An Assessment of the United States Food

and Agricultural Research System

December 1981

NTIS order #PB-82-170572
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-600189

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

This report examines the U.S. food and agricultural research system. The U.S.

food and agricultural enterprise has been extremely successful, in part because of

sustained public support of agricultural research and demonstration. As we face a

future of increased demands on our agricultural resources, it is essential to ensure

that the research system function as effectively as possible. Congressional concern centers around the roles of the research participants, long-range research

priority planning, funding for research, and the organizational structure of the

food and agricultural research organizations. The Senate Committees on Appropriations and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, requested OTA to address

these issues. The House Agriculture Committee endorsed the request. OTA was

specifically asked to focus its assessment on the structure of the research system

and thus complement previous studies which identified research priorities.

In early 1981 the draft report of this project was made available to the staffs of

the requesting committees, USDA, and AID for review and comment. It is gratifying to note that USDA and AID have already begun to make changes within their

organizations to deal with some of the problems identified in the report. Also, material in the report has been used in drafting current legislation that amends title

XIV of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977.

OTA was assisted by three work groups and an advisory panel of research administrators, scientists, farmers, processors, retailers, consumers, and those concerned with the relationship between food and agricultural sciences and society.

The advisory panel was instrumental in helping us identify the issues for analysis

and in reviewing the commissioned papers and drafts of the report. The work

groups provided guidance in identifying the topic, component parts, and authors

for each of the commissioned papers, and in reviewing the papers and drafts of

the report, Sixty reviewers from universities, government, and industry provided

helpful comments

these individuals.

on report drafts. OTA expresses sincere appreciation to all

. . .

///
U.S. Food and Agricultural Research Advisory Panel

Aileen Adams

Consumer Consultant

Roger Blobaum

president

Roger Blobaum and Associates

Carl W. Carlson

Retired

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Demonic L. Carney

Director

Division of Agriculture

Department of Natural Resources

State of Alaska

Tony J. Cunha

Dean

School of Agriculture

California State Polytechnic University

Susan De Marco

Consultant

Robert Di Marco

Director of Central Research

General Foods Corp.

Harold Dodd

president

Illinois Farmers Union

Lewis C. Dowdy

Chancellor

North Carolina Agricultural and

Technical State University

Thomas F. Jones*

Vice President for Research

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jarvis E. Miller

Texas A&M University

Albert H. Moseman

The Rockefeller Foundation

Lewis F. Norwood

Director of Affiliate Relations

National Association of Retail Grocers

of the United States

William A. Reiners

Professor

Department of Biological Sciences

Dartmouth College

James E. Tillotson

Vice president

Technical Research and Development

ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

Harold L. Wilcke

Retired

Ralston Purina Co.

*Deceased.

iv
OTA Food and Agricultural Research

Assessment Staff

Joyce C. Lashof, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program Manager

Food and Renewable Resources Program

Michael J. Phillips, Project Director

Omer J. Kelley, * Principal Investigator

Dana G. Dalrymple, ” * Senior Analyst

Elizabeth A. J. Williams, Senior Analyst

Ward W. Konkle, * Writer and Editor

Administrative Staf f

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant

Gillian Raney Marilyn Cassady Elizabeth Galloway

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

*0’1’A contract personnel.

* *On detail from USDA and AID.
Work Group I:

James Albrecht

Management of Food and Agricultural Research

Roy L. Lovvorn

Vice President for Business Development

The Nestle Co.

William P. Flatt

Dean

College of Agriculture

University of Georgia

Hugo O. Graumann

Retired

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert Judd

Managing Director

National Soybean Crop Improvement Council

Retired

North Carolina State University and U.S. Department

of Agriculture

Thomas S. Ronningen

Director-at-Large

Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural

Experiment Station Directors

University of Maryland

John Stovall

Deputy Director

Joint Planning and Evaluation

Science and Education Administration

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Work Group II: Structure, Evaluation, and Funding

of Food and Agricultural Research

C. L. Duncan

Vice President

Campbell Soup Co.

B. R. Eddleman

Director

National and Regional Research Planning and

Analysis, SAES

Mississippi State University

Earl Glover

Retired

U.S. Department of Agriculture

R. J. Hildreth

Managing Director

Farm Foundation

Work Group

Thomas Army

Deputy Administrator

Agricultural Research

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Charles E. French

Coordinator of International and Interagency

Programs

Development Support Bureau

Agency for International Development

James Kendrick

Vice President

Agriculture and University Services

University of California, Berkeley

E. F. Knipling

Retired

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Vernon Ruttan

Professor

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics

University of Minnesota

Priorities

Ronald D. Knutson

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas A&M University

Donald Kuesel

Vice President and Director of Quality Assurance and

Research

Larsen Co.

Keith Huston John P. Mahlstede

Director-at-Large Associate Dean

North Central Regional Agricultural Experiment College of Agriculture

Station Directors Iowa State University

vi
Contents

Chapter Page

I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.,””””.ossosso”..Qo””o 3

11. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“”””.”.”0”””0.””s””s .“”” 21

111. The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research. . . . . . . . . . . 29

IV. Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research. . . . . . . . . . 53

V. Roles of Research Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ -. “ .. “ “ “ “ “ . 83

VI

VII

VIII

IX

x

Management, Structure, and policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....”.”.”” 99

Determining Research priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““+””” ““ 133

International Dimensions of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ... ...151

[replications for Research Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....~.”,”.”””. 173

Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““”””” ‘.”..”” 17 9

Appendix A. —Options for the Executive Branch. . .......................19 5

Appendix B.— Statistics on Research Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....201

Appendix C.—Commissioned Papers, Acknowledgments, and Food and

Renewable Resources Program Advisory Committee . . . . . ....207

Appendix D.—Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...210

vii
Chapter I

Summary. .

NOTE: This report was largely completed in early 1981 and refers to the

food and agricultural research system as of that date. Draft copies of the

report were made available at that time for congressional committee staff and

executive agencies. Some of the report’s potential solutions to food and

agricultural research problems have already been enacted. The text has not

been revised to reflect all those changes, but the more important ones have

been mentioned in footnotes. /
5

5

5

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

10

10

11

11

13

14

14

14

15

15

16

17

17

Figure No. Page

1. USDA Agricultural Research System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. State Agriculture Experiment Station System .*. .0** .*eo**. e**@ .o*. ***4 **e..** 7
Chapter I

Summary

The food and agricultural industry in the

United States is by far the largest of all our industries. In 1980, farm assets totaled over

$900 billion. And one of every five civilian

jobs was in the food and agricultural industry. Agricultural products rank first among all

U.S. exports. Moreover, food costs to U.S.

consumers, while rising, are among the

lowest of any country in the world.

Food and agricultural research has contributed markedly in making the United States a

giant of industrial enterprise. Research has

given us new and better ways to improve production, processing, and marketing. In addition, agricultural research is solving problems in environmental quality and human nutrition. The aim of such research is to assure

an ample, safe, and nutritious food supply at

reasonable cost, while maintaining a sustainable production system. The United States is

generally recognized throughout the world as

a leader in agricultural research.

Despite its notable achievements, the U.S.

food and agricultural research establishment

today is facing new problems. These problems are exerting severe strains on our ability

to meet current and projected challenges. Scientists are concerned that new technology

may not be keeping pace with domestic and

world needs.

The tight world supply-demand balance is

also a growing problem. Unless major breakthroughs occur in either expanded resources

or new technology, the world food problem is

likely to worsen. Changes are also occurring

in the structure of agriculture. For example,

large farms and businesses have more influence than small farms on the direction public

research programs take. New technology

tends to be adopted more readily by larger

and more mechanized firms than by smaller

and less organized agricultural interests.

Recognizing this trend toward industrialization of agriculture, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has taken the stand

that funds for some forms of public agricultural research are no longer needed. The implication is that the private sector has enough

resources to conduct its own research. This

argument has been used most specifically for

post-harvest technology research. In the future, the argument might be expanded to

other forms of technology-related food and

agricultural research.

The 1970’s brought a host of new public

issues and concerns that will likely continue

in the 1980’s. These include food safety, environmental protection, nutrition, and increasing competition for water resources.

Today, there are additional pressing issues:

sustainability of the present agricultural system, water shortages in the West, widespread

droughts, excessive soil erosion, increased

energy costs, and continued environmental

concerns.

Because Federal research funding has not

substantially increased in recent years, new

research problems must be funded at the expense of traditional research. Moreover, the

cost of conducting research has increased.

Research today requires more sophisticated

and costly equipment and support staff than

10 years ago. Thus, many research areas are

receiving relatively much lower real funding

today than earlier.

The U.S. Department of Agricultur e

(USDA) and the State agricultural experiment

stations (SAES) have always had a close working relationship in food and agricultural research. As a general rule, USDA has been

concerned more with national and regional

problems, and the SAES with local and State

problems. But over the years, the SAES re3
4 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

search programs have grown to include problems of regional and national significance.

With the present structure of USDA, there

is some question as to whether USDA has a

national research program or merely a series

of local and regional activities. Consequently,

USDA and SAES appear to be working on

seemingly indistinguishable problems. Many

people, including Congress, have voiced concern that little, if any, overall planning and

coordination of research exist, especially at

top levels of administration. They question

whether national issues are receiving adequate attention. Further, there seems to be

much duplication and vying for funds.

Now, the question arises: How should these

new issues and concerns be handled? Over

the years, there have been many studies dealing with food and agricultural research. Most

studies, such as the World Food and Nutrition Study, have concentrated on agricultural

research priorities. These studies have identified the research that requires highest priority and the level of funds needed for the research. Few of these studies have looked into

the structure of the research system. There

has been little, if any, attempt to identify roles

of research agencies or to seek solutions to

the problems they face. In addition, there has

been little, if any, attempt to classify research

from a management perspective.

Congress and others have raised questions

about the allocation of research resources

and the mechanisms used to develop research

priorities. Other issues of concern include the

adequacy of research funding, the distribution of research benefits, and the quality of

expertise and interest being brought to bear

on identifying and conducting research.

These concerns led directly to a request

from Congress for the Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) to undertake an assessment of the U.S. food and agricultural research system. Congress stressed that the assessment focus on the structure of the research system and that it complement previous studies which identified agricultural research priorities. The requests for an assessment came from the Senate Committee on

Appropriations as well as the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,

The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign

Agriculture also endorsed the requests,

The objectives of this assessment are to:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

60

evaluate the funding, benefits, and burdens of food and agricultural research;

determine the basis, scientific or otherwise, for the classification of research

from a management perspective;

identify the roles of Federal, State, and

private institutions in developing technologies for solutions to international,

national, regional, and State or local

problems;

examine the management, structure, and

policies of USDA in the conduct of food

and agricultural research;

evaluate methods by which the expertise and interests of Federal, State, and

private research organizations can be

brought to bear cooperatively in identifying priority research areas; and

provide public policy options for Congress that will maximize our research potential.

The working groups and advisory committee that prepared and reviewed the resource

material for this assessment recognized the

urgency for resolving the issues that characterize the present situation in the agricultural

research sector. They were motivated by a

deep concern for maintaining a strong and

growing food and agriculture industry. It is

hoped that the analysis of these issues and

public policy options offered herein will provide a good starting point for increased effective use of the Nation’s scientific capabilities

and other research resources.
Ch. l—Summary ● 5

When it is working properly, the U.S. agricultural research system is tremendously effective. The participants* —USDA, SAES,

and private industry—concentrate on mission-oriented research; that is, research directed toward solving identifiable problems,

although the programs include some basic

research activities. Most land-grant universities and many nonland-grant universities

have strong discipline-oriented research programs in the basic sciences, such as physics,

chemistry, and botany, that form the foundation of biological and physical sciences on

which agricultural research is based.

USDA is the major Federal agency conducting agricultural research. It is also the lead

agency for the coordination of all federally

funded agricultural research. Through early

1981, the Science and Education Administration (SEA) of USDA was responsible for: 1)

broad agricultural research policies and coordination and 2) an operating organization

which had day-to-day management supervision over a number of offices including Agricultural Research (AR), Cooperative Research

(CR), and Human Nutrition (HN). **

AR is responsible for most of USDA’s inhouse agricultural research. AR is accountable and responsive to Congress and the executive branch for broad regional, national,

and international concerns. It is headed by an

administrator located in Washington, D. C.,

*A large number of Federal agencies and public and private

institutions are also involved in U.S. agricultural research.

This assessment, however, is concerned primarily with the

traditional agricultural research system, which includes the

USDA research agencies, SAES, and private industry. The

1890 schools, nonland-grant universities, etc., are discussed

where most relevant, but no in-depth study was made of them.

Forestry research is not included in this assessment,

* *In June 1981, USDA announced a reorganization that

eliminated the Science and Education Administration and

established AR, CR, and Extension Service as separate operating agencies. Most of HN was merged into AR. USDA established an Office of Science and Education, which is to establish broad agricultural research policies, planning, and coordination.

RESEARCH SYSTEM

and four regional deputy administrators, one

located in each of the four SAES regions.

Each region is subdivided into areas under a

research area director (fig. 1). A national program staff (NPS) prepares an integrated

budget and assists in technical planning and

coordination. NPS has no direct line responsibility for program development, staff selection, or resource allocation.

CR is responsible for administering Federal funds that go to States for agricultural research. This includes formula funds, special

grants, and competitive grants. Formula

funds help to provide a stable and dependable

base, ensuring a strong experiment station in

each State. Grants provide an opportunity for

researchers in nonland-grant universities,

SAES, and other institutions to work on problems important to the agricultural industry.

Human nutrition research in USDA is carried out by six research centers. Research at

all centers is directed to national concerns.

Through early 1981 the economics research program was conducted by the Economics and Statistics Service (ESS). In addition to research, its primary objective is the

collection and analysis of economics data. *

State Agricultural Experiment

Station Research

Over the years, the structure of SAES has

changed little. Stations typically include a

central station and headquarters, which is

generally located on the campus of the State’s

land-grant university, and a number Of

branch stations located throughout the State

(fig. 2). Stations are organized by departments

according to the various scientific disciplines

represented on their staffs, such as departments of animal science, entomology, plant

pathology, etc. These departments usually are

the same as those of the academic unit and, in

*In June 1981, USDA announced a reorganization that eliminated the Economics and Statistics Service and established

two separate agencies, Economic Research Service and Statistical Reporting Service.
6 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

E

Figure 1 .—USDA Agricultural Research System

TH

ERN

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

most cases, also include extension. In many Beginning in the 1960’s, increasin g

cases, USDA personnel are located in departments and participate fully in departmental

activities. The chief administrative officer of

each department typically reports three ways

—to the dean, to the director of SAES, and to

the director of cooperative extension service.

In the early 1900’s, the station director reported directly to the president of the university. Today, most station directors report

directly to the dean of the college of agriculture. This relationship of the SAES working

with the land-grant universities and USDA

provides a unique opportunity for graduate

training of future scientists for research,

teaching, and other State, Federal, and industry needs. In fact, it is by far the principal

source of trained scientists.

amounts of non-State funding became available from agencies other than USDA. USDA

funding remained stable or declined, and

grants to some SAES scientists tended to

draw them away from the State program

toward the interests of individual scientists or

the granting institution.

SAES-USDA Interaction

In many areas of agriculture research, there

have long been closely knit cooperative relationships between SAES and USDA agricultural research. This relationship has been one

of the strong points of the U.S. agricultural

research system. Generally, it has resulted in

scientists from each group developing respect

for those from other groups. The major diffi-
Ch. l—Summary ● 7

Figure 2.—State Agriculture Experiment Station System

● Main experiment station

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

culties that have arisen are at the administrative level. The root cause of nearly all of these

difficulties appears to be centered around

competition for limited funds, which tends to

create problems in the roles of the two

groups. At times, this problem seems to permeate the entire system.

Private Sector Research

Participants in the private sector include

foundations, industry, and industrial associations. Private industry research is conducted

in those areas that are of major concern to the

firm, primarily from a profit standpoint.

While reliable data are difficult to obtain,

private industry’s investment in agricultural

research appears to be about three-fourths of

that of the public funds spent by USDA and

SAES combined. Industry research tends to

favor the developmental aspects and continues to draw heavily on basic research conducted in the public sector.

There are some 400 American philanthropic foundations that award grants of $5,000 or

more to performers of agricultural research.

The nature and purpose of the grants vary

with the interest and purpose of the granting

foundations. Compared with the amount of

funds available to the performers of agricultural research from public sources, the

amounts provided by foundations are indeed

modest. The decision to make each grant is

based on policies established by the individual foundation’s governing board.

At least 10 Federal agencies other than

USDA conduct or fund some kind of food and
8 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

agricultural research. In most cases, such

research is complementary to that of USDA.

It is conceived and operated to support the

basic mission of the respective agency. In

order to increase the effectiveness and productivity of Federal R&D agencies, Congress

in 1977 mandated the establishment of the

Committee on Food and Renewable Resources.

In 1890 Congress passed an act that granted

certain Negro colleges and universities the

same privileges as those provided by the Morrill Act of 1862. They are called the 1890 landgrant institutions and Tuskegee Institute.

Under the 1977 Food and Agriculture Act,

these institutions receive substantial amounts

of formula-funded agriculture research funds

from Federal sources. Their role is to meet

the needs of those people whom the system

was designed to serve through teaching,

research, and extension.

The nonland-grant universities include private institutions and public State universities.

The major expertise of the private nonlandgrant universities lies in research in the basic

sciences. They generally receive no direct

continuing State or Federal assistance and

support their research through government

grants, endowments, and corporate grants

and contracts. Competitive grant funding

opens up an opportunity for the universities

to be more involved in agricultural research.

Large public State universities without

agricultural programs have, in many cases,

the same problems and interests as the

private universities.

The public State universities with agricultural programs perceive their role as providing teaching, research, and public service to

their regions and States in accordance with

missions and charters set forth by State legislatures. Most of them have evolved from

teachers colleges and have a strong emphasis

on undergraduate teaching. Their research

tends to concentrate on local problems of a

more applied nature and on projects for

which corporate support is more available.

Most nonland-grant universities have no

Federal or State charter for research. Financing, heavily dependent on contracts and

grants, has lacked continuity and dependability. Because of the concentration on undergraduate teaching, funding generally has not

provided sophisticated facilities and equipment for graduate teaching and research, except for a few outstanding private research

institutions.

PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Food and Agricultural Goals

The lack of well-defined and agreed-upon

national goals for U.S. food and agriculture is

a major deterrent in formulating broad food

and agricultural policy at the national level.

A goal is the end toward which effort and

resources are directed. The end must be definable and achievable at least in theory.

Other than general goals of self-sufficiency,

the United States has not had well-articulated

national food and agricultural goals.

There are implicit goals, but they provide

little help in formulating policies and giving

direction to the research community. One implied goal is to provide an ample supply of

nutritious food for the consumer at reasonable cost with a fair return to farmers within

an agricultural system that is sustainable in

perpetuity. However, this “goal” is openended and, therefore, not achievable. For example, what is meant by “ample supply?”

What is nutritious food? What is a reasonable

cost to consumers? What is a fair return to

farmers? When is this return to be expected?

How much soil erosion or dependence on

fossil fuel can a sustainable system tolerate?

These and other questions must be answered for a goal to be useful in formulating

policy and for the research community in
Ch. l—Summary ● 9

planning a research agenda. With such questions unanswered, setting research priorities

is a difficult task at best.

Policy options

Congress and/or the executive branch could

set national goals for U.S. food and agriculture. This could give a clear direction to the

research community for developing a research agenda. Public funds would be allocated to research needed to meet goals established by society through its elected officials.

Because society provides the funds for research, it can set broad long-term goals and

expect the research community to respond

accordingly through planning, conducting,

and evaluating achievements.

Not setting explicit goals could save time

and money at least in the short term. Goal setting is a complex, time-consuming endeavor,

and because of the diversity of conditions

under which food and fiber are produced, it

could be a complicated procedure. However,

in the absence of goals established by society,

the research community has to set goals.

Problems arise when there is lack of agreement on those goals and when there is no

practical process for determining the views

and priorities of those who are affected.

Research Priority Determination

There is no satisfactory long-term process

for evaluating research activities, research

opportunities, and development of research

priorities. Decisions are made on an ad hoc

basis with very little coordination among

USDA, SAES, and other agencies conducting

food and agricultural research. Long-term

research planning, updated every 4 years or

more, could be accomplished by an intensive

study involving research administrators,

scientists, users, and consumers.

Congress established the Joint Council on

Food and Agricultural Science (JC) and the

National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB), which is

made up of citizens, to aid in coordination

and priority setting. These groups have struggled with their assignments. Concern exists

as to whether the functions assigned to the JC

are attainable. The council has had a limited

impact because of: an inability to define its

role, a perceived dominance by USDA, and

overorganization. UAB’s functions are more

attainable than the JC’s; however, the board’s

impact on research priorities is unclear.

Neither of the units has the capacity to conduct a long-range systematic study of research priorities that involves scientists, research administrators, users, and others;

neither was set up to do that.

Involvement of scientists and research administrators is needed for the obvious reason

that they have the expertise and are the performers of the research. Research users are

needed because they have specific problems

that need to be addressed by research. Likewise, consumers

that the research

dress.

Policy Options

have legitimate concerns

community needs to adOption A. Prepare a national research

agenda, updated at specific intervals, using

scientists, administrators, users, and consumers under the auspices of USDA. * Such

a study could use methods like those pioneered by the National Academy of Sciences

World Food and Nutrition Study and the OTA

studies Nutrition Research Alternatives and

Emerging Food Marketing Technologies for

priority determination.

A planning system of this type would include a cross section of scientists, research

administrators, users, and consumers. A

small staff would manage the study. The bulk

of the work would be conducted through a

variety of work groups. This ad hoc feature is

viewed as being critical to success in longrange infusion of new ideas.

Short-range planning would be done regularly by each research entity in conjunction

with budget preparation. This system would

not set priorities for SAES, since they are primarily responsible for State and local issues.

*The presently

mandates USDA

study.

drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

to conduct a long-range research planning
10 ● An Assessment of the U. S. Food and Agricultural Research System

The JC and UAB would modify their

responsibilities to place emphasis on: 1)

supervising the planning process, 2) providing a forum for communication, and 3)

providing interim evaluation of planning

goals. This modification would permit a more

simplified structure than is currently anticipated, especially for the JC. Also, the

number of meetings would be reduced.

Coordinating the study under USDA would

be in keeping with its responsibilities for food

and agricultural research established by Congress.

Option B. Prepare a national research

agenda, updated at specific intervals, using

scientists, administrators, users, and consumers under the auspices of the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS). This would be

the same concept as discussed in the previous

option except that it would be coordinated

under the auspices of NAS rather than

USDA.

Some participants in the research system

would consider NAS a more objective party

than USDA. However, in the past NAS has

resisted the use of lesser known scientists,

nonscientists, users of research, and the public in conducting such studies. The success of

this effort depends to a large extent on the

participation of these groups. In addition,

NAS expertise is concentrated more in basic

rather than mission-oriented research. This

would also weaken USDA’s leadership role in

research, which is contrary to recent legislation.

Funding

USDA research expenditures are proportionately the smallest of any major Federal research agency. In 1978, USDA’s share of Federal expenditures for research and development was 1.5 percent of total expenditures

compared with the Department of Defense—

45 percent, Department of Energy—16 percent, and Department of Health and Human

Services—12 percent.

The purchasing power of total SAES and

USDA agricultural research expenditures increased 23 percent in constant dollars from

1966 to 1979. The constant-dollar agricultural

research expenditures of USDA increased 1

percent, while those of SAES increased 40

percent from 1966 to 1979.

Total expenditures by private enterprise for

food and agricultural research are about

three-quarters of the expenditures of Federal

and State governments combined.

Justification of public funding of food and

agricultural research is based on benefits well

in excess of costs.1 Issues of equity, because

of the interstate flow of food and related commodities and the spillover effect of research

from one geographic region to another, are

also cited. Producers benefit from expanding

demand and reduced costs. The distribution

of consuming population among States, however, is related to the distribution of agricultural production only to a very limited degree. Paradoxically, Federal research funding, relative to State funding, has decreased

as the interstate flow of commodities has increased. Therefore, taxpayers in food-surplus

States are subsidizing consumers in food-deficit States and the degree of subsidization is

increasing steadily.

Policy Options

Option A. Maintain present Federal real

funding levels. From a management standpoint, limited funding, up to a point, tends to

increase efficiency in the use of funds. It focuses the use of funds on high-priority areas

at the expense of less urgent areas. However,

a certain level of funds is needed just to maintain the research system. This does not allow

research institutions to keep pace with increasing costs, nor does it allow research in

new problem areas without abandoning important traditional areas. From an equity

‘Fred White, B. R. Eddleman, and Joseph Purcell, Nature and

FlOW of Benefits From Agriculture-Food Research, OTA background report, 1980.
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 1

standpoint, the ratio of Federal research

funding relative to State funding would not

improve, causing taxpayers in food-surplus

States to continue subsidizing consumers in

food-deficit States.

Option B. Significantly increase real Federal funding levels for food and agricultural

research. Increased Federal funding would:

a) allow research institutions to keep pace

with the high cost of conducting research,

b) allow the research system to open new

areas of research while maintaining important traditional research effort, and c) increase Federal research funding relative to

State funding, thereby decreasing taxpayer

subsidization in food-surplus States to consumers in food-deficit States. From a management standpoint, however, an increase in

funding may tend to decrease efficiency in

the use of funds. Funds may not be focused

on the highest priority problem areas.

Roles of Research Participants

There is a role for a strong national USDA

research program. This role has been carried

out in the past by AR, HN, ESS, and Federal

funding to SAES. The USDA role has been

associated with broad regional, national, and

international activities. The role of SAES, insofar as Federal funds are concerned, has

been primarily for local, State, and regional

problems. There has been considerabl e

overlap; some portions of the Federal and

State roles are becoming indistinguishable.

USDA’s role is to conduct research on:

a) agricultural problems important to the Nation, problems that no one State or private

group has the resources, facilities, need or incentive to solve, and b) those programs required to fulfill stated objectives of Congress,

the President, and the Secretary of Agriculture. USDA could carry out its role by:

a) working as a partner with SAES to achieve

complementarily and b) cooperating with private universities and industry to coordinate

its own contribution to achieve national goals

with minimum effort.

Most of the 1890 land-grant institutions and

Tuskegee Institute research funds come from

Federal resources and if they are to meet their

obligations, pressing needs must be addressed. One important need is improved facilities. But an even more important concern

is the future role of these institutions and

their ability to compete for and maintain

faculty and staff. While there is some cooperation with USDA and SAES, coordination

with the system is less than adequate.

In 1977, Congress established the Committee on Food and Renewable Resources

(CFRR) to improve coordination of the research activity of USDA and the 10 other Federal agencies involved in food and agricultural research. CFRR has not yet satisfactorily

fulfilled its role. As of early 1981, CFRR did

not have a classification of the food and

agricultural research conducted or funded by

these agencies nor the amount of funds allocated for such research. Identifying definite

objectives for CFRR would be helpful. Further, CFRR lacks authority to carry out the

functions assigned by Congress. USDA has

an opportunity to take an aggressive leadership role in this area, but to be effective it will

require high-level attention and support.

Grant funds provide resources to further

the program of USDA. SAES, nonland-grant

universities, and other institutions compete

for these funds on the basis of their interest

and ability to do Federal research. This

broadens the base of resources for agricultural research.

The private sector tends to view its role

primarily from a profit potential. It conducts

research in areas of interest to the companies

and in areas that may give them proprietary

advantages. There are significant research

areas of interest to the public that are not

receiving nor are likely to receive adequate

research attention if left to the private sector.

Policy Options

Option A. Maintain present roles with

clarification. This option would imply continuation of most existing procedures.
12 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

USDA would continue in its role as lead agency in the Federal Government in coordinating all agricultural research, extension, and

teaching activities conducted or financed by

Federal funds.

This provides Congress and the executive

branch with one Federal agency, USDA, to

hold responsible and accountable for the

coordination of all Federal agricultural

research funds, and broad regional, national

and international research programs. It provides a mechanism whereby Federal funds

can go directly (through formula funding) to

SAES to have available resources of the institutions for problems of national concern. It

also recognizes the public interest in support

of a decentralized system of food and agricultural research and provides a mechanism for

handling problems of local and State concerns.

This option continues to perpetuate the

concern of SAES of too much direction and

coordination of research conducted with

Federal funds. It also perpetuates the problem

of lack of strict accountability to Congress or

USDA regarding what research problems formula funds are to be used.

Option B. Eliminate the in-house USDA

research role. Provide increased funding to

SAES to conduct most publicly supported

research. Funds to SAES would be increased

on the basis that regional and national agricultural research problems would be solved

by the cumulation of local and State solutions. Important national research issues,

however, are not solved by a large number of

researchers working “on” a problem, but by a

few concentrating and coordinating their efforts on the more important aspects of the

problem. There would be no research agency

having direct responsibility and accountability for regional and national problems to the

executive or legislative branches of Government. The research needs of action agencies

of USDA would have to be solved by the

SAES, or by adding a research function to the

action agencies.

Option C. Eliminate the in-house USDA

research role. Use present in-house funds,

special grants, and competitive grant funds

for contract research to carry out important

USDA research programs. This would eliminate many Federal positions in USDA and

would ease the personnel ceiling problem

considerably. Coordination might be improved where the SAES or State universities

receive contracts to carry out USDA programs. It might make the closing of some lowpriority Federal facilities easier.

However, it would eliminate the largest

agricultural research organization in the

United States under one management system—AR. Since conduct of research on broad

regional and national problems in agriculture

is the principal purpose of the Federal programs, this function would be mostly lost.

This plan could be an expensive alternative.

Overall, it would be very disruptive to present

research programs.

Option D. Reduce the role of the SAES in

regional, national, and international research by eliminating all formula funds,

leaving grants as their source of Federal

funds. This would help to answer the criticism that formula funds are given to SAES

without sufficient accountability and Federal

management. It might help remove some of

the competition between SAES and USDA

over budgets. It would increase the probability that Federal funds going to SAES and

other institutions would go to those judged to

be most capable of performing good research,

if done on a truly competitive basis. It would

make it more certain that the funds were

spent on high national priority problems.

However, unlike research in other fields,

much of agricultural research is site-specific,

simply because it is so closely related to problems of a specific area. And biological research must be long-term and continuous to

be effective. Hence there must be facilities

and professional staff available for such research, none of which can be created or dissipated on short notice. SAES are bes t
Ch. l—Summary ● 7 3

equipped to manage this research, and formula funding provides continuous and

secure source of funds for this activity.

Option E. Increase the role of the private

sector through incentives to conduct more

research of concern to the public. Private industry has the capacity to conduct more research and probably would if it were profitable. The private sector could probably be induced to increase its efforts in agricultural research through direct grants, reduced taxes,

or other incentives. Since the nature of the

private sector requires that it be concerned

with self interest, no amount of incentives

would assure adequate research on all issues

of public concern. But the private sector

could become more active through this process.

Management of

U.S. Agricultural Research

The level of agricultural research funding

has been constantly decreasing as a percentage of total Federal research and development. Within USDA, the number of positions

assigned to agricultural research has been

decreasing, and the relationship of the size of

the agricultural research budget to other

functions of USDA has likewise been decreasing. This indicates a lack of appreciation at

the USDA policy level of the importance of

agricultural research. Yet, a prime function of

the director of SEA and the SAES directors is

to assure that the importance of agricultural

research is maintained in policy decisions.

Much of SEA’s efforts are dissipated in

operational activities at the expense of policylevel activities. This has resulted in inadequate funding requests by the executive

branch, less-than-adequate funding by Congress, continuing vying for funds between

USDA and SAES, and inefficient management at the agency administrators’ level.

As of early 1981, SEA was headed by a

director who had responsibility for: 1) broad

agricultural research policies, planning, and

coordination and 2) an operating organization which had day-to-day management supervision over AR, CR, HN, and its other offices.

The operating aspects of this dual responsibility: 1) reduce the time and attention that

can be given to determining policy, planning,

and coordination; 2) reduce the authority of

the administrators of AR, CR, HN, and other

offices; 3) reduce their operational efficiency;

and 4) increase bureaucratic delays in decisionmaking.

AR is not organized to manage, conduct,

and be responsive to broad regional, national,

and international agricultural research needs

and interests of the United States. When the

1972 reorganization of USDA’s Agricultural

Research Service transferred line responsibility to four regional administrators, the

NPS was left without direct line responsibility for program development, staff selection,

resource allocation, etc. This caused AR to

lose much, if not all, of its ability to plan,

manage, and conduct research on broad regional and national problems. AR’s research

has become more oriented to local and State

issues. Not only does this provide opportunities for duplication, but it increases the

likelihood that: 1) broad regional and national

interest will not receive adequate attention

and 2) Federal funds appropriated for these

purposes will be diverted or used inefficiently.

CR is responsible for administering formula funds, special grants, and competitive

grants. It conducts project reviews of activities that are supported by formula funds

(Hatch Act), but these reviews are more a formality than an in-depth examination. As a

part of the process, onsite reviews are held

every 3 to 5 years at the request of the client

institution. Their value rests mainly on actions taken by the institution being reviewed,

since CR has no followup responsibilities.

Further, CR has little authority in dealing

with SAES. CR has at times tended to operate

as though it were under the supervision of

SAES, rather than the director of SEA.

It is questionable whether CR is the appropriate office to administer the competitive

research grants. All U.S. research institutions
14 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

and research scientists that have expertise

and capabilities are supposed to be considered equally as potential grantees. Having

one agency whose main function is so closely

tied to one segment of the research community (and which receives a large share of the

grants) administer the grants gives reason for

concern.

SEA has not accomplished the intent of the

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 with respect to human nutrition research. SEA

established human nutrition research as a

mission, but it did not establish human nutrition as a separate budget item. HN consists of

six research centers at which human nutrition research is conducted. Functioning of

the centers, however, has been hampered by

insufficient funding. The three newes t

centers are particularly hard hit because they

had to be developed anew, and as of early

1981, the total professional staff at the three

centers numbered only six.

As of early 1981, economics research remained combined with statistical reporting

activities. Concern exists that this combination has caused confusion for the public. A

small part of the economics research budget

is allocated to research, and there is little

cooperative effort with AR.

Policy Options

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

ADMINISTRATION

Option A. Operate SEA as a policy and

coordination office. * SEA would no longer

have an operating function and could spend

full time on policy and coordination which

does not now receive adequate attention. The

administrators of the respective agencies

would be responsible for the operating functions of their agencies. For example, budgets

and other management functions would be

prepared within each of the agencies and coordinated at the SEA level. This would improve management efficiency and reduce bureaucratic delays.

* USDA has begun putting this option into effect (see footnote * * on p. 5).

Option B. Establish an assistant secretary

for research, extension, and higher education with a deputy assistant secretary who

would coordinate agencies comprising

SEA. * The position of director of SEA

would not be retained. This would give research increased visibility in USDA and in

the eyes of OMB and Congress. The office

would have a larger role in forming overall

USDA research policy. Administrators of the

agencies within SEA would be responsible

for the operating functions of their agencies.

This has the potential for improving the efficiency and management of these agencies

and reducing bureaucratic delays.

AGRICULTURE RESEARCH

Option A. Within AR, transfer line authority, including the responsibility and accountability for planning and coordination

of research, and resource allocation for

regional and national research, from regional administrators to NPS. This would

restore to AR the capability to plan, execute,

and be responsible for research programs

with regional, national, and international

concerns. It would reduce manpower requirements and strengthen the scientific

aspects of AR’s program. It would give

greater assurance to Congress that funds appropriated for regional and national concerns

were being spent on those issues. Less attention would be given to local and State issues.

This change can best be handled by the executive branch.

Option B. Same as above, but consider a

change in the number and location of

regions to provide more efficient management and eliminate the offices of area directors. The geographical area covered by each

regional deputy administrator was chosen to

coincide with the SAES regional areas and

has no significant correlation with regional

research problems. Such problems do not follow State lines, nor does any group of re-

*The presently drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 authorizes a USDA Assistant Secretary for Research, Extension,

and Higher Education.
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 5

gional problems fall within the same cluster

of States. Consideration should be given to

whether there is a need for four such regional

administrators and, if so, determining their

best geographic locations, including the possibility of locating them in the D.C. area.

Both options would eliminate the need for

area director positions. All technical planning would be conducted by NPS and technical staff. With the reduced workload, it appears that regional administrators could

carry out the administrative functions without area directors. Locating regional administrators in the D.C. area would facilitate focusing on broad regional and national issues.

However, two advantages of locating them in

the field and having their duties correspond

to SAES regions are: a) to facilitate communication between regional administrators and

SAES directors of the region and b) probably

to aid in coordination at the management

level. This change can best be handled by the

executive branch.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

Option A. Strengthen CR’s authority in

managing Federal funds allocated to the

States. CR would exercise more authority in

approval and disapproval of proposed projects under formula funding and for review of

such projects for continued, reduced, or discontinued funding. CR could represent the

SAES in a more meaningful way on such

items as budgets, research priorities, formula

or grant funds, etc. Since the original Hatch

Act makes the directors of the SAES responsible and accountable for the Hatch funds they

receive, legislation would probably be required if a major change were to be made.

Option B. Establish formula funds as

block grants and eliminate the CR office;

establish a secretariat for handling block

grants. Since SAES already have responsibility and accountability for Hatch funds,

this would save time, funds, and personnel

positions in administering these funds. It

should have little or no adverse effect on the

research programs. This option, however,

would increase the criticism that formula

funds receive little or no meaningful review

by USDA (CR). Other services provided to

SAES by CR would either be lost or picked up

by another office.

Option C. For Options A and B above,

eliminate administration of all competitive

grants from CR or secretariat staff and establish an office for this function that would

report directly to the director or assistant

secretary. This would provide for administration of these grants by an office that

had no vested interest in who receives the

grants. This would improve the climate for

more objective administration of the competitive grants program.

HUMAN NUTRITION

Option A. Maintain present management

structure within USDA with clarification in

budget and staffing. This would clarify HN’s

status within USDA. At present, administrative and budgetary authority are split. It

would obviate possible conflicts of interest

between AR research interests and HN interests. It can be argued that HN is not large

enough to warrant a separate system, but it

would carry out the mandate of Congress.

This change can best be handled by the executive branch.

Option B. Remove HN from SEA and

place it under the Assistant Secretary for

Food and Consumer Services. This option

would place all nutrition activity of USDA

within the purview of a single assistant

secretary concerned with human nutrition

and would give the administrator of HN

direct access to the assistant secretary. However, it would separate human nutrition from

all other research in USDA. Placement of HN

within an action arm of USDA would cause

research results to be less respected than if

they were produced by an independent research arm. It would tend to cause research

to be directed toward the needs of that arm

and thus hamper long-term research projects.

It could politicize nutrition research so that

research directions would change with each
.— —

16 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

new administration. This change can best be

handled by the executive branch.

Option C. Dispense with HN as an administrative and planning entity and disperse

HN research within AR. Place each of the

centers under the authority of the director

for the region in which it is situated. A n y

positive aspects of such a move would be

political rather than managerial. It would

reassert that USDA places producers’ interests at a higher priority than consumers’

interests. Segmentation of HN research

would make it extremely difficult for USDA

to develop a coordinated research effort in

human nutrition. It would also place the

centers in a position of competing for funds

with other research in a particular region,

and research at the centers would lose its national character and could become focused

on agricultural products of a region rather

than on basic human conditions and their

nutritional needs.

Option D. Dispense with HN as an administrative and planning entity, disperse

the clinical and laboratory components

within AR under the authority of the regional directors, and place the survey and

statistical research and information services under the Assistant Secretary for Food

and Consumer Services. * Food and Nutrition Service, the major agency under the

Assistant Secretary would have closer coordination with the developers of nutritioninformative and educational material and

with the researchers who survey and analyze

food-consumption patterns in the United

States. All the disadvantages of options B and

C apply, as well as a problem of separating

the development of educational and informational materials from the research on which

they are based. Not only would the possibility

of misinterpretation arise, but it would be

necessary to hire additional staff to do the interpretive work, since the scientists who developed it would be in a different division of

USDA.

Option E. For all options above, determine if all regional human nutrition research centers are needed, and if not, which

ones best serve the public interest.

Available funds for human nutrition would

be allocated to the needed centers. Thi s

would assure that funds allocated to human

nutrition are used for high-priority needs and

would assist in funding centers at a level commensurate with national interest. However,

even though the centers are not adequately

funded, there is continuing interest in these

centers and a felt need for this research.

ECONOMICS RESEARCH

Option A. Reinstate the Economic s

Research Service (ERS) and the Statistical

Reporting Service (SRS) to separate agency

status reporting to the Assistant Secretary

for Economics. * This option would aid in

eliminating the confusion between the statistical unit’s information and the projections

and forecasts of the economics research unit.

It would, however, create two entities where

only one existed previously. This change can

best be handled by the executive branch.

Option B. Reinstate ERS and SRS to separate agency status with SRS reporting to the

Assistant Secretary for Economics and ERS

reporting to the Director of SEA. This would

mean that ERS would join the other research

agencies in SEA. For the economic policy

analysis that needs to be conducted, an analytic and policy staff would be assigned

directly to the Assistant Secretary for Economics.

With all the major research agencies reporting to SEA, it would mean that coordination

among research agencies is much easier. It

would facilitate the integration of economics

research with biological and physical science

research, and by working more closely with

these disciplines, it may be easier for

economics research to obtain increased

funding.

*USDA has put this option into effect. * USDA has put this option into effect.
Ch. /—Summary ● 1 7

It would, however, have some drawbacks.

Only certain economics-research activities in

ERS lend themselves to integration with biological and physical science research, and the

economics unit might tend to be regarded as a

service unit to biological and physical research. This change can best be handled by

the executive branch.

International Agricultural Research

It is in the U.S. interest to help developing

countries solve their technical problems related to food production and availability.

Strengthening agriculture in developing nations: 1) enables them to increase their own

supplies and reduces the need for expensive

food aid from the United States, 2) stimulates

their general economic growth so that they

become better customers for trade with the

United States, and 3) helps them attain the

stability needed to provide a wide range of

commodities that are important to the United

States. Finally, it is the humanitarian thing to

do, even where the United States receives no

immediate benefit.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) and USDA are involved in international agricultural research and technical

assistance, but from the developing-country

standpoint, AID is the prime Federal agency.

For AID to provide effective research and

technical assistance to developing countries,

it must have an in-house capability in the

technical disciplines. Moreover, organizational structure, responsibilities, accountabilities, and procedures must reflect this

fact. These conditions have not existed in

AID. Technical staff is now scattered

throughout the agency and no regional bureau has enough scientists to cover the required disciplines for developing-country

programs. Advanced training of technical

staff is usually lacking. With 50 percent of the

total budget in food and agricultural activities, technical personnel trained in these

areas account for 5 percent of the total personnel. Few, if any, are in decisionmaking

positions.

The United States has much to gain, as well

as give, in the international research network.

There are 10 international agricultural research centers and 3 related programs sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Most

of these centers have modern facilities, excellent staffs, and are highly productive. In

recent years, many developing countries and

most developed countries have been expanding their agricultural research base much

faster than the United States (where Federal

funds for agricultural research have remained fairly constant).

The United States has an opportunity to

benefit from these new and expanding research efforts. At present, no Federal agency

has the specific responsibility for taking the

lead in coordination and cooperation on

methods, procedures, and actions necessary

to facilitate acquisition of technology which

might benefit the United States.

Policy Options

Option A. Centralize technical staff in one

bureau in AID. * USDA would maintain its

present level of activity. The technical staff

from the regional bureaus and missions

would be combined with the central staff of

the Development Support Bureau to form an

overall operating technical bureau. The

technical bureau would have responsibility

for country and central programs of technical

assistance, research, training, and institution

building, and would be headed by outstanding professionals in their relevant fields. The

functions of the regional bureaus would be reduced to those necessary for liaison with

State and collation of normal desk functions.

Presidential appointees would not be required for these positions. This would permit,

but not assure, improved use of U.S. technical

expertise in assisting developing countries in

research and technical efforts. This change

can best be handled by the executive branch.

