Health and Disease

Food and Nutritional Health

Water Quality

Competitiveness and Profitability of

American Agriculture

— Improving Nutrition, Diet and Health

Revitalizing Rural America

Alternative Agriculture Opportunities

Conservation and Management of

Natural Resources

Family and Economic Well Being

Building Human Capital

Youth at Risk

Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Enhance Competitiveness of

Agriculture

improve Understanding of Diet,

Human Nutrition and Health

Relationships

Enhance Rural Economic

Development

Expand Biotechnology and Its

Applications

Develop Agricultural Production

Systems Compatible With the

Environment

Genetically Improve Economically

Important Plants

Improve Safety and Quality of Food

Products

Investigate Potential Effects of

Global Climate Changes on

Agricultural and Forest Productivity

Nurture the Nation’s Talent Base in

Food and Agricultural Sciences

Enhance Control of Agricultural and

Forests Pests and Diseases

Develop New and Expanded Uses

For Agricultural Products

Source: Wadsworth, H. A., “opportunities for Public Policy Education in the Extension Initiatives.” September 1989, and Joint Council on

Food and Agricultural Sciences, Fiscal Year 199 1 Priorities for Research. Extension. and Higher Edu cation, June 1989.
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challening Agricultural Research and Extension .19

ing local control or as potentially less responsive to perceived local needs.

There has been increasing competition

and division within the historical management

structure of the research complex. The situation has worsened as research budgets have

declined, both within S&E at USDA and

within universities. Little cooperation exists

between ARS, CSRS, and ES within USDA

and many colleges of Agriculture rarely

cooperate with other colleges such as Arts and

Sciences within the same university (7, 9).

This problem might be solved by prioritizing problems of national significance and

strengthening those structures, mechanisms,

and policies that facilitate the effective allocation of resources to solving those problems.

Mechanisms will also be needed to preserve

the strength of local and state programs and

provide enhanced support and leadership

from the Federal level.

New structures and mechanisms for technology development and transfer to the

private sector are evolving outside the AR&E

system. This is having an impact on the system. Extension’s knowledge base traditionally has been drawn from the state experiment

stations. This knowledge base is shrinking as

state experiment stations and the USDA

Agricultural Research Service place increased emphasis on “basic” research (15, 17).

As biotechnology is becoming more important in research, considerable sums of venture

capital have been invested in private biotechnology firms for development of new

products. All of this has left Extension out of

the research and problem applications loop.

Changes in technology and technology

development are taking place very rapidly.

Technology is international in scope and there

is fierce competition for control. It is imperative to reexamine and reevaluate the structures and mechanisms that tie Extension to

research and technology development in the

public as well as the private sector. Extension’s

relationships with the private sector need to

be reexamined if Extension is to link itself to

the emerging mechanisms that will control the

development of new technology and

knowledge. In particular, Extension needs to

be involved in the commercialization of new

technologies and knowledge, not only for the

purpose of identifying new products and concepts that could be used in education programs,

but also to assist actively in testing, evaluation,

and directing these products and concepts to

critical problems and issues. Much research

is of no use until it is transferred into a usable

product that can be incorporated into a

strategy for solving a problem. Extension can

and should be of valuable assistance in this

process.

The 1985 Food Security Act clarified the

role of extension in conducting applied research. Although much applied research is

being conducted by extension professional

staff, with more planned, resistance has been

encountered from Federal Extension and experiment station directors who believe that

this is not an appropriate role for extension.

In any case, the adequacy of resources for this

purpose is questionable.

An applied research component to Extension is essential, however, if its programs are

to be integrated with research developments.

The role of applied research in enhancing

cooperation between experiment stations and

extension services was addressed by a joint

Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) in

1988. It concluded that an applied research

component would allow Extension to link new

technologies and knowledge with its education programs. It recommended that:

a. The College of Agriculture or equivalent

units at land grant universities develop
20• Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

b.

c.

d.

mechanisms to enhance joint program

development, planning, priority setting,

and evaluation. These should include but

not be limited to task forces, budget initiatives, and publications/media programs.

The use of joint appointments between

experiment station and extension be further encouraged.

The ultimate basis for coordination, integration, and quality control of extension

research be formal projects subjected to

the same peer review and evaluation and

reporting requirements as those of experiment stations.

The extension efforts of experiment station scientists be integrated into extension

planning and priority setting mechanisms

and be subjected to peer review and

reporting requirements as are other extension programs.

Extension personnel need further training

if they are to understand and use the advances

in biotechnology and information technology

in developing programs for clientele. Structural changes are also needed to bring Extension into the mainstream of development and

dissemination of research results. Today, Extension is segregated from the new structures

and mechanisms that are shaping the development of new technologies (15).

Finally, Federal Extensions’s role in leading and coordinating the AR&E system and,

in particular, the ability of Federal Extension

to direct resources to national priorities,

needs to be reevaluated. Changes will be

needed in budgeting, planning, and evaluation if national goals and priorities are to be

met, thus justifying continued expenditures of

Federal resources. There is also concern that

Federal Extension is not taking the lead in

facilitating technology transfer between

USDA agencies with research programs and

state Cooperative Extension programs, or between states. Information must be made

available and shared in a coordinated way to

assure increased efficiency in technology

transfer (15).

Extension has initiated joint appointments with other agencies. This concept is

useful and could be extended, particularly

with CSRS, ARS, and ERS where specific

program areas need leadership in research

and technology transfer. In addition,

mechanisms for joint programming with other

USDA and Federal agencies might be useful.

Structure Issues

To facilitate the structural changes

needed for an effective AR&E system, a number of issues need to be addressed. Some of

the issues are:

1. How can the integrity of separate agencies

or research groups be retained while coordination of planning and other functions is

improved? What alternatives exist?

2. What structure(s) will promote coordination of the various groups that contribute

recommendations to S&E, e.g., Assistant

Secretaries, industry groups, Crop Advisory

Committees, CSRS, SAES, JC, UAB,

ESCOP, ECOP, RICOP, NASULGC, NPSARS, BOA-NAS and others? Are all these

groups needed? Does the structure foster

excessive planning?

3. The structure seems to work well at the

SAES-ARS level, and at the CSRS-SAES

level, but ineffectively for example, at the

more complex, CSRS-ARS-SAES levels

and the Department level. Can the structure be changed in a way that will make it

more effective at the higher or more complex organizational levels?

4. Much research of importance to agriculture is being carried out in institutions

other than agricultural institutions. How
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension ● 21

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

can the structure be modified to incorporate these institutions’ expertise and

contributions to agriculture?

What is the research and knowledge base

of extension? How does this base relate to

extension programs?

How can new sources of research and

knowledge be developed and incorporated

into public and private technology transfer

programs?

How can the developing gap between research and extension be overcome? How

can the obstacles posed by funding constraints and land-grant reward systems be

mitigated?

How will training be provided to Extension

professionals in biotechnologies, information technologies, applied research, and

emerging technologies?

What should be the balance between topdown planning and decentralized

programming?

What is the role of Federal Extension in

setting priorities, planning, resource allocation, evaluation, and coordination of

programs?

How can multidisciplinary approaches to

programs be developed?

How should Extension programs be coordinated with other technology transfer

programs in the public and private sectors?

What is the role of Extension in a plied

research and commercialization o tech- f

nologies? What structures are necessary

to facilitate involvement?

FUNDING

Much has been written about the inadequate funding of the research and extension

system especially at the Federal level (11, 17,

19, 20). Federal funding levels have been

relatively stable for the past three decades

especially to state agricultural experiment stations. States, for the most part, have made up

the difference to the experiment stations.

Federal appropriations are viewed as woefully

inadequate by those who work in the system.

However, those who control the appropriations process, i.e., OMB and Congress, are not

compelled to increase Federal funding for

AR&E. These groups point to agricultural

surpluses, the budget deficit, and competing

priorities (drugs, human health and diseases,

environmental problems and social issues) as

factors in their judgment against increased

AR&E funding. A critical factor, in their

opinion, is the system’s inadequate justification for research dollars (7, 13. Only small

increases in funding have been made in a few

clearly defined areas such as groundwater

quality and human nutrition. This situation is

reflective of the problems discussed earlier

encompassing mission, planning, priority setting, and structure. Until these issues are

resolved, determining the adequacy of

Federal funding is difficult.

An issue of growing importance is how to

allocate funds in research and extension.

Federal funds for research are distributed

four ways: for intramural research conducted

by USDA staff; in formula funds to the

SAES’S; as grants for special R&D initiatives;
22 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

and as competitive grants. Federal funds for

extension are allocated in two ways: in formula funds to state cooperative extension

agencies at land-grant institutions; and as

grants for special initiatives designated by the

Congress.

Intramural and formula funding have

been the major mechanisms for allocating

funds in research and extension since the

system’s inception. Research and extension

activities that require a continuous effort over

many years to obtain significant results are

often accomplished through base (formula)

funding. Grants for special initiatives designated by Congress have also been institutionalized.

Competitive grants are the newest

mechanism for allocating resources in agricultural research. Grants are awarded on the

basis of quality and technical merit as judged

by experienced scientists serving on peer

review panels.

Competitive granting is flexible and

responsive to new and emerging high priority

research areas. In contrast to research, no

competitive grants program exists for extension. Some grants for special initiatives are

awarded on a competitive basis but they are a

small proportion of extension’s Federal

budget. Major reliance on a formula system

gives cooperative extension the discretion

over how funds will be used with or without

reference to national priorities.

In recent years, the grant system has been

expanded to place increased emphasis on

basic research and to fund excellence

wherever it is found. Federal agricultural research grant-funding authorization for fiscal

1989 is shown below (10).

($ million)

Competitive grants 40

Special grants, national programs 18

Special problem grants 24

Total 82

Percent of total CSRS Funds 24%

The average agricultural research grant is

for $40,000 over 2.5 years (11). A major expansion of peer-reviewed competitive grants

(which now account for a small proportion of

research funds) is advocated by some experts

as a way of improving allocative efficiency.

Indeed, competitive grant funding currently

seems to be the only politically acceptable

source of additional Federal research support

for agriculture.

There is major disagreement over whether

competitive grant or base (formula) funding

provides the best use of limited Federal funds

for agricultural research. The following

review makes a strong if indirect case for combining these allocation strategies in private

and public funding (16).

Arguments for Base Funding

1. Base funding has been highly successful

and served the nation well. A large number of studies, many of them by disinterested analysts at Yale University and the

University of Chicago, show typical rates of

return of 50 percent on public investment

(2, 14). Huffman and Evenson (1989) es- r

timate the rate of return on public crop

research investment to be 62 percent. Fox

Evenson, and Ruttan (1987) show a rate of

return of 180 percent on specific crop research and disciplinary biological crop research for the 1944-83 period. While no

single study can be taken as definitive because of data shortcomings, overall the

evidence is compelling. The payoff from

public agricultural research and extension

calls for increased investment.

2. Base funding of agricultural research by

the Federal Government is a well-established and accepted historic social contract. Public research at land grant

institutions is viewed as an important

source of unbiased information that speeds

adoption of technology by producers.

Breaking the contract alienates political

support not only for agricultural grant research but for all agricultural research.
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension •23

3.

4.

5.

Base funding avoids the massive overhead

of the peer review system. A sizeable (estimates run to 50 percent) portion of research resources is spent writing proposals

and reports and reviewing proposals.

Much of this is done by peers who have

high opportunity cost. Base funding also

utilizes review and competition at the local

level but reduces overhead by relying more

on administrators who know local circumstances and problems. Peer review is

indeed a useful part of grant and base funding but, used excessively, it detracts from

useful output of research. Bonnen (1986)

notes that “Short-term project-by-project

grant proposals do not add up to coherent

long-term research programs,” and points

to wasted creativity of “senior scientists

who no longer have time for anything but

developing grant proposals and managing

a laboratory.”

Grants do not provide the long-term funding continuity essential for the most

productive use of research resources, especially in the case of basic research. As

noted earlier, the average duration of competitive agricultural research grants is only

2.5 years.

Peer reviewed grants are not necessarily

effective in funding pathbreaking basic research. Holt (1989) notes that “... early

basic research efforts in agricultural

biotechnology and agricultural applications of artificial intelligence were supported by formula funds before

biotechnology and artificial intelligence

became buzz words in basic science

circle s.” Pathbreaking basic research

resulting in antibiotics and the transistor

were not recognized early on as important

by peers. These and other breakthroughs

did not arise from a peer reviewed grant

proposal specifically addressing those

goals. The peer review system is useful for

directing substantial research resources to

an area after the important basic

breakthroughs have been achieved by base

6.

7,

8.

9.

funding of private or public research. The

most successful research establishments,

including some land grant and ivy league

universities, as well as Bell and DuPont

laboratories, have huge endowments or

other assured funding bases.