*AID has moved in the direction of this option, but still retains the regional bureau structure.
18 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Option B. Establish technical bureaus

around the major thrusts of AID programs

as defined by legislation—i.e., food and

nutrition, population and health, and natural resources and energy. USDA would

maintain its present level of activity.

Technical bureaus would have responsibility for country and central programs of technical assistance, research, training, and institution building, and would be headed by

outstanding professionals in their relevant

fields. Regional bureaus would be eliminated

and regional office positions set up either in

the Program, Planning, and Coordination Office or under an assistant administrator with

limited role and powers necessary for liaison

with the Department of State and operation of

normal desk functions. This would improve

organizational changes and enlarge the role

of technical to nontechnical personnel. It

would permit a much greater use and concentration of U.S. technical expertise in identifying and solving problems of interest to both

the developing country and the United States.

AID’s difficult problem of recruiting and

maintaining technical personnel would be

greatly relieved. This option would require

some major changes in AID, and additional

study on details would be desirable. This

change can best be handled by the executive

branch.

Option C. Increase USDA involvement in

the international agricultural research network with major emphasis on maximizing

U.S. benefits. This applies to both options A

and B above. One Federal agency, USDA,

would take the lead in programs to facilitate

acquisition and use of agricultural research

conducted in other countries and the international centers. Our ability would be increased

to quickly obtain knowledge of research

breakthroughs in the international area.

There could be criticism from other countries

that the United States has mixed aims in

assisting developing countries, but this is true

of the overall assistance programs. This

change can best be handled by the executive

branch.
Chapter II

Introduction
Page

Emerging Problems ..e. ... . .**. .*. **** .*** o*. .*** oo 21

Need for an Assessment .**. ... **e* ***. *o*6*e*o. .e. .o. . * . .,, . . . * . * . . *.*.*..*. 23

Objectives of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter II References ,,. ,,, ..*o.. ,****** *.. ... ... .o. o.o**o*o. .o. .. * 25
Chapter II

Introduction

The food and agricultural industry in the

United States is by far the largest of all U.S.

industries, In 1980, the value of farm assets

was $900 billion, and one of every five civilian jobs was in the food and agricultural industry, which includes chemical companies,

equipment manufacturers, transportation,

etc. Agricultural products make up the largest

single category of total U.S. exports. In times

of crop failure elsewhere in the world, this

ability of American farmers to produce such

an abundance of food has meant the difference between survival and starvation for millions of people throughout the world.

Our agricultural success is based largely on

adoption of technology developed through research. Indeed, the application of science to

agriculture has significantly helped make the

United States a giant of industrial enterprise.

Paradoxically, the United States has never

had a well-articulated set of agricultural goals

Despite its continued notable achievements, the food and agricultural research establishment is facing new problems that are

exerting severe strains on goal fulfillment. Of

prime concern among scientists are indications that new technological developments

may not be keeping pace with our needs.

Two events in the early 1970’s raised

doubts as to the ability to feed an everexpanding world population. First, the Southern corn leaf blight in 1970 reduced corn production in the United States by about 16 percent. Second, the combination of unfavorable

weather and purchasing strategies of centrally planned economies (such as Russia) led to

an uncomfortably low grain stock and high

prices from 1973 through 1975.

mandated by law. Yet throughout U.S. history, there have always been presumed goals

that government has a responsibility for developing an ever-increasing array of new

technologies that efficiently provide adequate

food supplies. Because of this national philosophy, set in perpetuity, the United States has

never been a hungry Nation—nor is it likely to

be in the future.

To carry out the tasks of conducting food

and agricultural research, the United States

relies on Federal agencies, State agricultural

experiment stations (SAES), universities, and

private industry. Their research and development efforts and the resultant high production of American farms have assured consumers an ample supply of quality food at reasonable cost. The agricultural sector has been

able to do this mainly because technological

advances have produced the methods and

tools to meet rising consumer demands.

PROBLEMS

This combination of events resulted in several assessments of the world food situation

and its ability to feed an ever-expanding population (NAS, 1975 and 1977; USDA, 1974

and 1979; U.N. World Food Conference,

1974). The consensus of these studies was:

1) world supply-demand balance was tighter

in the 1970’s than in the 1960’s, 2) periodic

spot shortages of food could be expected in

years ahead and the potential for shortages

could become increasingly severe, 3) more

trade in agricultural products would be required to satisfy increasing demand for food,

4) government policies should be oriented

toward obtaining increased production

food, and 5) need exists to give increased

tention to the quantity and quality

resources available for food production,

of

atOf

in21
22 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

eluding the need for larger public and private

expenditures for agricultural research.

There is a problem of an increasingly tight

world supply-demand balance. Without major breakthroughs based on either an expanded resource base or technological developments, the world food problem is likely to

become increasingly severe. Since development of a substantially expanded agricultural

resource base is uncertain, technological

change through research bears much of the

burden for expanded food production.

Public support for food and agricultural research has been based on the public interest

in an adequate and stable supply of food at

reasonable prices. The concept embodies the

maintenance of a sustainable resource base to

assure a continuing supply for future generations. Realization has traditionally existed

that farmers, as individuals or groups, have

neither sufficient economic incentive nor

scale of operation to conduct their own research programs. In addition, it was believed

that the existence of a competitive agricultural structure would result in rapid adoption

of new technology by farmers.

This justification for public support for

agricultural research is still prominently

used. While it still has merit, many changes

have occurred in the structure of agriculture

that can change significantly the distribution

of benefits among input suppliers, farmers,

marketing firms, retailers, and consumers.

Reality suggests that: 1) large farms have

more influence than small farms on public research programs, and 2) some food and agricultural research is not neutral with respect

to structure—e.g., technology has been

adopted more readily by larger and more

mechanized farms than by small and less

organized farming interests. The magnitude

and effects of these changes have not been

adequately evaluated.

Realizing this trend toward industrialization of agriculture, some members of the executive branch, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), have in the

past taken the position that it is no longer

necessary to increase investment in certain

forms of research. The implication is that proprietary firms have sufficient resources to

conduct their own research. This argument

has been used with respect to post-harvest

technology research, In the future, the argument might be used for nearly all technologyrelated agricultural research.

In addition to food shortages and the continuing process of industrialization, the

1970’s brought a host of new issues and concerns that will continue in the 1980’s. Demand developed for more generous food programs, organization rights for farm labor,

lower food prices, increased food safety, increased environmental protection, sharing

water rights, and improved nutrition.

Today, there are pressing issues that

should receive increased research attention.

The sustainability of our agricultural system

is being severely questioned. The United

States is running out of water in parts of the

West, droughts persist in much of the country, excessive rates of erosion on some of the

most productive lands may prohibit maintenance of a sustainable system, increased costs

of energy (fuel and fertilizer) threaten to price

our products out of reach, and environmental

concerns continue.

Concern exists within the food and agricultural research establishment that because

there have been no substantial increases in

research funding, this new agenda of issues

has transferred and is transferring resources

from traditional research interests associated

with increasing production and efficiency.

This is a legitimate concern, considering that

Federal funds have remained relatively constant in terms of real dollar expenditures

while the research base has broadened, In addition, the costs of conducting research have

increased in real terms. Research today requires more sophisticated and expensive

equipment and support staff than 10 years

ago. Thus, with the expanded research base,

accompanied by higher costs and constant

funding levels, many research areas are receiving less funding today than earlier.
Ch. II—Introduction ● 2 3

Historically, USDA and the SAES have had

a close working relationship in U.S. agricultural research. USDA as a general rule has

been more concerned with problems of national and regional importance, and the SAES

with problems of a local and State nature. The

land-grant colleges have grown into universities and generally have become large research institutions. Their research activities

naturally have grown not only to include

State and local problems but also to have significance on both a regional and national

basis. Congress has provided SAES funds for

regional research. However, as a result of the

1972 reorganization of the Agricultural Research Service in USDA, there is a question of

whether USDA has a national research program or merely a series of local and regional

activities. Consequently, USDA and the

SAES appear to be working on seemingly indistinguishable problems.

This in itself is not necessarily bad if planning and coordination are appropriately

used. But many people, including Congress,

have come to believe that little, if any, overall

planning and coordination of research exist,

especially at top levels of administration, and

question whether national issues are receiving adequate attention. There seems to be

much duplication and vying for funds.

By 1977, it became apparent to congressional leaders that new steps were needed to

upgrade agricultural research and coordination. As a result, the Food and Agriculture

Act of 1977 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish: a) a committee known as the

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences (JC) and b) a National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board

(UAB). Primary responsibility of the JC is to

foster coordination of agricultural research,

extension, and teaching activities of the Federal Government, the States, colleges and

universities, and other public and private institutions involved in the food and agricultural sciences. UAB is responsible for preparing independent advisory opinions on the

food and agricultural sciences.

NEED FOR AN

There have been many studies that have

dealt with food and agricultural research.

They include reports by the President’s

Science Advisory Committee (1962), the Committee on Research Advisory to the USDA

(1972), the Agricultural Production Efficiency

Study (1975), the World Food and Nutrition

Study (1977), and USDA’s Study of Agricultural and Food Research Issues and Priorities

(1978). This latter study reviewed 50 reports

and studies dealing with priorities for food

and agricultural research. Thirty-two of the

reports addressed the inadequacy of funding

of agricultural research and called for its

strengthening. Few of these studies have addressed the structure of the research system.

No attempt has been made to define local,

regional, and national problems on a scientific basis in order to assign research responsibilities. Nor has there been any attempt to

identify roles of those agencies and institutions participating in domestic and international research or to seek solutions to the

problems they face. The question still arises

as to the adequacy of the funding level for research, the distribution of the benefits of research, and the quality of research. In addition, there is the question as to whether present methods are satisfactory by which expertise and interest of Federal, State, and private

organizations are brought to bear on identifying and conducting research.

Hence many, including Congress, have become concerned over the allocation of resources to various domestic and international

research activities and the mechanisms used

for development of research priorities .

Within the U.S. food and agricultural research system, there appears to be a dichotomy of professed procedures for priority setting and actual practices. Need for a sound,
24 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

workable process seems apparent in order to

maintain continuity in planning and to keep

the research system viable. These concerns

led directly to a request from Congress for

OTA to make an in-depth assessment of the

U.S. food and agricultural research system.

Congress stressed that the assessment focus

on the structure of the system and that it complement previous studies which identified

agricultural research priorities.

In conducting this study, OTA recognized

certain emerging factors that are markedly affecting the conduct and decisionmaking within research agencies and their funding

sources. One of the more important of these

factors is the high cost of performing research today—not only from the standpoint of

spiraling costs for personal services but also

because of the need for more sophisticated,

expensive research equipment. In addition,

the research base has broadened to include

new issues such as environmental protection,

improved nutrition, and social concerns. Restricted budgets and limited personnel ceilings have also left their mark on the planning

of research programs,

Specifically, the request for an assessment

came from the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, In addition,

the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Investigations, Oversight, and Research has endorsed this request.

The objectives of this assessment are to:

●

●

●

●

●

evaluate the funding, benefits, and burdens of food and agricultural research;

determine the basis, scientific or otherwise, for the classification of research

from a management perspective;

identify the roles of Federal, State, and

private institutions in developing technologies for solutions to international,

national, regional, and State or local

problems;

examine the management, structure, and

policies of USDA in the conduct of food

and agricultural research;

evaluate methods by which the expertise

and interests of Federal, State, and private research organizations can be

brought to bear cooperatively in identifying priority research areas; and

●

ASSESSMENT

provide public policy options for Congress that will maximize our research potential,

The working groups and advisory committee that prepared and reviewed the resource

material for this assessment recognized the

urgency for resolving the issues that characterize the situation in the agricultural research sector. They were motivated by a deep

concern for maintaining a strong and growing food and agricultural industry, It is hoped

that the analysis of these issues and public

policy options offered herein will provide a

good starting point for increased effective use

of the Nation’s scientific capabilities and

other research resources,
Ch. II—/ntroduct/on . 25

CHAPTER II REFERENCES

National Academy of Sciences, Agricultural Production Efficiency, Washington, D. C., 1975.

National Academy of Sciences, Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1972,

National Academy of Sciences, World Food and

Nutrition Study, Washington, D. C., 1977.

President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC)

Life Sciences Panel, Agriculture Panel Report

on Science and Agriculture, Washington, D. C.,

1962.

United Nations World Food Conference, The

World Food Problem—ProposaJs for National

and International Actions, Rome, Italy, 1974.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and

Food Research Issues and Priorities: A Review

and Assessment, December 1978.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report Assessing

Global Food Production and Needs of April 1.5,

197’9, ESCS-61, ESCS, Washington, D, C., 197’9.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, The World Food

Situation and Prospects to 1985, Foreign Agricultural Economics Report 98, ERS, Washington, D. C., 1974.

. .- 4 - .] 1 - ,
Chapter III

The Role and Development

of Public Agricultural

Research
Page

The Role of Agricultural Research. ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Early Institutional Developments, 1862 to 1887. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

. . . . . . .

The U.S. Department of Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

The Turning Point: The Hatch Act of 1887. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Growth and Interaction, 1888 to 1953. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Federal Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1888 to 1897.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The Wilson Era, 1897 to 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Early Coordinated Research Programs. ...,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

1913 to 1953. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

State Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1888 to 1906... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Adams Act of 1906. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

. . . . .

1907 to 1953.... . . * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*.. 40

Federal-State Financial Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Policy Aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

. . . . . . .

Funding Aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,, . 41

Reorganization and Decentralization, 1953 to the Present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Reorganization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?*..... . . . . . . . . .,,.. 43

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

45

The 1890 Land-Grant Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

46

Principal Findings. ...,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..0..., ,.. .

. . . . . . . .,*..,.. . 47

Chapter III References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

3. U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth During the Past 200 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4. Role of Research in USDA Budget Allocations, 1915-55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5. Appropriations for Research in USDA Budget, 1915-54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6. Proportion of USDA Research Funds Used for Federal Research, 1915-73. .....,.. 42

7. USDA Funds as Proportion of Expenditures by State Agricultural Experiment

Stations, 1889-1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter III

The Role and Development of

Public Agricultural Research

For centuries, farmers have tried to find ficult process and required new techniques of

ways of increasing production on their own production beyond those which could be genland—to make two blades of grass grow erated at the farm level.

where one grew before. But as long as land

was plentiful, output could be rather easily in- The result was a gradual realization of the

creased just by enlarging the area grown. As need to find a way to expand the broad-scale

land became more scarce, however, there was development of agricultural knowledge and

an increasing need to expand the productivi- technology. This inevitably led to calls on the

ty of existing land. This often was a more dif- government

THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURAL

Agricultural research is the systematic

search for new ways of improving agricultural production and marketing. In most cases,

production research is oriented to maintaining or increasing the productivity of our

agricultural resources. Marketing research is

largely devoted to maintaining quantity and

quality of products as they move to and

through the market. The result of both types

of research is an expanded supply of agricultural products at a lower cost per unit of

product than otherwise would have been the

case. This outcome usually benefits many

producers and all consumers of that product,

Some research is increasingly devoted to related questions concerning, for example,

environmental quality and human nutrition

where the measure may be somewhat different. But generally the final measure is a

more ample food supply at reasonable cost,

while maintaining a sustainable production

system and reducing the uncertainty of production.

The United States is generally recognized

as having developed a productive and efficient food system. Many factors contribute to

such a situation, but research is of vital and

central importance. Research relates to all

three major factors of production: land, labor,

and capital,

the closing

other hand,

for assistance,

RESEARCH

Land became less abundant with

of the frontier in 1890. On the

production inputs that could be

purchased with capital—particularly machinery and chemicals—have grown in supply.

Viewing the development of productivity—measured by output per unit of inputs

—in American agriculture from 1775 to 1975,

one might separate the 200 years into four

periods. The first, from 1775 through the

Civil War, largely relied on hand power, supplemented near the end of the period by

the introduction of labor-saving equipment.

From the Civil War to World War I, horsedrawn equipment was increasingly substituted for human labor. From World War I to

World War II, mechanical power increasingly

substituted for animal power. The fourth

period, which started in the 1930’s and extends from World War II to the present, might

be considered the era of “science power” (Lu

et al., pp. 8-10). *

Overall productivity changes were quite

modest through the mid-1930’s (fig. 3), Much

*It should be recognized that these are relative terms and

that there is considerable overlap between periods. Some

science was involved throughout, but its role grew materiality

over time.

29
30 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Figure 3.–U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth

During the Past 200 Years

1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975

Year

SOURCE: Lu, Cline, and Quance, p. 10

of the effect of new technology was to increase labor productivity; considerably less

was accomplished in increasing land productivity. But starting in the late 1930’s there was

a sharp growth in the rate of productivity,

particularly in yields per unit of land (Cochrane, pp. 127-128, 202, 245). This was caused

by the introduction of science power, which

in turn was largely the result of research.

The research undergirding science power

was carried out in the private and public sectors. Actually the private sector had long

taken the lead in developing new forms of

horse-drawn equipment and mechanical

power for agriculture; the public sector contributed relatively little in this area. The private sector also played an important role in

the development of chemical fertilizer, a vital

component of increases in agricultural productivity. All of these products are proprietary goods where the manufacturer can retain

at least some of the profit of innovation, in

part through patents.

The public sector–composed of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research

agencies and State agricultural experiment

stations—arrived on the scene in a meaningful way only in the late 1800’s and did not

become a significant source of new technologies until the early 1900’s. The public sector

devoted most of its resources to biologically

oriented research. This kind of research is

considerably less likely to produce a proprietary or patentable product. The public sector

did not move far into the area handled by

private industry, but rather moved on from it.

Its work in breeding new higher yielding

varieties of crops, for instance, greatly enhanced the potential value of chemical fertilizers. The result was a highly productive

symbiosis of public and private research and

development activities.

Research and its associated science power

have been the major factors in bringing about

the sharp increase in total agricultural productivity. But recent dropoffs in the rate of

productivity growth have increased concern

about the condition and productivity of

agricultural research in the United States.

EARLY INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1862 TO 1887

The early agricultural societies stirred up to the agricultural societies and other such

considerable interest in agricultural experi- groups. But little resulted in formal terms exmentation in the first half of the 1800’s. Quite cept for some institutionalization of fertilizer

independently, and nearer the middle of the analyses.

century, a number of American scientists Two major steps toward the creation of received graduate training in Europe and

brought back the idea of agricultural experi- agricultural research systems were taken in

1862 with: 1) Presidential signature on a bill ment stations. 1 This concept was in turn fed on May 15 establishing USDA, and 2) the pasIAgricultural experiment

—

stations were established in Atwater; Knoblauch, et al., pp.5-18; Rossiter, 1975; True and

Europe at an earlier date than in the United States and had Crosby; Congressional Globe; and Agricultural Experiment

considerable influence on American thinking. For details, see: Stations.
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 31

sage of the Merrill Act on July 2, which provided the basis for the land-grant colleges of

agriculture. Neither bill said very much about

research, which was to be a source of some

difficulty, but they did create the basic institutions that could in turn foster research.

As Knoblauch, et al., stated: “Born in the

same year, the Federal Department of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges grew up

together. Confronted by a mutuality of problems, the colleges and the Department matured into a nationwide system of agricultural

research and education” (p. 111). The interaction of USDA and the colleges provides a

main theme in the subsequent development of

agricultural research in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture

Although the act that established USDA

said little about research, the House Committee on Agriculture clearly had research in

mind. In its report on the bill, the committee

noted the establishment of agricultural experiment stations in England and France,

citing in particular the role of the French

Government in promoting agricultural science. The committee stated that accurate

knowledge of the processes of nature “can be

obtained only by experiment, and by such

and so long continued experiments as to

place it beyond the power of individuals or

ordinary voluntary associations to make

them” (Congressional] Globe, p. 856).

In any case, USDA was hardly in a position

to do much research when it was established

in 1862. Such resources as it had initially

were inherited from the Patent Office: a few

employees, a few rooms in the basement of

the Patent Office, and a small 6-acre propagating garden and house on the Mall in front

of what is now the site of the National Gallery

of Art.

In April 1863, USDA was given authority to

use roughly 40 acres of land at the west end of

the Mall (the square between 12th and 14th

Streets and Independence and Constitution

Avenues) for use as an experimental farm.

The site was then occupied as a holding yard

for livestock for the Union Army and did not

become available to USDA until the spring of

1865. During the next two seasons, a wide

variety of imported seeds and plants were

planted and evaluated; the results were reported in considerable detail in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Agriculture.

The limitations of the site, however, were becoming apparent. Also, space was needed for

a new USDA building.

In May 1868, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Horace Capron, reported that he had

abolished the experimental farm and recommended that ". . . not less than 200 acres of

land should be obtained in a conspicuous

locality, upon one of the great thoroughfares,

within easy access from the city; a portion to

be appropriated to the propagating garden,

and the remainder to constitute the farm

proper.” (Report, 1867, p. 19). The new administration building, with some laboratory

space, was erected on the southern side of the

experimental farm site, and much of the remaining land was gradually converted into a

public arboretum. Still, some land remained

for outdoor plots, and a few greenhouses

were erected.

Despite Capron’s request for more land,

none was forthcoming through 1887 and, in

fact, not in any significant quantity until the

early 1900’s. In 1879, Commissioner Le Duc

cited as one of the USDA’s “immediate necessities” the acquisition of an experimental

farm of 1,000 acres in the Washington area

(Wiser and Rasmussen, p. 288). In 1880, he

suggested making use of land that was part of

Arlington National Cemetery (Report, p. 18).

Nothing immediately came of either idea.

Some land, however, was rented for research

on animal diseases in 1883. The very limited

facilities on the Mall continued to be critical

restraints on any extensive experimentation.

Moreover, the early commissioners of agriculture were not particularly committed to

the experimental work. As Knoblauch, et al.,

stated, they were:

. . . unfamiliar with the intricacies of scientific research. There was a tendency in those
32 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

early years to become preoccupied with other

responsibilities outlined in the Act, Many

problems combined in delaying until the late

1880s crystallization of any clear departmental research policy based on "long continued

experiments” (p. 27).

Thus lack of direction by the commissioners and a lack of facilities meant that for

its first 25 years USDA did relatively little in

agricultural research. Nor did it provide any

particular leadership to others except in relation to the Hatch Act.

The States2

It has been suggested by Knoblauch, et al.,

that the slow progress in developing the

USDA as a national agricultural experiment

station served “. . , as an incentive in the

States to go ahead with State stations” (p. 27).

This was not much of an incentive, however,

and early State progress was hardly striking.

Part of the problem was that Senator Merrill

“had not clearly indicated his ambitions concerning the nature and extent of research activity in the land grant colleges” (p. 32). The

bill itself made only two references to the research function: it provided that: 1) up to 10

percent of the initial endowment could be

used to purchase lands for experimental

farms, and 2) that the annual report should

record any experiments made with their cost

and results.

As a consequence Knoblauch, et al., state

that:

Collegiate experimentation in agriculture

appeared very early in the agricultural colleges founded in the mid-19th century. The

first States to institute the new schools explicitly directed, either by charter provision

or by separate enactment, that the collegiate

governing bodies initiate and maintain a program of experiments. These directives did

not authorize, however, or imply the establishment of experiment stations (p. 29), The

indistinct nature of the research authority

. . . prompted the first generation of college

2This section is based, except where otherwise noted, on

True, pp. 82-118, and True and Clark, pp. 29-34, 146-147,

163-164. On California, also see Rosenberg, 1971, pp. 11-12,

administrators to doubt that the Act of 1862

required the colleges to experiment, except

as an aid in the instruction of students (p. 32).

The first significant State development occurred in Connecticut as the result of work by

several members of the Sheffield Scientific

School at Yale University. During the

mid-1800’s, Sheffield (and its Analytical Laboratory) was widely known for its teaching of

agricultural science. One staff member,

Samuel W. Johnson, had studied in Europe

where he had become acquainted with the

experiment-station concept. In 1863, Connecticut’s Merrill Act funds were given to

Sheffield, which in turn employed William H.

Brewer as professor of agriculture, Among

those studying under Johnson and Brewer

was W.O. Atwater, who also later studied in

Europe and became familiar with the agricultural experiment station concept.

Johnson encouraged the formation of a

State Board of Agriculture in 1866 and secured an appointment as its official chemist.

He, Brewer, and Atwater then pressed for the

idea of an agricultural experiment station. In

1875, some State and private funds were provided for a 2-year experiment-station program at Wesleyan University; Atwater was

named director. The initial work, principally

fertilizer analysis, was considered promising,

and in January 1877, the State Board proposed renewal of the station.

On March 21, 1877, the proposal establishing the Connecticut State Agricultural Experiment Station became law. A $5,000

appropriation was provided. The charter

severed organic connection with a university:

the Wesleyan operation was closed and the

station leased space at Sheffield. Johnson was

named director, while maintaining his position at Yale. The station continued at Sheffield until 1882, when the State legislature

provided funds to purchase the former Eli

Whitney estate in suburban New Haven. Although the Connecticut station was thus the

first public station in the U.S. in a formal

sense, much of the early work related to fertilizer analysis and “. . . Johnson found it

practically impossible to incorporate re-
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 3 3

search into the station program before 1890”

(Rossiter, 1975, p. 170).

A quite different pattern was followed in

California. In early 1875, E. W. Hilgard joined

the College of Agriculture at the University of

California in Berkeley. The university regents

gave him a laboratory and $250 a year for 2

years for experimental work. In that year, he

began a field experiment on deep and shallow

plowing for wheat grown for hay; he soon

added an experiment on the fertilization of

wheat. In 1877, the first legislative appropriation was made specifically for experiment station work: $5,000 a year for 2 years. The

amount was raised to $10,000 a year in 1879.

Hilgard does not seem to have been tied down

with fertilizer analysis, as was the Connecticut station, and hence was able to more fully

engage in the type of work now done by experiment stations.

During the next decade, the Connecticut

and California models of organization were

followed, although slowly, in several other

States. Independent stations were established

in North Carolina [1877), New Jersey (1880),

New York (1880-81), Ohio and Massachusetts

(1882), and Louisiana (1884, 1886). In several

cases, however, the stations were located

near the land-grant college. Experiment stations connected with land-grant colleges were

established in New York (at Cornell, 1879-81),

Tennessee (1882), Alabama and Wisconsin

(1883), Kentucky and Maine (1885), and Vermont (1886). Establishment of several of the

stations in the mid-1880’s was no doubt encouraged by ongoing congressional discussions of predecessors of the Hatch Act of

1887. In addition, more or less systematic

agricultural work was being done at landgrant colleges in 13 other States.

Thus the first 25 years after the passage of

the Merrill Act scarcely brought about a great

increase in experiment stations at colleges of

agriculture. There were about as many stations established independently of colleges as

were established in association with them.

Knoblauch, et al., note that the governing

boards of the land-grant colleges were hesitant to organize experiment stations and that

“customarily until the mid-eighties they accepted as satisfactory the State legislative actions which founded and subsidized stations

operating independently of college control”

(p, 29), “Thus in the early eighties the outlook

for establishing permanent stations under

college direction appeared, if not bleak, distant and uncertain” (p. 38).

THE TURNING POINT: THE HATCH ACT OF 1887

The Hatch Act of 1887 was undoubtedly the

most important legislative step taken in the

development of agricultural research in the

United States. In one stroke it brought about

the establishment of the modern network of

State agricultural experiment stations, and it

bound the USDA and the States together in

the process.

The Hatch Act was not developed overnight; it had a long and complex history. The

precursors might be said to go back to 1871,

when representatives from 12 land-grant colleges met to discuss how to accelerate agricultural research, and to 1872, when Commissioner of Agriculture Watts called a national

agricultural convention (involving colleges of

agriculture) at which a committee on experiment stations was appointed. The campaign

for Federal support, however, did not pick up

much speed until the early 1880’s. In 1880, a

group of research-oriented professors from

Midwestern colleges met at the University of

Illinois and formed a group known as the

Teachers of Agriculture to promote collegeaffiliated stations. They met again in 1881

and developed a more detailed proposal. It

called for State support—justified in part by

the fact that ". . . improved agricultural production benefits the entire population, not

solely the producers on the farms” (Knoblauch, et al., p. 39). The role of experiment
34 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

stations was also discussed at two meetings of

land-grant colleges called by Commissioner

Loring in Washington in January 1882.

The first proposal for Federal funding

seems to have been advanced in an article by

E. W. Hilgard of California in The Atlantic

Monthly in May 1882. He noted the meager

funds available at the State level and criticized the commissioners of USDA for their

neglect of Federal research. He encouraged

the use of Federal funds in cooperation with

the land-grant colleges for the operation of a

station in each State.

A bill toward this end was introduced in

Congress in May 1882 by Representative Carpenter of Iowa. The bill was based on a proposal by Seaman Knapp of Iowa State. It

called for “national experiment stations” at

each college. Carpenter contended that the

American farmer, confronted with the need

for developing intensive cultivation, needed

as never before the aid of scientific research.

The bill called for an annual Federal allocation of $15,000 for each station. Management

of the station was basically to be under State

control. As finally reported out from the

House committee in July 1884, the bill was

somewhat different and became known as the

Cullen bill.

In July 1885, the new Commissioner of

Agriculture, Norman Colman, called a special

convention of college delegates in Washington. The experiment-station proposal was on

the agenda and was favored by Colman. It

was decided to push the proposal on the basis

of two points: the duty of the Federal Government to aid agriculture, and the duty of the

land-grant colleges to aid the farmer. Having

subsidized the colleges for teaching students,

Congress should now subsidize the stations

for assisting farmers,

The report on the bill prepared by the

House Agriculture Committee (chaired by

Congressman Hatch), dated March 3, 1886,

contained the following statements:

The object should be to increase production at a decreased cost and at the same time

to preserve the fertility of our soils (p. 2).

Combining as they do the precision of scientific methods with an intelligent regard to

the requirements of practical operations, it is

not surprising that they (the experiment stations) have come to be looked upon, wherever

established, as the most important aids to

successful farming as well as the foremost

agency for the advancement of agricultural

science (p. 3).

The bill was the subject of a fiery debate in

the Senate in January 1887. There was widespread sympathy for the new idea of Federal

subsidies for conducting research on State

stations. But there was also, even then, concern that Federal dictation would automatically follow the flow of Federal funds. Revisions made on the floor allowed funds to go to

independent (noncollege) stations (a grandfather clause) and removed all statements that

the Commissioner of Agriculture had powers

beyond aiding and assisting the stations. The

bill was passed by the Senate on January 22

(without a record vote) and by the House on

February 25 (152 to 12). It was signed into law

by President Cleveland on March 2, 1887. It

was reportedly the first direct cash grant-inaid to individual States (Rosenberg, 1964,

p. 3).

The Hatch Act provided, as did the previously proposed Carpenter bill, $15,000 for

agricultural experiment stations in each

State. The first appropriation for the stations

was provided in a special act of February 1,

1888. On July 18, the Hatch Act funds were

carried in the annual appropriation act for

USDA. The appropriation provided $10,000

for administration of the act; the Office of Experiment Stations was established for this

purpose on October 1, 1888.

In commenting on the Hatch Act, True said

that it “established a new policy of relationship between the Federal Government and

the States by granting money to the States for

agricultural experiment stations, which were

thus to be distinctly State institutions” (p.

130). As such, they were to focus on State and

local problems.
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 3 5

GROWTH AND INTERACTION, 1888 TO 1953

The Hatch Act set the stage for the FederalState agricultural system as we know it today.

It led to the establishment of an experiment

station in each State and provided the basis

for continuing Federal support. The Hatch

Act, however, had a less immediate impact on

the role of research within USDA itself.

Federal Research

The course of Federal research changed

relatively little from 1887 through 1897.

Thereafter the situation changed sharply.

1888 to 1897

In February 1889, USDA was given Cabinet

status, but only modest increases were made

in Federal agricultural research under the

first two Secretaries of Agriculture (excluding N. J. Colman who served only 3 weeks).

Under Secretary J. M. Rusk (1889 to 1893),

“the aggregate funds used for experimental

work did not materially increase, ” though

“more scientific work was performed in a

few lines, especially vegetable pathology and

biology” (True, p. 178). Under Secretary J.S.

Morton (1893 to 1897), there was no increase

in overall appropriations for USDA, but the

proportion of funding for scientific work increased somewhat.

3 This was particularly

true with soils, grass and forage plants, and

forestry (True, p. 183).

USDA research facilities remained very

limited during this period. In 1887, thenCommissioner N. J. Colman suggested the establishment of a central experiment station

(Report, p. 12). The following year, he elaborated on the concept which was:

To relieve the State stations of much costly

and laborious scientific work and enable

them to devote their energy the more comoAccording to one calculation, the following proportions

were spent on “scientific work:” Fiscal Year 1892, 46.2 percent; 1893, 45.6 percent; and 1894, 51.8 percent (Dahne\’, p.

66). The definition of scientific work may have been much

broader than the clefinition of research used in later years (see

Moore, p. 3),

pletely to the things that are of practical interest to the farmer, and to enable the Department to give the advice and assistance which

Congress calls for and the stations need . . .

This would in no way take the place or do the

work of the stations throughout the country

but would, on the other hand, be a most helpful, economical, and I am inclined to add,

essential part of the whole organization (Report, 1888, pp. 12-13].

Not everyone felt this way. Edwin Willets,

the first Assistant Secretary of Agriculture

(and former president of Michigan Agricultural College), who was placed in charge of

scientific work, said in an 1889 speech that

while the previous Commissioners of the Department “without exception . . . wanted an

experiment farm” for their own research, he

hoped to “head off any such proposition. . . .“

Yet late in that same year Secretary Rusk formally requested transfer of the Arlington land

to USDA [Wiser and Rasmussen, pp. 288,

289).

Meanwhile, the facilities on the Mall

proved increasingly inadequate. In 1894, Secretary J. S. Morton commented that: “There is

hardly a university or agricultural college in

the United States which has not better constructed, better lighted, or better ventilated

laboratories than those used by the Department of Agriculture” (Yearbook of Agriculture, 1894, p. 64).

Thus, from 1888 through 1897 agricultural

research in USDA continued at a relatively

modest level and was severely handicapped

by limited facilities.

The Wilson Era, 1897 to 1913

The research situation, however, began to

change sharply with the arrival of James

Wilson as Secretary of Agriculture in March

1897. The following September, he took

charge of scientific and regulatory work

(previously under an Assistant Secretary). He

continued in this position for an unparalleled

term of 16 years.
36 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Wilson did not necessarily arrive with the

upgrading of Federal research prominently in

mind. He described his metamorphosis to the

State experiment station directors in these

words in November 1905:

when I came down here—with a good

deal of reluctance–to do something in the

Department of Agriculture, my prevailing

thought was that I would try to make that institution subservient to the stations of the

country, and to help build them up. I found

that it was necessary to first build the Department up; that it was not as strong in educated

scientists as it should be . . . and so I was

compelled to turn my attention to that one

thing and push it in all possible directions, to

select strong men, and interview Congress

occasionally for increased appropriations.

We have been doing what we can (Wilson,

p. 15).’

In congressional hearings earlier that year, he

acknowledged that his already-achieved goal

had been to build a corps of full-time specialists, “the greatest scientists in their respective

lines today that the world knows of” (Knoblauch, et al., p. 105).

During Wilson’s regime, seven new scientific bureaus were established (only one, the

Bureau of Animal Industry, existed before his

arrival). Four were established in 1901 alone:

Plant Industry, Forestry (which became the

Forest Service in 1905), Soils, and Chemistry.

Three were established in subsequent years:

Statistics (1903), Entomology (1904), and Biological Survey (1905 ).’ The bureaus were built

on previous organizations but represented an

elevation in status and eventually an enlargement in size. The latter point is illustrated in

data on the growth in number of employees

between 1897 and 1912:

4Rosenberg notes that “though the stations had hoped that

‘Tama Jim’ Wilson, originally an experiment station man,

might be a bulwark of State interests in Washington, he had

been a disappointment” (Rosenberg, 1964, p. 5), Wilson had

also served previously for three terms in the House of Representatives.

5

For further details on the bureaus, see: Baker, et al., pp.

42-56; Dupree, pp. 158-169, 176-181; and Rossiter, 1979, pp.

220-239,

Number of employees

Bureau 1897 1912

Animal Industry. . . . . . . . . . 777 3,311

Plant Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . 127 2,128

Soils . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 159

Chemistry , , , . . . . . . . ., . . . . 29 546

Entomology ., . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 339

Biological Survey. . . . . . . . . . 23 97

Total . . . . . . . . ... , ., ., .1,016 6,580

S()[; R(; E: “1’rue, I] 19(1

Staff increased more than sixfold. Not all of

the work of the bureaus, however, was devoted to scientific work; regulatory work

played a large role in some cases.

The growth in research may also be reflected in other terms. It has been estimated

that expenditures on USDA research increased from $800,000 in 1900 to $4 million in

1910 (Hayami and Ruttan, p. 144), Between

1887 and 1904, the Federal Government quadrupled the portion of the Department budget

(excluding the Hatch appropriation) spent for

research. The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI),

for example, in 1904 reportedly operated on a

budget larger than the total Hatch appropriation to all of the States. Similarly, the departmental scientific staff had grown steadily until in 1904 it substantially outnumbered the

nationwide total of station workers (Knoblauch, et al., p. 103).

In terms of management philosophy, the

emphasis:

. . . was on lines of work directed by prominent individuals rather than on administrative units. In general, subordinate units were

organized on an informal basis , , , Informality was fostered by Secretary Wilson, who

made a point of knowing who the scientists

were and what they were doing. He frequently visited the laboratories in the buildings

that were clustered in the vicinity of the main

building of the Department (Baker, et al.,

p. 42).

During Wilson’s early years, USDA had

been stuck with the same limited facilities in

Washington that had existed previously. But

in 1900, he was able to secure the use of 400

acres of the Arlington National Cemetery, although it took about 3 years to get the site
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 3 7

ready for use. In 1907, two laboratory buildings were completed on the Mall site (the current east and west wings of the present administration building). In 1910, a 475-acre

farm was purchased near Beltsville for work

in dairying and animal husbandry.

Expansion was not confined to the Washington area. After its establishment, a large

and increasing amount of the work of BPI

was conducted at USDA field stations. By

1913, BPI operated 18 field stations in 9

States, 8 in cooperation with State experiment stations. In the same year, the Bureau of

Entomology had 35 field laboratories in different parts of the United States (True, pp.

197-198, 203),

The Office of Experiment Stations, established to administer the Hatch funds, also became involved in the conduct of research in

cooperation with State stations. Nutrition investigations began in 1894, irrigation investigations in 1898, and drainage investigations in 1902. In 1898, the Alaska Experiment

Station was put under this office; the Hawaii

and Puerto Rico stations were added in 1901

(True, p. 133).

USDA’s growth in research staff and geographic scope was not looked upon entirely

favorably by the States. Some of this was

probably jealousy, for the State stations were

not having an easy time with their own legislatures. Some was a result of dislike of certain

Bureau chiefs. And some was a result of concern that USDA activity in the States might

lessen financial support for State agricultural

experiment stations.

W. H. Jordan, director of the New York

SAES at Geneva, expressed the concerns of

many of his State colleagues, when he stated

in January 1905:

As a natural and inevitable result the Department with its overwhelming equipment

of men and means, is not now, as formerly,

confining its research work largely to that

which can be done in the laboratories at

Washington, but is, of very necessity, as a

means of securing opportunities, reaching

out into the several States and . , , is now traversing, to a large extent, the field that had

been and still is also traversed by the experiment stations (Knoblauch, et al., p. 103).

USDA administrators undoubtedly would

have put the matter differently.

The Adams Act of 1906 doubled Federal

funding to the States, which thus became less

vocal, although still irritated, on the matter of

Federal research. By any measures, however,

Wilson put USDA solidly on its feet in agricultural research.

Early Coordinated Research Programs

Research conducted by USDA and the State

experiment stations before 1900 was largely

by individual investigators, with cooperation

based primarily on personal contacts. One of

the first efforts to conduct coordinated research programs involving Federal and State

scientists and cooperating farmers was the

work on dryland agriculture in the Great

Plains area (Quisenberry, pp. 218-228; Moseman, et al., 1981).

When the Hatch Act was passed by Congress in 1887, only a few States had agricultural experiment stations and none were in

the Great Plains. However, systematic experiments were in progress in Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska. Dryland research was

started by E. C. Chilcott at Brookings, S. Dak.,

in 1897. The need for such work was subsequently recognized by M. A. Carleton of

USDA. In 1905, Carleton hired Chilcott to

take charge of dryland research. In 1906, the

Office of Dry Land Agriculture (DLA) was established with Chilcott in charge.

One of Chilcott’s first moves was to call a

meeting in Washington, D. C., to plan cooperative research, with representatives from

various units of BPI and from the agricultural

experiment stations of North and South

Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

The stated purpose of the meeting was “to encourage and facilitate the coordination,

systemization, and unification of all the

cooperative experimental work to be engaged

in by BPI and the experiment stations and

sub-stations of the several states included in

whole or in part in the Great Plains area. ”
38 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Later it was agreed that Texas and Colorado

should be included in the cooperative program,

The first meeting of the new Great Plains

Cooperative Association was held in Lincoln,

Nebr., in June 1906, and such meetings were

continued until World War I. This was the

start of State-Federal cooperation in agricultural research and set the pattern for similar

cooperation on other regional and national

problems confronting agriculture in later

years,

The association conducted research at the

stations then in existence and also established

new stations—by the States, the Federal Government, or cooperatively—with the experimental work done jointly by the State and

Federal workers. Stations were established at

Hays, Kans., in 1901; Nephi, Utah, in 1903;

Amarillo, Tex., in 1904; and North Platte,

Nebr,, in 1906. By 1910, there were 20 stations in operation and by 1916 there were 29.

Eventually 30 stations were involved. The

Pendleton, Oreg., station was started in 1928

and was the only DLA station outside of the

Great Plains.

1913 to 1953

The patterns of operation established during the Wilson period generally continued until 1953. Although an increased amount of

research was done in the Washington, D. C.,

area, a substantial amount was carried out in

various field locations. A. C. True reports that

in the case of BPI from 1922 to 1925, "fully 60

percent of the research was carried on at field

stations, and much of it was done in cooperation with the State experiment stations” (p.

255). By 1931, USDA reportedly maintained

51 field stations in 24 States (Waggoner, p.

242). The field operations in some cases continued to be a source of friction with State experiment station officials.

Meanwhile, the Arlington farm was enlarged slightly in 1915, and gradual but

substantial additions were made to the land

area at Beltsville. The Beltsville Research

Center was formally established in 1934. In

1940-41, the Arlington farm and the greenhouses on the Mall were closed down and activities shifted to Beltsville.

Regional research activities were given a

substantial boost by two congressional acts

during the mid to late 1930’s. In 1935, the

Bankhead-Jones Act authorized the establishment of laboratories in different regions of

the country to work on priority problems of

the region. Nine were established by 1939:

Plant, Soil, and Nutrition (Ithaca, N.Y.); Pasture Research (State College, Pa.); Vegetable

Breeding (Charleston, S.C.); Poultry Research

(East Lansing, Mich.); Soybean Research (Urbana, Ill.); Sheep Research (Boise, Idaho);

Salinity (Riverside, Calif.); Plant-GrowthRegulating Substances, and Photo-Period and

Plant Development (Beltsville). These facilities tended to be regarded as Federal field

laboratories (Moseman, et al., 1981; Purcell,

pp. 235-236).

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938

authorized USDA to establish four regional

utilization-research laboratories that were to

concentrate on developing new uses and outlets for surplus commodities. The laboratories were located at Philadelphia, Pa.;

Peoria, Ill.; New Orleans, La,; and Albany,

Calif. The laboratories were constructed

around 1940 and cost $1 million each; the annual budgets were approximately the same

(Moseman, et al., 1981; Purcell, pp. 238-239).