The large number of commodities, agroecosystems, and local social needs requires

research capabilities in many locations.

Base funding provides for this, whereas the

peer review system might concentrate research funds on a few large centers. The

profit motive might focus research on a few

major commodities. Those who review

grant funds may not be aware of local

agroecosystems and their research needs.

Research has been underway for some

years on integrated pest management and

conservation systems at land-grant universities. That research would have been

delayed by peer reviewed allocations; it

was called for by environmental and food

safety lobbies along with some farmers

rather than peer scientists.

The Federal Government has not dictated

precisely how base funds should be spent

by states. Some advocate a large Federal

role in funding along with dictation of how

funds are to be spent to best serve national

priorities.

The strong complementary relationship

between basic and applied research has

contributed to the favorable record of

agricultural research. Grant funding to institutions outside the system without

departments of agronomy and animal

sciences would not foster or benefit from

this symbiosis.

Basic research funded by competitive

grants tends to drive out applied research

funded by base allocations because institutions direct resources to where additional

funds can be obtained. Partly for that

reason Holt (1989) contends that “the

publicly-supported development and
24Ž Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

adaptive research and extension components of the AR&E system are weak and

getting weaker...”

Arguments for Competitive Grant Funding

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Base funding is the product of historical

political considerations and is not necessarily an efficient use of scarce funds in this

period of budget stringency. It is especially

influenced by commercial farming interests at the state level. The political process

calls for applied research on immediate

problems. Essential long-term basic research has low priority and is underfunded

by a base system.

Base funding has not recognized that a critical mass of research resources is required for

excellence. It spreads scarce resources too

thinly.

Market incentives are essential to productivity as apparent from the worldwide success of market economies and failure of

planned economies. Although basic research cannot be allocated by the market,

the competitive grant is the best and

closest alternative.

The academic tenure system limits the extent to which resources can be redirected

in base funded institutions. Peer review

enhances funding flexibility.

The National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and other major

sources of promising new biotechnology,

provide mostly peer reviewed competitive

grant funding.

Competitive grants reward research excellence wherever it maybe found, inside or

outside the traditional agricultural research establishments. Fears of the

agricultural establishment that competitive grants would place USDA agricultural

research funds outside the USDA-land

grant-SAES system are not well founded.

The agricultural establishment received 77

percent of USDA competitive grants and

78 percent of grant funds in FY88.

Performing Grants

organization awarded Amount ($)

Land grant -1862 98 10,282,180

SAESs 169 19,159,343

USDA/S&E Lab. 1.831.000

Subtotal 18 31,272,523

(77%) (78%)

Other public 32 3,208,200

Univ./College 28 3,487,287

Other 27 2,200,646

Total 372 40,168,656

SOURCE: Data provided b Competitive Research

Grants Programs Cooperative State Research

Service, U. S.Departrnent of Agriculture.

Funding Issues

To effectively address the concerns regarding funding for the AR&E system a number of

questions need to be answered. They include

the following:

1. What is the appropriate balance between

base funds and competitive grants?

2. What is the appropriate balance between

Federal and state funding for research and

extension?

3. Should states have more responsibility to

fund their infrastructure for conducting re-
Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension •25

search and extension focusing on local and 5. Has the redirection option for funding new

state priorities, and use Federal funds for priority research needs been adequately

emerging national issues? considered and used? Are incentives

needed to encourage redirection?

4. Is there a role for competitive grants in

cooperative extension? 6. How relevant is the current Federal formula for allocating resources?
Chapter 4

Alternative Policies for

Research and Technology Transfer

The main premise of this report is that a

broadening of research problems and the

beginning of a new era in technology will

present serious challenges to the AR&E system. The preceding discussion regarding mission, planning, priority setting, structure, and

funding indicates that the system may not be

able to effectively respond to these challenges.

Agricultural research and technology

transfer policy will once again be a major focus

of debate in the 1990 Farm Bill as it has been

in the past two farm bills. The debate will

likely center on the level and type of Federal

appropriations for, and the planning and control of agricultural research and extension.

The lack of increased real funds for

agricultural research has received much attention, most recently in the National Research Council report Investing in Research, to

be discussed later. However, until there is a

well articulated and coordinated research and

technology transfer policy, debate about allocating new funds to the system is premature.

Effective planning to develop goals, determine priorities, commit resources and

measure progress within the AR&E system is

also crucial. Many within and outside the system complain that too much planning already

exists. Most planning efforts, however, are

relatively ineffective. Planning is not easy in

a research system involving five Federal agencies, 57 state experiment stations, 50 extension services, and about 3,000 county

extension offices.

Complicating the issue is the combination

of Federal and state funds for agricultural

research, and of Federal, state and county

funds for extension. Each sector claims a

dominant role in the system.

An effective system of Federal planning

should consider, above all, the views of those

who ultimately use the products of research

and technology transfer services. The results

of a user-oriented Federal planning system

should be consistent with user-oriented state

and local planning efforts. They certainly

should not be contrary to state and/or local

interests.

Planning must identify an appropriate

balance of formula funds and competitive

grants for agricultural research and extension.

Large competitive research grants may create

a serious imbalance between research and extension. Interestingly, proposals for substantial increases in competitive grants funding

relate almost entirely to research. In reality,

there may be an equally pressing need for

competitive grants to develop education

programs and extension expertise in a time of

rapidly changing technology (8).

OTA proposes three alternatives for a national agricultural research and technology

transfer policy:

Continuation of the current policy as

implemented under the 1985 Farm Bill,

referred to hereinafter as the “status

quo.”

Development of a larger Federal role in

planning to align more closely research

and end-user needs, without necessarily

engendering large increases in

aggregate funding levels, referred to

hereinafter as the “national research and

extension policy alternative.”

27
28• Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

. Substantially increase the level of

competitive grants research while

continuing current levels of formula

funding and/or appropriated funding for

research and extension, referred to

hereinafter as the “competitive grants

alternative.”

STATUS QUO ALTERNATIVE

A simplified schematic drawing of the current organizational structure of agricultural

research and extension is shown in figure 4-1.

While by statute the Users Advisory Board

(UAB) reports to the White House, in practice it reports to USDA as does the Joint

Council. It is difficult to depict accurately the

complexities of the agricultural research and

extension system in a single chart. Underlying

virtually each component of the system is a

series of national, regional, state, and local

(extension) planning groups. For example,

the Experiment Station Committee on Policy

(ESCOP) reviews and establishes priorities as

input into the Cooperative State Research

Service (CSRS) budget process. Likewise,

the Extension Committee on Policy (ECOP)

reviews and establishes priorities as input to

the Cooperative Extension Service budget

process. An extensive six year planning function also occurs in the Agricultural Research

Service (ARS) (8).

Based on the findings in this report and in

previous OTA reports dealing with the

AR&E system, maintaining the status quo will

have the following consequences:

Figure 4-l-Current Organizational Structure for Agricultural Research and Extension

Secretary

of

Agriculture Agriculture

I

Assistant Secretary

for Science and

Education

Competitive

Research

Grants Office

Scientific Peer Special

Advisory Review Blue

Panel Panels Panels

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 4-AlternativePolicies for Research and Technology Transfer. 29

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The new era of biotechnology and information technology will likely bypass the

traditional AR&E system. Advances in

these areas combined with changes in

public policy regarding patent rights, have

shifted the balance of agricultural research

expertise in the direction of private sector

firms and non-land-grant universities. A

minority of the land-grant universities will

remain competitive in this new era.

The lack of a clearly enunciated missionoriented policy for the AR&E system

means the system will continue to lack

direction and focus.

Planning and priority setting within the system will continue to be ineffective. No

mechanism exists to assure follow-through

on initiatives or on recommendations of

the Joint Council and/or Users Advisory

Board. There is much planning but little

resulting action.

The AR&E system will continue to be

structured in a way that does not allow it to

change easily.

Increased emphasis by land-grant universities and USDA on basic research, combined with accelerated technical change

and continued neglect of applied research

needs, will continue to expand the

knowledge gap between research and extension. Extension has made an effort to

improve its responsiveness to contemporary concerns through its national initiatives efforts. However, without

commensurate shifts in the allocation of

Federal funds to these specific initiatives,

national impacts are difficult to detect and

quantify. Extension continues to be “all

things to all people” without specifically

narrowing its priorities and allocating its

resources to those priorities.

NATIONAL RESEARCH AND

EXTENSION POLICY ALTERNATIVE

The National Research and Extension

Policy Alternative is the product of OTA

deliberations based on its analysis of the status

quo. It is a mission-oriented approach

designed to increase the responsiveness of the

AR&E system to the needs of the food and

agriculture system.

One principle problem with the current

AR&E system is the lack of effective planning

and its inability to respond to change. While

the Congress has attempted to make the system more responsive through the formation

of the Joint Council and UAB, the overall

system resists change. The National Research

and Extension Policy Alternative is designed

to create a more responsive and better-coordinated AR&E system. The major components of this system include:

A clearly enunciated mission-oriented

AR&E policy.

A restructured integrated and coordinated

AR&E planning system.

A combination of formula and

competitive grant funding consistent

with planning and political realities.

AR&E Policy

The first, and perhaps the most important

component of the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a statement of

clearly enunciated policy supported by the

Secretary of Agriculture. While it can be argued that all secretaries of agriculture have

supported the agricultural research and extension system – the original purpose for

which the USDA was established – a policy

statement of the type contemplated by this
30. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

alternative has never been made. Such a

statement could articulate the following principles to be implemented by all USDA- agencies:

●

●

●

●

Research and extension will be integral

to carrying out agricultural, food, trade

and rural policy in all dimensions. Thus,

every USDA action agency will be

required to consider seriously its research

needs when developing and

implementing its programs. Likewise,

USDA research and extension must be

responsive to the research and

technology transfer needs of the action

agencies.

The research and extension functions of

USDA will be operated according to a

plan. The broad outlines of this plan

initially will be developed by an

Agricultural Science and Education

Policy Board (ASEPB) (discussed

later). The plan will emphasize the

Federal role in the agricultural research

and extension system but leave room for

state and local planning. More detailed

planning will be expected within

individual USDA research and

extension agencies and at the state and

local levels.

The research and extension system will

be mission-oriented with significant

user influence on the planning process

and on resulting research and education

programs. (USDA and the land-grant

system were created with a clear focus

on mission-oriented problem solving.)

Research and technology transfer

functions will be carried out by the

scientists/institutions most competent to

efficiently achieve mission-oriented

objectives. This implies no

predetermined mix of competitive

grants and formula funds. The optimum

mix would be expected to change over

time and be tuned to the specific nature

of the problem. Action agencies may

best be served by ARS or ERS funding,

while certain types of mission-oriented

basic research or the development of

extension education materials may best

be supported by competitive grants.

This means relatively more emphasis on

competitive grants for research and

extension and less on predetermined

formula funding.

Research and Extension Policy Planning

System

The proposed policy statement implies a

user-oriented research and extension system

that places increased emphasis on competitive grants in research and extension

programs. The structure of the system is illustrated in figure4-2. The key planning components include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Users Advisory Council (UAC)

Agricultural Science and Education

Policy Board (ASEPB)

Technical Panels

Existing research and extension agencies

Secretary of Agriculture

Assistant Secretary for Science and

Education (as ASEPB chair)

Federal research and extension planning

activities would be operationally centered in

ASEPB. However, the planning process itself

begins in UAC, reflecting the user- and mission-oriented basis of the system. Planning

functions are also included in research and

extension agencies at the Federal, state and

local levels.

Users Advisory Council. UAC input

would be considerably expanded beyond that
Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer ● 31

Figure 4-2-Organizational Structure for National Research and Extension Policy Alternative

I CONGRES S

Identif y

Problems r

Coordinate

Industr y

Support

Evaluat e

Results I

1

COUNCI L

Farmer

Organizations

Agribusiness

organizations

Publi c

Interes t

\ I

Assistant Secretar y

f o r

Science and Education

I

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

of the current Users Advisory Board (UAB).

Development of recommendations on

Coordination of industry support for

agricultural research and extension at

Develop Overall

Research and

Technolog y

Transfer Plan

Develop Mission- Evaluate Results

Oriented Plan

Mak e

Recommendation s

The results of the UAC’S efforts would be

reported regularly to ASEPB and annually to

the Congress. UAC would be a quasi-public,

quasi-private entity in that most of its active

participants would be private organizations

and foundations whose mission would be

helping to plan public research. USDA action

agencies or other interested public agencies

would be involved in its deliberations.

UAC would be composed of board members representing:

. Farmers and farm organizations
32Ž Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

. Agribusiness firms and associations

. Public interest groups

. Foundations

. USDA action agencies

In contrast to the UAB which is appointed

by the Secretary, UAC board members would

be elected to represent and would serve at the

pleasure of the above groups.