As with the field stations, these regional

laboratories were a source of concern to some

State agricultural experiment stations because they found it difficult to cooperate with

them. They were also considered interlopers

by some of the old-time USDA bureaus. Partly

to help correct these problems, an Agricultural Research Administration was created in

the early 1940’s as an administrative layer between the bureaus and the Secretary (Irving,

et al., 1981; Purcell, pp. 237-240),

Of greater importance was the passage of

the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. It

was initially designed to increase marketing

research in USDA, but by the time it was

passed involved substantial sums for research

on utilization, quality improvement, and
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 3 9

other areas of agricultural research (Moseman, et al., 1981).

As a result of these changes, agricultural research in USDA appears to have been in relatively good condition in the early 1950’s.

State Research

The State agricultural experiment stations

(SAES) underwent a remarkable period of

growth following passage of the Hatch Act. ”

This growth was then stimulated in surges by

the passage of additional legislation, the first

of which was the Adams Act in 1906.

1888 to 190 6

6

Passage of the Hatch Act in 1887 provided a

great and immediate impetus to the establishment of State agricultural experiment stations. As noted previously, an Office of Experiment Stations was established in 1888,

with W. O. Atwater as its first director, to administer the Hatch funds.

Just before the passage of the act, there

were only 15 State stations, By the end of

1888, there were 46 such stations. The number grew to 55 in 1893, 56 in 1894, and 60 in

1906—quadrupling in number in less than 20

years.

Within the overall numbers, a few stations

continued to be wholly State-sponsored (two

by 1906), and three of the territorial stations

(Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) were sponsored by USDA. Virtually all of the remaining

55 stations were tied to land-grant colleges.

All of this was accomplished with a rather

modest expenditure of Federal funds. The

total annual Hatch funding was: 1888 to 1893,

from $585,000 to $708,000; 1894 to 1906,

$720,000. There was no allowance for growth

or inflation. On the other hand, the $15,000

provided to each station was large compared

to funding available in Europe.

*The SAES as discussed in this section do not include the

1890 colleges of agriculture for which no Federal research

funds were regularly provided from 1888 to 1953. Details on

subsequent Federal support are provided on p. 46.

eThe statistics reported in this section were derived from

True, pp. 130-131, 138, 166, 212, 237-238, 274.

Yet modest as they were, the Federal funds

were of vital importance because of the limited or nonexistent State funding available.

True notes that in fiscal year 1902, of the 52

stations receiving Hatch funds, 27 (52 percent) did not receive any State aid, while only

25 (48 percent) were also supported by State

funds. In the latter case, only eight States

equaled or exceeded the Hatch appropriation

($15,000); six did not exceed $1,000; and

several provided support only for substations

(for which Hatch funds could not be used).7

The role of Federal funds, while massive at

first, gradually declined as the Federal contribution held steady and as State contributions gradually increased. In 1888, the Hatch

funds accounted for 82.4 percent of the funds

available to the State stations; by 1906, this

proportion had been reduced to 47.6 percent.

One of the problems in administering the

Hatch Act was to limit its use to scientific

research, particularly original research.

Then, as now, there were many competing

demands for overhead, applied research, and

extension. The result was a “snail’s pace

toward significant research” (Knoblauch, et

al., p. 87).

The question of applied v. original research

became a major topic at the annual meetings

of the American Association of Agricultural

Colleges and Experiment Stations around

1900. 8 Few States were inclined to make substantial grants for original research, and even

then they were commonly earmarked for specific topics.

Adams Act of 1906

The answer to these problems appeared to

be to obtain additional Federal funds. Cong.

H. C. Adams of Wisconsin was contacted in

late 1903, and he in turn requested A. C. True

of USDA to draw up a proposed bill. True’s

7At first, some Hatch funds were used for substations, and by

1894 there were 40 such stations. However, in 1896 the Office

of Experiment Stations ruled against their use for this purpose,

and bj’ 1897 their number was reduced to 11, ‘I’he use of State

funds raised their number to 16 in 1899 and 28 in 1904 (True,

p. 131).

‘This matter is discussed in more general terms in Rosenberg, 1977, pp. 403-412.
40 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

proposal followed the Hatch Act in its funding level ($15,000 per year per State), but

limited expenditures solely to original research.

In mobilizing support for the bill, much

comment was made about the sharp expansion in Federal research and the comparative

poverty of the States. The State group sought

“some measure of equity in the appropriations made for this purpose from the National

Treasury” (Knoblauch, et al., p. 100).

The bill was passed by the House and

Senate early in 1906 and was signed by President Roosevelt on March 16. According to

Knoblauch, et al., the act “firmly established

the principle in American governmental policy that Federal aid shall join with State aid

for the purpose of subsidizing scientific research in the State stations” (p, 107). Rosenberg viewed the matter less grandly: “. , . as a

strategic victory for the stations in a continuing conflict with the Department of Agriculture” (1964, p. 5),

It is not commonly noted that the act states

that its funds are to be used for “. . . paying

the necessary expenses of conducting original researches or experiments bearing directly on the agricultural industry of the United

States, having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of the respective States or

Territories” (Knoblauch, et al., p. 221).

1907 to 195 3

9

The Adams Act doubled the Federal contribution to each State—although the increased

funding was phased in over a 5-year period.

Thus the Federal contribution of $720,000 in

1906 was raised to $1,44 million by 1911. It remained at that level through 1925,

During this period the level of non-Federal

funds available to the stations increased so

that the proportion of Federal funds provided

through USDA continued to decline—from

47.6 percent in 1906 to an all-time low of 14.9

percent in 1925. Still, a substantial number of

“The stat ist ics reported i n this section were der i~’ed from

Agricultural /\~~~jro~)ric]ti(~]ls for 1957.‘]’he~ ma} differ slightly

from those reported in app. B. The percentages are presented

in fig. 7 on p. 43.

stations received only limited State funds. In

fiscal year 1921, for example, 22 stations received less than $50,000 of State funds, including 6 which received none (True, p. 238).

Several other developments were also of

significance. The number of substations continued to grow, from about 70 in 1913-14 to

130 in 1920 (True, pp. 210,238). Passage of the

Smith-Lever Act in 1914 formalized and

funded the extension function, sharply reducing pressures on the experiment stations,

The Federal research funding provided

through USDA was subsequently raised with

the passage of the Purnell Act in 1925, which

also enlarged the scope of research at the stations by stressing studies of economic and

social problems of agriculture, including

marketing and prices. In addition to the

$30,000 of Hatch and Adams funds, the States

were to initially receive an additional $20,000

a year; the amount was to be ultimately increased to an additional $60,000 a year by

fiscal year 1930. Thus total Federal funding

increased from $1,44 million in 1925 to

$4.335 million in 1930, a figure which then

held through 1935. The proportion of station

funds provided by the Federal Government

increased from 14.9 percent in 1925 to 32.5

percent in 1935 as State appropriations withered during the depression (Porter, p. 99),

In 1935, the Bankhead-Jones Act provided

additional funds to the States and for regional

Federal research. Funds were allocated on a

formula basis rather than as an equal sum to

each State, as had previously been the case,

States were also required to match the Federal funds dollar for dollar, Federal funds to the

States gradually increased through the end of

World War II–from $5 million in 1936 to $7

million in 1946. The Federal portion of funding dropped gradually—from 33.9 percent in

1936 to 25.7 percent in 1946.

In 1946, substantial changes were introduced by the Research and Marketing Act. It

increased Federal funds for the States on a

formula basis and made provision for support

of regional research by the State stations, Federal funds increased from $7.197 million in

1947 to $12.265 million in 1953; still, the Fed-
Ch. III—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 4 1

eral proportion of station funding dropped

from 20.6 percent to 16.5 percent in the same

years.

Federal-State Financial Interaction

As a result of these congressional actions,

Federal and State Governments were uniquely bound together in the sponsorship of agricultural research during the period of growth

and interaction from 1888 to 1953. This partnership extended from straight funding to

coordinated national and regional research

programs,

Policy Aspects

The Federal-State funding arrangement

that developed after 1888, while highly productive, had the seeds of conflict built into it.

USDA not only sponsors its own research

program but also passes Federal funds on to

the States; this was bound to lead to some

contention about the relative proportion of

funds used for each purpose.

The countervailing forces and their attitudes were summarized in an exchange between a congressman and Whitman Jordan,

representing the State stations, at a hearing

on the Adams bill in January 1905:

Congressman: Don’t you think a fair inference from these figures is that we should

give you all the money we have got?

Jordan: No; you have a great big Department in Washington that needs all the money

you can give it. But on reflection, I would say

that we will take all the money we can get,

and we can use it well. (Knoblauch, et al.,

p, 104)

Passage of the Adams Act was a major

boost for the States ". . . but it made long and

rigorous competition with the Department ineditable. ” Other crises in the relationship

arose in 1930-32 and in 1953-58 (Knoblauch,

et al., p. 121).

In analyzing Federal/State relations since

the passage of the Hatch Act, Knoblauch, et

al., made the following observation in 1963:

A theme of continuity runs through 20th

century developments . . . . The thread is one

of undulating competition between the experiment stations and Federal research activities within the States. Which of the two

types of agencies should have priority?

(p. 120)

While the Federal/State relationship is commonly referred to as one of cooperation, in

reality it is the product of “collision and compromise . . . the never-ending search for adjustments between the stations and the Department as to the division of responsibility

for research in the States” (Knoblauch, et al.,

p. 121).10

Funding Aspects

Shortly after the conclusion of Secretary

Wilson’s term in 1915, research made up

about 25 percent of the total USDA budget.

The research proportion then dropped sharply until 1920, when it accounted for only 6

percent (fig. 4). The proportion rose through

IOThe job of the Office of Experiment Stations in such a situation must have been a most uncomfortable one at times. A. C.

True, one of the early and long-time directors of this office,

was, however, remarkably successful. Rosenberg attributes

this in part to “. . . his ability to assuage the suspicions of station leaders and to convince them that his ultimate loyalties lay

not with the Department of Agriculture, but with the State stations” (Rosenberg, 1964, p. 4~fn. 3)

Figure 4.— Role of Research in USDA Budget

Allocations, 1915-55

Percent

A

25

}

Research as percent

20 of USDA total

/

-

15

/

-

10

)

-

5

1 I I 4 / / / / / /

1916 1922 1928 1934 1940 1946 1952

Year

SOURCE App. B, table B-1 (COI 3)

,— I l_l
—

42 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

the mid-1920’s, and dropped through the

mid-1930’s. It remained at roughly the 2.5

percent level until the 1950’s, when it rose to

4 percent.

The declining relative importance of research was a result more of an expansion in

the USDA budget for other activities than of

any particular drop in the research budget. In

fact, USDA’s research budget rose through

1931, dropped during the depression of the

1930’s, rose through 1940, remained constant

through 1945, rose sharply through 1950, and

then leveled off through 1954 (fig. 5). AllowFigure 5.–Appropriations for Research in USDA

Budget, 1915-54 (in millions of dollars)

1915 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1948 1954

Year

SOURCE: App. B, table B-2 (COIS. 1-3)

ance for inflation would have reduced the

rate of increase.

Within the USDA budget, the actual dollar

amount devoted to Federal research mirrored

the above trends, while the amount passed on

to the States was more stable—rising in response to each of the special funding acts and

then leveling off (fig. 5).

Despite these variations, the actual proportion of the USDA research budget going for

Federal research was remarkably steady over

the 56-year period (fig. 6). The same is true of

the State proportion. Over the period, an

average of 78.8 percent was devoted to Federal research and 21.2 percent to State research.

The highest Federal proportion, 86.6 percent,

was reached in 1925; the lowest portion, 71.9

percent, in 1934. Over the 5-year period from

1950 to 1954, the Federal portion was down

slightly to 77.6 percent.

The proportion of the budgets of SAES

coming from USDA funds is summarized in

figure 7. Clearly, the USDA portion was very

high at first and dropped rather steadily

through 1925; and then, with the enactment

of the Purnell and other acts, rose to another

peak period in the late 1930’s and early

1940’s. It dropped again after 1944 to another

low point in 1954. Non-Federal funds were

largely composed of State appropriations, but

Figure 6.—Proportion of USDA Research Funds Used for Federal Research, 1915=73

1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972

SOURCE: App. B, table B-2 (coI. 4). Year
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 4 3

Figure 7.—USDA Funds as Proportion of also included grants from foundations and inExpenditures by State Agricultural Experiment

Stations, 1889-1975

dustry, fees, sales, and miscellaneous.

4 On balance, it would appear that the

1889 1910 1930 1950 1970 1975

Year

SOURCE: Calculated from data in Agr/cu/tura/ Appropriations for 1957, Senate

Hearings, 1956, insert opposite p. 136; and Furrds for Research at

State AgrmJtura/ Experirnenf Stations, USDA/CSRS, annual.

REORGANIZATION AND

1953 To THE

With the arrival of a new Secretary of Agriculture in 1953, the structure of research

organization and administration of funds for

State research underwent the first of a

number of reorganizations that continued on

through the late 1970’s. These reorganizations will be only briefly introduced here;

they will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters. (Further organizational details and comments may be found in Moseman, et al., 1981.)

Reorganization

The reorganization of 1953 abolished both

the long-standing scientific bureaus and the

Office of Experiment Stations. AdministraFederal/State partnership through the early

1950’s resulted in a remarkable degree of

stability in terms of the division of USDA

funds between Federal and State research.

One hesitates to think, however, of how much

tension and time were involved in reaching

this state of relative equilibrium.

DECENTRALIZATION,

PRESENT

tive authority for both functions was

ized with the Agricultural Research

(ARS), which might be considered

growth of the Agricultural Research

istration.

centralService

an outAdminAlthough the reorganization may have led

to some administrative improvements, it

evidently had a very destabilizing effect on

Federal research and cooperative programs.

On the Federal end, much of the financial and

decisionmaking authority was centralized

and moved up a level. The division of the Office of Experiment Stations into two units

and its placement under the control of the Administration of ARS was not well received by

the States. (In 1962, a separate Cooperative

State Research Service was established.)
44 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Aside from the immediate problems it created, the reorganization “had the effect of

subjecting the research structure of the

Department—which had substantial stability

and immunity from political interference for

40 years . . . —to a succession of pressures for

further drastic reorganizations with the

changes in political administration in future

years” (Moseman, et al., 1981).

In the early 1960’s the Life Sciences Panel

of the president’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) prepared a report entitled Science

and Agriculture, which focused primarily on

USDA. It included several recommendations

relating to research organization. A Committee on Agricultural Science was appointed by

Secretary Freeman in April 1962, and several

changes were made in research organization

in the first 6 months of 1963 (Moseman, et al.,

1981). In the process, some of the PSAC recommendations were implemented. These

were more in the nature of continuing adjustments, rather than major disruptions or reorganizations.

In late 1969, a National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research Advisory to

USDA was established, later known as the

Pound Committee. It, too, presented a number of recommendations for improving

USDA’s research program, many of which reflected the academic composition and thrust

of the committee, Some of the committee’s

comments were quite critical of USDA and

SAES, and these were given extensive coverage in the press, In the process, many of the

committee’s other comments, which would

have been quite useful, were overlooked

(Moseman, et al., 1981).

Shortly after the Pound report was issued,

but unrelated to it, USDA initiated the reorganization of 1972. Developed by a small group

of administrators, its main thrust was administrative decentralization. Line operating

responsibility was delegated to four regions,

each under a regional deputy administrator.

Each of the regions was further subdivided

into a series of research area centers. The national program staff (NPS) was retained in

Washington, but otherwise all scientists and

facilities, including Beltsville, were placed

under regional administrators. The NPS, as

its name implies, had staff and not line

responsibility.

Finally, the Food and Agriculture Act of

1977 further defined the role of USDA, the

States, and other institutions in planning and

coordination agricultural research, extension, and teaching. It called for the establishment of a Joint Council of Food and Agricultural Sciences and a National Agricultural

Research and Extension Users Advisory

Board. The Science and Education Administration (SEA) was established in USDA with

authority over research, extension, and

teaching activities. While coordination of

these activities is desirable, there is some

question whether a new layer of management

was necessary, desirable, or productive, The

combination of the advisory groups and SEA

has required a great deal of staff time—much

of it contributed by the agencies involved. It

is uncertain whether the cause of research

has been materially advanced in the process.

Funding

Despite the many organizational changes

since 1953, research funding continued to follow the same patterns that were established

near the end of the previous period. *

Role of Research in USDA Budget, 1963 to

1980.—During this period, research funds

continued to represent 3 to 4 percent of the

total USDA budget, The average was 3.55 percent from 1963 to 1971, and 3.60 percent from

1972 to 1980 (Agriculture , . . Appropriations

for “1972, and Special Budget Tables, FY

1981),

Division of USDA Funds Between Federal

and State Use, 1955 to 1973 (fig. 6).—Over

the period from 1955 to 1973, an average of

* Unfortunately, it was not possible to compile statistics comparable to previous data for the whole period since 1954. One

key data series was discontinued in 1975; hence, only portions

of the period are covered. The data are also not fully comparable with those reported in ch. IV.
Ch. III— The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 4 5

77.4 percent of the USDA funds continued to

go to the Federal research program, and 22.6

percent to the States.11 The Federal figure was

down slightly (from 78.8 percent) and the

State figure up slightly (from 21.2 percent)

compared to the previous 40-year period. The

Federal proportion dropped and the State

proportion increased somewhat in 1972 and

1973; data from other statistical series suggest

that this trend continued through 1981. 12

Role of USDA Funds at the State Level,

1955 to 1975 (fig. 7).*—uSDA funds continued to represent over 20 percent of the expenditures of the SAES. The average was 21

percent from 1955 to 1975, and rose to over

23 percent in the mid-1970’s.

Although most of the research conducted

by USDA is carried out under SEA, research

is also conducted by several other USDA

agencies, most notably the Forest Service (FS)

and what was the Economics, Statistics, and

Cooperatives Service (ESCS). Over the 1972

to 1980 period, 76.6 percent of the research

was carried out under SEA, 16.1 percent

I lot her data series p rod(lce somewhat d i fferen t d i ~ri sions between Federal and State funds. One table pro~ided by SEA for

the 1960-81 period [“Appropriations . . . “ SEA) indicates that

the Federal US(? portion of SEA research a~craged 70.7 percent, while the State portion was 29,4 percent. (As noted later

in the text, the SEA totals accounted for about 76.6 percent of

total USDA expenditures for research from 1972 to 1980; inclusion of the other USDA research activities would ha~re

raised the Federal portion and reduced the State portion. )

IZThe SEA data cited abok’e indicate that the proportion of

SEA funds spent for Federal research declined from an average of 72.5 percent for 1970 and 1971 to 67 percent for 1980

and 1981 [“Appropriate ions . . .,” SEA). And while there was an

increase in the proportion of funds going to the States, there

was also a change in the composition of funds, More specifically, there was a decline in the relative role of Hatch funds

(from 27.7 percent of total SEA research funds in 1960 to 20

percent in 1981) and a relative increase in the non-Hatch portion of the State funds (from 1.1 percent of total SEA research

funds in 1960 to 11.8 percent in 1980). This trend is a matter of

great concern to the State directors and is a motivating force

behind some recent legislati~’e endeavors.

*The data cited in this section do not include Federal funds

from agencies other than USDA and hence understate both the

total Federal and other funds available to the stations.

under FS, 5.5 percent under ESCS, and 1.8

percent under other agencies (Special Budget

Tables, FY 1981, table 10).

Facilities

As of 1980, the Federal SEA research program was quite decentralized, both in administration and deployment of facilities and

staff. Research was carried out at 148 locations, ranging from the massive 450-scientist

facility of the Beltsville Agricultural Research

Center down to one-scientist stations (Mission of SEA/AR, p. 12). A common arrangement is to place scientists at State agricultural

stations. It is estimated that more than onethird of the 2,700 SEA/AR scientists are

housed in such facilities (Ronningen, 1981).

About one-half of the USDA research facilities were built through the initiatives of Congress between 1958 and 1977 (Flatt, et al.,

1980). 13

The highly decentralized nature of the

USDA research system, a source of friction

through much of the 20th century, now seems

to be accepted and even favored by the States.

Some observers have suggested that this is a

case of divide and conquer: a highly dispersed program is easier for the States to influence and mold to their own purposes than

would be the case with a highly centralized

institution. This dispersion, in fact, has led to

criticism that many USDA employees essentially function as State employees and that

this in turn has led to a loss of focus on national issues.

la Hadwiger, in a forthcoming book, notes that 44 percent of

all USDA research facility construction between 1958 and

1977 was in States represented by members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

He states that this practice has forced “the federal Agricultural

Research Service to operate a ‘traveling circus, ’ opening up

new locations in current Senate constituencies, while closing

some locations in States whose Senators are no longer members of the subcommittee. ”
46 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

The role and development of agricultural

research at the 1890 land-grant colleges have

followed a somewhat different pattern than

was true of the 1862 institutions. In August

1890, Congress passed what has become

known as the Second Merrill Act. Basically, it

authorized the establishment of separate

land-grant colleges for Negroes. Seventeen

Southern and border States established such

colleges; 16 remain today, plus Tuskegee Institute.

Like the original Merrill Act, the 1890 act

was vague about the role of research. And as

it turned out, by far the main emphasis of the

institutions established under it was on teaching, particularly the training of teachers.

None of the Hatch Act or Adams Act research funds made available to the States

were in turn directed to the 1890 schools. Nor

were State funds provided for research. Only

occasional funding was sometimes arranged

for special projects. Consequently, no significant agricultural research programs were initially established at the 1890 schools.

The one exception to this pattern was

Tuskegee Institute, which was not technically

an 1890 institution, * The Alabama State Legislature established the Tuskegee State Experiment Station in 1897. It was headed by

George Washington Carver from its inception

until his death in 1943. Subsequently, the experiment station activities were deemphasized.

Agricultural research remained in limbo at

the 1890 institutions until the mid-1960’s,

when the situation began to change sharply.

IAThiS Section IS based on information provided in Mayberry, Payne, and Schor, and by Mayes.

*However, a special act of Congress in February 1899 authorized the Governor of Alabama to select 25,000 acres of

land from the public domain to endow Tuskegee Institute. Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University was designated

as the 1890 institution after a spirited competition with

Tuskegee.

Public Law 89-106, passed in 1965, made it

possible to provide Federal research funds to

the 1890 schools. The first appropriation for

this purpose was provided in fiscal year 1967,

when $283,000 was allocated for the 16 1890

schools (Tuskegee was at first excluded). This

modest level of funding was carried through

to 1971. In fiscal year 1972, however, a sharp

increase—to nearly $8.9 million—was provided, and provision was made for inclusion

of Tuskegee.

Under the Food and Agriculture Act of

1977, these institutions acquired a more complete funding authority and responsibility

than they had previously (Public Law 95-113,

sec. 1445), The funding level was set at 15 percent of the funding provided the SAES (Hatch

funds), Funding under this authority was first

provided in fiscal year 1979. The appropriation in fiscal year 1981 was nearly $19.3 million. In addition, a bill is before Congress that

would provide $50 million over a 5-year period for capital construction.

So far, essentially all (about 99 percent) of

the agricultural research funds for the 1890

schools are from Federal sources. State funding is limited to small amounts at a few institutions. Whether State funding will grow

significantly remains to be seen. The 1890

schools must join with the experiment stations in their State and submit joint-funding

requests to USDA, but thereafter, the Federal

funds are allocated directly to them. Funds

are administered by the Cooperative State

Research Service. They might be viewed as

additional funding for the States that receive

them,

Thus, after a long period of financial

neglect, it seems that agricultural research at

the predominantly black 1890 schools is becoming a significant factor in publicly supported agricultural research in the United

States.
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research “ 47

● As population expands and quantity of

land decreases, there is a growing need to increase agricultural yields per unit of land, Research is a major source of yield-increasing

technology, Science has played a vital role in

increasing U.S. agricultural productivity. Research is also needed to improve the marketing of this expanded production and to serve

other needs of society.

● Agricultural research is conducted by

public and private agencies in the United

States. Each tends to generate different types

of technologies: the public sector largely produces biological technology, and the private

sector largely produces mechanical and

chemical technology. The public sector produces public knowledge; the private sector

tends to use it to produce proprietary goods.

Yet, both are greatly needed, complement

each other, and overlap. The public is well

served by the combination.

● Since the turn of the century, both State

and Federal agencies have been active partners and competitors in research. At first, the

State research programs were heavily dependent on Federal funds, but this dependence lessened through 1920 as State support

increased, Aside from the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, USDA provided about 20 percent of

the funding of State stations through 1975.

These funds have in turn represented from 20

to 25 percent of the research funding received

by USDA.

I

Atwater, W, O., “Agricultural Experiment Stations in Europe, ” Report of the Commissioner

of Agriculture for the Year 1875 (1876), pp.

517-524.

Baker, Gladys L., et al., Century of Service: The

First 100 Years o-f the United States Department

of Agricuhure, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

1963,

. The substantial involvement of USDA in

research brought about by Secretary Wilson

early in the century has continued. Over time,

from 75 to 80 percent of the research funding

received by USDA has been used for its own

in-house research program.

● Decentralization of USDA research was

at first opposed by the State scientists. State

administrators now favor a decentralized pattern, in part because they seem to have

adapted it to their needs. This in turn has

raised questions about whether the Federal

system has sufficient national focus.

● The two-valved nature of USDA research

funding—divided between State and Federal

research units—has long been a source of friction. State and Federal researchers each

would like a larger share of the pie. The actual division of USDA funds has been remarkably stable over time (though it may have

swung in favor of the States in recent years),

probably as a result of this dynamic tension.

But maintenance of the balance has undoubtedly consumed an enormous amount of

time and effort.

● While the State research structure has

been relatively stable, as was the USDA research structure for many years, the USDA

research structure” has been the subject of a

number of reorganizations since 1953. A

common characteristic of each reorganization is the continuous addition of administrative layers and functions and a certain loss of

national focus,

REFERENCES

Cochrane, Willard W., The Development of American Agriculture; An Historical Analysis (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota

Press, 1979).

Conover, Milton, The O~~ice of Experiment Stations: Its History, Activities, and Organization,

(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1924) (institute for Government Research, Service
48 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Monographs of the United States Government,

No. 12).

Dabney, Charles W., Jr., “The Scientific Work of

the Department of Agriculture, ” Proceedings of

the Eighth Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, November 13-15, 1894, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin No. 24, 1895, p. 66.

Dupree, A. Hunter, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Po~icies and Activities to

1940 (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957),

Flatt, W,, H. Graumann, and A. Cooper, “Agricultural Research Classification for Management

Purposes,” OTA background paper, 1980.

Hadwiger, Don, The Politics o-f Agricultural Research, University of Nebraska Press, forthcoming.

Hayami, Yujiro, and Vernon W. Ruttan, Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,

1971), p. 144.

Irving, George, Frederic Senti, W. T. Penzer, and

Joseph Purcell, “Post-Harvest Technology Research, ” OTA background paper, 1981.

Knoblauch, H. C., et al., State Agricultural Experiment Stations; A History of Research Policy and

Procedure, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Miscellaneous Publication No. 94, May 1962.

Latimer, Robert George, “Some Economic Aspects of Agricultural Research and Education

in the United States, ” Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ph.D. dissertation, January 1964,

Lu, Yao-chi, Philip Cline, and Leroy Quance, Prospects for Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 135, September

1979, pp. 8-10.

Mayberry, B, D. (cd.), Development of Research at

Historically Black Land-Grant Institutions, Bicentennial Committee of the Association of Research Coordinators, Land-Grant 1890 Colleges and Universities, 1976, 123 pp.

Moore, Ernest G., The Agricultural Research Service (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967)

(Praeger Library of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies),

Moseman, A, H., J, S, Robins, and Harold Wilcke,

“The Role of the Federal Government, State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Private Sector in Research, ” OTA background

paper, 1981.

Payne, William, “The Negro Land-Grant Colleges,” Civil Rights Digest, spring 197o, vol. 3,

pp. 12-17 (reprinted in Wayne D. Rasmussen

(cd.), Agriculture in the United States, A Documentary History (New York: Random House,

vol. 4, 1975), pp. 3287-3293).

Peterson, Willis L., and Joseph C. Fitzharris, “Organization and Productivity of the FederalState Research System in the United States, ”

Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and 1nternationaJ AgricuJturaJ Research,

T. M. Arndt, D. G. Dalrymple, and V. W. Ruttan (eds.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of

Minnesota Press, 1977), pp. 60-85.

Porter, Jane, “Experiment Stations in the South,

1877 -1940,” AgricuJturaJ History, vol. 53, No. 1,

January 1979, pp. 84-101.

Purcell, Carroll W., Jr, “The Administration of

Science in the Department of Agriculture,

1933 -1940,” AgricuJturaJ History, vol. 42, No, 3,

July 1968, pp. 231-240.

Quisenberry, Karl, “The Dry Land Stations: Their

Missions and Their Men,” AgricuJturaJ History, vol. 51, No. 1, January 1977, pp. 218-228.

Ronningen, Thomas, and Hugo Graumann, “Incentives and Disincentives Important to Research Management and Administration, ”

OTA background paper, 1981.

Rosenberg, Charles E, “The Adams Act: Politics

and the Cause of Scientific Research, ” AgricuJturaJ History, vol. 38, No. 1, January 1964, pp.

3-12.

Rosenberg, Charles E,, “Rationalization and

Reality in the Shaping of American Agricultural Research, 1875 -1914,” SociaJ Studies of

Science, vol. 7, No. 4, November 1977, pp.

401-422.

Rosenberg, Charles E., “Science, Technology, and

Economic Growth: The Case of the Agricultural Experiment Station Scientist, 1875 -1914,”

AgricuJturaJ History, vol. 45, No. 1, January

1971, pp. 1-20,

Rossiter, Margaret W., The Emergence of AgricuJturaJ Science; ~ustus Liebig and the Americans,

1840-1880 (New Haven, Corm,: Yale University

Press, 1975).

Rossiter, Margaret W., “The Organization of the

Agricultural Sciences,” The Organization of

KnowJedge in Modern America, 1860-1920,

A. Oleson and J. Voss (eds.) (Baltimore: The
Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research ● 4 9

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp.

211-248,

Schor, Joel, “Agriculture in the Black Land-Grant

System to 1930,” USDA, Economic Research

Service, Agricultural History Branch, unpublished manuscript, 1981.

True, Alfred Charles, A History o_f Agricultural Experimentation and Research in the United

States, 1607-1925, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 251, June

1937.

True, A. C., and V. A. Clark, The Agricultural Experiment Stations in the United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment

Stations, Bulletin No. 80, 1900 (Prepared to acTrue, A. C. and D. J. Crosby, Agricultural Experiment Stations in Foreign Countries, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment

Stations Bulletin 112, 1902, 230 pp.

Waggoner, Paul E., “Research and Education in

American Agriculture, ” Agricultural History,

vol. 50, No. 1, January 1976, pp. 230-247.

Wilson, James, “Address,” Proceedings Of the Association o-j’ American Agricultural Colleges and

Experiment Stations, November 14-16, 1905,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin No. 164, 1906, p.

15.

Wiser, Vivian, and Wayne D. Rasmussen, “Background for Plenty: A National Center for Agricultural Research, ” Marvland Historical

company the Experiment Statio~ E~hibit at the Magazine,

Paris Exposition). 283-304.

Anonymous/Official

(in chronological order)

vol. 61, No. 4, D~cember 1966, pp.

“U.S. Department of Agriculture, ” The Congressional GJobe, vol. 33, Feb. 17, 1862, pp. 855-856.

Agricultural Experiment Stations, U.S. House of

Representatives, Committee on Agriculture,

49th Cong., 1st sess., report No, 848, to accompany H,R. 2933, Mar, 3, 1886.

Report of the Commissioner o-f Agriculture: 1867

(1868); 1880 (1881); 1887 (1888); 1888 (1889).

Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA, 1894, p. 64.

Agricultural Appropriations j’or 1957, hearings

before the Subcommittee of the Committee on

Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 84th Cong., 2nd

sess., on H.R. 11177, chart and table opposite

p, 138,

Agriculture-En vironmenta] and Consumer Protection Appropriations for 1972, hearings, U.S.

House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, pp. 257-258.
Chapter IV

Measuring Costs,

Benefits, Burdens, and

Quality of Research
Page

Trends in Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

R&D Expenditures by Federal Agencies. . . . 53

R&D Expenditures for U.S. Agricultural

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Scientific Manpower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

USDA Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

SAES Expenditures. . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . 57

Private Industry Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . 58

Benefits and Burdens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Nature of Benefits ● .*..,. ● .,.**,. ..0.,,, 6 0

Primary Benefits. .,...... . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Secondary Benefits. ......,. . . . . . . . . . . 62

Uncertain Benefits and Burdens, . . . . . . . . 64

Burdens ● ***.** .*.***.. ..0...., ,.,... 65

Distribution of Benefits and Burdens. . . . . . 65

Farm Producers. .,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Consumers and the General Economy.... 66

Effect on Social and Economic

Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Researchers and Research Institutions. . . 69

Benefits and Funding Sources, . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Private-Sector Funding Related to

Flow of Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Director Checkoff Funds. ..,,..... . . . . 72

Measuring Returns to Research

Investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Qualitative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,., 75

Pound Report ● **,$.. ● ,,**... ..0,,,.. .** 75

Other Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Shaw Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Evenson and Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Principal Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter IV References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

List of Tables

Table No. Page

l. Exports, Imports, and International

Trade Balance in Agricultural and

Other Commodities in the United States, ,. 63

2. Relationship Between Agricultural Food

Research Benefits and Family Income . . . . . 67

3. Relationship of Costs and Benefits of

Agricultural Research to Family Income.. . 68

4. Estimates of the Contribution of U.S.

Agricultural Productivity Change to the

1979 National Income Since 1940. . . . . . . . . 68

5. Regional Estimates of External-to-Internal

Ratios Related to Benefits and Funding of

Production-Oriented Agricultural Research

and Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6. Empirical Rate of Return Estimates for

Agricultural Research Investment . . . . . . . . 73

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

8.

9.

10(

11<

12.

Federal Obligations for R&D by

NASA, DOE, NSF, and Other Selected

Agencies–1966=78 (current dollars).. . . . . 54

Federal Obligations for R&D by

NASA, DOE, NSF, and Other Selected

Agencies–1966-78 (constant dollars). . . . . 54

Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,

DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies

—1966-78 (current dollars). ......,. . . . . . 55

Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,

DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—

1966-78 (constant dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

USDA Total Research Expenditures—

1966-79(current dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

13. SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

USDA Total Research Expenditures—

1966-79 (constant dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

14. SAES, USDA, and Combined USDA and

SAES Scientist Years, 1966-1979. ...,.... 57

15. USDA Research Expenditures by

ARS, ESS--1966-79. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

16. USDA Research Expenditures by

ARS, ESS–1966-79. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

17, Formula, Cooperative Grants and

Cooperative Agreements, and Other

Federally Funded Research

Expenditures of SAES--1966-79

(current dollars).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

18. Formula, Cooperative Grants and

Cooperative Agreements, and Other

Federally Funded Research

Expenditures at SAES--1966-79

(constant dollars) ,..,,00 ..,,0,.. . . . . . . . 59

19. State Appropriations, Private Research,

and Formula Funds at SAES--1966-79

(current dollars) ● .*.... ....,.,0 ● ...,,, , 59

20. State Appropriations, Private Research,

and Formula Funds at SAES— 1966-79

(constant dollars) ..,..0, . . . . . . . . .0...,. 59

21. Total Expenditures for Applied R&D

for Agricultural-Related Products by

Private Industry-1963-75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Chapter IV

Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens,

and Quality of Research

Achievements in agricultural research and

technology have contributed markedly to the

economic stature and social well-being of the

United States and have enhanced our standing among world powers in many ways. Such

achievements, however, have not been attained without certain costs and burdens to

society. In other words, the benefits accruing

from research must be weighed against the

magnitude of whatever dollar and manpower

investments are required, together with such

factors as impact on environmental quality,

labor displacement, or impairment of sensory

quality caused by mass food production,

Most evaluations show, however, that the

benefits far outweigh the costs and burdens.

Actually, on a rate-of-return basis, consumers

reap benefits well in excess of costs.

Among scientists themselves, attempts

have been made at various times to measure

the quality of research performance but it is

also important to measure research productivity and its ultimate impact on society as a

whole, Although trends in funding U.S. food

and agricultural research show only modest

increases over time, the cumulative benefits

to all segments of society would seem to more

than justify whatever investments have been

made.

TRENDS IN FUNDING

Food and agricultural research in the

United States is conducted chiefly by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA); the State

agricultural experiment stations (SAES) in

conjunction with land-grant universities, including the 1890 Schools and Tuskegee Institute; and private industry. USDA and SAES

research constitute public research regardless of the source of supporting funds. USDA

agricultural research is funded from Federal

sources. SAES research is supported by Federal funds, State appropriations and sales,

and grants from private sources.

The scope and magnitude of food and agricultural research performed by private industry cannot be accurately reported because of

the lack of reliable data. Private firms engaged in agricultural research are not required to identify themselves, nor are they required to publicly disclose their investments

in agricultural research. Thus, any analysis of

agricultural research by private industry has

to be based on incomplete data. Those figures

that are available will be discussed later in

this chapter.

Accurate figures are available for total expenditures on food and agricultural research

by USDA and the SAES. In this segment of

the report, patterns and trends in expenditures focus on the period 1966 to 1979. Note

that figures are given for expenditures in current dollars and constant dollars—that is, dollar expenditures adjusted for inflation. The

deflator factor used for this study is explained

by Havlicek and Otto in their OTA resource

paper.

R&D Expenditures by

Federal Agencies

Among the major Federal research agencies that conduct research and development

(R&D), USDA expenditures are the lowest in

terms of dollar expenditures. In 1978, total

Federal expenditures for R&D were $26.2 billion. USDA’s expenditures were $381 million

53
—— —

54 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

or approximately 1.5 percent of the total. This

compared with Department of Defense (DOD)

share of 45 percent; Department of Energy

(DOE) of 16 percent; and Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) of 12

percent. USDA’s status among Federal agencies represents a continuing decline in share

of the Federal budget for R&D from a high of

39 percent in 1940 to 1.5 percent in 1978.

Federal obligations for all R&D by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA), the National Science Foundation

(NSF), DOE, and a category of other selected

agencies for the 1966-78 period (the most recent available data) are presented in current

dollars in figure 8 and constant dollars in

figure 9. The level of funding for NASA is

large relative to the other agencies considered. As may be observed from figures 8

and 9, R&D funding for NASA decreased

from 1966 to 1974 and thereafter increased,

although in constant dollars the increase

from 1974 to 1978 was quite small. R&D fundFigure 8.–Federal Obligations for R&D by NASA,

DOE, NSF, and Other Selected Agencies—1966.78

(in millions of current dollars)

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, ‘

r Hlstorlcal Analysls of Investment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

ing for DOE increased in current dollars from

1972 to 1978, but in constant dollars did not

increase until after 1974. In current and constant dollars, R&D funding for NSF increased

steadily during the 13-year period. R&D funding for “all other agencies” increased about

270 percent in current dollars during the

1966-78 period, but in constant dollars increased about 67 percent.

R&D expenditures for USDA, DOD, HEW,

and the total for all Federal agencies for the

1966-78 period are presented in current dollars in figure 10 and in constant dollars in

figure 11. In current dollars, R&D expenditures by DOD increased 68 percent from 1966

to ‘1978, but in constant dollars this represented a decline of 26 percent; R&D funding

for HEW increased steadily by 209 percent

from 1966 to 1978, and in constant dollars the

expenditures increased 35 percent. In current

dollars, R&D funding for USDA, which inFigure 9.–Federal Obligations for R&D by NASA,

DOE, NSF, and Other Selected Agencies—1966.78

(in millions of constant dollars)

— --

0

1966 1970 1975 19~8

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysis of investment In Food and Agricultural Research [n the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 55

Figure 10.— Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,

DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—1966-78

(in millions of current dollars)

Figure 11.— Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,

DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—1966-78

(in millions of constant dollars)

— USD A #

/“

5,000

0 1

)

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havlicek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Investment In Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

eludes pass-through funds to the States, increased steadily by 149 percent from 1966 to

1978, and in constant dollars by 10 percent.

Finally, the current-dollar Federal obligations

for all R&D for all Federal agencies increased

72 percent from 1966 to 1978, but in constant

dollars this ended up being a 25-percent

decrease. The pattern in the expenditures for

all R&D for all Federal agencies and the patterns in R&D expenditures of NASA and

DOD, the two largest agencies in terms of

R&D funding, are quite similar,

R&D Expenditures for U.S.

Agricultural Research

Current dollar expenditures on total agricultural research for USDA, SAES, and

USDA and SAES combined for the 1966-79

period are presented in figure 12, and the

constant-dollar expenditures are shown in

figure 13. The top line in each figure represents the expenditures of USDA and the

SAES combined—i.e., the funding of public

agricultural research in the United States. In

1966 1970 1975 1978

Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr, and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Invest.

ment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

current dollars, the total funding for public

agricultural research increased 204 percent

for the 14-year period. Total research expenditures in the SAES increased 245 percent during this period, while USDA expenditures increased only 149 percent.

But the funding picture shown in figure 13

is quite different, For this figure, expenditures were adjusted to 1967 constant dollars

(deflated). The increase in the purchasing

power of the total SAES and USDA agricultural research expenditures increased only 23

percent from 1966 to 1979. Furthermore, the

constant-dollar agricultural research expenditures of USDA for in-house research increased only 1 percent during this period,

while those in the SAES increased 4 0

percent.

1 Clearly, during this time and particularly during the latter part of the period,

inflation severely eroded the purchasing

IThe USDA figures exclude pass-through funds to the States.

For further information see Havlicek and Otto, 1981.
56 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Figure 12.–SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of investment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981,

power of agricultural research funds. Moreover, the constant-dollar expenditures of

USDA remained at about the same level during the period, so that the modest increase

that occurred is attributable to SAES expenditures. During the 1966-79 period, SAES expenditures accounted for an increasingly

greater share of public agricultural research

funds.

Scientific Manpower

During the same 14-year period, USDA scientist-years devoted to agricultural research

remained nearly constant after a slight decrease from 1967 to 1968 (fig. 14). In the SAES

there was a very gradual upward trend in the

scientist-years in agricultural research, and

the total increase from 1966 to 1979 was approximately 460 scientist-years. Increases in

expenditures on agricultural research by

USDA and SAES have basically been used to

cover the salaries, supporting research equipment, and supplies for a nearly constant scientist manpower force. Yet during this same

Figure 13.—SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

‘USDA Total Research Expenditures—1966-79

(in millions of constant dollars)

I

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, c’Historical Analysw. of investment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981.

period, the demands on agricultural research

have been greater than ever.

This is an acute problem in the strong research demand areas such as genetic engineering. The new demand for research manpower, especially from the private sector,

creates problems for Federal agencies and especially universities in keeping staff and

maintaining graduate programs in the field.

While USDA scientist numbers remain relatively constant, the average age is increasing.

Between 1969 and 1976, the number of Science and Education Administration-Agricultural Research (SEA-AR) scientists 50 years of

age and older increased from 28 to 39 percent

of the work force; the number of those 30

years of age and under decreased from 9 to

only 2 percent in the same period. By way of

comparison, at the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) the number of scientists 50

years of age and over (1976) was 15 percent,
Ch. IV—Measuring Costsf Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 5 7

Figure 14.— SAES, USDA, and Combined USDA and

SAES Scientist Years–1966-79

f

5,000

0 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

f /

1966 1970 1975 19

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysis of investment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

and 30 years of age and under was 25 percent.

The average age of SEA-AR scientists in 1976

was 47 and of NIH, 35 (General Accounting

Office, 1976, 1977). Most research institutions

desire a continuous influx of young scientists

in their organization.

Both personnel ceilings and shortage of

funds are valid reasons given for these trends.

Since both will probably remain as constraints in varying degrees in the near future,

especially personnel ceilings, some management practices need to be established that

will assure attraction and hiring of capable

young scientists in SEA-AR.

USDA Expenditures

The agricultural research expenditures in

current dollars of the major agencies within

USDA are presented in figure 15 and the corresponding constant-dollar expenditures in

figure 16. For the period 1966 to 1979, the

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was by

far the largest component in terms of expenditures on agricultural research. In current

dollars, ARS expenditures on agricultural research increased 139 percent from 1966 to

1979, but in constant dollars decreased about

3 percent.