Each group could include specialized segments. For example, agribusiness might include a representative from input supplies,

food processors, and exporters. Farm groups

might include commodity groups, general

farm organizations, and cooperatives. It is

suggested that the total membership on UAC

not exceed 25.

Membership on UAC could be a part-time

to full-time job. Members would be sought

who have considerable scientific expertise

and contact with clientele. UAC could be

entirely a privately financed operation or it

could be a joint public/private undertaking. It

could operate much like producer checkoff

programs with public accountability for its

operations.

To participate in UAC on an active basis,

some agricultural associations/action agencies would have to improve substantially their

understanding of their research and technology transfer responsibilities. Each group

would have to establish methods for deciding

research and technology transfer priorities.

The best organized member group would

likely have the greatest influence on UAC

decisions.

UAC would produce a set of recommendations regarding research goals and funding

levels. In certain instances, joint

public/private research undertakings may be

recommended, and a commitment made for

private funding support to tackle particularly

complex problems. In addition to annual

recommendations, UAC would produce interim reports as appropriate. UAC would interact with ASEPB on a continual basis.

Agricultural Science and Education

Policy Board. ASEPB would be the research

and technology transfer planning center for

USDA. In contrast to the current Joint Council, it would have a single chair, the Assistant

Secretary for Science and Education. It

would include the following members who

would be appointed by the Secretary of

Agriculture, or other relevant agency head in

the case of NIH and NSF:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Assistant Secretary for Economics

Administrator of each USDA research

and technology transfer agency (ARS,

ERS, CSRS, FS, ES, NAL)

ESCOP chairman or designated representative

(experiment station representative)

ECOP chairman .

representative

(extension representative

RICOP Chairman or designated representative

(resident instruction representative)

One 1890 university dean or designated

representative

AASCARR chairman or designated

representative (non-land-grant-representative)

NIH administrator or designated

representative

NSF administrator or designated

representative

Experiment stations and extension services would be equally represented on
Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer •33

ASEPB. However, total scientific representation would be weighted toward research.

NIH, NSF, and AASCARR representation is

designed to secure increased coordination

among the basic and applied research components as well as between the land-grant and

non-land-grant components of the system.

Those ASEPB members who are not administrators of Federal agencies would serve

for appointed or elected terms of no more

than four years. All costs associated with

ASEPB would be borne by USDA.

ASEPB Functions. ASEPB would

manage the Federal research and extension

mission-oriented planning process and oversee the allocation of competitive grants for

research and technology transfer. In terms of

specific functions, ASEPB would:

Produce a Rolling Five Year Agricultural

Research and Extension Plan. This plan would

set forth major goals, priorities, and means for

achievement, and be transmitted to the

Secretary of Agriculture annually for endorsement and to the Congress.

. Establish Goals. The plan, with input

provided by UAC, would set forth

specific, measurable goals for the

system. For example, instead of merely

identifying water quality as a problem, it

would consider how to reduce nitrates in

well water by 25 percent by 1993.

● Establish Priorities. The key to an

effective planning system is the

establishment of priorities within the

overall budget constraints prescribed by

the Administration and the Congress.

UAC input would be an important

component of the priority-setting

process. The established priorities

would have major impacts on funding

allocations and competitive grant

decisions.

Ž Maintain Intelligence System. To operate

effectively, ASEPB would need to

identify the major centers of research

and technology transfer expertise. It

would probably need to maintain a

scientific talent data bank, which could

be located in the National Agriculture

Library.

. Create Technical Panels. The technical

panels would develop general plans,

approaches, and recommendations for

tackling particular priority problems

(see below).

. Determine Responsibility. ASEPB would

need to determine which agency holds

responsibility for tackling specific

priority problems. Responsibilities may

be delegated to particular agencies or

combinations of agencies that would

thereafter be accountable for funding

and maintaining progress. The ultimate

authority for designating responsibility

would lie with the Assistant Secretary

for Science and Education.

● Evaluate Results. Performance of the

research and extension system in

pursuing the goals set forth by the

planning process would be assessed by

ASEPB as a basis for future planning

and funding.

To perform these functions effectively,

ASEPB would require a staff to assist in planning and evaluation. Each agency might be

asked initially to contribute staff with

qualifications specified by ASEPB, although

in the long run a combination of permanent

and assigned staff may provide a desired mix

of expertise.

In the ASEPB framework, the USDA research and extension agencies would continue

to operate with the same general responsibilities they now have. However, their

programs would be affected by decisions

made in ASEPB. Through representation in
34• Agricultural Research and Technology TransferPolicies for the 1990s

ASEPB, USDA would participate in making

these decisions.

Technical Panels. Technical panels

would be established by ASEPB for each

major research and technology-transfer

priority. These panels would contribute

scientific input and expertise to the process of

planning to complete missions and solve

problems relevant to the priority.

Panels would be temporary although they

might be reconvened to monitor progress on

a particular priority and to develop additional

recommendations. Panels would be of the

minimum size required to include expertise

on all dimensions of the mission, including its

basic science, applied research, education, social and economic dimensions. Research and

extension, as well as the private sector, would

be represented.

Each technical panel would have four

primary responsibilities:

● Define the dimensions of research and

technology transfer encompassed by its

mission.

● Delineate the alternatives and

recommended research and technology

transfer approaches for dealing with its

mission.

● Describe the centers of expertise (public and

private, land-grant and non-land-grant)

relevant to its mission.

● Make recommendations regarding the

appropriate overall level and mix of

available funding. The technical panel

would not make finding decisions nor

would it be a substitute for peer review of

funding proposals. Those responsibilities

would continue to lie with the relevant

agencies (ARS, ERS, CSRS, FS, ES).

However, members of the panel might

logically also serve on peer review

panels.

Reports of technical panels would be

transmitted directly to ASEPB to help guide

its decisions regarding the research and extension plan.

Secretary of Agriculture. The role of the

Secretary of Agriculture is to provide leadership and to convince the Administration of the

importance of agricultural research and extension functions. The Secretary needs to

support the planning process, the overall

thrust of the plan, and its major priorities in

pleading the case for funding within the Administration. And, the Secretary needs to establish policy regarding the cooperation of all

affected Assistant Secretaries. Likewise,

ASEPB and the related agencies need to be

responsive to the priorities established by the

overall political process within which policy

and funding decisions are made.

AR&E Funding

Under the policy of the National Research

and Extension Alternative, funding initiatives

come directly from ASEPB and from UAC.

The Secretary, having overtly adopted the

ASEPB policy, would likely support ASEPB

recommendations in negotiations with OMB.

UAC would be much more active in pressing the case for appropriations with the Administration and the Congress than the

current UAB. Its effectiveness would be enhanced by the direct involvement of all major

interest groups in research and extension

decision processes.

This alternative would probably increase

the relative importance of competitive-grant

funding. More discretionary funds seem to be

inherent to a system driven by effective user-
Ch. 4–Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer. 35

oriented planning and by the goal of engaging

the best scientists in research and technology

transfer activities. Increased competitive-

-

grant funds for research and extension, however, would not come at the expense of

formula funds in this alternative. The appropriate mix of formula funds and competitive grants would nonetheless be determined

by the deliberations of the technical panels,

UAC, ASEPB, the Secretary, OMB and the

Congress.

One of the most agonizing issues would be

whether to continue Federal support for

AR&E activities in every state. There is no

easy answer to this and considerably greater

study of this issue is required. A tradeoff

between efficiency and the survival of specific

state/local institutions could be involved.

However, if serious attention is given to the

missions, policies, and priorities on a national

basis, each state would have an opportunity to

establish its own role in the system.

Likely Consequences of National Research

and Extension Policy Alternative

While all USDA research and extension

agencies would remain intact, this alternative

would change considerably the structure of

research and extension, with attendant disruptive effects. These effects may be viewed

positively or negatively, depending on one’s

perspective. However, if the current planning

system is acknowledged to be flawed in light

of changing conditions and if most of the following predicted consequences occur, then

adoption of this policy alternative should have

a positive impact overall.

Likely consequences are:

. The role of Federal planningintheAR&E

system would increase. Increased

emphasis on Federal planning would

reduce the dominant role of state-oriented

planning, and some responsiveness to

local grassroots-expressed needs could

decline. However, if the UAC and

ASEPB are working properly, increased

grassroots responsiveness could be

anticipated at the Federal level.

The USDA would have an internally

consistent AR&E policy. The Secretary

of Agriculture would be directly

involved in establishing, monitoring,

and endorsing AR&E policy. Thus,

AR&E would have greater visibility

within USDA than it now does.

A basis would exist for effective,

mission-oriented AR&E planning.

Research funding would be allocated

towards programs not agencies. The

argument that too much planning

already exists results largely from the

ineffectiveness of current planning and

follow-through.

Multidisciplinary research would increase.

Increased integrationof biological(CSRS, FS

and ARS) and economic (ERS) research

would occur through ASEPB, UAC and the

technical panels. Extension considerations

would also bean integral part of the planning

process

The use of formula funds and competitive

grants would be more balanced.

Certain research and extension functions

could become more concentrated in the

hands of agencies and/or institutions

that have the greatest expertise. This

process is gradually occurring under the

status quo policies, but would likely

accelerate. Some agricultural research

and/or extension components may not

be viable at some land-grant universities.

Choices would need to be made as to

where efforts (expertise) and resources

are to be concentrated to secure Federal

support that can be matched with state

resources. Some institutions may

decide not to seek Federal competitive

grants for any of their programs. Some

may discontinue certain agricultural
36 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

●

●

research and/or extension functions

and/or contract for them with other

states. Some functions could be

performed on a regional basis by mutual

consent of those institutions involved.

A mechanism would exist through the

UAC for more effective user input into

AR&E decisions. This may lead to a

more effective lobby on behalf of

AR&E before the Congress and within

the Administration. The technical

panels and peer review of competitive

grants would buffer this increased

political clout and satisfy the need for

objectivity in science.

Potential would exist for increased

financial support for the AR&E system

with improved planning, priority setting,

and integration of research and

extension.

COMPETITIVE GRANTS

ALTERNATIVE

The Competitive Grants Alternative was

developed by the Board on Agriculture of the

National Research Council, National

Academy of Sciences in the report lnvesting in

Research. This proposal recommends:

. Establishing a $500 million agriculture,

food, and environment competitive

research grants program within USDA

to support national research initiatives

in public and private universities and

colleges, not-for-profit institutions, and

research agencies of the state and

Federal Government. The Competitive

Grants Alternative would encompass all

science and technology relevant to

research needs for agriculture, food, and

environment ranging from basic biology

to the social sciences and public policy.

Placing major emphasis on fundamental

and mission-linked multidisciplinary

research. Mission-linked multidisciplinary

grants would be designed to facilitate

application of knowledge and the transfer

of technology to the user through joint

research-extension studies.

Providing research strengthening grants to

institutions and individual.

Increasing the duration and size of grants.

Maintaining current levels of formula funds

and USDA agency support for research or

extension.

No change in the Joint Council and UAB

structure nor in the overall planning process.

Competitive Grants Administrative

Structure

The Competitive Grants Alternative

recommends elevating the Competitive Research Grants Office from its current position

in CSRS to agency status within USDA’s Office of Science and Education. As such, it

would have equal status with ARS, CSRS,

ERS, FS, NAL and ES. Otherwise, the structure of USDA’s science and education program would remain basically intact (figure

4-3).

Differences From National Research and

Extension Policy Alternative

The Competitive Grants Alternative would

not place as much emphasis on planning as the

National Research and Extension Policy Alternative, which makes planning the driving force

of the system. The driving force in the Competitive Grants Alternative is more money for research. Under the Competitive Grants

Alternative, it is assumed that the major problem with the AR&E system is a lack of adequate
Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer. 37

Figure 4-3-Organizational Structure for Competitive Grants Alternative

Executive Office

of the

President

Users

+ Advisory

Board

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

research funding, not structural problems in

implementing a mission-oriented research

and extension program as is assumed under

the National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative.

The Competitive Grants Alternative

places virtually all of its emphasis upon research. One of its recommendations mentions technology and extension but only in

terms of establishing a continuum from research to applications, not in terms of the

programs. It maybe concluded that the Competitive Grants Alternative is a research

proposal while the National Research and Extension Policy Alternative is a research and

extension proposal.

Likely Consequences of the Competitive

Grants Alternative

● Increased research funds would be

available to all public and private

universities (land-grant and non-land-grant)

and government research agencies able to

compete on a scientific basis. While

formula fund support would not change,

the role of competitive grants funding

would be more comparable with what it

is in NIH and NSE
38. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

● The rate of discovery and technological

change in agricultural research would

accelerate.

● Greater potential would exist for dealing with ●

complex multidisciplinary problems.

● While funds would be available for

strengthening grants, this proposal would

inevitably lead to increased concentration of

research talent However, this result may not

be unique to this altemative. It has happened ●

under the status quo and wouldprobably also

happen under the research and extension

policy alternative.