Except for slight decreases from 1967 to

1968 and 1969 to 1970, the current-dollar expenditures on agricultural economics research by the Economics and Statistics Service (ESS) increased rather steadily during the

14-year period, and there was a 127-percent

increase from 1966 to 1979. However, this increase did not keep up with inflation, and in

constant dollars there was an 8-percent decrease from 1966 to 1979.

SAES Expenditures

Levels of expenditures on agricultural research by the SAES for the 1966-79 period,

according to major components of Federal

research funds, are presented in current

dollars in figure 17 and in constant dollars in

figure 18. The largest component from Federal sources was the total of the formula

funds, including Hatch and other appropriations. In current dollars, these expenditures

steadily increased from 1966 to 1979; the 1979

level was nearly 200 percent greater than the

1966 level. However, in constant dollars, the

current-dollar increase translates to a 20-percent increase, or an average increase of about

1.5 percent a year.

Cooperative grants and cooperative agreements were the smallest component of Federal funding of agricultural research in the

SAES. In current and constant dollars, these

funds declined from 1968 to 1971, but since

then have been increasing. Over the entire

14-year period, the current-dollar expenditures increased 197 percent, while the constant-dollar expenditures increased only 20

percent.

Other Federal funds for agricultural research at the SAES are one-half to one-third

of the size of formula funds, but two to three

times the size of expenditures from cooperative grants and cooperative agreements.

G ,, - <-, ( – L : - [
58 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Figure 15.–USDA Research Expenditures by ARS,

ESS—1966-79 (in millions of current dollars)

o /

1966 1970 Year 1975 1979

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Investment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981.

These other Federal funds have been an important source of funds to the SAES. With

some variation, the current-dollar expenditures increased by 129 percent from 1966 to

1979, but in constant dollars this was an overall 7-percent decline.

The major source of agricultural research

funding at SAES is State appropriations and

sales. Expenditures from these sources, private sources, and formula funds from Federal

sources are presented in current dollars in

figure 19 and in constant dollars in figure 20.

In current dollars, all three sources increased

during the 1966-79 period. State appropriations and sales increased nearly fourfold,

resulting in a constant-dollar increase of 57

percent.

Private research funds for agricultural

research at SAES are small relative to State

appropriations and sales and the Federal formula funds. Nonetheless, they have steadily

Figure 16.—USDA Research Expenditures by ARS.

ESS—1966-79 (in millions of constant dollars)

o

1966 1970 1975

Year

197

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Investment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

increased since 1966 and are becoming an important source of agricultural research funds.

During the 1966-79 period, private sources of

agricultural research funds going to SAES

also increased fourfold in current dollars,

which resulted in a constant-dollar increase

of 63 percent.

Private Industry Expenditures

Data on the expenditures for agricultural

research by private industry are considerably

more limited than those on SAES and USDA.

Some data concerned with applied research

and development for agricultural-related

products obtained from the Surveys of Science Resources Series of NSF are presented in

figure 21. The time period covered is 1963 to

1975. In current dollars, the 1963 total expenditure by private industry for agricultural

research was about $220 million, and increased to slightly over $600 million in

I
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research “ 59

Figure 17.—Formula, Cooperative Grants and

Cooperative Agreements, and Other Federally

Funded Research Expenditures at SAES–1966-79

(in millions of current dollars)

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havllcek, Jr,, and Dantel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysls of investment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

Figure 19.—State Appropriations, Private Research,

and Formula Funds at SAES—1966-79

(in millions of current dollars)

500

/

-

400

/

–

300

/

–

200

/

–

100

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havllcek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysis of investment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981.

Figure 18.—Formula, Cooperative Grants and

Cooperative Agreements, and Other Federally

Funded Research Expenditures at SAES–1966-79

(in millions of constant dollars)

● ✍ ✎✍ ● ✍

0

1966 1970 1975

Year

.

1979

SOURCE’ Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Hfstorlcal Analysis of Invest.

ment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981.

Figure 20.—State Appropriations, Private Research,

and Formula Funds at SAES—1966-79

(in millions of constant dollars)

A I

[

400

1966 1970 1975

Year

1979

SOURCE: Joseph Havllcek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of investment In Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981.
.— — .——

60 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Figure 21 .—Total Expenditures for Applied R&D for

Agricultural. Related Products by Private lndustry—

1963-75 (in millions of current and constant dollars)

0 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1

f /

1963 1967

Year

1972 1975

SOURCE. Joseph Havllcek, Jr,, and Danlei Otto, “Historical Analysls of investment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981,

1975—about a 170-percent increase. In constant 1967 dollars, this is a 39-percent overall increase or a 3-percent average annual

increase.

A second, even less comprehensive source

of data on private agricultural research, was

obtained from a separate survey of agribusiness firms conducted by the Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) for 1975. The estimated

research expenditures by agricultural firms

for 1975 from this survey were $575 million,

which is slightly less than the $602 million estimated from the NSF survey for 1975. The

categories from the ARI survey are not strictly compatible with those of the NSF survey,

so that direct comparison of the two surveys

is not possible. However, similarities of the

estimated overall level of private research

from these two sources help substantiate the

NSF figures as reasonable estimates of the

level of agricultural research being conducted

by private firms.

To get some perspective about relative magnitudes, in 1975 the total expenditure by private industry on applied R&D for agricultural-related products was about 72 percent

of the total public expenditure (SAES and

USDA combined) on agricultural research.

This total expenditure by private industry in

1975 was approximately 23 percent greater

than the

research

USDA’s.

SAES expenditure on agricultural

and about 75 percent greater than

BENEFITS AND BURDENS

Research benefits must be evaluated in relation to whatever costs society must pay for

them—whether in dollar investment, environmental impact, or whatever. In some cases

these benefits have varying effects on producers and consumers. Researchers and their institutions also may reap benefits in terms of

increased support. Likewise, State research

may generate spillover benefits that accrue to

residents of adjacent States or similar agroclimatic regions. In many cases, the degree of

return from the research investment may influence decisionmakers as to the level of support that seems appropriate for future programs.

People individually and collectively strive

to improve their well-being, and research contributes to this societal goal. Benefits may be

classified as primary (a direct result of

research) and secondary (developed indirectly from the basic research activity). In addition, research produces certain questionable

benefits or, in some cases, actual burdens to
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 6 1

society, the degree of which may vary from

slight to moderate, depending on individual

evaluation.

Primary Benefits

Primary benefits include improved productivity, conservation, preservation, and reasonable costs of food and fiber.

The greatest emphasis in production research has been to improve crop varieties and

breeds of livestock and poultry. In addition,

research on purchased inputs has developed

fertilizers with improved nutrient content,

new and improved agricultural chemicals,

and dramatic changes in farm machinery and

equipment.

For the period 1945-79, technological innovations increased agricultural output 85 percent, but there was no change in the aggregate level of agricultural inputs (USDA, 1980).

Substantial evidence shows that the rate of

return on food and agricultural research investment is high relative to most other social

investments (Evenson, Waggoner, and Ruttan, 1979). Therefore, the total volume of all

goods and services is greater as a result of research investment than it would be if these

funds had been invested in other alternatives.

Marketing research has made more food

available through improved processing and

fabrication, upgrading products, preventing

waste, and providing for the use of products

previously not considered viable.

Marketing research designed to reduce

losses in quantity and quality of food obviously has an impact on the availability of food

and its cost to consumers. Prevention of food

waste by appropriate preservation and processing methods constitutes a large potential

source of food. Research on reducing loss

caused by pests results in estimated savings

of $1.5 billion annually in the United States

(National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 1977).

Reducing the storage and transportation

losses of fruits and vegetables could increase

the supply of these products from 15 to 30

percent (NAS, 1977).

A reduction of the relative real costs of food

and fiber results from conducting research at

all stages of production, processing, storage,

and distribution. In the United States, this reduction is quite substantial compared with

that in other countries. For example, in 1977

only 16.5 percent of U.S. disposable income

went for food, tobacco, and beverages

(Mackie and Allen, 1980). In Canada, the

figure was 21 percent. Elsewhere, spending

on food, beverages, and tobacco ranged from

25 to 50 percent of total expenditures in highincome countries of Europe and Asia; around

45 to 50 percent in centrally planned countries; and between 40 and 65 percent in developing countries (United Nations, 1978). Note

that all high-income nations spend less of

their income on food than poorer nations.

Improved technology generated by research usually leads to relatively lower costs

for farm products. This effect is brought

about by supply and demand factors. On the

supply side, the technology expands output.

On the demand side, the expanded supply

generally leads to relatively lower prices.

In terms of production, there is usually little point in a farmer adopting a new technology unless it reduces per-unit production

cost, meets a regulation, or is for some personal reason such as reducing drudgery. The

rate of adoption of new technology, in whole

or part, is usually influenced by profitability.

The price factor represents the other side of

the equation. As total output expands because

of the adoption of the new technology, prices

fall relatively. The rate and extent to which

they fall depends on the price elasticity of demand. The domestic price elasticity of demand for most agricultural products is quite

low, which means that a given increase in

supply will bring about a substantial decrease

in price. This has little effect on the early

adopter of the technology, because his individual production is too small to affect the

overall price level. But as the technology is

widely adopted by other farmers, prices will

drop relatively.
62 “ An Assessment 01 the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

The effect of this general relative price decline on the individual farmer will depend on

the degree to which he has adopted the

cost-reducing technology. Those who have

adopted it will be able to bear some reduction

in price, although this will reduce their

earlier profits. Those that have not adopted

the technology will be disadvantaged because

their costs have not been lowered. To the extent that the price decline is greater than the

reduction in costs, all farmers will be disadvantaged. As prices go down, consumers will

receive the advantage.

In a report on agricultural production efficiency, NAS concluded that: “Between 1950

and 1971, U.S. farm output increased 50 percent, while consumer prices remained relatively stable. If the same farming methods had

been used in 1971 as in 1950, an equivalent

abundance of food and other products coming from the farm would have cost consumers

two to three times more than they did” (1975,

p. 188).

Changes in the marketing and distribution

of food have been significant in the last 30

years as evidenced by the expansion of supermarkets, which have reduced by 15 to 25 percent the retail cost of food to consumers

(Kramer, 1973). These cost savings were made

possible by labor reduction through self-service and large-volume operations in transportation, storage, and distribution.

Secondary Benefits

From the primary objectives of research

flow secondary benefits, which include improved human nutrition, improved food quality and safety, an international trade balance,

expansionary impacts on other sectors of the

economy, release of labor to other sectors of

society, and increased leisure time.

Research on food quality and safety and

human nutrition results in: 1) better understanding of human nutrition needs; 2) improved diets and nutrition for individuals;

3) safer methods of food processing, preservation, and preparation; 4) reduced costs

through knowledge of nutritional content of

food and through food preservation; and 5)

improved understanding of food additives

and food contaminants.

Although malnutrition was discovered in

certain disadvantaged groups within the

United States during the 1960’s, the widespread introduction of feeding programs

such as Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),

school breakfast and lunch, and food stamps

seems to have done much to eliminate overt

malnutrition, especially in children. The principal group that is apparently suffering the effects of poor nutrition because of low income

is the elderly, who receive their benefits in a

nondirected form.

Income is positively correlated with nutritional status in the absence of food entitlement programs; the low-income groups have

the least adequate diet and the greatest vulnerability to malnutrition. The prime causes

of inadequate nutrition are lack of knowledge

on nutritional requirements and nutritive

content of foods, the unavailability of food,

and the financial inability to purchase it.

Food choices also are influenced by socioeconomic and cultural factors such as family

lifestyle, health, and age of individuals and

outside influences, including mass media, advertising, and food labeling. Research that

provides better insight into the impact of

these factors on the nutrition and health of

various population groups benefits consumers. Both agricultural production technology research and post-harvest food technology research affect directly the nature and

distribution of these benefits among groups

of consumers.

A major benefit from food and agricultural

research is the positive contribution of agricultural commodities to the U.S. international trade balance. An increasing volume of

food exports from the United States has partially offset the rising volume of imports of oil

and manufactured goods. In essence, agricultural commodities have provided much of the

exchange necessary for the United States to

import oil and manufactured goods. An increasing output of agricultural exports—nec-
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research “ 63

essary to sustain imports—is subsequently

dependent on a continuous flow of production technology. Research and education undergird the advancement of production technology and sustain the strong competitive

position of the United States in international

food and fiber commodities markets.

Table 1 provides documentation for the

importance of agricultural commodities in reducing the magnitude of the U.S. international trade balance. Agricultural exports increased from $7.2 billion in 1970 to $41.2 billion in 1980. The trade balance in agricultural

commodities increased from $1.5 billion in

1970 to $23.8 billion in 1980. This contrasts

with a rising international trade deficit in

other commodities from a surplus of $1.2 billion in 1970 to a deficit of $48,6 billion in

1980. An international trade deficit places a

downward pressure on a national currency,

reduces gold reserves, provides exchange for

alien ownership of physical assets, and contributes to national price inflation. These undesirable economic consequences lead in

turn to a reduced standard of living and

chronic high levels of unemployment.

A favorable trade balance in agricultural

commodities contributes directly to the wellbeing of American farmers and commodity

processors, handlers, and transporters. It also

contributes to the well-being of American

consumers by providing exchange for imTable 1 .—Exports, Imports, and International Trade

Balance in Agricultural and Other Commodities

in the United States (in billions of dollars)

Exports Imports Balance

Agricul- Agricul- AgriculYear tural Other tural Other tural Other

1950. . $ 2.9 $ 7.3 $ 4.0 $ 4.8 ($ - 1.1) $ 2.5

1955. , 3.2 12.2 4.0 7.4 ( - 0.8) 4.9

1960. . 4.8 15.5 3.8 10.8 1.0 4.7

1965. . 6.2 20.9 4.1 17.3 2.1 3.6

1970. . 7.2 35.3 5.8 34.2 1.5 1.2

1975. . 21.9 84.2 9.5 86.6 12.4 ( - 2.4)

1979. . 34.7 143.8 16.9 189.4 17.9 ( - 45.6)

1980. . 41.2 175.2 17.4 223.8 23.8 ( - 48.6)

SOURCE. Business Statistics, Biennial Edition. United States Department of

Commerce, Off Ice of Business Economics, 1961 and 1977. Survey of

Current Business. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau

of Economic Analysis, April 1980, vol. 60, no. 4. Agricultural Outlook,

U .S. Department of Agriculture, March 1981

ports; and it lends stability to the American

economy.

Expansion of food and agricultural production contributes to economic growth in two

ways, First, a change in agricultural production is directly related to changes in that sector’s development. For example, technological innovations cause a direct change in farm

earnings, net farm income, farm-labor requirements, and hence farm earnings. Second, this change rebounds throughout the

economy to produce changes in income in

other sectors. Thus, food and agricultural

research that results in changes in output of

the agricultural sector has expansionary impacts on other sectors of the economy and attendant changes in incomes.

Although farm production continued to increase dramatically during the 20th century,

the farm labor input reached a peak of 13.6

million farmworkers in 1916 and subsequently declined to less than 3.8 million in 1979

(USDA, 1980). This release of farm labor provided the labor necessary to implement and

expand other economic sectors.

However, a substantial part of the labor displaced by increased productivity on the farm

was needed for off-farm activities in the food

and agricultural sector. Under the advancing

technology in farm production, progressively

larger quantities of farm inputs were purchased from the industrial sector. Today, the

food and agricultural sector accounts for

about 20 percent of total employment and 20

percent of total national income compared

with an estimated 35 to 40 percent of total

employment and national income in 1940.

Much of the increasing labor productivity

in the food and agricultural sector is reflected

in the small proportion of consumer income

spent for food as noted earlier. This means

that the remaining income is freed to apply

toward other human wants.

One of the less quantifiable and less documented benefits of food and agricultural research is the reduction of drudgery and the

increasing leisure time of farm operators and
64 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

workers. Although these kinds of benefits do

not carry monetary value, they are important

in the advancement of the welfare of society.

Such benefits have also been extended to

workers in food-fiber processing, fabrication,

storage, and distribution.

In some cases, output of farm products per

unit of farm-labor input has increased up to

80 times what it was at the beginning of the

20th century (Cochrane, 1979). Increasing

labor productivity on the farm is reflected in

both the output per unit of labor input and a

reduction in the intensity of the labor input.

The increasing labor productivity also has

provided more leisure time for the individual

worker.

Uncertain Benefits and Burdens

One of the least documented effects of agricultural research has been its impact on environmental quality. Agriculture produced undesirable environmental side effects long

before the rapid advance in agricultural production techniques that characterized agriculture in the second and third quarters of the

20th century. Much of the early cotton and

tobacco farming in the South resulted in soil

erosion, widespread silting of streams, and

changes in ecosystems. Farmwork animals

produced large amounts of waste that entailed health hazards to farm families because

of inadequate methods for controlling pests

attracted to such waste. The dust storms in

the Plains States resulted in major environmental threats from attempts to cultivate

marginal lands with inadequate soil and crop

management technology.

It is still an open question as to whether, on

balance, the modernization of agriculture has

given rise to more environmental problems

than it has solved. Ruttan (1971) and Schultz

(1974) proposed that the technological advances of agriculture have enlarged measurably the biological possibilities of the natural

environment, allowing us to eventually have

more agricultural output and more environmental quality components. The development

of agricultural technology and the resultant

growth in agricultural productivity have

allowed substantial reductions in the acreage

of major crops such as corn, wheat, and cotton. Much of the reduced acreage came from

marginal lands highly subject to soil erosion,

and the return of much marginal cropland to

pastures and forests reduced many of the

kinds of environmental hazards arising from

agriculture in the past (White, Eddleman, and

Purcell, 1980).

The current environmental problems attributed to agriculture largely involve pest

control practices, silt and water management

systems, feed-lot waste disposal, and disposal

of residue from food- and fiber-processing activities. Certainly these environmental problems are more widespread than those of the

past. Agricultural technology has changed

the form and place of the threats, and perhaps

the number of people exposed to these

threats. The most controversial issue pertains

to the impact of chemical pesticides used for

plant production and protection and of soil

sedimentation on water quality.

Ruttan (1971) suggests that the failure to

develop agricultural technology (e.g., pest

control and soil management systems) that

would minimize agriculture’s impact on the

natural environment resulted from an undervaluation of environmental resource amenities. In other words, the capacity of the natural environment to absorb the residuals from

crop and livestock production has been

treated as a free service. Scientific and technical innovations were overly biased toward

the development of land substitutes (plant

nutrients, chemical pesticides, and crop

varieties and management systems) that reflected undervaluation of the social cost of

the disposal of residuals from agricultural

production processes. Recognition of undervaluation of the social value of environmental

services, coupled with regulatory actions by

Federal and State governments, has led to redirection of agricultural research efforts in

response to the rising economic value of environmental resource amenities,
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 6 5

— — —

Examples of this redirection include: 1) integrated pest management techniques; 2) reduced tillage and no-till crop production systems and other soil and water conservation

management systems; 3) waste-disposal systems using deep lagoons; 4) recycling processed animal wastes through the animalplant-soil system, as fertilizer and animal

feeds for ruminants; 5) aquatic weed control

techniques; 6) methods for disposal of urbanproduced sewage and digested sludge on agricultural and forest land; 7) organic farming

techniques; and 8) alternatives to burning

grasslands for seed production and croplands

for excessive crop residue removal, The aim

of these research efforts is to maintain agricultural productivity and profitability while

substantially reducing deterioration of the

natural environment caused by agricultural

production and processing activities. Agricultural producers and processors, as well as

the public, are beneficiaries of this research.

Burdens

Farmers who are nonadopters of technology may rightfully regard some research as a

burden, As the prices of farm products decline when more farmers adopt a cost-reducing technology and thereby increase supply,

those who have not adopted the technology

will be disadvantaged because their costs

have not been lowered,

With the adoption of mechanization, labor

efficiency has advanced, thus releasing labor

from the agricultural sector to provide an

array of higher order goods and services.

Labor displacement and individual hardships

have occurred in the process. Migration of

unskilled persons from farms to cities has

contributed to urban ghettos that persist to

this date.

There have been few burdens from food

and agricultural research on the consumer.

One of the perceived problems is a result of

the rapid changes that such research has

brought to the growing, processing, and packaging of food. The use of inorganic chemicals

in these processes is looked on with disfavor

by certain segments of Society Others disavow highly processed food products in favor

of more “natural” foods. Food attitudes are

deeply rooted even in a technological culture

such as prevails in the United States.

Transportation and storage requirements of

our food distribution system have made necessary the development of varieties resistant

to bruising and with long shelf life. Some sensory qualities were relinquished in order to

achieve this. However, most consumers are

not aware of this when they complain that the

January supermarket tomato does not cornpare to the one grown in their backyard in

July.

Distribution of Benefits

and Burdens

Analysis of the flow of benefits from food

and agricultural research focuses primarily

on the distribution of benefits between domestic producers and consumers. The analytical framework is the concept of “economic

surplus,” partitioned into that which accrues

to buyers (consumer surplus) and that which

accrues to sellers (producer surplus).2

Farm Producers

Benefits from agricultural research have

different impacts on farms of different sizes

and affect farmers according to how quickly

they adopt new technology. Effects are determined by type of technology and often increase profits of some producers to the detriment of others. Technological advances in

feed grain production, for example, would

lower operating costs for beef, hogs, dairy,

and poultry production.

Studies indicate that technology reduces

per-unit production costs more on large

farms than on small farms, indicating important economies of size (Jensen, 1977).

Technology affects farmers according to

the speed with which new innovations are
66 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

adopted. Cochrane (1958) grouped farmers

into three categories—early adopters, followers, and laggards. Early adopters are able to

increase their income with new technology

that reduces cost of production. However, increased production resulting from new technology in the aggregate depresses prices, and

followers gain less from it, Finally, laggards

are forced to use the new technology in order

to survive.

Effects are often determined by the type of

technology. Certain mechanical innovations

favor large-scale farms of the Corn Belt and

Southwest over smaller farms in the South

and East.

A technological change in the marketing

sector, such as a reduction in waste or spoilage, affects the cost structure for marketing

services. In such cases, retail and farm prices

may be affected by reduced marketing margins. ” The farm price would be expected to

increase and the retail price would be expected to decline with reduced marketing

margins.

Competition in the marketing sector results

in lower cost of marketing services being

passed on to consumers or producers. The

more competitive the industry, the less tendency there is for private research, because the

benefits accrue to consumers and farmers. In

a less competitive industry, private research

is more profitable for the individual firm, and

it may reduce the level of competition.

Technology that changes the relative productivity of resources shifts the distribution

of income among resources (Heady, 1971).

These changes have reduced the proportion

of total farm income attributed to labor and

increased the proportion attributed to capital.

The impact of technological change on farmland’s share of farm income is not easily

determined.

*Both the derived supply at retail, dependent on farm supply

and the marketing margin, and the derived demand at the farm

level, dependent on retail demand and the marketing margin,

would shift in a competitive market as a result of a reduction

in marketing costs.

The demand for land is affected also by

technological advances in agriculture. Herdt

and Cochrane (1966) postulated that technological advance has benefited farmland owners, not necessarily farm operators. They said

that farmers view technological change as reducing cost of production and hence are able

to bid up the price of farmland accordingly.

Most improvements in agricultural production technology increase the productivity of

capital and land relative to labor. They therefore generate incentives to substitute land

and capital for labor. The story of the vastly

increased capital requirements for successful

farming is well-known. The decline in the relative importance of labor as a farm input also

is well-known. Since many farmworkers

owned only their labor, the value of their

assets was decreased through innovations in

production, and they were forced to look for

alternatives. T. W. Schultz puts the actual outmigration of labor from American farms between 1930 and 1974 at 33 million people, the

largest migration of modern times.

Many of those who migrated to the cities

were able to make successful adjustments and

obtain more productive and rewarding employment in nonfarm industries. However,

for many the adjustments were painful and

costly. The expanded pool of workers in the

non farm sector depressed the nonfarm wage

rate.

Many rural communities that served populous farming areas deteriorated as the number of farmworkers declined. The tendency

for people to leave rural areas has affected the

viability of many rural commercial enterprises, churches, community services, and in

some cases entire communities.

Too little research was done on the processes of agricultural development as they affected rural America. Too often costs were ignored, especially if these costs were incurred

in the migration to urban centers.

Consumers and the General Economy

As noted earlier, consumers benefit from

food and agricultural research in many ways.
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research “ 67

Some of these benefits appear to be concentrated among certain groups of American

families. Agricultural research that improves

the safety of food products is likely to affect

consumers in all income categories, The benefits of such research include improved

health and longer life.

The following analysis estimates the distribution of benefits from agricultural research

on the basis of food expenditures. Family size

and income characteristics for six income

categories are shown in table 2. The six income classes ranged from under $5,000 to

over $20,000, and the average-size family

ranged from 2,93 persons in the lowest income class to 3.79 persons in the highest. The

present value of average benefits per family

for the various income classes also is shown.

These estimates may be interpreted as the

benefits accruing to each family as a result of

food and agricultural research expenditures

in that year. Comparison of consumer benefits indicated that average benefits per family

increased with the level of family income and

ranged from $16.20 in the lowest income category to $30.74 in the highest.

The ratio of benefits to family income was

almost four times higher for the lowest income class than for the highest, indicating

that food and agricultural research has a

greater beneficial impact on low-income families than on high-income families in relation

to family income. This conclusion supports

the hypothesis that agricultural research

tends to modify the existing income distribution in favor of the lower income strata (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1977).

The cost of food and agricultural research,

as measured by production-oriented research

expenditures, is reported on a household

basis (table 3). Total agricultural research

costs per household ranged from $1.31 for the

lowest income class, under $5,000, to $25.60

for the highest, over $20,000. While benefits

and costs increase with the level of income,

tax incidence increases at a faster rate. Therefore, the benefit-cost ratio is highest in the

low-income category. The benefit-cost ratio

declined from 12.37 for low-income families

to 1.20 for high-income families. Both benefits and costs of agricultural research expenditures tend to redistribute income from

higher to lower income families. However,

even those families in the highest income

class receive net benefits from research investment on agricultural productivity.

Table 2.—Relationship Between Agricultural Food Research Benefits

and Family Income

Distribution of Average size Average Average benefits

Income class populatio n famil y

b

family income per familyc

(dollars) (percent) (persons) (dollars) (present dollar value)

Under $5,000 . . . . . 18.190/o 2.93 $3,981 $16.20

$5,000-$8,000 . . . . 14.14 3.15 7,922 19.06

$8,000-$12,000 . . . 21.17 3.28 10,528 20.63

$12,000-$15,000 . . 14.47 3.48 13,458 22.13

$15,000-$20,000 . . 16.07 3.68 17,371 25.91

Over $20,000 . . . . . 15.96 3.79 28,953 30.74

NOTE: These calculations represent an Investment in 1974 that wiII have its impact in 1987.

aAnthony E. Gallo and Wllllam T. Boehrn, “Food Expenditures by Income Group,” Nat/ona/ Food f?evjew, NFT-3, USDA,

ESCS, Washington, D. C., June 1978.

bus, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popu/at/on ffeporfs, Series p-60, no. 101, “Money Income in

1974 of Families and Persons in the U.S ,“ US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976.

cTotal consumer benefits are calculated according to the equation

TBC = 1/2 X MVPR X RE X D

where TBc is total consumer benefits from agricultural-food research; MVPR is marginal value product of research (Davis),

RE is production-oriented research expenditures in 1974 (Budget of the U.S. Government; USDA, Iflventory of Agricultural

t?esearclr; U.S. Department of the Treasury); and D is the discount factor over 13 years at 10°/0 (Lu, Cline, and Quance). Total

consumer benefits are allocated to income classes according to the level of food expenditures

“These calculations represent an Investment in 1974 that WIII have its Impact in 1987.

SOURCE: Fred C White, B. R Eddleman, and J. C. Purcell, “Nature and Flow of Benefits From Agriculture-Food Research, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.
68 “ An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table 3.—Relationship of Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Research

to Family Income

Federal State Total

taxes for taxes for taxes for

Average Average agricultural agricultural agricultural Benefitfamily benefits research research research cost

Income class income a

per familybper familyc

per familydper familyeratio’

Under $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,981 $16.20 $ 0.43 $0.88

$5,000-$8,000 . . . . . . . . .

$ 1.31 $12.37

7,922 19.06 1.77 2.05 3.82

$8,000-$ 12,000 . . . . . .

4.99

10,528 20.63 3.19 2.85

$12,000-$ 15,000 . . . . .

6.04 3.42

13,458 22.13 5.29 3.97 9.26

$15,000 -$20,000 . . . . . . .

2.39

17,371 25.91 8.40 5.59 13.99 1.85

Over $20,000 . . . . . . . . . . 28,953 30.74 15.78 9.82 25.60 1.20

au,s, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Currerrt Population l?e~orts, series IWO, no. 101, “Money Income in

1974 of Families and Persons in the U.S.,” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976,

bExpre ssed In present Value. See table 2 for details of Calculation procedure.

cproduction.~riented research expenditures for Agricultural Research sewlce, Economic Research service and the Federal

Government’s Share of State Agricultural Experiment Stations are allocated among income groups according to the

distribution of Federal personal income taxes (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1974).

dstate funded production.oriented agricultural research expenditures are allocated amOng lnCOme 9rouPs according to the

distribution of State personal Income and general sales taxes (U.S. Adwsory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,

1974).

esummatlon of Federal and State taxes for agriCLIhural research Per famllY.

f Average benefits from agricultural research expenditures per family divided by total taxes for agricultural research Per

family,

SOURCE: Fred C White, B R. Eddleman, and J C Purcell, ‘(Nature and Flow of Beneftts From Agriculture-Food Research, ”

OTA background paper, 1980

Research investment in the food and agricultural sector has led to new products and

technology that increased agricultural productivity and allowed labor to flow from the

farm to the nonfarm sectors. These adjustments in the labor force have raised national

income because average nonfarm income

is typically above average farm income.

Tweeten and Hines (1965) approximated the

contribution of agricultural productivity

changes since 1910 accruing to the national

income in 1963. Estimates for the 1940-79

period were calculated using a similar procedure (table 4). With only 3.5 percent of the

population living on farms in 1979, the actual

national income was $1,924,8 billion. Assuming that farm changes had not taken place

since 1940, and that in 1979 (as in 1940), 21.3

percent of the population had lived on the

farm, national income would have been

$111.8 billion (or 5.8 percent) lower.

Effect on Social and Economic

Organization

Technological changes have thus had farreaching effects on the development of rural

America. In retrospect, the food and agricultural research institutions have not been as

alert as they should have been in anticipating

Table 4.—Estimates of the Contribution of U.S.

Agricultural Productivity Change to the 1979

National income Since 1940

(in billions of 1979 dollars)

Contribution to

Decade or years 1979 national income

1940-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $44.6

1950 -60. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6

1960-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 24.6

1970-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9

1975-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1

Total 1940-79 . . . . . . . . $111.8

SOURCE Fred C. White, B R Eddleman, and J C Purcell, “Nature and Flow of

Benefits From Agriculture-Food Research, ” OTA background paper,

1980.

these effects and in developing means of coping with undesirable effects. As a minimum,

the secondary effects of changes associated

with the application of knowledge generated

through the food and agricultural research

programs should be identified. This is difficult to do because of the pervasiveness of the

effects.

On occasion, scientists have called attention of the public to special social problems

that would occur as a result of scientific

breakthroughs. An example of this is the development of the cottonpicker which scientists knew would replace a large number of

workers in the South (Johnson, 1952). This
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 6 9

was well-publicized prior to the full impact

which released thousands of workers and resulted in migration to the cities for those who

could no longer find work on the farm.

It was erroneously assumed that development of technology to enhance the supply of

products would automatically enhance national well-being and that a desirable economic and social structure would be worked

out through the market forces. In many instances, this did not follow. Serious problems

of national consequence emerged that were

largely external to the specialized systems of

research and decisionmaking, which led to

the development and introduction of the new

technology.

The continuing concern over urban and

rural development, resource conservation,

environmental quality, structure of agriculture, and the quality of life generally derives

from other than fear of inability to produce

sufficient food and agricultural products to

meet national needs. The food and agricultural institutions in this country have demonstrated beyond question their efficiency in

generating and applying knowledge to

achieve increased production of commodities.

The concerns over national development

derive largely from the social costs of technological development that have been largely ignored in the past. They reflect continuing

questions with respect to how people fare

under conditions of national economi c

growth.

Fundamental questions concerning these

social issues are important. Can the answers

to these concerns be consistent with reasonably efficient production of goods and services? If not, what kind of tradeoffs appear

possible and desired? Conflicts, real or imagined, must be recognized and studied, and rational conclusions must be reached.

Public food and agricultural research institutions were not created to chart a course for

national development. Indeed, they are illsuited to do so. However, as centers of learning, dedicated to the discovery of truth, they

do have a responsibility to examine critically

the functioning of American society, to explore alternatives, and to interpret their findings to the people. This is a most important

responsibility. Unless it is done well, the quality of life is likely to be treated as secondary to

the problems of organization for the production of goods. Even when done well, it is the

responsibility of the people through their

elected officials to articulate the decisions

and programs desired.

Researchers and Research Institutions

Researchers and research institutions can,

in a sense, benefit from the results of research. Sometimes research is perceived to be

directed for the benefit of the individual researcher or the institution. When this is the

case, research tends to be self-serving.

Administrators of public agricultural research agencies are motivated to optimize

some combination of continuing institutional

budget support and discretionary funds from

State sources or from Federal and private

grant sources. These discretionary funds are

often used to support the more basic research

that has a longer term payoff both in terms of

the productivity of the applied research

(Evenson, Waggoner, and Ruttan, 1979) and

in the prestige of the research agency.

To the extent that the research efforts are

successful and appropriate, recognition accrues to the agency or scientist conducting

the research, and further increases in support

in terms of institutional and discretionary

funding are assured. In this sense, both public

research agencies and the scientists conducting the research are direct beneficiaries of the

results of the research. (For further discussion on this point see White, Eddleman, and

Purcell, 1980).

Benefits and Funding Sources

In State government funding, food and agricultural research financed by one State may
70 “ An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

benefit or harm the residents of other States. *

For example, an improved crop variety developed in one State may be adopted in neighboring States to increase yields and total production. However, in some cases an action by

a State may adversely affect residents of

another State. Producers in regions other

than where the improved crop variety was developed and where that particular variety

would be unsuitable for adoption might pay

lower prices as the result of increased aggregate production.

State boundaries do not coincide with homogeneous agricultural production regions.

Research projects in one State, which are addressed to specific local problems, likely will

produce results applicable to other States

within the same homogeneous production region. Furthermore, knowledge gained from

public research is disseminated without regard to geographic boundaries.

Spillover benefits generated by State A that

accrue to the residents of State B generally

are not accounted for by State A policymakers. The earlier argument concerning neglect

of these external benefits has been that State

A will provide a smaller level of research expenditures than would be efficient from society’s perspective. Given the possibility of negotiation between States, State B may find it

advantageous to pay A to increase its level of

research activities. Such a subsidy will reduce A’s research costs and lead to a higher

level of research activities. The negotiation

process likely will be complicated by the fact

that spillovers flow in both directions between the two States. Furthermore, the outcome will depend on the relative bargaining

strength of the two States and will not lead

necessarily to an efficient solution to the external benefit problem (Musgrave and Musgrave, 1973).

*Benefits from scientific or technical progress, originating

from a private firm or the public sector, that flow to other

firms or consumers without compensation to the firm or public sector component originating the research are called externalities. Obviously, these effects may have either positive or

negative impact.

If only a few States produce a given commodity, one of the States might conduct the

research for it with the research effort supported by the other States. However, attempting to coordinate these activities involves decisionmaking costs that include the value of

time, effort, and direct outlays related to the

bargaining process. For those cases in which

external benefits from agricultural research

affect a large number of decisionmaking

units, total decisionmaking costs of effective

coordinated action are likely to be quite large.

When the impact on consumers is considered, a large number of States would be concerned with almost all aspects of agricultural

research.

When a public benefit equally affects the

residents of the Nation, funding for such research can usually be provided more efficiently by the Federal Government.

Partial funding by the Federal Government

affords one solution to attaining the nationally desired level of regional research expenditures. An often-used technique to increase

State expenditures for government services is

the matching grant, in which the recipient

State government is required to match Federal funds with funds from its own sources

according to some specified formula. While

some Federal grants to States for food and

agricultural research require matching funds,

most States invest more in food and agricultural research than just that required to

match grants.

The formula for matching funding should

be based on the relative importance of external and internal benefits. If these grant programs are properly designed, they should

direct State expenditures toward levels considered optimal from the viewpoint of society. An appropriate matching grant program

obviously requires identifying and quantifying State benefits and spillovers from agricultural research expenditures. There have been

some recent developments concerning the

measurement of spillovers. Evenson, et al.

(1979), estimated that, on the average, 55 percent of the change in productivity attributed
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 7 1

to technology-oriented research was realized

within the State conducting the research. The

remaining 45 percent was realized in other

States. Interregional spillovers of the benefits

from food and agricultural research were estimated by White and Havlicek (1980) (table 5).

These estimates indicate that the aggregate

ratio of spillovers to regional benefits is 1.73.

The Northeast and the Appalachian regions

have the lowest ratio of spillovers to regional

benefits. Four regions (Lake States, Corn Belt,

Delta, and Southern Plains) have spillover-toregional benefit ratios higher than 2 to 1.

The ratio of Federal to State expenditures

for food and agricultural research and extension can be compared with the ratio of spillovers to regional benefits to determine

whether the Federal Government actually financed the spillovers (table 5). * These results

indicate that the Federal Government financed all of the spillovers in only three

regions (Northern Plains, Appalachian, and

* Federal expenditures are not limited to those funds going to

the SAES and cooperative extension services under formula

and grant programs; they also include the funding of agricultural research in each region through the USDA agricultural

research agencies of SEA/AR, USDA/ESS, and USDA/Soil

Conservation Service.

Table 5.—Regional Estimates of External-to-Internal

Ratios Related to Benefits and Funding of

Production-Oriented Agricultural Research and

Extension

Ratio of

spillovers Ratio of

to regional Federal-State

Region benefits expenditures

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . .

Lake States . . . . . . . . . .

Corn Belt . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northern Plains. . . . . . .

Appalachian . . . . . . . . .

Southeast . . . . . . . . . . .

Delta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Southern Plains. . . . . . .

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aggregate . . . . . . . . .

1.31

2.73

2.04

1.40

1.19

1.40

2.48

2.80

1.60

1.89

1.73

0.97

1.10

1.25

1.63

1.60

1.37

1.80

2.10

2.35

0.90

1.38

alncludes Federal funding of production-oriented agricultural research and extension in each region through SEA/CR, SEA/Aft, SEA/EXT, USDA/ESCS, and

USDA/SCS relative to State expenditures for agricultural research and extension in each region.

SOURCE: Fred C. White and Joseph Havlicek, Jr., "lnterregional Spillover of

Agricultural Research Results and Intergovernmental Finance. ”

Paper presented at Symposium on Methodology for Evaluation of

Agricultural Research, Minneapolis, Minn., May 12-13, 1980.

Mountain). In aggregate, the ratio of Federal

to State expenditures is only 1.38 compared

to 1.73 for the ratio of spillovers to regional

benefits. Thus, the Federal Government’s

contribution to production-oriented food and

agricultural research and extension should be

increased 25 percent to aline regional funding

with regional benefits, on the average. Several regions would require a greater increase

in Federal expenditures to yield an equitable

distribution across all regions.

Private-Sector Funding Related

to Flow of Benefits

One continuing issue is: Who captures the

benefits from public sector and private sector

research? Presumably, the issue relates to the

question of whether a particular problem area

should be addressed through public research

if the gains from the research are embodied in

private firms’ products. In general, there are

spillovers or indirect benefits from publicsector research to the private sector and from

private-sector research to society. If the benefits from research can be captured by the private sector, there is an incentive for private

firms to invest in R&D activities.

The private sector may invest in R&D activities in which spillover or indirect benefits

accrue to society. No specific case studies

have been made for the agricultural input or

food-processing industries. a Studies by

Mansfield, et al. (1977), Terleckyj (1974), and

Griliches (1977) of the distribution of gains

from private R&D in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries indicate that the

spillover effects are at least as large as the

direct benefits going to the firms conducting

the R&D. Thus, the social returns tend to be

roughly double that of private returns to the

investment. In this regard, substantial social

benefits are derived from private industry investments in R&D activities.

The USDA (1979) assessment of post-harvest technology research identified four distinguishing characteristics of private-sector

research in food processing, handling, and

%ome of the conceptual considerations, however, have been

outlined in a note by Peterson, 1976,
72 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

marketing. These were: 1) most private-sector

research tends to be focused on short-term

applied problems for which there is expectation of an acceptable return on the research

investment; 2) longer term basic inquiry into

how biological, economic, and social systems

function would not be picked up by the private research sector if it were dropped by the

public research agencies; 3) even though

there may be substantial social benefits from

private research activities through spillover

effects, private industry generally is not concerned with the concepts of consumer surplus or net social benefits from their research

endeavors: and 4) most private firms are

reluctant to reveal knowledge that might

cause existing technologies or processes to

become obsolete prior to extracting the flow

of economic returns from past investments in

these techniques. Thus, there is incentive to

delay publication of knowledge possessing

this potential impact, even if the research

might have been carried out partially under

the auspices of public funding.

Public-sector support for basic research

generally benefits both society and the private

sector. Since the results of basin research are

difficult to internalize to any particuiar private firm without public support, underinvestment in basic research would result.

However, in the case of applied and developmental research, the appropriate mix of public and private research investments becomes

an important issue. The private sector will

stand to benefit from public investments in

those research outputs that are embodied in

private-sector products.

Public R&17 may be justified on at least

three grounds: 1) as a result of the spillover effects, substantial social benefits are derived

from the mixture of public and private research; 2) in the absence of public-sector support, the direction of the research might be

biased strongly toward proprietary mechanical and chemical technologies; and 3) for

those situations where private research might

have a detrimental effect on the structure of

the industry (making a competitive structure

noncompetitive, or a noncompetitive structure still more imperfect). A mix of public and

private research may preserve competition or

reduce the amount 01 concentration. The importance of this last basis for public research

investments is that most competitive industries provide a larger quantity of the product

at a lower cost to consumers than would be

expected from monopolistic industry.

For many biological research activities,

because of the ease of imitation and the lack

of patent enforceability, it is likely that the

private sector would substantially underinvest in R&D. Thus, much of the biological

research is supported by the public sector,

even in those areas where there are substantial inducements for product development by

the private sector. Few seed companies, for

example, carry out much research in plant

pathology, plant physiology, genetics, crop

management systems, or farm management.

But since output of the public-sector research

is a public good, it is available to large and

small input suppliers alike. Because of the difficulty of patenting hybrids by public research institutions, small seed companies

have been able to exist along with large firms.

Thus, it has been generally in the best interest

of society to support public investments in

these types of research activities, since the

social benefits would outweigh the costs incurred from increased concentration in the

industry. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court related to patentability of biological research requires careful reexamination of current policies of the public food and

agricultural research agencies.

Direct or Checkoff Funds

In producer checkoff funding, several

private firms or commodity groups pursue

their best interests by collectively supporting

public research activities. Contributors t.

research probably have less control over the

specific projects to be funded than would occur with an industrial firm. But the usual

process is for the recipient public research

agency to issue a portfolio of potential research projects for which the funds could be

used. Then a governing board (often labeled
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 7 3

a specific commodity research promotion

board) selects from among the portfolio those

projects that best coincide with its constituency’s interest within available funds. The

public research administrator then “awards”

the funds to those projects and scientists proposing the specific R&D activities.

Thus, there is a tendency to focus the

research toward short-term, applied R&D activities that hold promise for benefiting the

clientele providing the funds. Heavy reliance

on this type of funding source for public

research support would bias the direction of

the research toward those techniques most

beneficial to the group providing the funds.

Measuring Returns to

Research Investment

Most evaluations of food and agricultural

research indicate a favorable internal rate of

return.

4 This rate can be defined as that discount rate that equates the present value of

the expected cash outflows (costs) with the

present value of the inflows (benefits).

The acceptance criterion for a research proposal is based on the relationship of the internal rate of return to a required rate of return.

For a private firm, the required rate might be

the cost of capital, while for the public sector,

it might be some long-term interest or social

discount rate. If the internal rate of return is

higher than the required rate, the investment

should be undertaken.

Several studies that have empirically estimated rates of return on agricultural research

investment are summarized in table 6. For aggregate investment, rate-of-return estimates

are predominately in the range of 30 to 40 per4 Havlicek and Otto note that research concerned with measuring impacts of agricultural research has focused on either

total or production-oriented research and the impact this

research has on productivity, output, or value at the producer

level. However, effects of all agricultural research are not

always to increase productivity, output, or value, nor is the

output of all agricultural research measurable and perceived in

the marketplace. In addition, these studies for the most part

have not taken into account such externalities as environmental and social impacts. Alternative measures are discussed in

the Havlicek and Otto background paper, 1980.

Table 6.—Empirical Rate of Return Estimates for

Agricultural Research investment

Internal

rate of

Time return

Study Commodity period (percent)

index number approach

Griliches (1956) . . . . . . . . . .

Griliches (1958) . . . . . . . .

Peterson (1967) . . . . . . . . .

Schmitz and Seckler

(1970) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peterson and Fitzharris

(1975) ... ... . .

Hybrid corn

Hybrid sorghum

Poultry

Tomato harvester

Aggregate

Regression analysis approach

Griliches (1964) . . . . . . . . Aggregate

Peterson (1966) . . . . . . Poultry

Evenson (1968) . . . . . Aggregate

Lu and Cline (1977) . . . . . . Aggregate

Knutson (1977) . . . . . . . . . . Aggregate

White, Havlicek and

Otto (1978) . . . . . . . . . Aggregate

Davis (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aggregate

Bredahl and Peterson

(1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash grains

Poultry

Dairy

Livestock

Norton (1980). . . . . . . . . . Cash grains

Poultry

Dairy

Livestock

1940-55

1940-57

1915-60

1958-67

1937-42

1947-57

1957-62

1967-72

1949-59

1915-60

1949-59

1938-48

1949-59

1959-69

1969-72

1939-48

1949-58

1959-68

1969-72

1929-41

1942-57

1958-77

1949

1954

1959

1964

1969

1974

1969

1969

1969

1969

1974

1974

1974

1974

aEstlmates account for compensation of displaced workers.

bThe estimates were reduced by one-third to correct for the omission of Private

research

cEstlmates are based on cross section using real output and deflated research

Estimates are high because extension is omitted and a small adjustment for

private research IS used. If adjustments are made these rates would be around

20 percent for 1964-79

dThese estimates correspond to the mean lags used by Bredahl and Peterson

(1976).

SOURCE Fred C White, B R Eddleman, and J. C. Purcell, “Nature and Flow of

Benefits From Agriculture.Food Research, ” OTA background paper,

1980.

cent. However, the lowest estimate for this

category is 23.5 percent compared to the

highest estimate of 100 percent. Some of the

returns on individual commodities are outside this latter range. The most obvious conclusion from these consistently high rates of

return is that agricultural research is very

profitable.
74 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Four of the studies show that returns to

agricultural research were higher in the early

part of the century and have recently declined

slightly. A likely explanation is that now there

are fewer opportunities to substitute new

technology for labor. However, the rates of return in the most recent periods are still quite

high. Davis (1979) noted that since 1964 the

marginal internal rate of return has remained

surprisingly constant and may have stopped

declining.

The high rate of returns are evidence of a

resource allocation problem. Economic efficiency calls for investment funds to be allocated in such a manner that the marginal

returns in all categories are the same. The

high rate of return on agricultural research

indicates underinvestment by the public sector. In other words, additional resources

should be allocated to agricultural research in

order to bring its rate of return in line with

the returns from other public investments.

Why has there been an apparent underinvestment in agricultural research?

At the symposium on Methodology for

Evaluation of Agricultural Research held in

Minneapolis, Minn., in May 1980, a government official said, “It is clear that the role of

the Federal Government is not to turn a profit . . .“ (Franz). While this statement may represent the sentiments of many legislators and

other government officials as related to the

high returns on agricultural research investment, it warrants further elaboration and interpretation. Economic growth traditionally

has been fostered in this country as a means

to progress. Furthermore, economic efficiency is a means to achieve economic growth,

and it would be improper to ignore the rate of

return of estimates as an indicator of economic efficiency. Complications arise, however,

as society attempts to achieve a variety of

goals.

The social optimum actually may involve a

tradeoff between goals. For example, the

public sector might choose to limit expenditures in a particular category below the level

called for by economic efficiency if such expenditures would affect adversely the distribution of income. This particular relationship

is commonly referred to as the tradeoff between efficiency and equity.

Agricultural research expenditures over the

last half century may have been limited by

policy makers’ perception of excess capacity

in agriculture. Congress continually battled

with the problem of depressed farm prices

caused by excess production at prices considered to be socially acceptable. Policy makers

were probably aware of the dilemma that if

research investment increased supplies, costs

of maintaining farm prices would increase.

The problem facing policymakers in this area

revolves around what will happen to agricultural supplies and farm prices in the future. If

excess capacity is projected to continue into

the next century, policymakers will limit

agricultural research expenditures. However,

if increased agricultural productivity will be

needed to furnish adequate supplies for domestic consumers and foreign trade, a greater

level of research investment would be warranted.

Policymakers may limit agricultural research expenditures because of the uncertainties about future benefits from agricultural

research. The estimated rates of return are

based on historical relationships that may not

hold in the future. Even though expected returns may be high, policy makers may perceive a wide standard deviation around the

expected returns, believing that they are not

measured precisely. Although there is some

controversy in this area, there appears to be

widespread support for the proposition that

the public sector should invest on the basis of

emphasis on expected returns rather than on

risk factors (White, Eddleman, Purcell, 1980).

However, policymakers may contend that expected returns are not measured accurately

enough to guide decisions on the optimal

level of public investment in food and agricultural research.
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 7 5

QUALITATIVE

Quality is an important aspect of all research and is a well-accepted concept. While

difficult to measure from a quantitative standpoint, there are certain aspects of quality that

most scientists would agree are essential to

reach a minimum acceptable level. These include dealing with adequate numbers of

samples, reproducing data, recording data so

that it can be understood and evaluated by

others, organizing and conducting research

so that it is amenable to statistical analyses,

etc. Difficulties arise when an attempt is

made to evaluate the relative degree or level

of quality among a group of scientists or

among a series of researchers within or between disciplines or areas of research. Difficulty also arises in evaluating the relative

contribution a piece of research makes to the

advancement of the field of study.

Pound Report

Quality is addressed because it became,

perhaps unintentionally, one of the major

messages to come out of the so-called Pound

Report of 1972 (“Report of the Committee on

Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture,” NAS). This report has been

referred to by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and others as an authoritative

source on the measurement of the quality of

agricultural research and, thus, a rationale for

nonsupport of agricultural research. The

committee, which was composed primarily of

bench scientists closely oriented more toward

basic aspects of agricultural research, took as

its major guideline the question: “Is the quality of science being used in solution of agricultural problems consistent with the public

needs and scientific possibilities?” (p. 10).

In its general summary about the quality

of the research effort, it concluded that

"

. . . much of agricultural research is outmoded, pedestrian, and inefficient” (p. 11)

and that “. . . far too much of the research is

of low scientific quality. . . .“ (p. 12). Under

the question: “Does the research by agriculMEASURES

tural scientists reflect the highest standards

of the community?” it concluded that:

Most of the specific disciplinary research

studies made by the Committee and its panels

reveal a shocking amount of low quality research in agriculture. Admittedly, quality is a

judgment factor but the regularity with

which the Committee came up with judgments of low quality, including both SAES

and USDA research, is significant and appalling (p. 70),

This criticism was emphasized in two articles in Science magazine (Jan. 5, 1973; Apr.

27, 1973). The articles were given wide publicity and used against agricultural research

by OMB and other groups.

The Pound report did not give a precise

definition of “agricultural science” or “quality;” nevertheless judgments were made that

involved both. The group mainly asked certain peer group panels to rate some specific

research project summaries contained in

USDA’s Current Research Information System in certain areas of work, such as forest insect research, reproductive physiology, and

molecular biology, that had been written for

general descriptive purposes (p. 70). Additionally, the reactions of some other scientists

to agricultural research quality were collected in an informal manner. Therefore, the

adequacy of this evaluation itself is in question.

Other Reports

Other assessments of published output of

scientists have been used to evaluate certain

aspects of agricultural research, most notably

productivity (e.g., Salisbury). The use of this

technique or variations of it for determining

quality is a more recent innovation. Two examples are cited.

Shaw Report

B. T. Shaw, former administrator of ARS,

analyzed the use of publication as a criterion
76 “ An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

——

for evaluating scientists and the quality of

research, Three evaluation approaches were

tried in the analysis:

1. a peer group of scientists reading the

publication,

2. number of publications, and

3. publication outlet.

The first approach was found to be the only

satisfactory method. However, it would not

have been feasible for the Pound committee,

because it would have required reading some

3,500 ARS publications.

As a compromise, each scientist for the

Shaw report was asked to rank his own publication by assigning it to one of the following

categories, in decreasing order of scoring:

1. Original research in terms of its impact

on science, agriculture, and general welfare:

—very great (100 to 81),

—great (80 to 61), and

—moderate to limited (60 to 51).

2. Reviews:

–for scientists (50 to 41), and

–for laymen (40 to 31).

Division directors then were asked to rank

the 118 papers: 10 ranked 95 or higher, and

105 ranked 55 or higher. This rating system

gives greater weight to original research than

to reviews and tries to emphasize impact of

research.

Evenson and Wright

Two economists, Evenson and Wright, attempted a somewhat different approach as a

special project for this (the OTA) study. They

evaluated citations of: 1) publications in peerreviewed journals and Z) patents. Examples of

patents were drawn from the field of postharvest technology and, therefore, may not be

applicable to production technology.

In the case of publication citations, two

comparisons were made: between the State

and USDA, and changes over time between

1966 and 1978. In both cases, no significant

differences were found. One USDA center

having the lowest journal citation score had

the strongest performance in patenting.

When expenditures per scientist man-year

(SMY) were factored in as a measure of support per scientist in terms of equipment,

assistants, etc., it did not affect publications

per SMY but it did positively affect citations

per publication and total citations per SMY.

In the case of patents, the study was limited

to USDA (the four regional utilization laboratories) with a sample comparison with private

U.S. companies and foreign firms. Comparisons then were made of citations in subsequent patents. The three groups were shown

to be roughly comparable for food, but private firms rated higher on textile patents.

General Comments

The number of publications or patents and

the number of citations do not give a quantitative indication of quality. Quality is not

necessarily a function of numbers of publications or patents. NAS considers peer review

probably the best method of estimating quality. Even here, attempting to use the same criteria or the same scientists across disciplines

is hazardous. Estimating quality in agricultural research, which most frequently is mission oriented, ranging from the most basic to

the most applied, requires great care. The

same criteria or the same scientists cannot be

used for evaluating the basic research as are

used for evaluating the applied.

Consider the work of Dr. Norman Borlaug.

Borlaug did not break new paths in fundamental science or in the basic theory of plant

breeding. Rather, he applied well-known

techniques of plant breeding, along with a

few innovations in testing, to create a line of

improved wheat varieties that were used to

increase food production rapidly in many of

the world’s developing countries. Also, he did

not publish much before receiving his Nobel

prize, and those papers he did write were not

classified as basic research.

It is possible for peers to evaluate agricultural research quality, even though such
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 7 7

evaluations are largely subjective. Peer review is review of a scientist’s research only by

researchers within the same general area,

discipline or mission. For example, in the

continuum of basic to applied research, peers

of scientists working in basic research can effectively review quality of scientists working

in similar basic areas of research. Scientists

working in applied areas can evaluate quality

of other scientists working on similar applied

problems. However, it is generally meaningless for a group of scientists working in basic

research to evaluate the quality of those working in the applied area and vice versa.

PRINCIPAL

● USDA research expenditures are the lowest total Federal expenditures by a major Federal research agency for R&D. In 1978

USDA’s share of Federal expenditures for

R&D was 1.5 percent of total expenditures

compared to DOD—45 percent, DOE—16 percent, and HEW—12 percent,

● Increase in purchasing power of total

SAES and USDA agricultural research expenditures increased only 23 percent in constant dollars from 1966 to 1979,

• Constant dollar agricultural research expenditures of USDA for in-house research increased only 1 percent between 1966 and

1979, while those in the SAES increased 40

percent.

● State appropriations are the major source

of research funding at the SAES, and in constant dollars increased 57 percent from 1966

to 1979. Federal Hatch funds account for 20

percent of SAES funding, and in constant

terms have increased on the average 1.5 percent a year from 1966 to 1979, or 20 percent

for this time period.

● Private research funds for agricultural research at SAES are small relative to State appropriations and Federal formula funds.

They have steadily increased since 1966—63

percent in constant dollars—and are becomWhile quality is important, it can be measured only in a very narrow sense. To measure

the value of food and agricultural research to

society, which is the measurement of output

to input, it should be cumulatively examined

across the full spectrum of activity —i.e., discipline to discipline, basic to applied. This is

best done by analyzing what has happened to

the industry. And by any measurement, U.S.

agriculture has been extremely productive.

ing an important source of agricultural research funds.

● Private industry agricultural research is a

major contributor to total agricultural research in the United States. It is estimated

that total expenditures by private enterprise

are about three-quarters of the expenditures

of the State and Federal governments combined.

● The justification of public funding of

food and agricultural research is based on

benefits well in excess of costs. Issues of equity, because of the interstate flow of food and

related commodities and the spillover effect

of research from one geographic region to

another, are also cited. Producers benefit

from expanding demand and from reduced

costs. The distribution of consuming population among States, however, is related to the

distribution of agricultural production only to

a very limited degree, From the equity consideration of the geographic distribution of costs

associated with research and the benefits

flowing from this research, substantial

Federal funding of food and agricultural research is considered the most equitable. Paradoxically, Federal funding relative to State

funding of research has decreased as the interstate flow of commodities has increased.

Therefore, taxpayers in food-surplus States
78 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

are subsidizing consumers in food-deficit

States, and the degree of subsidization is increasing steadily.

. Evaluation of the quality of research,

both basic and applied, although difficult, is

essential. The peer-review method appears to

be the best method available, but requires that

the peers be truly peers, selected from the

same basic disciplines or mission area being

evaluated.

CHAPTER IV REFERENCES

Bauer, L. L., “The Effect of Technology on the

Farm Labor Market,” American Journal o~Agricuhura] Economics, vol. 51, No. 3, 1969.

Berg, Alan, “Malnutrition and National Development,” Foreign A~~airs, October 1967, pp.

126-136.

Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock, The

Calculus of Consent (Ann Arbor, Mich.:

University of Michigan Press, 1962).

Call, David, and Richard Longhurst, “Evaluation

of the Economic Consequences of Malnutrition,” paper presented at the Western Hemisphere Nutrition Congress III, Miami, Fla.,

1972.

Cochrane, Willard W,, Farm Prices: Myth and Reality (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1958).

Cochrane, Willard W., The Development o~American Agriculture: A Historical Perspective

(Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota

Press, 1979).

Currie, John Martin, John A. Murphy, and Andrew Schmitz, “The Concept of Economic

Surplus and Its Use in Economic Analysis,”

The Economic Journal, vol. 81, No. 5, 1971, pp.

741-799.

Davis, Jeff, “Stability of the Research Production

Coefficient for U.S. Agriculture,” Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1979.

Eddleman, B. R,, “Evaluation of Economic Benefits From Agricultural Production Research

and Implication for Marketing, ” Proceedings

of National Workshop on Coordination of

Marketing Research, Washington, D, C., May

9-11, 1977,

Evenson, Robert, “The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production, ” -Journal of

Farm Economics, vol. 49, No. 5, December

1967, pp. 1415-1425.

Evenson, Robert E., Paul E. Waggoner, and Vernon W. Ruttan, “Economic Benefits From Research: An Example From Agriculture, ” Science, vol. 205, September 1979, pp. 1101-1107.

Evenson, Robert E., and Brian Wright, “An Evaluation of Methods for Examining the Quality

of Agricultural Research, ” OTA background

paper, December 1980.

Evenson, Robert E., “Research Evaluation: Policy

Interests and the State of the Art,” Evaluation

o~AgricuJtural Research, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication No. 8, April 1981, pp.

196-212.

Franz, Molly, “Evaluation Information on Agricultural Research, ” Evaluation of Agricultural

Research, op. cit., p. 19.

General Accounting Office, “Agricultural Research—The Organization and Management, ”

RED-76-92, Apr. 9, 1976.

General Accounting Office, “Management of Agricultural Research—Needs and Opportunities

for Improvement. ” CED-77-121, Aug. 23,

1977.

Griliches, Zvi, “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth, ” Bell J, of Economics, VOI, 10,

spring 1979, pp. 92-116.

Griliches, Zvi, “Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function, ” American Economic Review,

vol. 54, No, 4, 1964, pp. 961-974.

Griliches, Zvi, “Returns to Research and Development Expenditures in the Private Sector”

(1977), J, W. Kendrick and B. Vaccara (eds.),

New Developments in Productivity Measure

ment, Nat. Bur. Econ. Res. Studies in Income

and Wealth, vol. 44, 1980, pp. 419-454.

Havlicek, Joseph, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical

Analysis of Investment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States,” OTA

background paper, 1981.

Heady, Earl O., “Welfare Implications of Agricultural Research,” Resource Allocation in Agricultural Research, Walter L, Fishel (cd.) (Minneapolis, Minn,: University of Minnesota

press, 1971), pp. 121-13 6”
Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research ● 7 9

Herdt, R. W., and W. W. Cochrane, “Farm Land

Prices and Farm Technological Advance, ”

journal o-f’ Farm Economics, vol. 48, May 1966,

pp. 243-263.

Jensen, Harold R., “Farm Management and Production Economics, 1946-70,” A Survey oj’Agricultural Economics Literature, vol. 1, Lee R.

Martin (cd.) (Minneapolis, Minn.: University

of Minnesota Press, 1977), pp. 3-89.

Johnson, Sherman, E., “Prospects and Requirements for Increased Output, ” ~ournal of Farm

Economics, vol. 34, No. 5, November 1952, pp.

682-697.

Kramer, Amihud, Food and the Consumer (Westport, Corm.: Avi Publishing Co., 1973).

Mackie, Arthur, and Michael Allan, “U.S. Consumers Spend Less of Their Income on Food

Than the Rest of the World, ” Foreign Agriculture, November 1980.

Mansfield, Edwin, John Rapaport, Anthony

Romeo, Samuel Wagner, and George BeardsIey, “Social and Private Rate of Return From

Industrial Innovations,” QuarterJy ~ournal Of

Economics, May 1977,

Marion, Bruce W,, Willard F. Nueller, Ronald W.

Cotterill, Frederick E, Geithman, and John R.

Schmelzer, “The Price and Profit Performance of Leading Food Chains, ” Amer. -J. Agr.

Econ,, vol. 61, 1979, pp 420-433.

Musgrave, Richard A., and Peggy B. Musgrave,

PubJic Finance in Theory and Practice (New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973).

National Academy of Sciences, AgricuJturaJ Production E~~iciency (Washington, D. C,: NAS,

1975).

National Academy of Sciences, National Research

Council, Division of Biology and Agriculture,

“Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ”

April 1972 (issued by the National Technical

Information Service).

National Academy of Sciences, WorJd Food and

Nutrition Study, supporting papers, vol. 3

(Washington, D, C.: NAS, 1977),

National Commission on Food Marketing, Food

From Farmer to Consumer, Commission Report (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1966).

National Science Foundation, Science Indicators

1978, Report of the National Science Board

(Washington, D. C.: NSF, 1979).

Oates, Wallace E,, FiscaJ F’ederaJism, William J,

Baumol (cd,) (New York: Harcourt Brace

]ovanovich, Inc., 1972),

Peterson, Willis L., “A Note on the Social Returns

to Private Research and Development, ” Amer.

~, Agr, Econ., vol. 58, No. 2, May 1976, p p .

324-326.

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, “Decision Making on

Food and Agricultural Research Policy: The

Distribution of Benefits From New Agricultural Technology Among Consumer Income

Strata,” AgricuJturaJ Administration, vol. 4,

1977, pp. 13-28.

Reutlinger, Shlomo, and Marcelo Selowsky, Malnutrition and Poverty, Magnitude and PoJicy

Options (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, World Bank Staff Occasional

Papers No. 23, 1976).

Ruttan, Vernon W., “Technology and the Environmerit, ” Amer. ]. Agr. Econ., vol. 53, No. 5,

December 1971, pp. 707-717.

Salisbury, G. W., Research Productivity o~the State

AgricuJturaJ Experiment Station System: Measured by Scientific Publication Output, University of Illinois, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 762, July 1980.

Schultz, Theodore W, “Conflicts Over Changes in

Scarcity: An Economic Approach,” Amer. ~.

Agr. Econ., vol. 56, No. 5, December 1974, pp.

998-1004.

Scrimshaw, N. W., and M. Behar (eds.), Nutritional and AgricuJturaJ Development (New

York: Plenum Press, 1976).

Shaw, B. T., The Use of QuaJity and Quantity of

Publication as Criteria for Evacuating Scientists, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Miscellaneous Publication No, 1041, January 1967 (as cited by

George W. Irving, et al., “Post Harvest Technology Research, ” OTA background paper,

1981, pp. 63-64).

Terleckyj, N. E., The Effects of R&D on Productivity Growth of Industries: An Exploratory Study

~Washington, D. C.: National Planning Associates, 1974].

Timmer, C. Peter, and Maiden C. Nesheim, “Nutrition, Product Quality, and Safety,” Consensus and Conflict in U.S. Agriculture, Bruce L.

Gardner and James W. Richardson (eds.) (College Station, Tex,: Texas A&M University

Press, 1979).

Tomek, William G,, and Kenneth L. Robinson,

AgricuJturaJ Product Prices (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972).

Tweeten, Luther, “The Search for a Theory and

Methodology of Research Resource Allocation,” Resource AJJocation in Agricultural
80 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Research, Walter L. Fishel (cd.) (Minneapolis,

Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1971).

Tweeten, Luther G., and Fred K. Hines, “Contributions of Agricultural Productivity to National Economic Growth, AgricuJturaJ Science

Review, vol. III, No. 2, 1965, pp. 40-45.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Dietary Goals for the

United States, Select Committee on Nutrition

and Human Needs (Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1977).

United Nations, Yearbook of National Accounts

Statistics, 1978, vols. I and 11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS, Changes in

Farm Production and E~~iciency, 1978, statistical bulletin No. 628 (Washington, D. C.:

USDA, January 1980).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS, Developments in Marketing Spreads for Food Production in 1979, AER No. 449, 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA, AR, “Post

Harvest Technology Research Assessment, ”

March 1979.

Wade, Nicholas, “Agriculture: NAS Panel

Charges Inept Management, Poor Research, ”

Science, vol. 179, Jan. 5, 1973; “Agriculture:

Critics Find Basic Research Stunted and Wilting,” Science, vol. 180, Apr. 27, 1973 (both are

reproduced in Moseman, et al,, Annex I and

II).

Weisberg, Samuel, K. M. Reese, and Peggy

McDonald, Nutrition and Productivity: Their

Relationship in Developing Countries (Washington, D, C.: League for International Food

and Education, 1972),

White, Fred, B. R. Eddleman, and Joseph Purcell,

Nature and Flow of Benefits From AgricultureFood Research, OTA background report, 1980.

White, Fred C., and Bill R. Miller, “Determining

Multiplier Effects of Agriculture on the Rest

of the Economy, ” Agricultural Finance Review, ESCS, USDA, vol. 40, April 1980, pp.

19-25.

White, Fred C., and Joseph Havlicek, Jr., “Interregional Spillover of Agricultural Research

Results and Intergovernmental Finance,”

Evaluation of Agricultural Research, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment

Station, Miscellaneous Publication No. 8,

April 1981, pp. 60-70.

Willig, Robert D, “Consumer’s Surplus Without

Apology,” American Economic Review, vol.

66, 1976, pp. 586-597.

Young, Paula C., and Philip M. Ritz, Updated Input-Output Table of the U.S. Economy: 1972,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA Staff Paper No. 32

BEA-SP 79-032, April 1979.
Chapter v

Roles of Research

Participants
.

U.S. Department of Agriculture ● , . *

USDA’S Changing Role . ***************..***.********.,,*.***************

Partnership Difficulties.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funding and Roles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Principal Findings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter V References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* ****0******************.. .** ** .

● **. *.0****.*. * * * . * . * . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● ***, .s . .** . *,*. *.. o**, do,*.,*, *

.* O * O * * * * . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ...*....*

83

83

84

85

86

87

87

88

89

89

90

90

90

91

92

93

94

94

96

96
Chapter V

Roles of Research Participants

Food and agricultural research in the

United States is supported by the public and

private sectors. The major participants in the

public sector are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the State agricultural experiment stations (SAES), although sizable investments are also made by a number of other

Federal agencies. In addition, certain nonland-grant universities—including those publicly and privately financed–have substantial

food and agricultural research programs supported by public funds. Also, but to a lesser

degree, the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee Institute are research participants.

Research participants in the private sector

include foundations, industry, and industry

The genesis of food and agricultural research in the public sector lies in Federal legislation enacted in the second year of the Civil

War when USDA was created. It was given

broad authorization “To acquire . . . useful

information on subjects concerned with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word . . . .“ Isaac Newton,

first Commissioner of Agriculture, was

directed to acquire and preserve all information concerning practical and scientific agriculture by conducting experiments. As outlined in chapter 111 of this report, the research

base of USDA broadened over the years, and

more intensive and varied research programs

were enacted so that by the beginning of the

20th century, USDA had taken the lead in the

most effective emphasis on farm production

research the world had ever seen.

The 15 years immediately following World

War II were marked by continuing changes

for strengthening USDA and State research

in order to keep pace with and guide the

rapidly modernizing U.S. agriculture. This

associations. In some areas of activity, their

financial investments exceed those of the

public sector.

All of these participants—public and private—represent major forces in the U.S. food

and agricultural research system. Their particular roles, however, have never been fully

articulated. In some cases, the relationships

among them are somewhat complicated and

controversial. This segment of the OTA

assessment presents an analysis of the roles

of participants in the national agricultural

system and identifies the relevant issues that

need to be considered in improving the system.

OF AGRICULTURE

period also was marked by the USDA reorganization in 1953, which not only had serious

repercussions on the functions and capabilities of USDA research but also disrupted

Federal/State relationships (Moseman, et al.,

1981).

USDA's Changing Role

The next 20 years—from 1960 to 1980—

comprised an era of rapid change in which

USDA’s role in food and agricultural research

became altered by the impact of social forces

on research priorities. These forces, combined with numerous assessments of research, have had a cumulative effect of reshaping the national agricultural system and

capabilities.

The unsettled situation in USDA research

in the 1950’s and somewhat similar conditions in other Federal agencies led indirectly

to an investigation by President Kennedy’s

Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) into the

capability and quality of research in the

83
84 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Federal Government. As a result, a panel of

PSAC conducted a review of science and

agriculture that focused primarily on USDA

(Science and Agriculture, 1962).

The panel’s recommendations were generally constructive and positive; however, the

review was conducted within an environment that was somewhat critical and hostile

toward USDA. One of the main reasons for

this situation was that no member of the

panel had any active experience in USDA/

State research programs that had major impacts in advancing agriculture in the previous three decades.

Among the few recommendations that

were adopted was the appointment by Secretary Freeman of a USDA committee on agricultural science. The makeup of this committee, the membership of the PSAC agricultural

panel, and the attitude of the White House Office of Science and Technology combined to

reflect a low esteem of research in USDA.

Also reflected was the viewpoint that university personnel should have a dominant role in

planning and directing USDA research.

Nevertheless, a number of significant steps

were taken under Secretary Freeman in 1963:

a) greater emphasis was placed on upgrading

and expanding USDA and State research facilities; b) funds were increased for the study

of pesticides; c) a concept developed that

Beltsville should be increasingly concerned

with basic research; and d) administration of

grants to State experiment stations and coordination of State/Federal research were once

again placed in the hands of a separate agency—the Cooperative State Research Service

—comparable to the old Office of Experiment

Stations.

In 1969, Secretary of Agriculture Clifford

Hardin requested the National Academy of

Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/

NRC) to appoint a committee to: a) evaluate

the quality of science in agricultural research,

b) ascertain gaps in agricultural research and

make appropriate recommendations, and c)

ascertain the extent to which scientists in the

basic disciplines relate their research to agriculture and the extent to which they contribute to the basic sciences. The committee was

chaired by Dr. Glenn S. Pound, dean and

director of the College of Agricultural and

Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin. Oddly, the committee was heavily dominated by

personnel from the land-grant universities

(primarily bench scientists), despite the fact

that it was supposed to review USDA research as well as that of State stations.

Although the committee said it found many

excellent programs, together with welltrained scientists and sensible research, it

also found reason to believe that much of

agricultural research was outmoded, pedestrian, and inefficient. A careful and unprejudiced reading of the NAS committee’s report

discloses many constructively critical analyses and recommendations that would serve

to strengthen the national agricultural system. (Further discussion of the Pound report

is given in ch. IV of this report.)

USDA research administrators, in a move

unrelated to the Pound report, in 1972 announced a reorganization of research functions in USDA. The major thrust was to

assign line-operating authority to the field

under four regional deputy administrators.

The national program staff, which formerly

had responsibility for one, or a few, commodities or program areas, was suddenly expected to properly manage a broad scope of

research programs. This led to an inability to

maintain an in-depth understanding of the

work under way, since the national program

staff was isolated from line research functions and responsibilities,

Role Strengthened

In an effort to strengthen the role of USDA

and more effectively coordinate its activities,

the 95th Congress, in enacting the Food and

Agriculture Act of 1977, designated USDA as

the principal agency of the Federal Government for agricultural research, and directed

the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate all

agricultural research, extension, and teaching
Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants ● 8 5

activities conducted or financed by Federal

funds.

Specifically, the act describes the research

role of USDA as including the following:

to fulfill the needs of farmers and consumers by focusing its resources on problems of national interest and concern;

to participate with other sectors of the

agricultural research system in planning,

coordinating, and executing national and

regional programs;

to conduct research and development

(R&D) programs to meet international

needs as determined by U.S. Government

policy and the increasingly global nature

of production agriculture;

to conduct basic and applied human nutrition research necessary to assess and

improve the nutritional quality of human

diets; and

STATE AGRICULTURAL

The origin of the role of the SAES under the

Hatch Act of 1887 and subsequent legislation

has been documented in chapter 111 of this

report.

As a part of the land-grant university in

each State, SAES researchers often play a

vital role in the training of scientists. Many

SAES researchers have joint appointments

with the university. They may teach, which

allows students to learn the latest in agriculturally important knowledge and skills directly from scientists who are discovering and

perfecting this knowledge. And they may also

direct graduate student research. This close

arrangement between researcher and student

makes it possible to obtain relatively inexpensive but capable staff assistants and at the

same time provide the added function of

training additional scientists.

Although the SAES still retain their traditional focus in serving farmers and the agricultural sector of their States, their role has

been modified by a number of factors in the

● to develop human nutrition information

and education programs and deliver this

information to the public.

The act of 1977 designates USDA as the

lead agency of the Federal Government for

agricultural research, extension, and teaching

in the food and agricultural sciences. * It also

gives guidance on strengthening the coordinating activities of USDA, but little guidance

is given to the role of USDA v. the SAES.

The law also provided that the Secretary of

Agriculture establish within USDA a Joint

Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences

and a National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board. The progress

of these two advisory groups is discussed in

chapter VII of this report.

*This excludes the biomedical aspects of human nutrition

concerned with diagnosis or treatment of disease.

EXPERIMENT STATIONS

past two decades. The Research and Marketing Act of 1946 increased Federal funds to the

States on a formula basis and made provision

for regional research by the SAES with

Federal funds. In 1965, the Special Research

Grants Act authorized grants to the State stations, other public institutions, and individuals to perform research on problems of concern to USDA. In some respects, this act introduced chances for duplication of effort,

but at the same time, it offered a vehicle for

concentrating special efforts on commoditybased problems or problems of special interest groups, thus largely avoiding earmarking

of formula funds to special interest concerns.

Title V of the 1972 Rural Development Act

was another attempt to emphasize an area of

special concern—namely, the economic and

social problems of rural people and communities. This program, however, has not received significant funding,

Title XIV of the 1977 Farm Bill also became

a vehicle for authorizing a variety of special-
86 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

interest programs. Most important of these

are:

●

●

●

institutionalizing research and extension

in the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee Institute, whose participation in

USDA funding really began in the early

1970’s;

placing greater emphasis on food and nutrition research and extension in USDA

in cooperation with the States; and

authorizing competitive grant programs

in research to all colleges and universities, Federal agencies, and private institutions.

Two factors that are modifying roles of

State stations—changes in funding and management—deserve special discussion in this

assessment.

Funding

One of the sources of funding for the SAES

is Federal funding on a formula basis. This

provides funds to the States on the basis of,

among other things, size of rural population,

number of farms, etc. States with large rural

populations, therefore, tend to receive more

Federal grant money than those with lesser

numbers of farmers. This formula uses the

same principle—population size—that determines the number of Representatives in Congress to which each State is entitled. It is a

principle deeply rooted in the founding of our

country and expresses one aspect of the philosophy of “government by the people.”

Over the years, as the purchasing power of

both Hatch and State funds declined, scientists and administrators sought new funding

sources. To a certain degree, Congress furthered this trend by appropriating funds for

special and competitive grants.

Grant funds provide resources for highpriority research to further the programs of

USDA. The Secretary may make grants up to

5 years for either competitive or special

research grants. Al] colleges, universities,

Federal agencies, and private institutions are

eligible for competitive research grants.

While the law provides for flexibility in the

determination of the specific research efforts

for competitive grant funds, the intent was

that the following types of research be given

priority consideration:

1.

2.

3.

4.

basic research aimed at the discovery of

new scientific principles and techniques

that may be applicable in agriculture and

forestry;

research aimed at the development of

new and innovative products, methods,

and technologies relating to biological

nitrogen fixation, photosynthesis, and

other fields that will improve and increase the productivity of agriculture and

forestry resources;

basic and applied research in the field of

human nutrition; and

research to develop and demonstrate

new, promising crops, including guayule

and jojoba.

In the special research grants program the

law authorizes the Secretary to make grants

without regard to matching funds to:

1. land-grant colleges and universities,

SAES, and all colleges and universities

having a demonstrable capacity in agricultural research, as determined by the

Secretary, to carry out research to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs

in knowledge; and

Z. land-grant colleges and universities and

SAES to facilitate or expand State-Federal research programs that promote: a) excellence in research, b) development of

regional research centers, or c) the research partnership between USDA and

such colleges or SAES.

Proponents of formula funding saw the

introduction of competitive grants as an

eroding force on the clout of land-grant

universities and their agricultural experiment

stations. Others reasoned that excellence in

food and agricultural research might very

well exist in institutions other than those in

the land-grant system.
Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants ● 8 7

One mechanism provided by Congress that

lent further justification to seeking wide participation in the program was the provision

for a peer-review system of research proposals to further guarantee excellence in performing the research. The World Food and

Nutrition Study under the aegis of NAS endorsed the competitive grant system, as did

the OTA report Organizing and Financing

Basic Research To Increase Food Production

(1977).

Management

The shift to special and competitive grants

as a means of funding research has had several effects when compared to formula funding.

First, formula funds do not pay overhead

costs; most grants do. For a given level of

funding, this reduces the amount available to

research scientists, It does, however, make

possible more direction of research to specific needs. Second, the availability of special

and competitive grants encourages faculty

members to seek such outside funds. The director of the SAES frequently has little opportunity to exert management or program guidance on these programs. This has positive

and negative connotations. Often, the research has little significance to local or State

problems. Third, the individuals who make

decisions on funding under the grant system

are not always accountable to legislative and

agricultural interests.

Relationships between USDA and SAES at

the administrative level are unnecessarily

competitive and in some cases destructive

(Moseman, et al., 1981; Knutson, et al., 1980).

But of even greater significance is the effect

of the dispersal of USDA research resources

and authorities and the resultant substantial

autonomy in regional and area offices. This

situation represents a degeneration of the

operational and coordinating functions that

traditionally have been carried out by USDA

for national and regional programs.

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

At least 10 Federal agencies other than

USDA fund or conduct some kind of food and

agricultural research. These include the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy,

Health and Human Services, Interior, and

State; Agency for International Development;

Environmental Protection Agency; National

Science Foundation (NSF); and Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA). No accurate figures

are available for the extent of dollar investment in food and agricultural research by

these agencies. Some of the budgets are quite

large; others are very small and are actually

advisory in nature.

In most instances, food and agricultural research conducted by these Federal agencies is

considered complementary to that of USDA;

overlapping efforts are not thought to be

great. Because the mechanism for coordination with USDA as the lead agency is not

functioning well, however, the degree of overlap and coordination cannot be determined at

this time. In some cases, the research program is the type that either is inadequately

covered by USDA or is more suited to the

mission of the other agency, The food research program of the Department of Defense

is a good example of the latter type, since it

deals with providing a wholesome and nutritious food supply to servicemen and servicewomen under field and military-base conditions. TVA conducts research on development of fertilizers because both USDA and

most of the private sector discontinued such

activity nearly 20 years ago.

To improve coordination of the research

activity of USDA and the other 10 Federal

agencies involved in food and agricultural

research, Congress mandated the establishment of the Committee on Food and Renewable Resources (CFRR).* The committee,

*This was authorized under the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 and established under FCCSET.
.

88 • An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

which is chaired by USDA, “is to review Federal research and development programs relevant to domestic and world food production

and distribution, promote planning and coordination of this research in the Federal

Government, and recommend policies and

other measures concerning the food and

agricultural sciences for the consideration of

the Council. ”

The purpose of CFRR is to increase the

overall effectiveness and productivity of

Federal R&D efforts in the areas of food,

nutrition, and renewable resources. The committee is charged with improving planning,

coordination, and communication among

Federal agencies; developing and updating

plans for Federal research programs; collecting, compiling, and disseminating information on food and renewable resources research; and preparing reports describing activities, findings, and recommendations of

the committee.

CFRR has not yet satisfactorily fulfilled its

role (OTA letters of inquiry to Federal agencies, 1980). As of early 1981, CFRR did not

have a classification of the food and agricultural research conducted or funded by these

agencies nor the amount of funds allocated

for such research. It does not yet actively

coordinate interagency activities. One reason

is that the committee is a relatively new feature within a well-entrenched bureaucracy.

Furthermore, it needs more specific, highly

defined objectives to be more effective, And

finally, the committee does not have the authority of individual agencies that might be

addressing the same problems from more authoritative positions.

THE 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

In 1890, Congress passed an act that

granted to certain Negro colleges and universities the same privileges as those provided by

the Merrill Act of 1862. However, as discussed in chapter III, equitable funding of the

1890 institutions, including Tuskegee Institute, has been a problem. It was not until

1972 that they received significant funding

for research and extension by congressional

act. Under the Food and Agriculture Act of

1977, these institutions acquired expanded

authority and responsibility. Although they

are funded almost wholly by Federal agencies, they are cooperating with the SAES on

certain regional projects.

The role and functions of the 1890 landgrant institutions include:

● meeting the needs of those people whom

the system was designed to serve;

●

●

●

●

focusing sharply on needs of people who

have been disadvantaged by systems and

circumstances over which they have no

control;

using unique methods to assist “hard-toreach” clientele;

maintaining a well-structured educational system through teaching, research,

and extension; and

providing educational programs that prepare individuals to function intelligently

in a democratic society.

According to the chairman of the Association of Research Coordinators of the 1890

Schools, “the most pressing deficiency of the

1890 Schools in fulfilling their obligation in

food and fiber research is pauperized laboratory facilities” (OTA letter of inquiry, 1980).
Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants ● 8 9

NONLAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES

For the purposes of this report, the term

“nonland-grant university” encompasses two

kinds of institutions: a) private universities

such as Harvard and Stanford that conduct

research which may have implications for

food and agriculture but whose main direction is elsewhere, and b) public State universities such as the California Polytechnic State

Universities or Texas Tech University that

have clearly identified food and agriculture

programs including research.

Historically, nonland-grant universities

have not been considered as part of the traditional U.S. agricultural research system, nor

have they had specific legislation or Federal

funds for agricultural research. As late as

1977’, Congress reaffirmed the role of USDA

as the lead agency in U.S. agricultural research and charged it with coordination functions identifying specifically the traditional

agricultural research institutions. So, in general, the nonland-grant universities, from the

congressional standpoint, seem to be outside

the traditional agricultural research system. *

Congress has, however, recognized their capability as research institutions, and they

have been funded through such agencies as

the National Institutes of Health, NSF, etc.

Further, Congress has also recognized their

potential value to U.S. agricultural research.

The special grants program makes provision

for those with recognized agricultural research capabilities, and the competitive

grants program makes all of them eligible to

compete for such grants.

*This includes public State universities which receive funds

from State legislatures for teaching and training of agriculturalists, but not for agricultural research.

Private Universities

Many of- the private institutions conduct indepth research in the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc., which form

the basis of most biological research on

which agricultural research is founded. Many

have strong departments in such sciences as

plant physiology, entomology, animal physiology, etc. (as do many land-grant universities), but their research usually is more

basic and may have no immediate application

to the solution of practical food and agricultural problems. Such research, however, frequently provides many of the breakthroughs

so important to the continued advances of

agricultural research. Their resources and expertise should be considered as valuable

resources to the U.S. agricultural research

system and used as funds and interest permit.

Private universities, unlike the public State

universities which receive substantial State

support, receive no general Federal or State

assistance and support their scientific research almost entirely from government

grants, endowments, and corporate contracts. A relatively small group—about 36 institutions—account for about 60 percent of

total Federal research expenditures in universities. The chief barrier to the performance of

sizable amounts of agricultural research in

these universities is lack of resources and the

fact that status and reward within science

disciplines put strong pressure on performing basic, rather than applied, research.

Because the paucity of agricultural research in private universities is largely a consequence of the status and reward structure

in scientists’ professions, it is not likely that

funding alone can make significant changes.

A frequently made charge, where the only
90 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural/ Research System

control is through grant funding, is that large

amounts of money for agricultural research

made available to basic scientists will often be

directed to different types of research

(Lewontin, 1980).

Nevertheless, there are a number of scientists in private universities who would carry

out relevant agriculturally related research if

they had the funds to do so. For example,

there are engineering, chemistry, and business schools at these universities that could

conduct product development and management studies in agriculturally related areas.

An expanded competitive grants program in

agriculture would be helpful in funding such

projects and perhaps in beginning to give

legitimacy to agricultural research in private

universities. Such a program should be in the

hands of a peer-review system so that the

criterion of excellence and relevance could be

enforced in spirit as well as in letter.

Public State Universities

This group includes about 180 institutions

in 19 States; 58 of them have agricultural programs. These 58 institutions perceive their

roles as providing teaching, research, and

public service to their regions and States in

accordance with guidelines set forth by State

legislatures. Compared with SAES, these institutions are small. Most of them have become involved in food and agricultural research during the last 30 years and their research is concentrated mainly on local problems. A 1979 survey showed that State appropriations provided 30 percent of their

total research funds; associations and private

grants, about 39 percent; Federal sources

other than USDA, 21 percent; and USDA and

land-grant universities provided the rest

(Smallwood, 1980).

Generally there has been little coordination

among the land-grant universities, USDA,

and the nonland-grant State universities, The

primary deterrent to cooperation has been a

lack of format for exchanging information or

for planning and communicating. This situation improved somewhat with the passage of

the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 and the

establishment of the Joint Council on Food

and Agricultural Sciences. Furthermore,

most of these nonland-grant universities have

no Federal or State charter for research, thus

making financing difficult except for competitive grant activities.