. The gap between basic and applied

research could be reduced. However,

neglect of extension education as a

funding target would inevitably lead to a

serious gap between research and

extension.

Nothing is done to improve the planning

system and the linkage between

planning and execution. There is

nothing to assure that funds are

allocated to UAB and Joint Council

determined priorities.

The drain of the best scientific talent

away from extension would accelerate as

more funds become available for

research. And salaries would likely rise

in research relative to extension. The

best extension scientists would have

strong incentives to seek experiment

station appointments.
Appendixes
Appendix A.-Glossary of Acronyms

AASCARR

ARS

ASEPB

BOA

CSRS

ECOP

ERS

ES

ESCOP

FS

JC

NAL

NASULGC

NIH

NPS

NSF

OMB

RICOP

SAES

UAB

UAC

American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable

Resources

Agricultural Research Service

Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board

Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council

Cooperative State Research Service

Extension Committee on Policy

Economic Research Service

Extension Service

Experiment Station Committee on Policy

Forest Service

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences

National Agriculture Library

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

National Institutes of Health

National Program Staff of Agricultural Research Service

National Science Foundation

Office of Management and Budget

Resident Instruction Committee on Policy

State Agricultural Experiment Station

National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board

Users Advisory Council

40
Appendix B.-Agricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables

41
42 AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

o

0

0

N -I’a- -

.

c

u

N

00000 0

0

0
New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1,309,000

4,435,000

5,289,000

1,917,000

4,649,000

2,480,000

2,255,000

4,904,000

3,518,000

1,003,000

2,790,000

1,956,000

3,845,000

5,138,000

1,424,000

1,178,000

3,387,000

2,909,000

2,171,000

4,064,000

1,262,000

0

861,000

756,000

32,000

171,000

139,000

325,000

266,000

0

0

0

0

51,000

281,000

164,000

17,000

2,000

55,000

0

1,034,000

0

139,485,000 11,873,000

93,000

748,000

392,000

218,000

332,000

276,000

792,000

714,000

568,000

34,000

583,000

0

226,000

480,000

146,000

148,000

119,000

327,000

46,000

871,000

0

19,502,000

230,000

143,000

484,000

118,000

304,000

330,000

47,000

354,000

13,000

67,000

22,000

181,000

334,000

532,000

185,000

16,000

432,000

329,000

272,000

489,000

148,000

1,632,000

6,187,000

6,921,000

2,285,000

5,456,000

3,226,000

3,419,000

6,239,000

4,099,000

1,104,000

3,394,000

2,137,000

4,456,000

6,431,000

1,919,000

1,359,000

3,940,000

3,620,000

2,489,000

6,457,000

1,409,000

13,361,000 184,212,000

566,000

1,175,000

1,867,000

272,000

138,000

163,000

551,000

447,000

0

0

0

0

83,000

2,176,000

452,000

56,000

1,168,000

713,000

163,000

720,000

0

2,198,000

7,362,000

8,788,000

2,557,000

5,594,000

3,389,000

3,970,000

6,686,000

4,099,000

1,104,000

3,394,000

2,137,000

4,539,000

8,607,000

2,371,000

1,415,000

5,108,000

4,333,000

2,652,000

7,177,000

1,409,000

30,829,000 215,041,000

187,000

11,587,000

7,043,000

402,000

36,000

334,000

4,349,000

2,049,000

0

207,000

34,000

0

301,000

4,987,000

1,745,000

186,000

3,368,000

2,789,000

65,000

11,736,000

502,000

2,385,000

18,949,000

15,831,000

2,959,000

5,630,000

3,723,000

8,319,000

8,735,000

4,099,000

1,311,000

3,428,000

2,137,000

4,840,000

13,594,000

4,116,000

1,601,000

8,476,000

7,122,000

2,717,000

18,913,000

1,911,000

7.8

61.1

44.5

13.6

0.6

9.0

52.3

23.5

00.0

15.8

1.0

00.0

6.2

36.7

42.4

11.6

39.7

39.2

2.4

62.1

26.3

aHatch includes Hatch Fundsand Regional Funds administered byCSRS. L

‘COMPare Competitive Research Grants administered by the Competitive Research Grants Office ofCSRS.

cSPGT are Special Grants administeredby CSRS.

‘Other CSRS includes Mclntire-Stennis Funds (Forestry), EWns-AHen Funds (1890 Colleges and Tuskegee institutes),

andAnimal Health Funds, (Veterinary Science) and any Other aRsadministered funds not included in HATCH, COMP, and SPGT.

~otal CSRSisthesumofHATCH, COMP,SPGT,andotherCSRS.

‘CGCAare grants, contracts and cooperative agreements administered byUSDA agencies other than CSRS.

gTotal USDA is thesum oftotal CSRSand CGCA.

‘Other federal aregrants, contracts, and cooperative agreements administered byfederal agencies otherthan USDA.

‘Total federal isthe sumoftotal USDAand other federal.

jpercent oftotal from other federal isother federal divided by total federal multiplied bylw.

SOURCE: Compiled from Inventory of Agricultural Research, FY86, USDA/CSRS.

110,799,000 325,840,000 34.0
44 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

m

00000000 0

. -

. . . . . . . . .

000000 0000000 0 0

0 00000 0 00000 0

0 00000 0 00000 0

0
. . m . . . N . N

N

sm

ii

.K
Table B-3—Top 10 State Agricultural Experiment Stations with Biotechnology Funds from

Federal Sources Other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture for FY 1986

and FY 1988 (in dollars)

State 1986 1988

California

Colorado

Indiana

Michigan

New York

North Carolina

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wisconsin

Total for 10 SAES

Total SAESa

3,339,550

519,316

1,466,903

1,580,824

2,931,892

774,460

1,534,105

268,955

466,789

3.232.370

16,115,164

20,954,078

3,965,419

1,387,628

3,129,294

993,944

2,337,641

1,338,578

1,466,137

1,288,030

1,090,447

3.240,762

20,237,880

27,563,761

Proportion of 10 SAES

To total (Percentage) 77 73

aData was unavailable for the SAES from AL, AK CN, DE, DC, ID, NV, NM, ND, VT, and WY.