RESEARCH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Foundations award grants to performers of

agricultural research. There are some 400

American philanthropic foundations that

award grants of $5,000 or more (Hildreth and

MacLean, 1981). The nature and purpose of

the grants vary with the interest and purpose

of the granting foundations. Three of the

largest foundations are Ford, Rockefeller, and

Kellogg. Of these, only Rockefeller is sponsoring agricultural research related to U.S. agriculture. Although the Ford Foundation has

supported agricultural research since 1950, it

has gone primarily to programs in the developing countries, rather than to grant recipients in the United States. Interests of the

W. K. Kellogg Foundation have been concentrated in extension, outreach, and training

areas.

Compared with the quantity of funds available to the performers of agricultural research from public sources, the amounts provided by foundations are indeed modest. The

decision to make each grant is based on policies established by the individual foundation’s governing board. Each foundation

seeks to be at the forefront of the areas chosen

for emphasis. As such, these grants, while

modest, may well play a significant role in the

continuing development and adjustment of

the performers of agricultural research to

meet the emerging problems in food and agricultural science.
Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants ● 9 1

Private Enterprise

Food and agricultural industries contribute

significantly to the productivity and efficiency of American agriculture in a number of

ways: a) invention, improvement, and manufacture of farm machines; b) selection and improvement of crop plants and animals; c) development and production of a wide range of

agricultural chemicals such as insecticides,

fungicides, fertilizers, antibiotics, etc.; d)

processing, preservation, and production of

animal feed and human food; and e) development and improvement of a wide variety of

farm structures.

Accurate figures on the size and scope of

industry’s input to agricultural research, as

discussed in chapter IV, are unavailable,

although several attempts have been made in

the past to determine this information. In

1966, the Agricultural Research Institute

(ARI) conducted an extensive survey of 825

private companies that were known to have

agricultural research programs. Only 40 percent of the companies responded. The results

indicated that the private sector was expending about $460 million annually for agricultural research. Of this amount, 9 percent

went for basic research, 50 percent for applied, and 41 percent for engineering and development. Major fields of interest in industry research at the time of the survey were

chemicals, feed, pesticides, fertilizers, and

machinery (Moseman, et al., 1981). Food research was concentrated largely on product

development and food processing.

In 1976, ARI attempted to update the 1966

data, but the response to questionnaires again

was not wholly satisfactory. Of the 240 companies reporting, total R&D expenditures

were $575 million. ARI felt the survey returns

were insufficient to justify extrapolation to

the entire industry, so the results were presented on the basis of only those companies

reporting. A new factor turning up in the

1976 survey was that many companies were

spending sizable amounts for “defensive research” —i.e., research required to meet Government regulations or undertaken in defense

of existing products (Moseman, et al., 1981).

Although different segments of the agricultural industry perceive their roles differently,

most of them are generally motivated by economic reasons. If management can foresee a

profit from their research efforts, funds are

set aside for the research program. In many

cases, industry research results in payoffs for

both the farm sector and consumers.

In recent years, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has adopted a policy of

determining which research areas should be

performed primarily by industry. OMB has

done this with the concurrence of USDA and

with little or no discussion with industry

itself. The assumption by OMB of the authority to determine unilaterally what work should

be done by industry has resulted in less

cooperation from industry and in the omission of some necessary types of research.

OMB judgments have little effect on the types

of research industry undertakes. A result of

this situation is that there are certain areas of

research in which both agriculture and the

consuming public are not being served as

they should. One of these areas is the postharvest technology research program (Irving,

et al., 1981).

Although there are mixed views about

USDA conducting post-harvest technology

research, industries are generally in agreement with each other that much of this type

of research should be performed by the public

sector (USDA, 1979). Some of the critical elements in such research are reducing energy

consumption in food processing, extending

product shelf life, reducing transportation

and storage costs, and minimizing processing

losses. It is doubtful that the private sector

is capable of doing the complete research

needed in this area. Basic principles of postharvest technology should be researched by

the public sector for the benefit of consumers.

In turn, industry should follow through on

adaptive R&D as needed (Moseman et al.,

1981).

Another area in which agriculture is not

being fully served is that of improving efficiencies on farms through mechanization research. This was most clearly stated by Secre-
— —

92 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

tary of Agriculture Bergland who declared

that no Federal funds (excluding Hatch

funds) should be used for this purpose if it

displaced labor. Since the major part of agricultural mechanization has resulted from industry efforts, it is likely that such a USDA

policy would adversely affect small industry

types that would have insufficient financial

resources for developing more effective farm

equipment for specific crops and specific

localities.

The above policies are viewed by some as

leading toward a concentration of R&D in the

hands of larger industrial corporations. Thus,

small companies and small farms—which are

supposed to be helped by USDA policy—are

left without the help they should have. Basically, then, it is important to recognize that private industry contributes a substantial

amount to research and technology development in the United States.

Those that have their own research programs tend to view their role in R&D primarily from a business investment standpoint.

They conduct research in areas of interest to

the company and in areas which may give it

proprietary advantages. Much of the research

conducted by agribusiness has general use

and is of great value to the public, but agribusiness cannot be depended on to conduct a

wide array of research in any given area. It is

likely that industry might underinvest in

research if the public sector were conducting

similar research, It is difficult for the public

sector (and probably for the industrial firms

themselves) to anticipate the exact research

area and the effort that will be expended on

research of importanc e to agribusiness.

Therefore, the public sector must maintain a

research effort commensurate with public interest in such areas.

The greatest need seems to be a wider interchange of ideas at the planning level among

USDA, SAES, and industry, The primary

needs, therefore, appear to be communication, mutual respect, and a recognition that

the solution of food and agricultural problems is of national importance and

approached on a cooperative basis.

must be

ROLE OF SAES AND USDA

During the early history of the development of the SAES there was concern about

the relationship of the research stations to the

land-grant colleges, There was an eve n

greater concern about the acquisition of Federal funding through USDA for support of

SAES, free from excessive domination by the

Federal Commissioner of Agriculture. The

Hatch Act of 1887 resolved many of these

issues and provided for a high degree of

autonomy by the individual States in designing and conducting research.

Additional legislation providing support

for the establishment and strengthening of

the SAES clearly recognizes the stations as

distinct entities in the land-grant colleges. In

the early years, the SAES were concerned

almost totally with State and local research

problems. However, as they grew and additional acts were passed by Congress providing wider use of funds, their research broadened to include regional, national, and international activities,

Meanwhile, USDA has developed a wide

range of research laboratories, stations, and

activities that not only includes national,

regional, and international activities but at

times involves strictly local problems.

This broad base for application of Federal

and State resources to research problems has

led some, including Congress, to question the

degree of research planning and coordination

that exists, especially at the top levels of administration. There seems to be considerable

duplication of effort and vying for funds. The

question of research priorities continues to be

a subject of disagreement—basic v. applied,
Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants ● 9 3

commodity v. discipline, marketing V . production, etc.—and Congress and other interested groups have increasingly been concerned.

Most agricultural research administrators

—whether SAES, USDA, or other—recognize

there is not unanimity of thought in how best

to manage and carry out U.S. agricultural research and the appropriate roles of the various actors for an effective and efficient research system.

Organization and Facilities

James Kendrick, vice president for agricultural and university services, University of

California, recently suggested a plan to revitalize our agricultural research system and

at the same time strengthen the partnership

between Federal and State educational institutions. He said:

The core of this plan would be a USDAdeveloped National Research Institute for

Agriculture and Food Sciences. Founded

with the very best of facilities and scientific

expertise, the Institute should be established

with a goal of making it the world’s foremost

center for basic research in agriculture and

food science. It should provide support and

stimulation which no other organization or

agency could duplicate. It should have the

capacity to attract the most competent scientists and specialists, not only for permanent

affiliation, but also for short-term projects.

As an integral and indispensable part of this

plan, the Institute should establish a number

of prestigious resident professional fellowships in the agricultural and food sciences, to

be offered annually on a competitive basis to

the scientific community at large.

As important as such an Institute would be

to our future basic research needs, it should

not be expected to satisfy the total requirements for a comprehensive research program, The diversity in both commodities and

geography which characterizes U.S. agriculture makes the problem too complex for a

single-program approach. Regional USDA

programs and State agricultural research,

teaching, and extension activities must also

be maintained and strengthened if we are to

move from theory to practice without undue

delay.

The PSAC panel of 1962 recognized the importance of having a strong and reputable national agricultural research center commensurate with the stature of U.S. agricultural

research in international agriculture. The

continued reluctance of USDA in recent

years to support research facilities or staffing

at the Beltsville Research Center has rendered

the center less effective in furnishing research leadership and scientific inputs. It has

also reduced the efficiency of conducting research at this location because of inadequate

technical and support staff (Science and Agriculture, 1962).

The location of new laboratories and allocation of more resources to Beltsville, as contrasted with alternate locations, requires a

sense of conviction on the part of the leadership of SEA as well as a commitment to research by the Secretary of Agricultur e

(Pound, 1980). The USDA library was erected

at Beltsville, Md., in the mid-1960’s when the

Secretary of Agriculture took the position

that “the location of USDA research facilities

would not be determined by the White House

staff, OMB, or others, but by the Department”

(Moseman, et al., 1981).

The justification for strengthening other national and regional research stations and

laboratories is that these facilities exist, they

were designed to serve national and regional

requirements, and they should be put to good

use in meeting the needs of USDA and the

SAES in improving the Nation’s agriculture.

A major factor in the close cooperation of

USDA and the SAES has been the association

of research staff working either in Federal

laboratories or in State-owned facilities at the

cooperating SAES. This has been basic in

maintaining strong cooperative relations and

in sustaining mutual respect of the cooperating partners and should be given high priority

in future strengthening of the national agricultural system.
. .

94 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Partnership Difficulties

Don Paarlberg, at the 1980 Agricultural

Outlook Conference, made the following

statement:

The need for some degree of relatedness in

the various agricultural research undertakings is clear.

The Agricultural Experiment Stations are

perhaps unique among the tax-supported research institutions. They were set up nearly a

century ago, when the prevailing mood was

more individualistic than it has recently become. Modern macro concepts had not been

invented. The States were more important

then. Central direction was anathema. Volunteerism and cooperation were in vogue. The

experiment stations reflected their times.

Traditionally, decision-making was shared

among the clientele groups, the individual

researcher, his department head, his director

of research, his dean, the university president, the State legislature, and the Congress.

With formula funding, the Department of

Agriculture had limited input,

The recent surge of tax-supported research

in fields other than agriculture and in agencies other than the experiment stations is the

product of different times: more central

direction, more team activity, more macro

and less micro, more concern about externalities, less emphasis on the criterion long used

by the land grant colleges–efficiency.

There is now an effort, on the part of those

who provide the Federal funds, to bring the

experiment stations and agricultural research generally into the modern setting,

with more central direction, to have it conform to the current mood. The experiment

stations, with their proud history, understandably resist this effort.

Some form of leadership is essential.

Strong central direction and coercion are repugnant for a number of good reasons. A

loose voluntary cooperative type of guidance

is desirable. The accepted though much

scorned word for this is “coordination.” It

must be exercised if the research community

is to appear to the appropriations committees

as something other than a group of bureaucratic self-seekers. Who should supply this

coordination? In my view, the Science and

Education Administration of the Department

of Agriculture should exercise the coordinating role, with input from the directors of

research at the experiment stations and other

institutions with research capability in agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture is central,

it is directly involved in the acquisition and

distribution of Federal funds, and it comes

closer to perceiving the broad public interest

than does any other unit in the system. The

exercise of this role is extremely difficult. An

experienced administrator will take on this

role with some reluctance, as an exercise of

responsibility, not assertively, as an expression of power (Paarlberg, 1980).

Emery Castle, in an address to the National

Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges in November 1980, said:

Federalism is undergoing constant evaluation on many fronts but the unique historic

relationship between the USDA and the landgrants has evolved into a set of institutional

relations that are unrivaled in complexity.

The question should be faced squarely as to

whether the historic partnership between the

USDA and the land-grants remains viable.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, the

numerous constituencies that must be served

by USDA, together with the multiple ties between higher education and the Federal Government, raise questions as to whether the

partners still are marching to the same drummer. What happens during the next four

years probably will decide whether the point

of no return on the road to dissolution of the

partnership has been passed, or whether recent events will be viewed only as a series of

family spats, not unlike a political party’s national convention—a necessary prelude to battle against a common enemy (Castle, 1980).

Funding and Roles

Many comment that the problem is a result

of the continuing tight budget and that all

problems would be solved if only there were

enough money. While undoubtedly the problems are exacerbated by a continuing tight

budget, this is only a superficial answer. The

facts are that at the administrative level, there

is, in a general sense, no agreement on the
Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants ● 9 5

roles of the SAES and USDA, and until there

is some understanding and agreement of the

roles of these two primary public actors in

U.S. food and agricultural research, there can

be no effective agreement on overall cooperation in the very important aspects of U.S.

agricultural research. Effective cooperation

between any two people, organizations, or nations requires agreement on the subjects on

which to cooperate and on the roles of each,

and each must cooperate from a base of relative strength. To an outsider of the system, it

does not appear that this should be a difficult

task if the actors can realistically evaluate

their roles, strengths, and responsibilities in

an atmosphere free of bureaucratic considerations.

Federal formula funds allocated to the

States are used primarily to supplement funding of State programs designed to solve problems of State and local needs. The director of

the SAES is accountable for all such funds going to the State experiment station. Most of

these programs contribute to solving problems of regional and national importance, but

Federal formula funds do not have regional or

national problem solution as their primary

objective, nor is priority determined by such

needs.

State legislatures appropriate funds to their

SAES to solve State and local problems.

Again, accountability for their expenditure

usually lies with the director of the SAES. Undoubtedly, most State research has contributed to the solution of regional and national

problems, but such contributions have been

adjuncts to solving State and local problems.

It is also common for two or more States to

pool resources to work on regional problems

of common interest to them. But even in these

instances, control and accountability are not

centralized in any one person or institution.

Hence it appears that under the present

system, it would be difficult for one or several

SAES to plan and conduct a full effective program responsible for the solution of regional

or national problems even though they may

contribute significantly to the solution of

such problems. Some SAES directors do not

agree with this statement, but they have yet to

devise a plan that would give assurance to the

contrary.

Federal funds are allocated to Agriculture

Research (AR) primarily for problems of regional or national importance, where the

nature or magnitude of the problem is such

that a single State cannot provide the resources for its solution and where there is

some regional or national concern for the

problem, or from an industrial standpoint

where the risk is too high or demanding for

any one industrial component. AR programs

include those involving resources and activities that are jointly developed by AR and

SAES. AR also has responsibility for servicing the research needs of action agencies

within USDA. AR is accountable to the executive and legislative branches of Government for the administration and national coordination of such programs.

It appears that insofar as Federal formula

funds are concerned, the role of the SAES

should be primarily concerned with State and

local problems and those problems of a regional, national, or international nature that

are an extension of their State and local problems. Insofar as special grant or other grant

funds are concerned, SAES should compete

on their ability to perform the needed tasks effectively.

AR should concentrate on agricultural

problems important to the Nation that no one

State or private group has the resources, facilities, need, or incentive to solve and those research programs as required to fulfill the

stated objectives of Congress, the President,

and the Secretary of Agriculture. AR should

carry out its role by working as a partner with

SAES to achieve complementarily and,

through cooperation with private universities

and industry, to coordinate its own contribution to achieve national goals most effectively. This should be done with effort by both

USDA and SAES to collaborate when appropriate in such a way to assist the research performance and respect the integrity, role, and

decisionmaking responsibilities of the institutions.
96 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

PRINCIPAL

● There is a role for a strong national

USDA research program. This role has been

carried out in the past by USDA and Federal

funding to SAES. Historically, the USDA role

was associated with broad regional, national,

and international activities. The role of SAES,

insofar as Federal funds are concerned, has

been primarily for local, State, and regional

problems. These roles are becoming confused.

● Grant funds provide resources to further

the programs of USDA. SAES, nonland-grant

universities, and others compete for these

funds on the basis of their interest in and

ability to do Federal research. This is a

desirable aspect of the total research effort.

● The Committee on Food and Renewable

Resources has not yet satisfactorily fulfilled

its role, This is because it is a relatively new

feature in a well-entrenched bureaucracy; it

FINDINGS

needs more specific, highly defined objectives; and it does not have the authority of individual agencies that might be addressing

the same problems from more authoritative

positions.

● Under the 1977 Food and Agriculture

Act, the 1890 land-grant institutions participate in research and receive most of their

funds from Federal resources. They have

pressing needs; one of the more important is

improved facilities. Coordination with the

rest of the system is less than adequate.

● The private sector tends to view its role

primarily from a profit potential. It conducts

research in areas of interest to the companies

and in areas that may give them proprietary

advantages. There are significant research

areas of interest to the public that are not receiving and will not receive adequate research attention if left to the private sector,

Castle, Emery N., “Agricultural Education and

Research: Academic Crown Jewels or Country

Cousins, ” Kellogg Foundation Lecture, National Association of State Universities and

Land-Grant Colleges, Nov. 18, 1980.

Hildreth, R, J., and Jayne T. MacLean, “Foundation Grants to Performers of Domestic Agricultural Research, Teaching, and Extension, ”

draft document, Jan. 15, 1981.

Kendrick, James B., Jr., “Revitalize U.S. Agricultural Food Research, ” editorial, California

Agriculture, January 1981.

Lewontin, R, C., “Agricultural Research in NonLand-Grant Institutions, ” OTA background

paper, September 1980.

Moseman, A. H., J. S. Robins, and Harold Wilcke,

“The Role of the Federal Government, State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Private Sector in Research, ” OTA background

paper, September 1981.

National Academy of Sciences, World Food and

Nutrition Study (Washington, D. C.: NAS,

1977).

Paarlberg, Don, “Food and Agriculture Research

Agenda, ” Agriculture Outlook Conference,

USDA, November 1980,

Pound, Glenn S., “The Development of the AgriREFERENCES

cultural Research Structure in the United

States,” The ~. C. WaJker Lecture in Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Nov. 14, 1979.

Public Law 95-113, 95th Cong,, Sept. 29, 1977, Title XIV—National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977’,

Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical

Information Service, 1%-213-338, April 1972.

Responses to OTA letters of inquiry to Federal

agencies, 1980.

Science and Agriculture, Life Science Panel of the

President’s Science Advisory Committee, January 1962.

Smallwood, Charles M., “Role of the NonlandGrant Universities With Colleges of Agriculture in Food and Agriculture Research, ” OTA

background paper, December 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA/AR, “PostHarvest Technology Research Assessment, ”

March 1979.

Wade, Nicholas, “Agriculture: NAS Panel

Charges Inept Management, Poor Research, ”

Science, vol. 179, Jan. 5, 197’3.
Chapter VI

Management, Structure,

and Policy

.

Chapter VI

Management, Structure, and Policy

Of all the past assessments of the U.S. food

and agricultural research system, few have

made a serious attempt to evaluate the problems inherent to management policy. Yet

today, as research missions become more

varied, as new priorities vie for attention, and

as funding becomes more stringent, the need

arises for finding ways to strengthen leadership standards and performance at all levels

of operation. Accomplishing such goals requires a thorough and honest analysis of management, structure, and policy within the

Federal/State agricultural research system.

This study evaluates four research agencies

within the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA): the Science and Education Administration’s (SEA) Agricultural Research (AR),

Cooperative Research (CR), Human Nutrition

(HN), and the social science research programs conducted by the Economics and Statistics Service (ESS). Included also is an overview of how the State agricultural experiment

stations (SAES) are organized and managed.

All of these agencies are experiencing changing roles and may need to consider new policy options that would maximize their research potential.

In striving for effective research management, one important component to consider

is a planned systematic classification of the

research problems at hand. OTA’s study describes the criteria for categorizing the various levels of fund allocation and for assessing

the responsibility and accountability of those

who must make the ultimate decisions.

Classification of agricultural research problems for management use is a complex process. Three broad areas or levels of activity are

in the hands of different decisionmakers. The

classification system for each area may vary,

and, although there may be some overlapping

among areas, the principal responsibilities

are clear-cut. These three areas are: a) broad

national policy issues including agriculture,

b) issues solely within agricultural research,

and c) issues within major research activities.

National Policy Issues, Issues at the national

level relate primarily to management problems such as responsibility, accountability,

and funding. Here, the importance of research and development (R&D) at the Federal

level is evaluated in relation to other federally

funded activities and the relative level of importance of agricultural R&D v. R&D in other

sectors (such as defense or energy). For the

most part, these major policy decisions are

made outside the realm of the agricultural

sector. They are primarily political decisions

made by the President in his annual budget,

with help from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP), and Congress.

As a general rule, decisions affecting this

broad area are not conscious decisions directed specifically, for example, at the percentage of the Federal budget for R&D or agricultural R&D. They come about as part of

larger decisions concerning perception relating to national issues or the well-being of the

country. Furthermore, these changes come

about gradually. They are incremental. Criteria used at this level are primarily related to

national concerns of the various sectors of the

economy and the relative importance of each.

Other criteria have been involved at this level

in the past. For example, when Sputnik first

rose above the horizon in the late 1950’s,

there was a clamor for more basic research—

almost across the board.

99
.

100 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Within Agricultural Research. Issues at the

second level—within agricultural research—

relate to programs, funding levels, management of Federal funds, accountability, and

decisions on who does what and the relationships to other research factors.

The Secretary of Agriculture, his senior

staff, SAES directors, OSTP, OMB, and Congress have varying degrees of input at this

level,

Scientists may have some input at the second level, but by the time it reaches the final

decision level in USDA, most of their input

cannot be identified. SAES have significant

input in the programs and budgets that go to

the Secretary for formula and competitive

grant funding. The SAES also have input

through lobbying at the congressional level.

USDA research administrators, likewise,

have significant input within the Department

in those programs and budgets relating to

their areas of activity. Although OMB usually

sets limits on total funding for USDA, the

Secretary has some discretion in allocating

levels of funding for activities in his Department. In other words, he can give research

high or low priority. Congress has the final

word for broad priority areas and funding

levels, Thus, a wide array of factors is involved, almost exclusively outside the working scientist’s level.

Organized groups such as producers, consumers, and environmentalists also have influence at the second level. Budgets and programs approved by Congress are usually specific as to the general intent of their use. The

major issues relate to criteria for priority setting—i.e., responsibility, accountability, and

further emphasis on who does what.

Within Research Activities, At the third, or

lowest, level of decisionmaking, research administrators and their scientific staff make

the major decisions on programs and budget

allocations. Nearly always, it is the research

scientist who decides how to conduct such research. SAES directors working with their

department heads have a fairly free hand in

allocating formula funds and State funds.

Criteria Used for

Classifying Research

Four major criteria are used for classifying

agricultural research activity: 1) the geographical area involved in the research problems, 2) the kind of research required to solve

the problems—e.g., basic, applied, etc.; 3)

research problem area—e.g., appraisal of soil

resources; and 4) program structure—i.e., relating research problems to agency goals and

missions, There are some additional minor

criteria often used in classifying research (see

Flatt, et al., 1980).

Geographical Area

A common criterion for classifying research is to consider the geographical area involved. Five such areas are recognized: local,

State, regional, National, and international,

Any problem related to agriculture that occurs within a State or a portion of a State is

classified as a State or local problem. One example of this might be determination of crop

and animal adaptability to various locations

and soil types within a State.

Any problem related to agriculture that extends over a major portion of two or more

States—or affects the economy, environment,

or social conditions of the major portion of

two or more States—is classified as a regional

research problem, Region does not refer to

SAES or SEA/AR regional areas, but to problem areas. One example of a regional research

problem would be development of a soybean

variety suitable for the Coastal Plains area of

the Southeastern United States,

Any agricultural problem that extends over

a considerable portion of more than one

region or has a major impact on the economy,

environment, or social conditions of more

than one region is classified as a national research problem. Examples include a migratory pest or disease that affects major portions of two or more regions and human

nutrition.

Problems that affect the agriculture of two

or more countries and can be solved by the
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 101

cooperation of the countries affected are classified as international research problems. An

example is the control or eradication of the

screwworm, an ectoparasite of livestock,

which overwinters in Mexico and, if not controlled, spreads into the United States. It is

being attacked in Mexico by a joint effort of

government agencies in Mexico and the

United States.

The advantage, for management purposes,

of differentiating research problems as international, National, regional, State, or local is

accountability for funds. It may be used in a

general way to arbitrarily distinguish between the major roles to be assumed by State

research agencies as compared to Federal

agencies such as SEA/AR. State-appropriated

funds are often intended to be used to support

research that would have a direct bearing on

solving local and State problems. Federal formula funds (Hatch) appropriated to States are

used primarily to solve problems of the State

or region. But collectively, in coordination

with SEA/AR and other groups, they contribute to the solution of problems of national

and international concern.

Another advantage of the State/National/regional classification is that it tends to increase the desire of Federal and State scientists to cooperate. Professional recognition

and promotion in academic rank in some

State universities are related to national and

international accomplishments; this classification can be of benefit under such conditions.

A disadvantage of using this classification

at the State level is that most research is concerned with State problems, even though that

same research may have regional, national, or

international significance, So, within a State,

additional classifications are needed.

From a Federal standpoint, the advantage

for management purposes of differentiating

research problems as international, National,

regional, State, or local is to reach an understanding as to who will accept the primary responsibility for solving a research problem,

SEA/AR, for instance, has the primary responsibility for conducting research that is

national or regional in scope. To do this it is

necessary to define as precisely as possible

what the geographical criteria are.

For example, assume that the boll weevil

has spread across the Southeastern Cotton

Belt and is seriously damaging cotton in 12

States. Also assume that in all 12 States

SEA/AR and ESS have various research programs related to the control of the boll weevil.

While the cotton in each State is being affected, and thus to that State it is a State

research problem, it is by definition a regional problem. Therefore, if a coordinated

regional research thrust is initiated, it would

be highly desirable for SEA/AR to furnish a

scientist to coordinate the regional research

effort, assuming that SEA/AR had, or could

employ, a competent scientist who was an effective leader. The SEA/AR scientist would

normally have fewer problems traveling anywhere in the region at any time needed to do

the coordination.

Two disadvantages for management purposes of using the geographical criterion for

classifying research problems are: 1) science

knows no boundaries; therefore, it is difficult

to limit scientific thought to one classification

system; and 2) some State scientists, especially those using contractor grant funds, maybe

working on problems that are insignificant to

the State. They may or may not be interested

in cooperating on the solution to regional or

national problems.

Kind of Research

Another common criterion for classifying

research is by the kind of approach or type of

endeavor needed to solve the problem. The

three classifications generally used are basic,

applied, and developmental.

Basic research is directed toward increased

knowledge in science where the investigator

is concerned primarily with gaining a fuller

knowledge or understanding of the subject

under study.

Applied research is directed toward practical application of knowledge where the in-
102 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

vestigator is primarily interested in a practical use of the knowledge or understanding

for the purpose of meeting a recognized need.

Developmental research is the systematic

use of scientific knowledge and understanding gained from research directed toward the

production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes.

The major advantage of using these criteria

to classify research is for funding by Federal

agencies such as the National Science Foundation. USDA has become aware in recent

years of the need for more basic research, and

such a classification system enables it to allocate funds in this manner across disciplines

and political boundaries. Most USDA research is mission oriented, which is defined

as the aim of achieving a worthwhile goal—

e.g., controlling harmful insects or increasing

the per-acre yield of soybeans. In the process

of achieving such a mission or goal, scientists

may conduct research that embodies all three

components—basic, applied, and developmental. Today there are so many problems of

agricultural production, harvesting, conservation, processing, marketing, and transportation that research classified as “applied”

will continue to be stressed by State and Federal leaders.

A disadvantage of using these criteria is

one of semantics. What one person perceives

as being basic research is viewed by another

equally qualified person as being applied. Research is a continuum rather than being

clearly defined. Attempts to draw a line of demarcation between basic and applied research are illusory (Pino, 1980). Pasteur once

remarked that “there is no pure science or applied science— only science and the application of science. ” More important is that the

research, whatever its classification, can have

an ultimate beneficial effect for mankind.

Research Problem Area

A third criterion used for classifying agricultural research is to group problems in an

area in which all of them have one or more

common characteristics. This criterion is

used by the Current Research Information

System (CRIS), which is a computerized storage and retrieval system developed by USDA

and the SAES. An example of a research

problem area (RPA) used by CRIS is development of domestic markets for farm products.

Because CRIS recognizes 98 RPAs, they are

grouped together under nine goals to facilitate easier storage and retrieval, (For further

elaboration, see Flatt, et al., 1980.)

Each CRIS project is also classified by activity, commodity, and field of science. Below

is an example of the use of the CRIS classification system for the research project “coating cotton for open-end spinning. ”

Goal V: Improve Efficiency in the Marketing System,

Research Problem Area (RPA) 501, Improvement of grades and standards—crop

and animal products.

Activity 5600, Chemical and physical properties of nonfood products.

Commodity 2100, Cotton,

Field of Science, 1525, Chemistry—inorganic.

In preparing inventories for planning purposes, the CRIS reporting units are usually

aggregated into 48 research programs and

these in turn are aggregated into nine research program groups.

CRIS is used to report all current research

projects of USDA agencies, SAES, and parts

of other agricultural research conducted by

nonland-grant universities. It is useful for

State, National, and regional planning purposes.

Theoretically, CRIS provides information

on what research is being done by whom and

where. It also provides information on

methods and procedures, scope of the research, and progress to date. CRIS can be

faulted, however, for the fact that some of the

data it provides are usually 2 to 3 years out of

date. Nevertheless, CRIS is extremely useful

in identifying what is being or has been done

and by whom. Since most research is continuous, even though modified, information retrieved from CRIS has current aspects.
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 103

Despite its drawbacks, CRIS gives managers a tool to assist them in planning programs and the ability, if the information is updated, to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Program Structure

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

developed the Management and Planning

System (MAPS) which described its component research programs for planning and

evaluation. Essentially, MAPS is a program

structure device for organizing the subject

matter of research so that it relates most effectively to the activities and plans of the agency.

It provides the framework for the supporting

systems and information needed for planning, reporting, evaluating, budgeting, and

executing research.

MAPS is a logical continuation of the developmental program structure that extends to

the individual research project. It consists of

missions, goals, programs, work-reporting

units, and research projects. It relies heavily

on reports from national research program

coordinators which are used to provide a

summary national report. This report, along

with periodic site visits and national program

reviews, facilitates tracking all research, assessing progress, keeping abreast of developing technologies, and sensing the importance

of developing research problems.

Actually, MAPS is an adjunct to CRIS and

in some areas of activity uses the computer facilities of CRIS. There is merit in a possible

combination of CRIS and MAPS into one

classification system. The CRIS system is

used as the basic input for State, Federal, and

some private agricultural research organizations, but the method of aggregation for planning and management purposes differs

among the major performers. A modified system of classification could be beneficial.

Principal Findings

● No one system of research classification

is sufficient for all management purposes.

Some systems work better than others, and

certain combinations of systems can be effective. Insofar as USDA is concerned, the local,

State, regional, National, and international

classification systems along with MAPS, appear to be an effective way to manage research. USDA also uses CRIS as a way of

maintaining knowledge of research being

done by other institutions and the scientists

involved. This classification system is effective in allocating Federal funds to States

through CR. There is little management of the

formula funds, but contract and grant funds,

with the help of MAPS, can also be managed

in this manner.

● This system is also of importance to

SAES, since most of their funds come from

State legislatures and are primarily for local

and State problems. Federal formula funds

are also primarily for problems of local and

State importance but can be used on problems of regional, national, or international

significance. But even here, such problems

also have facets of local and State concern,

and generally it is these aspects that are of

major concern to the State scientists.

EVALUATION OF USDA MANAGEMENT

The diversity, complexity, and broad scope ●

of problems in agricultural research were recognized by Congress in 1977 when it defined

the food and agricultural sciences in title XIV

of Public Law 95-113. Title XIV states:

Sciences related to food and agriculture in ●

the broadest sense, include the social, economic, and political considerations of:

AND POLICY PROGRAMS

Agriculture, including soil and water

conservation and use, the use of organic waste materials to improve soil

tilth and fertility, plant and animal production and protection, and plant and

animal health.

The processing, distributing, marketing, and utilization of foods and agricultural products.
104 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

—. ..— -.. . ———

●

●

●

●

Forestry, including range management, production of forest and range

products, multiple use of forest and

range lands, and urban forestry.

Aquiculture.

Home economics, human nutrition,

and family life.

Rural and community development.

The situation is further complicated by the

fact that research programs must take into account the attendant problems in exporting

food and agricultural products and some of

the problems associated with U.S. aid to developing countries. As stated in the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee Report of April 1972:

Agricultural research cannot be restricted

to empirical comparisons of methods to increase productivity. The agricultural industry requires research, policy, and programs

sufficient to challenge the best efforts and

minds of America, On its success depends in

large part the welfare of the people of the

United States and of the world. It must be

given the attention, careful and imaginative

planning, and best judgment of the government and of scientists,

Over the years, policy changes within

USDA have affected the organizational structure of USDA. Moreover, environmental and

social issues have, at various times, had sharp

impacts not only on management methods

but also on social perception of the Federal

agricultural system. Many of these changes

and the resultant impacts have involved

USDA’s main research agency, the Science

and Education Administration,

Science and Education

Administration

SEA was created in 1977 by USDA in an attempt to improve coordination of research

and extension at all levels of Government.

Through early 1981 SEA included what was

formerly ARS, the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), the Extension Service

(ES), and the National Agricultural Library,

Additional responsibilities in human nutrition, technical information systems, higher

education, and program management, planning, and evaluation were assigned to it by

the Secretary, The functional research units

of SEA include AR, CR, and HN. *

SEA management includes a program analysis staff whose function is largely one of fostering coordination, and a program planning

staff whose major role is to help develop an

integrated budget for SEA,

Internal SEA decisions are made by the

director and associate director in consultation with the management team. The team

consists of the heads of AR, CR, ES, HN,

Technical Information, Joint Planning and

Evaluation, Higher Education, Special Programs, and Administrative Management. In

addition, representatives of subunits usually

attend as nonvoting but often participating

members. In reality, therefore, more than the

above 11 attend. The management team’s

function is to provide coordination and establish policy that affects the subunits. To date,

one of its main activities has been related to

budget preparation. Three of the above agencies are of special concern to this study and

addressed in some detail, They are: SEA-AR,

SEA-CR, and SEA-HN.

Agricultural Research

USDA, in the recent publication “The Mission of the Science and Education Administration—Agricultural Research,” outlines the

mission and goals, the role and special capability of SEA/AR, the organization and functions, and gives a description of a wide range

of research programs. It also includes a compilation of the statutes relating to the agricultural research activities of the SEA/AR.

The foregoing statements and document

identify the scope and complexity of the agricultural sector and the research required to

serve it. The publication further describes:

* 1n June 1981, USDA announced a reorganization that eliminated SEA and reestablished ARS, CSRS, and ES. Most of HN

~?as merged into ARS. USDA established an Office of SCience

and Education to establish broad agricultural research policies, planning, and coordination. These changes are discussed in ch. X and app. A.
Ch.VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 105

..—

a) the SEA/AR responsibilities for the national program, b) the partnership with the

SAES, and c) the association with industry.

The document provides a good framework

for the assessment of the national research

system. The critical questions, however, are

whether the system is functioning as the

paper purports; whether the responsibilities

of USDA, SAES, and the private sector are as

clearly defined as indicated; whether the relationships are actually as stated; and whether

the organization, operations, and leadership

are of the nature and caliber to make the system work.

The USDA report furnishes the following

guidance with respect to national and regional programs:

1. As the USDA’s in-house agricultural research unit, SEA/AR has major responsibilities for conducting and leading the

national agricultural research effort.

2. The SAES, with mainly local and regional interests, work in cooperation on

national and broad regional research

efforts.

The foregoing are the longstanding definitions of the respective USDA and SAES primary responsibilities and areas of concern.

However, because of the blurring of these national and regional generalized responsibilities and problems relating to funding at the

Federal level, the partnership has become

somewhat confused and increasingly uncertain in the last decade.

It is necessary to adapt and adjust the national research capabilities to meet continually changing requirements of those served by

agricultural research. This has been particularly critical in the past few decades as

the continuing needs of farmers for improved

technology were joined by the new and increasingly persistent demands of other sectors of society for answers to environment

and consumer interest problems.

Reorganization of 1972

As discussed in chapter III, the reorganization of USDA’s ARS in 1972 called for two

major staff units at the headquarters to support the administrator’s office. The first staff

unit would be composed of the national program staff (NPS), four assistant administrators and their staff specialists. It would be

concerned with policy and program development, evaluation, and coordination. The second major staff unit would be concerned with

business administration, under a deputy administrator for administrative management.

Smaller support staffs were to be responsible

for national phases of information, international programs, and similar assignments.

The major thrust of the reorganization was

to assign the line operating authority to the

field, with four regional deputy administrators, and four associate deputies, to be located within each of the four SAES regions.

Each regional deputy administrator would

have an administrative services staff, together

with a program planning, development, and

evaluation staff, and information and biometrical service support.

Each of the four regions was further subdivided into a series of research area centers,

under a research area director (fig. 22).

The effect of the reorganization was to reassign the former national program investigations leaders to NPS positions, removing their

line responsibility and authority with respect

to program development, budgeting, selection of staff, etc. The emphasis was placed on

the geographical boundaries rather than

broad research issues. The national perspective was diminished. By focusing on local and

State problems, it became more difficult to

emphasize basic research, because of pressure by local groups desiring that research be

concentrated on practical problems.

Because the reorganization of ARS has

been in effect for nearly 8 years, it appears

that sufficient time has clasped to justify an

assessment of the current structure with respect to the overall national research system.

The significant feature of USDA research

prior to 1972 was that investigation leaders of

the ARS branches guided ARS’s regional and

national research efforts to solutions of re-
106 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Figure 22.—USDA Agricultural Research System

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

gional and national problems in cooperation tivities, including the expertise of the USDA

with State and regional efforts. The investigation leaders were national leaders from the

ARS standpoint. Most enjoyed good cooperation and respect by researchers at SAES and

industry (Moseman, et al., 1981). This organizational structure provided an overlay of research support that included scientists,

equipment, and operating budgets for research that transcended State boundaries and

was of concern in the various farming areas.

Research on cotton was conducted and

strengthened or modified where that crop

was grown. Sugarcane germ plasm and

breeding research was concentrated at Canal

Point, Fla., and in Hawaii. Potato genetics

was centered at Sturgeon Bay, Wis. National

or regional investigation leaders were specialists in commodity or problem areas and

had in-depth knowledge of their research acand SAES. They-also knew their subject and

geographical territory.

Nearly all of the investigation leaders had

access to “soft” money, with which they

could contract with SAES for special research to round out specific aspects of the national program. Cooperation and participation by State scientists was thus encouraged,

but this aspect of the program has largely disappeared.

The present “regional” structure of USDA

research is superficial with respect to the

agriculture of the United States—if considered from the standpoint of production, processing, marketing, or distribution or from the

standpoint of national resource use and management, environmental factors, or consumer

concerns. In contrast, the SAES regions fur-
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 107

nish a mechanism for interaction between

States sharing a general geographic area of

the United States to relate to common operation and management problems as well as

subject areas of mutual concern. The strength

of the former ARS organizational structure

was its ability to relate to an individual State

and to the group of States within the SAES

regions, and then to transcend these boundaries and furnish the cohesive and coordinating services and functions on a nationwide

scale.

Under the present organizational structure,

responsibility for a given commodity program is highly decentralized. Although NPS

provide technical leadership, they function as

staff members and do not have line authority.

They can advise and exert some influence,

but do not have authority to make decisions

concerning resource allocation. In the latter

case, many others are involved in terms of a

national program. Consider, for example, the

case of wheat. It would appear necessary to

conduct, for example, the hard red winter

wheat research program through the concurrence of the AR deputy administrators for the

Southern, Western, and North-Central regions. It would be necessary also to work

through and with 7 area research directors

and the directors of 11 SAES. The interaction

with other regions of the United States where

wheat is grown would require an extended

gauntlet of regional deputy administrators,

area directors, and SAES directors. This organizational structure has resulted in a dilution of national leadership for national programs and, in effect, substituted a series of

programs oriented to local, State, or several

State areas.

The planning and coordination of research

in specific research problem areas should be

done by knowledgeable scientists. This becomes more important when the number of

locations is large and consolidation desirable.

AR has more field locations than necessary to

conduct effective national and regional

research, within the present limitation of

funds and personnel ceiling (NAS, 1972;

Moseman, et al., 1981). Further, at a number

of these locations, the research programs are

primarily concerned with local and State

problems. In some cases, efforts have been

made to close such locations. These efforts

have met strong political opposition from the

local community and their congressional representatives (Moseman, et al., 1981). Usually,

this has been sufficient to prevent their closing. Area directors and local AR administrators also frequently work against closing any

research effort in their “domain.” Area directors appear to have no function from a technical or scientific standpoint. They could be

more productive in a field station or laboratory where their scientific expertise could

relate to their assignment (Moseman, et al.,

1981).

Congressional and Professional Reaction

In hearings before a subcommittee of the

House Appropriations Committee, Chairman

Whitten repeatedly quizzed USDA representatives on the 1972 reorganization of ARS. He

was most critical of the new regional structure. Examples of some comments are:

Mr. Administer: Mr. Chairman, we are

charged with the operation of a national program of research to meet the national needs.

Mr. Whitten: That is what you were

charged with before. But, as you changed, you

gave that responsibility to the men at Beltsville, and the men in Peoria, and the men in

Berkeley, and the men in New Orleans, having assigned them your responsibility, why do

we need you . , . every time you have a region

you have a breakdown point between the people and the Members of Congress who represent them. You have a breakdown between

the Secretary of Agriculture and the field

where the work is. The more regional people

they have to go through the worse it is—when

you delegate it, have a straight line to the man

who does the work—don’t have it broken in

Peoria.

Mr. Long: May I add one other comment,

Mr. Chairman, that relates to Mr. Edminister’s response to your question?

The regionalization of ARS took place

before I came on the scene. However, I have

had a chance to observe the results in the field

and from here for some months now.
108 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Though I don’t pose as an expert on the difference that exists between now and then, I

do observe one thing that I think is important.

Regionalization, I believe, has given us assistance in the area of close coordination with

the university system, It is an extremely important element. There are no dollars in this

budget indicating what we are gaining here in

terms of coordination and cooperation.

We have a lot of work to do but we are making headway and I think the regionalization is

broadly helping us in this area to work more

closely with the universities and other research facilities in the country, I could go into

more detail on this but I think it is an element

we ought to weigh.

Mr. Whitten. I have a high regard for the

universities in this country but this is not

meant to be an aid to the university program.

This is meant to be the U.S. Department of

Agriculture research program. We have all

sorts of regional research; we have had experiment stations; the land-grant college grants,

the various programs that make money available for research, I repeat, this is not an aid to

the Extension Service nor to the experiment

stations, but the Federal research program . . . .

I think I have made it quite clear that we are

not particularly pleased with the new organization.

Many scientists, not just USDA scientists,

were disturbed by the 1972 reorganization.

Entomologists were sufficiently disturbed to

ask the Entomological Society of America to

name a committee to study the impact of

USDA-ARS reorganization on the en -

tomology profession.

The committee took the following approaches in this study:

1.

2.

3.

Personal interviews of ARS entomologists, administrators, and State personnel.

Personal letters to entomologists on NPS

and PAC staff and entomologists currently assigned as assistant area directors or

area directors.

Questionnaires were developed and sent

to all ARS entomologists GS-9 and above,

selected laboratory directors and research leaders, SAES directors, and all

heads or chairmen of entomology departments.

The response was summarized in four

tables. The committee felt the results were

self-explanatory and did not discuss them in

detail.

The number of USDA entomologists responding was 215 and nearly all were negative to the reorganization (table 7). In general,

Table 7.—USDA Entomologists’ Response to

1972 USDA Reorganization (215 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Do you feel that you have as a scientist, more or less

restrictions on your research activity?

More—44.2% Less—29.8% No change—26.00/0

Are you involved more or less in preparing reports and

other paperwork since the reorganization?

More—38.0% Less—13.4% About the same—48.6%

Do you feel that you have been able to communicate

your needs better under the new organization than the

old?

Yes—28.8% No —61.0% No change—10.20/0

Has the new organization been more responsive to

your research needs than under the old system?

Yes—27.0% NO—61.0% No change—12.0%

Do you feel that the new organization has been properly and thoroughly explained to you as a research

scientist?

Yes—56.70/0 No—41.40/o No answer—1 .9°/0

Do you feel that communication between entomologists within the USDA under the new system is

adequate?

Yes—28.80/0 No—69.30/o No change—1.9%

Do you feel that the reorganization has promoted a

closer cooperation and alignment with State entomologists?

Yes—1 1.20/0 No—26.50/o About the same—62.30/0

Do you personally feel that your opportunities for

advancement in your field have been enhanced by the

reorganization?

Yes—1 1 .2% NO—80.0% No change—9.80/0

Do you feel that the prestige and effectiveness of

entomology as a discipline within the USDA system

has been adversely affected by the reorganization?

Yes—73.0% No—23.0% No change—4.00/0

Do you feel that the reorganization has affected significantly the recruitment of outstanding young entomologists into USDA?

Yes—30.3% No—55.6% No change

(too early to assess)

14.1%

Do you feel that the reorganization will affect significantly implementation o-f future large-scale experiments and area suppression/eradication programs?

Yes—52.50/0 No—38.1 0/0 No change—9.40/0

SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No. 1, March 1974.
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 1 0 9

they felt that: a) communication within

USDA among entomologists was inadequate

under the new system, b) opportunity for advancement in their field had not been enhanced by the reorganization, c) prestige and

effectiveness of entomology as a discipline

within USDA had been adversely affected by

the reorganization, and d) closer cooperation

with State entomologists, a major reason for

the reorganization, was about the same.

Twenty-two USDA research leaders and

laboratory directors answering the questionnaire found few positive attributes to the reorganization (table 8). They were concerned

about: a) more paperwork and budgetary

work, b) no better line of communication to

higher administration. c) less response to entomological needs, d) inadequacy of NPS in

overall planning at the national level, and e)

cooperation and coordination with State entomologists, a major reason for the reorganization, being no better than before.

Table 8.—USDA Research Leaders’ and Laboratory

Directors’ Response to 1972 USDA Reorganization

(22 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4,

5.

6.

7.

Do you find yourself doing more or less paperwork and

budgetary work since the reorganization?

More—77.3% Less—4.5% About the same—18.2%

Do you feel that you now have a better line of communication to the higher administration than before

the reorganization?

Yes—27.3% No—45.55 About the same—27.2%

Do you feel that you are adequately able to transmit

your unit’s research and budgetary needs through current organization as well as through the old organization?

Yes—40.9% No—36.4% About the same—22.7%

Is the new organization more or less responsive to entomological needs than before reorganization?

More—9.1 % Less—59.1% About the same—31.8%

Do you feel that the NPS and PAC staffs are adequate

for overall planning at the national level, program

review and evaluation, and coordination?

Yes—22.7% No—72.7% No opinion—4.5%

Do you feel that you have a sufficiently close relationship with NPS and PAC staffs to effectively communicate research needs in entomology?

No—72.8% Yes—27.2%

Do you feel that more cooperation and coordinated efforts have developed with State entomologists and

other personnel since the reorganization?

Yes—22.7% No—50.0% About the same—27.3%

Thirty-four SAES directors responded (table 9]. Their response indicated that at the administrative level, but not necessarily at the

scientist level, communication was improved

at least from a cooperative State-Federal team

approach, and that USDA was responding

more to local and State research needs.

The chairmen and heads of departments of

entomology (36) gave responses that were the

most negative of those contacted (table 10).

They felt that: a) their departments’ relations

with USDA entomologists had not improved,

Table 9.—Experiment Station Directors’ Response

to 1972 USDA Reorganization (34 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Has communication improved between your office

and USDA Administrators since the reorganization?

Yes—73.5% No—20.5% No change—6.0%

Has USDA been more or less responsive to local and

State research needs since the reorganization?

More—44.1% Less—3.0% About the same—52.9%

Has the new reorganization catalyzed any significant

cooperative State-Federal team approaches to solving

local or regional problems in your State?

Yes—44.1% No—47.0% About the same—8.9%

Do you feel that the reorganization has affected the

ability of any one discipline in carrying out programs,

i.e., entomology, agronomy, agricultural engineering,

etc.?

Yes No No change or opinion

14.7 ”/0 82.30/o 3.0 ”/0

Have you noted a closer and more cooperative relationship between individual State and Federal disciplinary scientists since the reorganization?

Yes—23.50/0 No— 17.5?40 About the same—59.0%

Did you have prior knowledge of the reorganization

before it occurred?

No—55.90/o Yes—44.90/0

Did you have an opportunity to express your opinions

to USDA officials?

Yes—32.4% No—67.6%

Do you now feel that the reorganization has strengthened or weakened the USDA in research effectiveness?

Strengthened Weakened About the same

41.2% 11 .8% 47.0%

Did the reorganization significantly affect your station’s mode of research operation?

NO —88.1 % Yes—8.9% No opinion—3.0%

Do you feel that the reorganization has affected the

training of graduate students significantly at your

university?

Significantly Not significantly No opinion

0% 97.0% 3.0%

SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No 1, March 1974 SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No 1, March 1974
110 . An Assessment of the u.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table 10.–Chairmen and Heads of the Entomology

Department’s Response to 1972 USDA

Reorganization (36 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

In your opinion, has the USDA reorganization improved

your department’s relations with USDA entomologists?

Yes—1 1.1% No—72.2% No change—16.7%

Do you feel that locally USDA entomologists are more

or less responsive to entomological problems in your

area, State, and region?

Yes—50.0% No—16.7% No change—33.3%

Has the USDA reorganization had a significant impact

on your State research programs?

Yes—16.7% NO —80.6% No change—2.7%

Do you feel that the reorganization has improved or impaired employment opportunities for your entomology

students?

Improved Impaired No change

2.7% 44.5 % 52.8%

in your professional opinion, do you feel that the image

of USDA entomologists has been damaged by the

reorganization?

Yes—72.2% No —25.0% No difference—2.7%

Do you feel that it is easier or harder to get entomology

research projects funded through ARS, USDA since the

reorganization?

Easier—5.5% Harder—55.5% No difference—39.0%

in your contacts with USDA entomology personnel,

what would be your current assessment of their

reaction to the reorganization after approximately

1 year?

Favorable Unfavorable No opinion

5.5% 80.5% 14.0%

Do you feel that the reorganization has with ARS

Decreased research productivity—19.4%

Research productivity has remained

about the same—80.6%

Do you feel that the reorganization has

Improved the security and opportunity

for entomologists—5.5%

Lessened the security and opportunity

for entomologists—83.3%

No change—11.2%

SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No. 1, March 1974.

b) there had been no significant impact on

State research programs, c) the image of

USDA entomologists had been damaged, and

d) it was more difficult to get entomology research projects funded through USDA since

the reorganization.

As indicated earlier, the committee did not

analyze the data in detail. It did make a few

general comments which clearly indicated its

belief that the new organization was less effective than the former. The following is one

such comment:

The reorganization has fragmented the largest body of entomologists in the world working effectively together as a single unit. The

role that this unit once served as an organization structure and communication trunkline

for nationwide entomological research is no

more. The advantages or disadvantages of the

reorganization and its impact on the profession can at this point only be debated, and

only time will enable us to fully evaluate the

full significance of the reorganization (pp.

51-52).

Time has shown that the new organization, as

now functioning, is probably less effective

than the committee anticipated.

Regional Boundaries and

National Needs

The geographical area covered by each

regional deputy administrator was chosen to

coincide with the SAES regional areas and,

consequently, to aid in communicating and

working with the SAES. However, these

areas have no significance to truly regional

research problems. Such problems do not follow State lines, nor do most groups of regional problems fall within the same cluster

of States. AR regional administrators most

likely do not possess the technical expertise

needed to make sound judgments on the technical components of their varied research

portfolio because of the wide-ranging subjects, which may include poultry, beef cattle,

corn, soil erosion, and plant disease.

The present organizational structure does

provide the environment for interdisciplinary

research. This is a positive aspect of the organization if a national research focus as opposed to a local one exists. However, maintaining a national focus is difficult with the

present organization and there is nothing to

preclude NPS from being organized along

interdisciplinary lines.

The development of strong, efficient research programs directed toward the solution

of regional and national problems requires

strong technical leadership at the national

level. Such leaders must have full knowledge

of the technical and scientific aspects of the
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy . 111

problems they face. Such leaders must have

the ability to work with other scientists in a

cooperative and technical capacity. They

must also have an in-depth knowledge of all

physical, personnel, and financial resources

of AR for their areas of expertise and should

be responsible for making final recommendations on allocation of these resources after being given a budget allocation from a higher

authority. In other words, they should have

line authority.

AR scientists located in the various laboratories and field locations of all regions must

have the opportunity to work directly with

the national program leaders in finding the

best way for their efforts to become effective

and useful parts of the national and regional

efforts. These scientists’ responsibilities are

primarily to carry out the national and regional programs jointly developed and to coordinate these activities with directors of SAES

and other interested parties.

A recent letter from the administrator of

AR directed to regional administrators, deputy administrators, NPS, and NPS chiefs attempts to correct the problems addressed

above (Kinney, 1981). However, more formal

changes will have to be articulated into the

organization charts and job descriptions to

carry out effectively what appears to be the

intent of the letter.

There are other issues that need study and

evaluation. There is a real question as to the

need for area administrators. They frequently

work against closing any research effort in

their domain. As noted earlier, area directors

appear to have no function from a technical

or scientific standpoint. Study is needed on

how to use them in a more effective way.

Cooperative Research

CR is responsible for administering Federal

funds that go to States for agricultural research. Traditionally CR has developed a

close working relationship with the SAES,

the schools of forestry, and the 1890 colleges

and Tuskegee Institute. Many of the staff

were former scientists at these universities.

The administrator is a member of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization

and Policy and meets regularly with it on research matters of interest to the States and

USDA.

As a part of the CR staff’s responsibilities

toward coordination of research among the

States and between the States and USDA,

they represent the States. This representation

involves budgets, research priorities, formula

v. grant funds, coordination, and in fact most

problems the SAES have.

The CR staff is also charged with the responsibility of developing a budget that reflects the State’s input. At that point CR, like

AR, has only minimal control over, and input

to, the USDA research budget that is submitted to OMB and ultimately Congress. This

is a Government-wide practice. However, AR

and CR complain of too much staff time being

spent in preparing the SEA budget and little

or no input after it is combined into the SEA

budget (Lovvorn, 1980).

The Hatch Act gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad power and responsibility in administering funds to the States. CR performs

these functions on behalf of the Secretary.

The SAES directors, however, have never

been willing to fully use CR in terms of the

agency being their Washington representative. In the name of States’ rights, they have

prevented CR from performing many functions that would assist their own programs.

CR should have the necessary authority to

represent the States (Lovvorn, 1980).
112 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Review Function

CR conducts onsite systematic subject matter reviews in all of the States. These reviews

include not only research funded by Hatch or

grant funds but, by mutual consent, all of the

research, regardless of the source of funding.

Review teams include experts from universities as well as from the USDA and the private sector. At the close of the review, they report to the scientists, department head, and

SAES director. The reviews generally cover

broad subject areas such as crop science and

soil science, They are usually conducted

every 3 to 5 years, and their purpose is to

serve the needs of the research group that requested it (Special Review Process, USDA,

1980). They deal only briefly with the past

and emphasize approaches to program improvement and plans for future endeavors.

After giving an oral and a subsequent written

statement of the review, there is no further

followup. Acceptance of recommendations is

an option of the client institution. If a request

is not made for a review of an area of work

within 3 to 4 years, CR may suggest that a

review be undertaken. There are no legal requirements for reviews; they are conducted

as part of CR’s responsibility for coordination

of research sponsored by Hatch funds. However, most SAES personnel believe they are

beneficial (Lovvorn, 1980).

All Hatch-supported projects are sent to CR

for review and approval or disapproval. By

mutual consent between CR and the SAES directors, all State-supported projects are also

sent to CR. Thus, the CR staff is knowledgeable of all activities at the State level. This

desk project review process is not always productive. Most SAES directors submit good

outlines; some do not. Some CR staff members make excellent contributions to the outline; others do not (Lovvorn, 1980).

The House Science and Technology Committee—in 1976 hearings on agricultural

R&D—found that the special and onsite

reviews of SAES performed by CR should be

strengthened and more widely used. They

also suggested that, where appropriate, increased use of qualified scientists from outside the USDA-SAES system should be encouraged. These recommendations appear to

be still valid.

Administration of Grants

CR also administers a research-grants program that uses the competitive process in the

selection of grantees. These programs are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

A

competitive research grants program to

support basic research in the food and

agricultural sciences,

special research grants program to support research deemed by Congress and

USDA to be of particular importance to

the Nation,

alcohols and industrial hydrocarbons

program, and

native latex research program.

comparable grant program for the Solar

Energy Systems for Agriculture Program is

administered by SEA’s Southern Energy Center in Tifton, Ga. Guidelines for grants to be

awarded competitively are published annually in the Federal Register.

A CR program manager is selected who

chairs the peer panel and reviews and scores

proposals for special grants. Each panel consists of eight members, including the chairperson. The panel is selected from: a) USDA

and other Federal agencies (minimum of one);

b) SAES, forestry schools, schools of veterinary medicine, and colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee Institute (minimum of three); c) scientists of nonland-grant institutions with food

and agricultural research capabilities (minimum of one); and d) scientists with needed

expertise not covered by a member listed

above or by the chairperson. The program

manager summarizes the panel’s findings,

and on the recommendations of the CR administrator, the SEA director signs off on the

proposal (Policies and Procedures for Special

Grants, USDA, 1980). The CR administrator

could make this decision without this extra

layer of administration.
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy “ 113

Regional Research

Section 3(c)3 of the Hatch Act provides that

up to 25 percent of the funds may be used for

regional research to “stimulate and facilitate

interstate cooperation on research of a regional and national character both among

SAES and with the United States Department

of Agriculture” (USDA Food and Agricultural Research Grants, 1980).

CR has the responsibility for administering

these funds. Advisory to CR is the Committee

of Nine, a committee specified by law to include eight SAES directors and one home

economics research administrator. The concept is good and it has encouraged cooperation among States, but the SAES directors

have not allowed the committee enough authority to plan and carry out strong regional

programs (Lovvorn, 1980).

The regional projects carried out under the

SAES basically constitute a group of scientists working on a problem of importance to

more than one State. The funds for the regional projects give these scientists an opportunity to get together and exchange information. Some change in direction or emphasis of

their research may take place as a result of

such meetings, but there is no one with authority to allocate resources (personnel and

funds) to any given area of activity. There is

no one source of accountability, and there is

no assurance that all aspects of the needed research will be covered. Notwithstanding,

these regional funds have been extremely useful. Not only do they benefit the work that is

important to each of the cooperating States,

but usually the net result is a greater and

more coordinated effort than it would have

been without such funds.

SAES-sponsored regional research should

be cooperative with AR where the problem is

of sufficient regional or national importance

to require AR input. With interest and capable technical leadership, AR should be able

to adjust its resource input to give assurance

that all necessary aspects of the problem are

covered. Thus, the SAES would be contributing to those aspects that are most useful and

of most interest to them, but the total effort

should lead to a fully rounded research attack

on the regional or national problem. Prior to

the 1972 reorganization of ARS, most ARS

cooperative research with the SAES took this

form of cooperation (Moseman, et al., 1981).

evaluation

Attempting to evaluate the administrative

and management aspect of CR is difficult

considering the long history of legislation and

the independent nature of each of the SAES.

The original Hatch Act makes the directors of

the SAES responsible and accountable for the

Hatch funds they receive. From the legislation and the manner in which CR (and its

predecessors) operates, it appears that CR is

an agency only for transmitting funds and for

coordination. CR operates as though it were

under the supervision of the SAES directors,

rather than the administrator of SEA.

There is no doubt that strengthening the research base and basic research of all the

SAES is desirable and in the public interest,

and it should be done through the Hatch

process. It is difficult for SAES to agree on

budgets or programs that do not provide

something for everyone. However, in times of

stringent budgets it is difficult, if not impossible, to convince everyone, especially Congress, that this is the most efficient way to

solve agricultural research problems, A quick

glance at the Food and Agricultural Research

Grants, fiscal year 1980, shows most of them

to be small and spread over a large number of

institutions (USDA Food and Agricultural Research Grants, 1980), Since competitive and

special grants were not meant to take the

place of formula funding, they should be built

more around major new priority problems

that would enable new thrusts to be initiated

until ongoing programs can be shifted.

Questions have been raised as to whether

CR is the appropriate agency to administer

the competitive research grants program. All

U.S. research institutions and scientists that

have expertise and capabilities are supposed

to be [and should be) considered equally as
114 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

possible grantees. Having one agency, whose

main function and purpose is so closely tied

to one segment of the research community

(and which receives a large share of the

grants), administer these grants gives reason

for concern. In 1980, out of a total of 207

grants, 114 went to land-grant institutions, 13

to Federal agencies, and 80 to nonland-grant

institutions (USDA, Food and Agricultural

Research Grants, 1980). This is consistent

with the ratio of applications to grants

received.

There would be less criticism and at least

the appearance of more objectivity if these

grants were administered by a separate office

within SEA that had no allegiance to any special facet of the agricultural research community. This office would include the administration of the competitive grants for the

Solar Energy System for Agriculture Program

(now administered directly by SEA’s Southern Energy Center).

Human Nutrition

Authorization for Federal human nutrition

research of importance to U.S. citizens is

principally the province of USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS). Within DHHS, it is funded or conducted mainly by National Institutes of

Health (NIH) and to a lesser extent by the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and

Center for Disease Control (CDC). Other agencies (IDCA/AID, DOC/NOAA, DOD, NASA,

NSF, and VA) are involved to lesser degrees

in certain aspect s of human nutrition

research.

Although human nutrition research had

been done by USDA under an 1862 congressional mandate until the passage of the 1977

farm bill, direct Federal effort was confined

to very few issues which related to national

problems concerned with nutrition. The 1977

farm bill specifically singled out certain mission-oriented research which was needed to

conduct large national intervention programs

involving nutrition and to solve national

issues concerned with diet in health promotion. In addition, it specified that coordination and communication within and

among Federal agencies on the subject of

human nutrition take place.

Human Nutrition Research in USDA

During the 95th Congress, the displeasure

of Congress with the state of Federal human

nutrition research became apparent. At one

point in the drafting of the 1977 farm bill, all

nutrition research was placed within the purview of USDA. This language did not survive

the conference committee, but the National

Agriculture Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, Public Law 95-113, established “firmly the Department of Agriculture as the lead agency in the Federal Government for the food and agricultural sciences, ”

and furthermore that “the Department of

Agriculture is designated as the lead agency

of the Federal Government for agricultural research (except with respect to the biomedical

aspects of human nutrition concerned with

diagnosis or treatment of disease) . . . .“ Specifically, the law states: “The Secretary shall

establish research into food and human nutrition as a separate and distinct mission of the

Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary

shall increase support for such research to a

level that provides resources adequate to

meet the policy of this subtitle. ” In addition,

the Secretary of Agriculture was directed to

“establish jointly with the Secretary of HEW

procedures for coordination with respect to

nutrition research in areas of mutua l

interest, ” and to “coordinate all agricultural

research, extension, and teaching activity

conducted or financed by the Department of

Agriculture and, to the maximum extent practicable, by other agencies of the executive

branch of the United States Government. ”

The USDA was specifically delegated the

following research goals:

1. research on human nutritional requirements;

2. research on the nutrient composition of

foods and the effects of agricultural practices, handling, food processing, and

cooking on the nutrients they contain;
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy “ 115

3.

40

5.

surveillance of the nutritional benefits

provided to participants in the food programs administered by USDA;

research on the factors affecting food

preference and habits; and

the development of techniques and

equipment to assist consumers in the

home or in institutions in selecting food

that supplies a nutritionally adequate

diet.

In response to the 1977 farm bill, HN was

established as an administratively independent unit of SEA. However, its budget authority was based in AR. Through early 1981, it

was headed by an administrator and consisted of six research centers. * The HN administrative and technical staff are professionally trained in nutrition or a related discipline. The administrator of HN and the directors of the centers are scientists with international reputations in nutrition research. The

regional human nutrition research centers

programs are national in scope and mission

oriented. The concept of the centers was

established in the 1977 farm bill, and three existing institutions—the USDA Nutrition Institute at Beltsville, the Human Nutrition Laboratory at Grand Forks, and the Consumer

Nutrition Center at Hyattsville, which had

been mandated by FUS SC427 and public

Law 89-316 respectively—became the first

centers. In 1978, Congress mandated two additional centers—the Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor and the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts—in

Public Law 95-448 of 1978. Additionally, Public Law 96-154 of 1979 mandated “that the Department of the Army transfer to USDA 19

positions at the Institute (LAIR) currently

dedicated to nutrition research. USDA is to

develop a program for a Western Nutrition

Center . . . ,“ thus establishing the sixth

center.

The functioning of the centers has been

hampered by low levels of funding overall

(fig. 23). The three newest centers are par-

*As noted earlier, in June 1981 USDA eliminated HN as an

administrative unit and merged most of it with ARS. This

change is discussed in ch. X and app. A.

ticularly hard-hit, since they have had to be

developed de novo and have had a severely

restricted number of slots for professional

staff. Through early 1981, USDA professional

staff at all three of the new centers totaled 6;

an additional 12 civil service positions remained to be filled. The bulk of the work at

two of the centers is being carried out by nonUSDA contract personnel. At the Center on

Aging at Tufts, of the 10 professional staff

only 1, the director, is a USDA civil service

employee, while at the Children’s Nutrition

Research Center, none of the 16 professional

staff are USDA civil service employees.

Restricted funding has led to some anomalous situations. For example, a large research

building is being constructed for the HN Center on Aging; however, only five slots have

been allotted for professional USDA staff.

While at the Western Nutrition Center, only

half a floor has been allocated for all administrative, management and research activities.

Neither the floor space nor the eight professional slots appear to be adequate for the proposed mission of the Western Nutrition Center. Part of that mission is to act as the technical resource and research group for the National Nutrition Status Monitoring System

which will be jointly administered by USDA

and DHHS. For the three newest centers, neither proposed funding nor staffing allotments

appear to be adequate to allow these centers

to conduct meaningful research.

Implementation of a research center’s mission is the primary responsibility of the center’s director and his or her research leader.

They make use of recommendations from an

executive committee established for each research center and a Board of Scientific Counselors, who continuously monitor the program. The executive committee (which includes representatives of the center’s cooperating institutions) reviews the broad scientific

program within the center and deals with

issues that affect the coordination of the research between participating agencies and institutions and with other aspects of research

management. The Board of Scientific Counselors to HN (operating on an ad hoc basis
116 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Figure 23.—USDA Human Nutrition Research Centers

Consumer Nutrition Center . . . . . . . . . . 1954

Grand Forks HN Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1966

of

ND

HN Res. Center on Aging at Tufts. . . . . 1978 CR95-1579 Tufts

0 31

1 10

9 5

0 16 5

1

$6,435 $6,943

8,532 8,146

2,408 2,788

2,000 3,704

2,500 2,800

1,000 2,010

HN

Commercial

leased

HN

Cooperator

Cooperator

Fed.

Dept. Army

“Original human nutrition research dates back to 1893 based on a Congressional Directive in 1862.

● ● USDA contact personnel.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981.

and made up of scientific experts from outside USDA) reviews the scientific and technical aspects of the program.

Administratively, the coordination, direction, and monitoring of the centers are carried out by the HN Administrator’s staff

through onsite visits and analysis of annual

reports and plans from the centers and their

advisory and oversight bodies. These analyses are the basis for the Administrator’s selection of priority problems to meet national

needs. It is unclear, however, how a director

of a research center who is not a USDA employee, but rather an employee of the cooperating institution, would interact with the Administrator and his or her staff. The relationship would seem to be that of a contractorcontractee rather than that of the usual chain

of command. It is also not clear what lines of

authority and responsibility exist between a

director or research leader of a center if they

are not USDA employees and their USDA

staff.

In addition to the research work of the

centers, HN has the responsibility to: 1) support extramural research in human nutrition;

2) develop and disseminate to the public and

user groups nutrition information through

appropriate educational programs; 3) develop effective coordination mechanisms with

other agencies concerned with human nutrition; 4) conduct technical clearance of all

human nutrition education and information

materials; and 5) ensure that human nutrition

programs and policy decisions at USDA re-
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 117

fleet and are consistent with scientific consensus.

The human nutrition component of the

competitive grants program, while coordinated with HN, is funded and administered

through CR. The fiscal year 1981 budget allowed $2.9 million for the program. This

reflects an absolute drop of $0.1 million since

the program’s inception in 1978. At this level

and with the allowable research topics limited to a few narrow areas, it does not seem

that this grants program will be capable of

stimulating significant creative research efforts in nutrition.

Finally, SAES, 1890 land-grant colleges and

Tuskegee Institute, carry out nutrition research with Hatch Act or other Federal funds.

Determination of research direction is largely

determined at a local level.

Each of the above USDA activities in

human nutrition research is earmarked and

budgeted for human nutrition research in a

prospective manner. Related work in animals

or plants would not be counted toward

human nutrition research. The definition

used for human nutrition at USDA is defined,

clear-cut, and narrow.

Coordination With Other

Federal Agencies

A Human Nutrition Policy Committee,

established by USDA, oversees all nutrition

efforts within USDA; coordinates and integrates the human nutrition research, education, and information activities within USDA;

and cooperates with other Government agencies in coordinating their activities with those

of USDA.

The basic attempt at coordination of human

nutrition research within the Federal Government has been the Joint Subcommittee on

Human Nutrition Research of the Committee

on Health and Medicine (JSHNR) and the

Committee on Food and Renewable Resources, Federal Coordinating Council on

Science, Engineering, and Technology,

OSTP. The committee meets at fairly regular

intervals and has high-ranking representatives from all Federal agencies involved with

human nutrition research.

The USDA HN Administrator and the chair

of the DHHS NIH’s Nutrition Coordinating

Committee are the cochairs of this joint subcommittee; however, all the staff work is provided by DHHS NIH. During the 21⁄2 years of

its existence, the subcommittee has enunciated a Federal definition of human nutrition

research; it is an extremely broad definition

which encompasses much of the basic research in cell biology, molecular biochemistry, membrane transport, etc., which the

DHHS NIH classifies as human nutrition research. In fact, the JSHNR definition virtually

duplicates the definition for human nutrition

research that NIH first expounded in 1977.

JSHNR has also produced the first of a threepart report entitled Federally Supported

Human Nutrition Research and Training and

Education Update for the 1980’s, Part 1 :

Human Nutrition Research and Training.

Parts II and III will focus on international

nutrition research and nutrition education research, education for professionals and for

the public. JSHNR has been ineffective in furthering the development of the congressionally mandated National Status Monitoring

System. Also, effective advance coordination

of Federal research projects has yet to be

demonstrated.

Human Nutrition Research in DHHS

The overall role of DHHS in human nutrition research was broadly mandated, although never specifically mentioned in the

Public Health Service Act of 1944 (Public Law

410). However, after passage of the 1977 farm

bill, DHHS’s role in human nutrition research

and education was precisely defined by Public Law 95-622, the Biomedical Research and

Training Amendments of 1978. Of DHHS’s

many divisions, only FDA has separate statutory authority to conduct human nutrition

research to regulate the safety and labeling of

foods.
118 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

DHHS has a very different management

setup from USDA. At the department level,

DHHS employs an executive secretary for

its department-wide Nutrition Coordinating

Committee; this position has no line management or budgetary authority but is a staff advisory post which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health. Since 1977, this

post has been held by professors of medicine

on leave from their respective medical

schools for a year.

DHHS’s portion of the Federal human nutrition research budget is figured at $137.3

million by JSHNR or greater than 76 percent

of the Federal Government’s effort in this

area. However, this figure is compiled by

using the broad definition of human nutrition

research discussed in the previous section.

Relatively limited amounts, less than 2.5 percent of the DHHS’s total effort, of money are

allocated to the mission-oriented human nutrition research programs in FDA, CDC, and

the National Center for Health Statistics.

These are mainly intramural programs, although FDA has recently expanded its contracted research, and are staffed by professionals expert in human nutrition research

who have clear-cut programs with defined

management structure.

The bulk of human nutrition research

funded by DHHS (over 93 percent) is administered by NIH. At the institute-wide level there

is a special assistant to the director who acts

as the chair of the NIH Nutrition Coordinating Committee (NCC). This committee is

composed of one representative from each of

the institutes conducting research, administering research, or having an interest in nutrition. With the exception of the newly funded

Clinical Nutrition Research Unit (CNRU),

NCC has no line management or budgetary

authority over any nutrition research. Even in

the case of CNRU the funds are provided by

three of the institutes (National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Heart, Lung, and Blood

Institute, and National Institute of Arthritis,

Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases).

Grants make up the largest share of human

nutrition research dollars at NIH and are

administered by the Division of Research

Grants, This group is totally independent of

any of the institutes. The staff does not review

grant applications but sets up outside study

sections and coordinates their activities

through a staff executive secretary. Study sections composed of outside expert reviewers

are set up to review each area of biomedical

research including nutrition. After grants are

funded for the year, the abstracts of these

grants are reviewed by the relevant institutes

and NCC, and the nutrition-related moneys in

these grants assigned. Thus, an NIH grant

can be anywhere from 1 to 100 percent nutrition. More than 75 percent of the grants

designated nutrition related are reviewed by

study sections other than nutrition. Therefore, the major emphasis of these grants is not

nutrition. In contrast to USDA, grant moneys

from NIH are determined to be nutrition

related after the fact, rather than before the

grant is made.

Institutes (or groups of institutes under

coordination of NCC) may put out a request

for application (RFA) for grants in the specific neglected areas of nutrition; proposals

that are funded under this mechanism are

considered to be 100 percent nutrition related. Six such RFAs have been released from

June 1977 to June 1980. Program announcements (PAs) are similarly released, but they

are much less specific in the research requested; eight such announcements were released from June 1977 to June 1980. All

funded proposals to such an announcement

would be considered 100 percent nutrition related. (No dollar figures are set aside for the

grants funded through RFAs and PAs.) A

given RFA might result in no funding whatsoever.

In contrast, request for proposals (RFPs)

have budgeted amounts within individual Institutes. With the exception of NCI’s Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer Program (DNCP), there is

no entity within any of the institutes whose

main emphasis is nutrition and which has

funding for that purpose. Even DNCP no

longer has management or budget authority.

Thus, any contracted research in nutrition
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 119

must originate from nonnutrition administrative entities. Of the nine research RFPs issued

by the institutes from June 1977 to June 1980,

three were issued by DNCP when they still

had independent funding authority. Thus,

there is no NIH-wide budgetary or managerial control of nutrition research. Indeed, in

many of the institutes there is no institutewide control; these decisions are left to the

division level or lower. NCC acts only in a

staff advisory capacity to most of the nutrition research activity at NIH.

Since the province of NIH is biomedical

research, the major emphasis of nutritionrelated research is the role of nutrition in the

causes, prevention, or treatment of disease.

Thus, most of NIH’s administrators and

many of its intramural researchers in nutrition are M.D.’s with an interest in nutrition,

rather than professional nutritionists.

In 1978, OTA issued the report Nutrition

Research Alternatives which dealt with the interagency issues in nutrition research. The

findings of the report are still valid, since

many of the same problems between DHHS

and USDA continue.

Need for Change in SEA Management

Title XIV of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act

of 1977 designates USDA as the lead agency

of the Federal Government for agricultural research (except for biomedical aspects of human nutrition), extension, and teaching in the

food and agricultural sciences. As noted earlier, USDA created SEA to focus attention on

the coordination of these three functions, partially in response to the legislation and to increase the credibility of management as

viewed by OMB. The architects of the agency

feel the credibility of research has increased

in OMB and the White House (Lovvorn,

1980).

Lovvorn, in interviewing individuals within

USDA as well as in the university community, gained the impression that the director

of SEA is held in high esteem; he goes on to

state:

A good job is being done in budget preparation but at enormous manpower expense, and

that progress is being made in the two advisory committees. Little progress seems to

have been accomplished in long-range planning, in expediting decision making, and furthermore morale is low in the sub-agencies

because of heavy drain on their limited personnel, thus preventing them from performing their necessary functions. The University

half of the partnership concept is in disarray.

They no longer see themselves as a viable and

functional partner.

Until the early 1950’s, research leaders of

USDA, including the chiefs of bureaus and

the head of the Office of Experiment Stations

had direct contact with the Secretary of Agriculture through fortnightly staff meetings

called by the Secretary. Secretary Benson terminated these meetings but had some continuing contact with the agricultural research

administrator. However, the lines of communication with the research administrator (and

occasionally some bureau chiefs) were primarily through the Assistant Secretary for Research and Extension. Following the reorganization of 1953, the directors of research and

others at this level had less frequent and primarily informal contacts with the assistant

secretary. By 1963, the position had been reduced to director of research and education.

In the PSAC Agriculture Panel report of

January 1962, it was recommended that there

should be appointed an Assistant Secretary

for Science and Technology in USDA to devote full attention to USDA activities in domestic and foreign science and technology.

The same recommendation was made 15

years later by the NAS study on world food

and nutrition.

During the Nixon administration, the Director of Science and Education [S&E) position was abolished and responsibilities for

S&E came under an assistant secretary who

had responsibility for conservation, research,

and education. This continued into the Carter

administration. After a few months, the research and education responsibilities were

split off and placed under a Director for SEA.

Thus, the heads of the AR and the CR re-
120 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

mained downgraded, serving under a Director of Research and Education.

The SEA Director wears two hats; he is

chief executive officer of SEA, an operating

agency. He is also science and education advisor to the Secretary and, as such, is equivalent to an Assistant Secretary, Within SEA,

each of the programs is headed by an administrator (AR, CR, HN, ES, and Technical Information Systems) and each could operate

more efficiently by having only policy guidance above them. The additional layer of administration has caused delays; many decisions formerly made by the administrators

must now be forwarded to the SEA Director

for final approval. The Director and Associate Director seem to be concerned with too

many details on day-to-day operations. Their

talents could best be directed toward policy

matters (Lovvorn, 1980).

In view of the importance of a strong and

responsive agricultural research program,

both nationally and internationally, it seems

essential to provide for a more direct relationship to the Office of Secretary.

Economics Research

Of the total research budget of USDA (excluding funds passed on to the States), economics research has a relatively small role.

From 1972 to 1980, it accounted for only

about 5.5 percent of USDA research expenditures. No trend was apparent in this proportion.

As USDA is organized, economics research

is in a sense a synonym for social-science research. The economics research structure includes limited research in the other social sciences (particularly rural sociology) and in history. The economics research staff, however,

is almost entirely composed of agricultural

economists.

Historically, economics research has not

typically been strongly favored by the agricultural committees in Congress. Other forms of

social science research have been even less

favored.

Institutional Developmentl

Agricultural economics research has existed in USDA since 1901, when a farm management branch was initiated under the leadership of an agronomist. In the next two

decades, other lines of agricultural economics work were added, and in 1919, the Office

of Farm Management was reestablished as

the Office of Farm Management and Farm

Economics.

In 1922, USDA economics and statistical

activities were consolidated into a new organization, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). During the first years of the

Bureau, research emphasized the collection

and analysis of data on production, prices,

and markets for farm products. From 1922 to

1938, various activities were added to and removed from BAE’s portfolio. Through the

period, however, research funding was overshadowed by crop and livestock reporting

and marketing services (such as the market

news service) and regulatory functions.

In 1938, BAE was substantially reorganized

in an effort to transform it into the general

planning agency for USDA, Responsibility

for marketing and regulatory work was transferred to other agencies. The research program and the statistical work were retained,

The planning work proved to be highly controversial and was gradually cut back. Some

research involving social matters also proved

to be quite unpopular with certain Members

of Congress.

In 1946-47, the work of the bureau was

somewhat reorganized to reflect congressional preferences. Research staffing and

studies were reduced, while the statistics staff

was increased.

In 1953, with the arrival of a new administration, BAE was abolished and its functions

were divided between two new agencies—

ARS and the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS). A Farm and Land Management Division was established in ARS and three others

in AMS: Market Research, Agricultural

‘This section is based on Baker and Rasmussen, pp. 53-72.
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 121

Economics, and Agricultural Estimates. Administrator Wells said he thought the reorganization offered agricultural economists

more opportunity for research than any other

form of organization proposed. Research appropriations did in fact increase substantially, though not without some congressional

concerns.

In 1961, another new administration arrived, and agricultural economics work was

again substantially reorganized. Work previously grouped in ARS and AMS, as well as

some work carried out in the Foreign Agricultural Service, was regrouped into two new

agencies: The Economics Research Service

(ERS) and the Statistical Reporting Service

(SRS), which were placed under a new Director of Agricultural Economics. A staff economists group was also established under the

Director’s supervision.

While the new arrangement was quite attractive to many agricultural economists, it

evidently did not find great favor in Congress.

Congressman Whitten said in 1967, quoting

an earlier statement of his own:

You insist on having a Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It is my judgement it costs

you about a million or a million and a half

dollars a year to carry that title, because it is

hard to sell (Baker and Rasmussen, p. 67).

Only rarely did an appropriation increasing

funds for a particular line of economic research get through Congress. As for the regular ERS budget, Congress continued to be

critical. The Administrator sometime s

seemed to be on a treadmill where great effort

was required merely to remain in place

(Baker and Rasmussen, p. 68).

In 1977, with the arrival of another new administration, further organizational changes

were made. ERS and SRS, along with the

Farmer Cooperative Service, were combined

into a new agency, the Economics, Statistics,

and Cooperatives Service (ESCS). It reported

to a Director of Economics, Policy Analysis,

and Budget. The actual operations of the

three component agencies, however, did not

change greatly; the main shift was in the top

administrative structure. In 1980, the technical assistance functions relative to cooperatives were transferred out and ESCS was

reestablished as ESS. Yet another administration arrived in early 1981. The first move was

to replace the former Director by an Assistant

Secretary for Economics. A second move was

to separate ERS and SRS back out of ESS.

Current Status’

Structure and Budget. As of early 1981,

ESS was divided into three main components: economics, statistics, and administration. Each was headed by a deputy administrator, In terms of total budget and total staffing as of November 1980, the statistics unit

was somewhat larger than the economics

unit: a budget of $50.6 million v. $35 million

in fiscal year 1980, and a staff of 1.076 v. 784.

Both units had staff divided between Washington and the field, though in quite different

proportions. Statistics had 70 percent of its

staff in the field v. 19 percent for economics.

The economics unit (now ERS) is divided

into four main divisions: national economics,

international economics, natural resources

economics, and economic development. National economics is the largest in terms of

budget and staff, and economic development

is the smallest. On balance, about 78 percent

of the funding is devoted to domestic economics and 22 percent to international economics.

As of November 1980, 149 economics staff

members were located at 41 field locations in

31 States, generally in a department of agricultural economics at a State university.

Role of Research.—As noted earlier, about

5.5 percent of USDA research budget for 1972

to 1980 was spent on economics research.

This figure was based on the total appropriated budget of the economics unit and its

predecessor, ERS. Although the figure of 5.5

‘This st [ t ion is largely based on “An ilsscssrnent . . Response to {) I A Questions;” “ Economics anct Statistics: Programs Rcsu~t~ ,:[ld Plans”; and “Economic, and Statistic Ser\’-

ice: Progr(i 1[)s, Functions and Organ izatiori. ” It was prepared

prior to tile recent di~ision of ESS into ERS and SRS.

+ ,- { { . - J 1 - I
122 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

percent is not high, it overstates the actual

status of economics research, In fact, much of

the unit’s efforts is devoted to economic analysis and data acquisition. *

It is interesting to note how ESS sorted out

the activities of its economics unit. For fiscal

year 1980, it estimated that only 35 percent

went for research, 47 percent for analysis,

and 18 percent for data acquisition. If these

proportions are applied to the total fiscal year

1980 budget of $35 million, it meant that

$12,25 million was spent on research, $16,45

million on analysis, and $6,3 million on data

acquisition. Following this through suggests

that only about 2 percent of the USDA research budget was spent on economics research, and that the other 3,5 percent was being spent on economics related activities.

There are no widely accepted norms in these

matters, but this seems a very small proportion for economics research,

The leadership of ESS was acutely aware of

the situation. It acknowledged that “from a

functional standpoint, the major emphasis of

the agency is on economic analysis” (ESCS

response to OTA inquiry, 1980). It stated that:

. . . there has been a real cost in terms of

research. Research resources have been preempted by the exigency of short-term economic analysis. We desperately need to restore the balance between research and analysis in order to build an improved research

program upon which to base our analyses (p.

14).

We are taking steps to increase the share of

resources devoted to research. We believe

that a greater share devoted to research is a

necessary investment in our in-house capacity, expertise, and knowledge base,

which our ability to do economic

would eventually be eroded (p. 4).

without

analysis

*While difficult to draw sharp lines between research and

analysis, ESS defines: a) research as all work that is intended

to measure or uncover new socioeconomic relationships or

that is directed to testing and improving the use of the relationships previously measured, and b) analysis as the application

of currently available results of research and statistical measurement to current and prospective problems, issues, and decisions,

There are, however, limitations on how

much can be done in the way of adjusting

within the available resources. ESS notes several constraints in these terms (ESS, p. 9):

●

●

●

●

Legislative commitments. By law, we must

do an undefined minimum of work in several areas (cost of production, and crop and

livestock statistics, for example].

Budget commitments. (There is an) . . . increasing amount of work earmarked in the

budget process. We honor such commitments for at least three years.

Public expectations, The public and private

sectors have become accustomed to having

us provide some of the basic data and indicators on a regular basis.

Researchers’ adaptability. Extensive and

rapid redirection is often limited by the

ability of highly specialized researchers or

statisticians to adjust quickly to the other

lines of work.

In short, ESS appears to be in a very tight

and difficult situation with respect to the research function. It can make some adjustments itself, but to do more research would

likely require help from Congress.

Current Issues

According to data in the preceding section

and in chapter IV, it seems that relatively limited funding is available for economics research as such. Research is part of a larger

economic package involving data collection

and analysis, A balance is needed among

these activities, But assessments of what constitutes an appropriate balance vary, Thus,

securing more funds for research by shifting

resources from analysis would be a debatable

strategy. In any case, it would be difficult to

do because of the strong demand for analysis,

Another approach would be for Congress to

do less earmarking of funds or provide more

funds for research as such. The probability of

either happening, however, is not great at this

point (for further discussion, see Ruttan,

1981).

The key issues raised more generally in the

OTA study, such as: 1) delineating local/regional/national problems, 2) establishing re-
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 1 2 3

search priorities, and 3) linking with other

agencies—Federal, State, and local—are as

relevant to ESS (and now ERS) as they are to

AR.

In August 1979, ESCS convened a national

committee of department chairmen and researchers to develop recommendations focusing on the agency’s problems. The meeting resulted in two major findings (ESCS, 1979).

The first was that there is no systematic process to coordinate efforts to identify important

problems in agricultural economics on which

future research should focus. It was recognized that there are many research planning

efforts that have been and are being conducted. However, the classification used does

not break out economics problems per se and,

consequently, it is impossible to compare

planned research with research needs for

economics as a whole.

The second finding by this group was that

there is considerable misunderstanding about

similarities and differences in the role of ESS

and the departments of agricultural economics in the land-grant universities. More important, perhaps, it was the view of some that

this lack of understanding was a barrier to improving the linkages between ESS and universities. At the conference, several stereotypical

descriptions indicated the perceptions of the

group:

ESS works on national problems, and

universities work on local and regional

problems;

universities work on microproblems and

ESS on macroproblems;

universities should conduct basic and

methodological research, and ES S

should conduct applied research; and

ESS serves national policy maker clientele, and universities serve farmers and

State policy makers.