SOURCE: Compiled from Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture: Issues and Policies,

Progress Report VIII, Nov. 1989, NASULGC.
Appendix C.-Workshop Participants

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s Workshop

Norman Berg

Severna Park, MD

Donald Bills

Agriculture Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Beltsville, MD

Patrick Borich

Director

Cooperative Extension Service

University of Minnesota

Lucas Calpouzos

School of Agriculture

California State University

Mary Carter

Associate Administrator

Agricultural Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

Neville Clark

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas A&M University

Arnold Denton

Senior Vice-President

Campbell Soup Company

Camden, NJ

Chester T. Dickerson

Director Agricultural Affairs

Monsanto Company

Washington, DC

Catherine Donnelly

Associate Director

Agriculture Experiment Station

College of Agriculture& Life Science

University of Vermont

Jeanne Edwards

Weston, MA

W.P. Flatt

Dean

College of Agriculture

University of Georgia

Ray Frisbe

1PM Coordinator

Department of Entomology

Texas A&M University

Paul Genho

National Cattlemen’s Association

Deseret Ranches of Florida

St. Cloud, FL

Robert Heil

Director

Agricultural Experiment Station

Colorado State University

Jim Hildreth

Managing Director

Farm Foundation

Oak Brook, IL

Verner Hurt

Director

Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station

Mississippi State University

Terry Kinney

York, S C

Ronald Knutson

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas A&M University

William Marshall

President

Microbial Genetics Division

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

Johnston, IA

Roger Mitchell

Director

Agricultural Experiment Station

University of Missouri

Lucinda Noble

Director

Cooperative Extension

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

47
48 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

Susan Offutt

Office of Management and Budget

Washington, DC

Dave Phillips

President

National Association of County Agents

Lewistown, MT

Jack Pincus

Director of Marketing

Michigan Biotechnology Institute

Lansing, MI

Dan Ragsdale

Research Director

National Corn Growers Association

St. Louis, MO

Roy Rauschkolb

Resident Director

Maricopa Agricultural Center

Maricopa, AZ

Alden Reine

Dean

Cooperative Agricultural Research Center

Prairie View A&M University

Prairie View, TX

Grace Ellen Rice

American Farm Bureau Federation

Washington, DC

Robert Robinson

Associate Administrator

Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

Jerome Seibert

Economist

Department of Agricultural Economics

University of California-Berkeley

Keith Smith

Director of Research

American Soybean Association

St. Louis, MO

William Stiles

Subcommittee Consultant

Subcommittee on Department Operations,

Research, and Foreign Agriculture

Committee on Agriculture

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC

William Tallent

Assistant Administrator

Agricultural Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

Jim Tavares

Associate Executive Director

Board on Agriculture

National Research Council

Washington, DC

Luther Tweeten

Anderson Chair for Agricultural Trade

Department of Agricultural Economics and

Rural Sociology

Ohio State University

Walter Walla

Director

Extension Service

University of Kentucky

Tim Wallace

Extension Economist

Department of Agricultural Economics

University of California-Berkeley

Fred Woods

Agricultural Programs

Extension Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington DC

John Woeste

Director

Cooperative Extension Service

University of Florida
References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Bonnen, James T, “A Century of Science

in Agriculture: Lessons for Science

Policy,” American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, December 1986, pp. 1065-

1080.

Braha, Habtu and Luther Tweeten,

Evaluating Past and Prospective Future

Payoffs from Public Investments to Increase

Agricultural Productivity Technical Bulletin T-163 (Stillwater, OK: Agricultural

Experiment Station, Oklahoma State

University, 1986).

Fox, Glenn, Robert Evenson, and Vernon

Ruttan, “Balancing Basic and Applied

Science: The Case of Agricultural Research,” Bioscience 37:507-509, 1987.

Hildreth, R. S., “Legitimacy and Support

for Extension: A Policy Issue” (New Orleans, LA: National Public Policy Education Conference, September 20, 1989).

Holt, Don, “Mechanisms for Federal

Funding of Agricultural Research and

Development” (Champaign-Urbana, IL:

Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station,

University of Illinois, 1989).

Huffman, Wallace E. and Robert E. Evenson, “Supply and Demand Functions for

Multiproduct U.S. Cash Grain Farms:

Biases Caused by Research and Other

Policies, ’’American Journal ofAgricultural

Economics, August 1989, pp. 761-73.

Kinney, Terry, “Agricultural Research Issues for the 1990s,” a background paper

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for

the 1990s, September 1989.

Knutson, Ronald D., “Alternative National Agricultural Research and Technology

Transfer Policies,” a background paper

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Re9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

search and Technology Transfer Policy for

the 1990s, September 1989.

Marshall, William, “The Changing Technology Environment,” a background paper

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for

the 1990s, September 1989.

NASULGC, Strategic Investments for

Agricultural Research, Extension, and

Higher Education (Washington, DC: National Association for State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges, 1989).

National Research Council, Investing in

Research (Washington, DC: Board on

Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences, 1989).

National Research Council, Educating the

Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists

(Washington, DC: Board on Agriculture,

National Academy of Sciences, 1988).

Offut, Susan, “The Changing Budget Environment for Agricultural Research and

Technology Transfer,’f a background paper

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for

the 1990s, September 1989.

Ruttan, Vernon W., Agricultural Research

Policy (Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press, 1982).

Siebert, Jerry, “TechnologyTransfer Issues

for the 1990s,” a background paper

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for

the 1990s, September 1989.

Tweeten, Luther, ‘fThe Competitive Environment for Agricultural Research and

Technology Transfer," a background paper

prepared for the Office of Technology As49
50. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

17.

18.

19.

sessment Workshop on Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for

the 1990s, September 1989.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology Public Policy and

the Changing Structure of American

Agriculture, OTA-F-285 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, A Review of U.S. Competitiveness in Agricultural Trade, OTA-TM-TET29

(Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing

0ffice, October 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Agricultural Postharvest Techno logy and Marketing Economics

Research, OTA-TM-F-21 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

April 1983).

20.

21.

22.

23.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of the United

States Food and Agricultural Research System, OTA-F-155 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, December

1981).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, “National Initiatives”

(Washington, DC: USDA, February

1987).

U.S. General Accounting Office, US.

Department of Agriculture - Interim Report

on Ways to Enhance Management,

GAO/RCED-90-19 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989).

Wadsworth, H. A., “Opportunities for

Public Policy Education in the Extension

Initiatives” (New Orleans, LA: National

Public Policy Education Conference),

September 20, 1989.

NOTE: Copies of this Special Report “Agricultural

Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the

1990s: A Special Report of OTA’s Assessment on

Emerging Agricultural Technology Issues for the 1990s”

can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

DC 20402-9325, GPO stock No. 052-003-01182-4.

0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1990 - 27-690 : QL 3