Apparently, there is a need to clarify roles

and dispel misconceptions, so that it will be

less difficult to identify areas of mutual interest where cooperative research stands a better chance of success. The findings in chapter

V regarding USDA and SAES are appropriate

here.

Three additional areas are worth noting in

this discussion. In 1980 when the Farmer Cooperative Service was transferred out of

ESCS, the economics unit of ESS was tentatively assigned the function of review and

analysis of the Capper-Volsted Act for undue

price enhancement by farmer cooperatives.

Enforcement or investigation is incompatible

with ESS economics research activitie s

which rely on voluntary cooperation of clientele. ESS is not equipped to handle this function. It would seem more reasonable to locate

this activity in a regulatory agency, such as

AMS, not in an economics research agency.

ESS has as its primary objective the collection and analysis of economic data as an input into decisions by policy makers, producers, agribusiness, and consumers. Before

1976, ERS and SRS were separate agencies

reporting to the Director of Agricultural Economics, Concern existed in early 1981—particularly in the statistical unit—that its combination with the economics unit had: a)

caused confusion for the public between information reported by the statistical unit and

the projections or forecasts of the economics

unit, b) drained away vital financial and personnel resources to the Office of Administrator, and c) created in the Office of Administrator unproductive bureaucratic procedures

and paperwork.

During the long existence of BAE and since

1961, agricultural economics research has

been a separate component in USDA. One result of this type of organization has been

some isolation from the rest of the agricultural research community. The discovery of

new knowledge does not come as easily or in

such small disciplinary packages as it once

did, Modern agricultural research tends to be

mission oriented and multidisciplinary—involving the commitment of large expenditures over time.

In ESS, there is some communication between economists and a few other social sci-
124 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

entists, but very little cooperative work between ESS and AR. In fact, with the exception of some ad hoc groups that meet sporadically, there is no coordinating mechanism for

planning and conducting multidisciplinary

research between ESS and AR. Closer coordination and collaboration of research in the

National Economics and the Natural Resource Economics Divisions with AR research is warranted.

principal Findings

. Through early 1981, the Director of SEA,

with two responsibilities, did not give adequate attention to policy and coordinating

functions. Operational details of SEA interfered with effective management at the individual agency administrator’s level.

● NPS staff have insufficient authority and

responsibility for providing effective leadership to regional and national research programs. A change in responsibility would be

conducive to improved staff capability.

● Rationale for establishing AR regions

along the same boundaries as SAES regions is

managerial and has been beneficial for this

purpose; however, they do not conform to

types of farming or to regional or national

research problems, and as AR is organized,

are detrimental to the development of broad

regional and national programs.

● There is little evidence of the need for the

area director positions in AR.

● CR conducts Hatch-supported project reviews that are less than in-depth examinations. As a part of the process, onsite reviews

are held every 3 to 5 years but with no required followup, except as would be done

locally,

● CR lacks authority in dealing with the

States, CR operates as though it were under

the supervision of SAES directors rather than

the Administrator of SEA.

● CR administers the competitive grants

program. Its major clientele, SAES, compete

for these grants; there is criticism of this arrangement.

• HN has not accomplished the intent of

the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 with respect to human nutrition research. SEA has

established human nutrition research as a

mission, but it has not established human

nutrition as a separate budget item, nor has it

properly funded and staffed the six research

institutes to conduct meaningful research,

● Through early 1981, in ESS, concern existed that the combination of the statistical

unit with the economics unit had caused confusion for the public between the statistical

unit’s information and the projections and

forecasts of the economics research unit. A

small proportion of the economics research

budget is allocated to research, and there is

very little cooperative effort with AR.

SAES MANAGEMENT AND POLICY PROGRAMS

It is not the purpose or the intent of this sec- reported earlier in this assessment, the movetion to evaluate the management of the vari- ment to establish experiment stations in the

ous SAES. Rather, it is to provide general in- United States drew its first inspiration from

formation on how the SAES are organized European experience. Samuel W. Johnson,

and managed and on some of the changes that one of America’s foremost pioneers in the

relate to their operation. movement, went to the village of Moeckern

on the outskirts of Leipzig, Germany, in FebStructure of SAES ruary 1854, where he visited a new institution

which its founders called an “agricultural exOver the years, neither the structure nor the periment station.” This station, Johnson

names of the SAES have changed much, As learned, was the Saxon answer to the search
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy “ 125

for methods of applying science to agriculture. When the movement later gained momentum in the United States, the name experiment station stuck, and with only three

exceptions –Ohio, North Carolina, and Washington—they are still called experiment stations.

The name “station” evokes for many persons a bucolic vision of scientists surrounded

by experimental fields, orchards, barns,

flocks, and herds. In most States, however,

the scientists work in buildings on the landgrant university campus, and the experimental fields are some distance away.

SAES typically include a central station

and headquarters at one location and a number of branch stations or other outlying units

located strategically around the State (fig. 24).

Stations are organized by departments according to the various scientific disciplines

represented on the station staff—e.g., departments of animal science, entomology, agricultural economics, plant pathology, etc. The

chief administrative officer of each department is usually referred to as “chairman” o r

“department head.” This officer reports

either to the director of the station or to the

associate director, as in most States.

In the early days, the SAES director reported directly to the president of the university. Likewise, he defended his budget before

the State legislature. The SAES was a substantial part of the college or university, and

the director was a “big man on campus. ” Today, except in a few States, the station director reports to the dean of the college of agriculture. These deans are actually administrative officers with overall responsibility for

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
—

126 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

research, teaching, and extension. Thus, the

SAES director moved a notch lower in the administrative structure, These changes were

made for the purpose of enhancing coordination and cooperation.

Although research programs of the SAES

are managed in a collegial fashion to optimize

individual initiative, the director has legal

responsibility for funds and programs. The

director, associate director, assistant directors, and the department heads often form an

administrative council that oversees SAE S

operations.

As a statewide function, the SAES in most

States is funded as a part of the general university budget, but separate from the general

instructional fund. In a few States, the SAES

budget is separate from the university budget.

SAES receive supplemental funds from Federal sources.

Beginning in the 1950’s, as sources of nonState funding became available from agencies

other than USDA, grants were not necessarily

oriented toward the State program but

toward the particular interest of the individual scientists. In spite of what station directors claimed, they were becoming less influential in terms of developing and leading

their own programs (Lovvorn, 1980).

Thus, the status of SAES has risen, plateaued, and to a degree subsided during the

first 100 years of their existence. Their contributions to society, however, has assured them

an important role in the future, regardless of

the organizational structure of the university.

Most faculty members of land-grant university departments do both research and teaching; some are also involved in extension. Theoretically, these functions are compatible.

Teaching requires keeping abreast of the literature and keeping in touch with practical

problems through interaction with students.

Research requires keeping up with the literature in one’s specific field and keeps one intellectually stimulated. Extension keeps one

close to the problems. Some faculty members

are incapable of performing all three functions, so administrators usually assign individuals to functions they do best—be it fulltime teaching, full-time research, full-time

extension, or, as in most instances, joint

teaching and research.

The central station of all but a few SAES is

on the campus of the State’s land-grant university. The scientists of the SAES are members of the faculty of the university. The

SAES gains from that association because it

provides access to many Ph.D. scientists, specializing in different disciplines, whose services and counsel are easily available. It also

provides access to university facilities such as

libraries, computers, machine and electronic

shops, analytical laboratories, and other specialized units.

SAES research programs also benefit greatly by the expansion of their options for employing scientific talents made possible

through the graduate education programs at

the M. S., Ph. D., and post-Ph.D. levels.

There are also some disadvantages. Teaching may interfere with research. Some research programs may be so important that the

full-time efforts of a leading scientist are

critical to the success of the program. Some

scientists are most successful in managing

their time when they have only one principal

responsibility; some may be most suited for

instructional activities. Resources intended

for research may drift to support scantily supported instructional activities. University administrators may view instruction as the most

important university activity and may give

priority accordingly. University administrators also may view the SAES and extension

service resources, which are usually budgeted separately, as providing more resources

to faculty in colleges of agriculture than are

available to faculty elsewhere in the university; that could have an adverse effect on resource allocation to the agricultural programs. SAES land that is close to the offices

and laboratories of the station may be needed

for instructional or recreational facilities for

students (Huston, 1981).
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy * 127

The departments are the principal operational units of SAES and provide day-to-day

research management. They usually have responsibility for undergraduate and graduate

instruction and related scholarly research

funded through the university instructional

budget, for research of the SAES, for extension activities of the Cooperative Extension

Service, and for modest international agricultural activities. Thus, the departments have

much broader responsibilities and greater

resources than are characteristic of other

university departments. In those departments

where education is a sizable activity, temporary contractions and expansions may occur

in certain SAES research activities. Extension activities may also be affected during

part of the year.

While the above describes the general organization and management characteristics of

SAES, there obviously are differences among

them. The relationship of the director to the

dean or vice president for agriculture is an

important one. The larger universities have

more departments than the smaller ones.

Some give more responsibilities to the departments than others, Some seek and use grant

funding to a greater degree than others. All of

these and other factors are important in determining the degree of authority the director of

SAES has in carrying out State agricultural

research programs and in cooperating with

other research agencies.

Changing Role of SAES

Although the SAES retain their traditional

focus in serving farmers and the agricultural

sector of their States, their roles are changing.

Some of the factors causing these changes include the following:

Ž Society’s needs for the skills normally

found in the SAES—and USDA—increasingly exceed the needs of farmers and the

agricultural sector. Examples include

chemistry and metabolism of pesticides

and the use of soil descriptions in planning land use and in construction.

●

●

Many new staff members have no background in agriculture. They see more opportunity for recognition and rewards in

research that is not closely allied to needs

of farmers.

Limitations in funds available to the

SAES from Hatch and State sources lead

faculty to seek grants that may be available for nonagricultural topics. Because

of this outside funding, SAES directors

have lost some of their control over such

programs.

Some of the States with limited resources or

with a small agricultural industry—i.e., certain Northeastern, Wester, and Northern

plains States—are finding it very difficult to

adequately fund State agricultural universities and SAES that try to be all things to all

people. There has been some discussion on

the desirability of certain States that have

similar agricultural problems in dividing the

workload or concentrating on specific problems-–i.e., centers of emphasis–so that each

State concentrates on certain problems and

leaves the rest to other States. While from a

scientific, technical, and resource standpoint

this would seem feasible and desirable, sometimes it is not appreciated by specific vested

interests in the States. Such an arrangement

could allow each such State to develop

centers of emphasis on specific problems,

rather than to be spread so thin as to have

programs of questionable value.

SAES-USDA Interactions

In many areas of research in crops, soils,

etc., there have long been very closely knit

cooperative relationships between the SAES

and AR. About 500 USDA scientists are stationed in SAES buildings. A reverse exchange exists in that 100 or so SAES scientists are housed in USDA facilities (Huston,

1981). There also are a number of special purpose AR research units on university campuses, some housed in university buildings

and others in AR buildings built on land donated through the SAES by the State. AR sci-
128 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

entists hold courtesy ranks in the university

departments and are free to participate in departmental and SAES activities.

SAES programs are built around full use of

the resources of these scientists, and vice

versa as far as AR regional and national research is concerned. If efforts by AR scientists or units can effectively serve user needs

in that field of specialization, no State-supported scientists will be employed. If, however, the manpower commitment by AR is inadequate for State needs, additional State scientists will be employed. Even when AR units

are remote from the central station, State programs are developed around those efforts.

This joint endeavor permits SAES to meet

user needs more fully by adding to the diversity of scientists available and by broadening

the range of problems SAES can address. The

same logic and planning by AR technical

leaders assist AR in focusing their resources

on regional and national problems.

Only a few ERS scientists are housed at

SAES. Most ERS work in SAES is done by

SAES economists on a cooperative agreement, contract, or grant. While the relationship between ERS and many agricultural economics departments has been close, that with

the SAES administration has been distant.

This close working relationship among scientists of SAES and AR, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, has been one of the major strong points of the U.S. agricultural research system, It has resulted, generally, in

high respect for each other at the scientist

level. The major difficulty in the U.S. agricultural research system between USDA and the

SAES is at the administrative level. This includes directors of SAES and sometimes

heads of departments and administrators in

USDA.

The root cause of nearly all the difficulties,

centers around budgets. SAES fights for increased Federal funds for their research activities and USDA fights for additional funds

for their in-house research. The budget problem distorts and tends to create problems in

the stated roles of the two groups and in cooperation at the administrative level to such a

point that, unfortunately, it sometimes permeates the whole system. The problem has

always existed, but appears to be much more

intense now, in times of stringent budgets for

research, than in the past.

What appears to be at stake is whether the

United States will be able to maintain a national research effort. As Castle stated in

1980: “The question should be faced squarely

as to whether the historic partnership between the USDA and the land-grant universities remains viable. ” Castle goes on to say

that “the planning framework advanced by

the joint council has not only brought

Federal-State conflicts to the surface but has

also intensified internal land-grant tensions,

and these tensions are now being reflected at

regional and national levels. ”

In his Cosmos Club lecture of April 1980,

Dr. John W. Gardner addressed the subject of

“The War of the Parts Against the Whole.”

Dr. Gardner notes the continued development

of various “groups” that have expanded in

number and diversity following World War

II—and in their capacity to organize for combat. The following comments from his paper

are of special interest.

In most of these groups the element of cohesion is supplied by a common economic activity or interest, But others seek redress of

grievances that they have suffered at the

hands of society. And then there are the

“issue” groups, members of which may come

from diverse social, economic, or occupational backgrounds, but have in common a

shared concern for advancement of a particular public policy.

I want to emphasize that most of the groups

have legitimate concerns: some of them have

concerns that are, by any standards, urgent.

But as more and more of them learn how to

organize for effective action, and how to slug

it out on the adversary mode, what started as

healthy competition has developed destructive aspects. If we can’t face that fact, we’re

lost.

The war of the parts against the whole is a

central problem of pluralism today. We’re
Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy ● 129

moving toward a society so intricately organized that the working of the whole system

may be halted if one part stops functioning.

Thus our capacity to frustrate one another

through non-cooperation has increased dramatically. A part can hold the whole system

up for ransom as the air traffic controllers,

among others, have so vividly demonstrated.

All of this is ironic when one recognizes

that never have so many of these groups been

so highly organized and effective in action.

They know how to lobby. They know how to

“use” the media. They establish “beach

heads” in government agencies, sometimes

even force reorganization of an agency to suit

their purposes. And they effect public policy.

It is entirely legitimate for such groups to

organize themselves. It is their constitutional

right to seek to influence government, and

often what they want is not unreasonable. But

what can we do when the factional strife becomes more than the system can bear?

All too rarely have any of the organized

groups shown the slightest concern for the

health of the political process. All too often

they have been satisfied with incompetent,

disorganized, or even corrupt government,

provided that they could influence it.

Our pluralistic philosophy invites each organization, institution, or special group to develop and enhance its own potentialities. But

the price of that treasured autonomy and selfpreoccupation is that each institution concern itself also with the common good. That is

not idealism: it is self-preservation. The argument is not moralistic. If the larger system

fails, the subsystems fail. That should not be

such a difficult concept for the contending

groups to understand (Gardner, 1980).

It would be unfair and unrealistic to suggest that the competition between USDA and

SAES is the only factor that has been deleterious to the operation of the national agricultural research system in recent years. But

there is need for a serious self-assessment of

the current organizations, operations, and

policies of USDA and the SAES with respect

to their basic charters and to relationships in

programs of mutual concern (Moseman, et

al., 1981).

Principal Findings

. The SAES research budget from other

than grant resources has tightened and an

overall dean or vice president of research coordinates research at most land-grant universities. This, in part, has diminished the

stature and authority of the directors of SAES

in directing State agricultural programs.

● At the scientist level, the SAES and

USDA scientists enjoy good working relations and generally excellent cooperation, all

to the benefit of the system, the States, and

the Nation.

● At the administrative level of SAES and

USDA, there is competition over funds and

position.

CHAPTER VI REFERENCES

Baker, Gladys L., and Wayne D. Rasmussen, “Eco- Flatt, W., H. Graumann, and A. Cooper, “Agriculnomic Research in the Department of Agricul- tural Research Classification for Management

ture: A Historical Perspective, ” Agricultural Purposes, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Economics Research, July-October 1975, vol. Huston, Keith, “Priority Setting Processes in the

27, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 53-72. State Agricultural Experiment Stations,” OTA

Castle, Emery N., “Agricultural Education and background paper, 1980.

Research: Academic Crown Jewels or Country Kendrick, James B., Jr., “Clearing Away ConfuCousins?” Kellogg Foundation Lecture, Na- sion About Agricultural Research, ” California

tional Association of State Universities and Agriculture, April 1980.

Land Grant Colleges, Nov. 18, 1980. Kinney, Terry, “Responsibility and Authority of
130 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

NPS and Line Managers,” memo to Regional

Administrators, Deputy Administrators, and

NPS Chiefs, February 1981.

Lovvorn, Roy L., “Effect of Organization, Policy,

and Procedure on Research Management, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.

Moseman, A. H., J. S. Robins, and Harold Wilcke,

“The Role of the Federal Government, State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Private Sector in Research, ” OTA background

paper, 1981.

Peterson, Willis L., “The Allocation of Research,

Teaching, and Extension Personnel in U.S.

Colleges of Agriculture, ” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, vol. 51, No, 1,

February 1969, pp. 41-56.

Pino, John, “Basic and Applied Research in Agriculture, ” report to the Users Advisory Board

(unpublished), Washington, D. C., July 1980,

Ruttan, Vernon W., “USDA Economics Research

in Disarray, ” American Agricultural Economics Association Newsletter, vol. 3, No. 5,

September 1981.

Anonymous/OfficiaI

(in Chronological Order)

Science and Agriculture, Life Science Panel of the

President’s Science Advisory Committee, January 1962.

“National Program of Research for Agriculture”

(report of a study sponsored jointly by the Association of State Universities and Land Grant

Colleges and U.S. Department of Agriculture),

October 1966, pp. 60-61.

Report of the Committee on Research Advisory

to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Academy of Science/National Research

Council, National Technical Information

Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,

PB-213-338, April 1972.

Entomological Society of America, “Report of

Committee on Impact of ARS-USDA Reorganization on the Profession of Entomology, ”

Bulletin of the Entomological Society of

America, vol. 20, No. 1, March 1974.

U.S. Congress, Agriculture-Environmental and

Consumer Protection Appropriations for 1975,

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 93rd

Cong,, Zd sess., 1975.

A Special Oversight Review of Agricultural Research and Development, report by the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology and the Subcommittee on Domestic

and International Scientific Planning and

Analysis (special oversight report No. Z) of the

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives, 94th Cong., Zd sess.

Public Law 95-113, 95th Cong., Sept. 29, 1977,

Title XIV—National Agricultural Research,

Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977’.

USDA, “A Process of Identifying Emerging Social

and Economic Issues and Implied Research

Needs,” unpublished draft report, ESCS,

October 1979.

USDA, Special Review Process, USDA-SEA-CRS1-s646-7, Feb. 21, 1980 , mimeographed

material.

USDA/SEA, written responses by SEA to questions from OTA relative to their assessment of

U.S. Food and Agricultural Research, SEA,

July 25, 1980,

USDA, The Mission of Science and Education Administration-Agricultural Research, SEA, September 1980.

USDA, “An Assessment of Food and Agriculture

Research: Response to OTA Questions, ”

ESCS, Sept. 8, 1980.

USDA, Food and Agricultural Research Grants, FY

1980, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1396,

Washington, D. C., November 1980.

USDA, Economics and Statistics; Program Results

and Plans, 1980, Economics and Statistics

Service, ESS-3, December 1980.

USDA, “Economics and Statistics Service: Programs, Functions, and Organization,” January

1981.
Chapter VII

Determining

Research Priorities
.
Chapter VII

Determining Research Priorities

To establish research priorities, goals must

be set. It is ironic that the United States has

never had a well-articulated set of food and

agricultural goals. Without such goals, the

process of research priority determination is

difficult.

Three kinds of priorities are evident in the

U.S. food and agricultural research system.

At the highest level is the determination by

the Federal Government that it shall spend

funds for a research program. This is a broad

commitment that has its roots in Federal legislation enacted more than a century ago. The

principle continues to be valid and viable.

Priorities at the second level involve broad

commitments to specific national needs.

They are relevant to problems that affect,

directly or indirectly, large segments of the

population—such as economic/environmental tradeoffs in river basin studies. The nature

of priorities at this level determines what particular agencies shall address them. Their assessment and budgeting become the responsibility of top management.

Priorities at the third level are more specific

and may deal with microaspects of broader

national programs. Here, individual scientists

or middle-management personnel actively participate in recommending action programs

and in deciding the degree of funding required. Many of the priority decisions at this

level are often influenced by external factors,

not the least of which could be the needs of

producers and consumers.

Anyone studying priority setting in the U.S.

food and agricultural research system will

discover a dichotomy of the professed procedures and actual practice. The fact that differences exist between the theory and reality of

decisionmaking has no direct implications on

the quality of the decisions that are made.

This chapter discusses the need for establishing agricultural policies and goals in

order to determine priorities, then follows

with: 1) priority setting as the agencies perceive their operations, 2) a review of the factors affecting research decisions and the

ways in which they may alter outcome, 3) the

roles of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Science (JC) and the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB) as they affect priority setting, and 4) discussion of new procedures that

could enable the research system to improve

its priority-setting judgments.

NEED FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL GOALS

The food and agricultural research community is often criticized for not providing or developing a national plan for food and agricultural research. 1 Even though the Food and

Agriculture Act of 1977 authorizes the establishment of the JC and UAB to assist in planning, criticism continues, Some may be justified; however, for effective long-term agricul-

‘Most recently this point was made by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a report entitled “Long-Range Planning

Can Improve the Efficiency of Agriculture Research and

Development, ” 1981.

tural research plans to be developed and

maintained, there is need for clear-cut food

and agricultural goals.

A goal is defined as the end toward which effort is directed. The end must be definable

and, at least in theory, achievable. Some people assume that the goal of U.S. agriculture is

to provide an ample supply of nutritious food

for the consumer at reasonable cost with a

fair return to the farmer within an agricultural system that is sustainable in perpetuity.

133
134 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

However, this “goal” is open-ended and,

therefore, not achievable. For example, what

is meant by an “ample supply?” Does it mean:

a) produce to meet U.S. demands? b) produce

to meet U.S. demands plus economic demands of the world market? or c) produce to

meet U.S. and world market demand plus concessional food to poor countries? How would

we know when a n “ample supply” is

achieved? What is “nutritious” food? How is

it defined? Is a “reasonable cost” to consumers 15, 20, or 30 percent of disposable income or some other figure? Is a “fair return to

the farmer” 10, 15, or 20 percent on investment? And when would this “fair return” be

achieved . . . 1995, 2000, 2500? Is a sustainable system one that tolerates 5, 10, or 15 tons

an acre of erosion annually?

These and other questions must be answered for a goal to have meaning and to be

useful for the research community in planning a research agenda. With such questions

unanswered, setting research priorities is a

futile task.

In the past, Congress has set well-defined,

achievable goals. Congress set a goal of putting a man on the Moon by a certain date; the

goal was met. Congress has set goals for the

level of gasoline consumption for different

sizes of cars by certain dates. It should be possible for Congress to set well-defined, achievable goals for U.S. agriculture as well.

PRIORITY SETTNG IN USDA2

Science and Education

Administration (SEA)

Information used in developing priorities is

drawn from consumers, producers, in-house

scientists, scientific societies, JC and UAB,

action and regulatory agencies, cooperators,

policy-level people in the executive branch,

and Congress. This information is reviewed

and summarized by staff and presented to

SEA managers who, in close consultation

with university cooperators, set the priorities

that guide the upcoming planning year.

In Agricultural Research (AR), staff scientists on the national program staff (NPS) are

responsible for interacting with administrators and scientists in the regions to maintain

up-to-date programs and priorities and to ensure progress toward national priorities and

objectives. Regional administrators in each of

the four AR regions are responsible for seeing

that research conducted within a region

meets the national goals and priorities.

ZThis information was provided by USDA in response to letters of inquiry from OTA.

In Cooperative Research (CR), the administrator participates in meetings of State agricultural experiment station (SAES) directors’

associations for the four regions and concurs

in areas of research to be implemented. CR

staff are active in regional technical committees that plan and conduct regional research

projects.

In Human Nutrition (HN), research is carried out in six research centers.

SEA budgets are designed to reflect priorities. Budget requests are modified at various

points, the changes being based on priorities

as viewed by the decisionmakers involved

and the fiscal constraints. Resources are then

allocated to the SEA units in accordance with

these documented plans, and usually on a

program-by-program basis.

AR uses several mechanisms to assure that

resources go to the priority problems: continuing review of annual program evaluation,

and annual project reviews.

Regional priorities result from recommendations by JC, research planning committees,

and their indications of need from research

users and input from SAES directors, AR re-
Ch. VII—Determining Research Priorities ● 135

gional administrators, and private industry

representatives.

Many traditional agricultural groups have

developed a way to interact with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in discussing their priority research needs (i. e., Cotton

Council, NASCD, etc.), but most nontraditional agricultural groups have not. There is a

need for better and more positive methods of

assuring that all interested groups have an opportunity to be involved in discussions concerning food and agricultural research priorities. With AR research being responsible

primarily for broad regional and national

issues, it is important that the interaction be

with national and regional leaders of the interested organizations. AR could designate

some staff to be responsible for developing

procedures to assure that all interested

organizations have an opportunity to express

their views and concerns with respect to agricultural research priorities.

Economic Research Service (ERS)

ERS evaluates its programs in accordance

with feedback from user groups and other information on current and future priorities,

such as topics highlighted in the public media

and personal communication with persons in

Government and the private sector.

Each year, ERS conducts three or four

workshops in different regions of the country

with representatives of farm and commodity

organizations to discuss their need for data as

well as situation and outlook information on

commodities.

ERS has met with UAB to review its work

programs in relation to agriculture and farm

markets. In addition, the agency meets with

JC to obtain their reactions about research

and data needs. ERS interacts regularly with

the Federal agencies, State universities, professional associations, and State and local

governments.

ERS provides flexibility for scientists to

work on problems and issues which they see

as important to decisionmakers. All work is

subject to review to assure consistency with

agency plans.

PRIORITY SETTING IN SAES3

In virtually all activities, including priority

setting, SAES operate in a different manner

than their USDA counterparts. Planning, priority setting, budgeting, and program development are functions of line administrators

and scientists active in research. They are not

functions assigned to special staff scientists,

as some are in USDA agencies.

The goal of priority setting in the States is

to aid in allocating scarce resources to develop and maintain an effective and responsive

SAES program. Steps in priority setting are

to: a) identify the research investigations and

programs of greatest need and value to the

tThe information presented in this section draws heavily on

the report entitled “Priority Setting Processes in the State

Agricultural Experiment Stations” prepared by Keith Huston

for OTA.

State, b) examine the scientific and practical

feasibility of those investigations relative to

the resources available or required, and c) set

priorities according to the needs and feasibility of the research investigations and programs.

There are various levels of priority setting

at the SAES beginning with that of the scientist and continuing through the department

(such as the animal science department), the

department head or chairman, the experiment station as a whole, and the university

itself,

Role of Scientists

At the scientist level, the process begins

with an examination of user needs that relate
136 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

to the scientist’s discipline. Needs that can be

met by existing knowledge or can be handled

elsewhere are eliminated. The remainder are

translated into approaches that might be used

in meeting those needs, An examination of

current pertinent knowledge and scientific

feasibility of the approach is made, and the

time and kind and amount of resources required is estimated. In addition, the importance of user needs is compared with those

being addressed. And finally, colleagues and

the department head may be consulted about

the issues and approaches.

In arriving at priorities, a scientist makes

many complex judgments. Scientific feasibility of a given priority setting is based on

perceptions of the present state of knowledge

relative to the issues and number, kind, and

sequence of discoveries that need to be made,

and the probability of making them, Scientific

feasibility requires judgments about hypothetical discoveries; it makes heavy demands

on intuition. And even the most gifted scientist has no assurance that his intuition will

prove accurate,

Role of Department

Priority setting by a station department introduces additional considerations not found

in the processes of individual scientists. Insofar as resource allocation is concerned, the

central theme of priority setting within a

department takes on a broader, more complex

dimension. The predictable outcome is that

one scientist will be allocated more resources

than another.

In setting departmental research priorities,

the involvement of individual scientists takes

on a variety of patterns. In some departments,

all scientists are involved; they reach a consensus about priorities and that consensus is

subject to only moderate alteration by the department chairman. Matters discussed by the

group include station or legislative mandates,

restrictions based on resources or by grantors, research needed for instructional curriculum, differences in kinds and amounts of

resources needed and available for each project, and the possibilities of change in current

investigations.

Another pattern is one in which final setting of priorities is done by the department

chairman after a consensus emerges among

the staff. This is one of the most common patterns, Another approach is one in which the

department head discusses issues with individual scientists and then establishes the priorities. These priorities may be submitted to

the faculty for comments or ratification. This

approach is also one of the more common

patterns.

Role of Department Head

An SAES department head bears a singular

role in setting departmental priorities, A

prime responsibility is ensuring that the

departmental research program responds to

user needs. The intellectual efforts of the

scientists are the department’s principal

resources. To meet program needs, resources

must often be manipulated by forming teams

of scientists or transferring funds, equipment, animals, or lands.

The department head must also consider

the research activities supported by other

agencies, such as field stations of USDA,

because these resources may contribute to

meeting user needs in the State and thus permit alternate use of department resources. It

is necessary to keep abreast of the research of

private firms because quite often this research is closely related to the research program of the SAES. A department head must

also consider research needs as well as perceived needs of other groups such as organic

farmers and environmentalists.

Department heads do not specifically state

the rationale they use in ultimately resolving

issues. They likely base their decisions on the

general characteristics of user needs. Whether or not these needs will be met depends on a

number of factors, not the least of which is

the extent of human and financial resources

available to carry on a program.
Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities “ 137

Other Priority-Setting Factors

Within a department, several scientists may

be tackling a scientific problem that requires

the efforts of several different disciplines.

Again, the two major priority forces—user

needs and matching scientific resources—

provide a basis for priority setting. Other

State agencies often provide input, as do annual planning conferences where staffs of

branch stations and the central staff discuss

factors that may bear heavily on priority setting.

Role of SAES in Priority Setting

Most general concerns of department heads

are mirrored by the SAES and its director on

a much broader scale. Although the prioritysetting processes follow the same general

steps as outlined earlier, both the process and

the issues are much more complex at the

SAES level.

SAES’s priorities must address not only

direct user needs but also State needs. Generally, a State’s needs deviate from direct user

needs only in requiring a somewhat greater

attention to certain issues such as environmental quality. Special needs emerge gradually in the State. They reflect the general

temper of the people of the State and of the

times. Consequently, State scientists can generally perceive these needs quite readily.

Prior to the 1960’s, SAES generally allocated most of their research resources to increasing food supplies. In the past 20 years,

however, food supplies have been abundant

and cheap. Consequently, society’s priorities

have shifted, and SAES have moved their resources to other issues. But the pendulum

once again is swinging back to the uncertainty about the abundance of relatively low cost

food continuing in the next 20 years. Rate and

growth of agricultural productivity have

slowed. International food supplies are once

again in question. Costs of energy are likely to

increase. Sales of food reserves to foreign

countries will possibly increase. Perceptions

of such factors most certainly affect decisions

of a SAES director in setting State priorities.

Although SAES follow the same general

steps of others at the State level, the patterns

may differ, The factors affecting such

changes include attitudes of State legislatures

and Congress; priorities of the university;

shifts of resources because of changing programs and resource availability; university,

State, and Federal budgeting patterns and restrictions; and the interrelationship of these

factors.

Role of University in Priority Setting

In most States, the SAES is funded as a part

of the general university budget. Priorities

that depend solely on allocation of funds

under complete control of the SAES usually

can be accommodated without undue difficulty. But sometimes priorities established

within the SAES compete with priorities at a

higher level of the university heirarchy. Thus,

funds for new programs, new buildings, and

support are occasionally at stake. Generally,

agricultural colleges, because they have faculty employed as research scientists in the

SAES, enjoy greater opportunity and resources than other colleges.

PRIORITY SETTING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR4

In the private sector, market need and characteristics of existing products determine to a

large degree the kinds of research priorities

selected.

qTh is section is based on responses from the private sector to

inquiries by OTA.

There appears to be no direct role which

the public sector or consumers play in determining research priorities in the private sector. The public sector, however, has a responsibility to be familiar with the private sector’s

research efforts in order to avoid duplication

of effort and costly oversights.

a 1, – < , I – ,. : - ]
138 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

The public sector has a role, frequently a

negative one, in establishing research priorities for the private sector through regulatory

agencies. The activities of such agencies tend

to reduce the amount of basic research that

the private sector might do that relates to its

own interests. The net effect is to add to the

costs of doing research without enhancing research productivity.

Private companies engaged in manufacturing the same kinds of products, or related

products, often form associations to gain

more impact in their dealings with both consumers and governmental bodies. One example is the Institute of Food Technologists,

which deals with priority matters through a

research committee made up of representatives from member companies. Both the public sector and consumers provide important

input to the work of this committee.

In addition, the private sector helps determine priorities by lending equipment to

SAES providing grants, and serving on advisory committees.

The National Food Processors Association,

in commenting on the issue of priority determination, issued the following statement

(OTA letter of inquiry, 1980):

The agricultural scientific community was

once described as a “vast isolated island. ”

The recognition of new environmental and

consumer issues should have enlarged the

support base of this isolated island as new

problems arose. Unfortunately support has

been reduced,

It now appears that not only has the public

sector of agricultural research not been able

to respond to these new issues, but that EPA

[Environmental Protection Agency] grants

are used to supplement the decreased public

sector research funds, This means that EPA

sets the priorities and can even withdraw

support if meaningful research does not meet

their intended goals. Scientists in support of

food and agriculture should not be faced with

this [condition],

A variety of external forces can exert influence on both the manner in which research

priorities are made and the outcome of the research activity itself. Thus, research priorities

may be established much differently from

that described in the previous section. Some

of these forces can be national in scope;

others may concern only individual scientists

in their decisionmaking process. A prime example of the former is the 1970 Southern corn

leaf blight which reduced U.S. corn production 16 percent. Another example was the

combination of unfavorable weather and purchasing strategies of certain foreign countries

that led to low grain stocks and high prices

from 1973 through 1975. These two events resulted in several assessments of the world

SThe material in this section draws heavily on the OTA resource paper, “Forces Affecting Food and Agricultural Research Decisions,” prepared by Ron Knutson, Don Paarlberg,

and Alex McCalla.

food situation and the ability to feed an everincreasing population. To cope with the new

situation and its attendant problems, research

priorities had to be adapted—some of them

quickly and drastically.

lndustrialization of Agriculture

Industrialization of agriculture affects the

distribution of benefits from public research

that supports or facilitates technological

change. The first beneficiaries are the suppliers who sell new technology to producers.

The second beneficiaries are the firs t

adopters. These are frequently farmers who

are more aggressive and have ready access to

capital and information. Farmers who do not

or cannot adopt new technology find themselves squeezed by the effect of lower prices.

The ultimate beneficiaries are consumers.

But even their benefits can be delayed by intervening processing and marketing factors.
Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities “ 139

Trends toward industrialization of agriculture lend credibility to arguments expressing

concern about close ties between large farms,

large agribusiness firms, and the research

establishment (Paarlberg, 1981). Reality suggests that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Large farms have more influence than

small farms on research and education

programs in the land-grant system and

USDA.

Development of technology has more frequently followed the demands and needs

of the larger and more mechanized farms

than those of small and less organized

farming interests.

The private sector—i. e., farm input suppliers, etc.—benefit from public research.

Food processors, marketing firms, and

retailers benefit from post-harvest research, and some have sufficient market

influence to delay the benefits of research in reaching the public.

One of the important implications of the

above situation is that research administrators and scientists should be aware of the

need for public-interest objectivity in making

research decisions.

New Issue s

In addition to food shortages and the continuing process of industrialization, the

1970’s were confronted with a host of new

issues that will surely continue into the

1980’s. Demands developed for more generous food programs, organization rights for

farm labor, lower food prices, increased food

safety, increased environmental protection,

sharing water rights, equal rights for agricultural minorities, and improved nutrition.

These new issues are being funded at the

expense of traditional agricultural interests.

Concern exists within the agricultural research establishment that all areas will be increasingly underfunded as the research base

continues to expand, unless new funds are

made available.

Concern exists also that, without major scientific breakthroughs in agriculture’s capacity to produce, the world may be unable to

satisfy future food needs. It was only natural,

therefore, that these concerns created a call

for more research.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 was

responsive to the perceived need for more research. The act explicitly provided for creation of competitive research grants, using a

system of peer review that was foreign to the

traditional USDA research system where

funds were allocated on a formula basis. The

competitive grants program was opened up to

proposals from scientists outside the agricultural research establishment.

The 1977 act also created the JC to oversee,

advise, coordinate, and set research priorities. This structure was designed to replace

the previous research policy committee referred to as ARPAC (Agricultural Research

Policy Advisory Committee).

This combination of events has created considerable tension within the agricultural research establishment. Charges are made of attempts by special Federal interests to control

agricultural research at both Federal and

State levels. To an important extent, the problem is as much one of strategy to get the

needed level and mix of support as it is of directing research to priority areas. One cannot

disregard the fact that the two are interrelated.

Realities of Research Planning

The need for planning and coordinating the

food and agricultural research system is obvious, Planning must be done to determine

the size of the budget to carry out the research mission. Planning must be done to

clarify where specific areas of research

responsibility lie, to communicate what is being done, and to determine what needs exist.

The question, therefore, is not whether planning is needed but: a) who should do what

type of planning, b) how the results of plan-
140 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

ning should be translated into budget, and c)

how planning and budget should be translated into research.

Planning within the food and agricultural

research system has not come naturally. This

fact has meant that research planning initiatives have tended to be mandated by Congress

itself. The first such mandate was the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 which set

up joint planning for regional research. The

latest mandates were the creation of the JC

and UAB. (These two groups are discussed

fully in a later section of this chapter.)

It is important to ask why Congress in 1977

felt a need to enact these mandates. A number

of reasons can be suggested:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Congress had no confidence in the recommendations it was getting on appropriations. The President’s budget recommendations were suspected of being manipulated by the agencies, the Secretary,

and the Office of Management and Budget. The recommendations of ARPAC

were suspected of being the vested interests of the performers.

Because of an increasingly tight world

food situation, it appeared that increased

funding was going to be required. Congress desired to make sure that new

money was spent in areas that had the

potential for greatest payoff—the socalled high-priority research areas.

Concern existed that the food and agricultural research system was not adjusting its research program to evolving clientele needs.

The complexity of the research situation

led to the conclusion that it was out of

control, duplicating research, and unaccountable. Hearings tended to fortify

rather than refute this conclusion.

Experience with earmarking funds for

specific research had not always worked.

The impression existed that projects

were simply being renamed and the research program did not change.

Each of these reasons was at least partially

true (Knutson, et al., 1980). Restoring confidence in the system will require a recognition

of this fact. It will also require that the food

and agricultural research establishment become organized in a manner whereby it can

have a more decisive impact on and control

over legislation enacted in its behalf,

Research Decisions of Scientists

Despite the existence of elaborate administrative structures in both USDA and the

universities, the major decisions on what research is to be undertaken are made by research scientists. They develop project proposals, give reasons for the required level of

support, and then, within the limits of the

available budget, decide what specific research is to be undertaken.

Because of the increased complexity of research projects, research administrators are

in a poor position to evaluate the relative

merits of particular projects. Yet, they play a

very important role in coordination, organization, and policy for research. However,

the further removed the administrator is from

the project—i.e., the higher the level of administrative bureaucracy—the greater the potential for being wrong on the relative merits of

particular projects. Thus, the greatest potential for administrators influencing research

decisions is through hiring staff and resource

allocation to broad areas of research.

Motives influencing the research decisions

of scientists may be grouped under four general headings: intellectual curiosity, availability of funds, responsiveness to clientele,

and personal gain (Knutson, et al., 1980).

Intellectual curiosity is research motivation

in its pure form. It is the motive that led

Gregor Mendel to discover the principles of

heredity and caused Darwin to persist in his

studies until he formulated the theory of evolution. It is part of the motivation of every researcher worthy of the name. Administrative

interruption of this process of discovering

new knowledge can be costly. Likewise, a scientist is likely to be more productive working

on a problem in which he or she has a direct

interest.
Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities ● 141

Availability of funds can make the difference between meager research results and

findings worthy of being converted to useful

technology. Both new people and new money

are needed to give research priorities a reasonable opportunity for success. If additional

funds are allocated to a new high-priority

project but additional people are not appointed, these new funds probably will be

spread over ongoing projects.

A substitution of grant funds for formula

funds does not necessarily solve this problem

because in the face of reduced formula funding, grant money will likewise tend to be used

to support ongoing research projects, while

formula funds are shifted to areas where

grants are unavailable. The lesson here is that

the most effective means of initiating change

is through increased incremental funding.

Competitive grants, in addition to providing

scientists an added base of financial support,

often give them freedom to pursue their

chosen field of research.

Responsiveness to clientele is not readily

quantifiable. It cannot be denied, however,

that there is far less responsiveness to sectors

of agriculture that are poorly organized—

part-time farmers, small farms, hired labor,

and minority groups. Recent concern about

social structure reflects the belief that a taxsupported research system owes the public

more than to respond primarily to those clientele groups that are most affluent, most persuasive, and best organized.

A growing force in setting priorities—both

in research and action programs—is the influence wielded by certain organizations and

societies made up of users and consumers

who have a vested interest in Government

plans and programs that they believe oppose

their own plans, ideals, or philosophy about

the environment or the welfare of society.

One of the prime concerns of such groups is

wise husbandry of natural resources for use

in perpetuity. A typical example is the possible environmental damage incurred by the

continued damming of rivers to provide more

water for agricultural irrigation, recreational

use, or urban water supplies. They are also interested in the exploration of ways to help the

food and agricultural system become less

concentrated, less reliant on fossil fuel energy, less capital intensive, and less dependent

on chemicals. These organizations—such as

the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club

—will undoubtedly continue to exert pressure

on legislators to achieve their goals. Hence,

they must be regarded as viable forces in the

priority-setting process.

Personal gain—such as promotions, salary,

and peer recognition—is an important motivator for scientists. Actually, this can be an

excellent means to an end—that is, the discovery of new knowledge. For some researchers,

however, personal gain is an end in itself.

Differences exist among universities and

USDA agencies as to their ability to reward

top-quality scientists. Also, substantial resource differences exist among universities

for attracting scientific talent. These differences result from a combination of factors

such as a State’s population, income, resource base, and tax structure. They also result from the Federal system of allocating research dollars. For example, increased emphasis on competitive grants allocated strictly

on the basis of proposal and scientific qualities will further concentrate research in

those universities that have had the research

dollars needed to attract top-quality basic

scientists.

Despite its complexity, the U.S. food and

agricultural research system operating in a

relatively free-market agricultural setting has

an enviable record of success. This success

has been accomplished in a decentralized research setting where scientists in proximity

to their agricultural clientele make the critical

decisions on what research is to be done.

As both fear of and evidence of an increasingly tight world food supply-demand balance increase, as pressures to cut Federal

spending mount, and as the size and complexity of the food and agricultural research

establishment grow, Congress and State legis-
142 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

latures have become increasingly concerned increased planning, increased accountability,

about the performance of the food and agri- and greater control over what research is to

cultural research system. Incentives exist for be done.

ROLE OF THE JOINT COUNCIL ON

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, gave

the Secretary of Agriculture authority to appoint a Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Science. The JC was to include the traditional teaching, research, and extension partners as well as representatives from other

public and private institutions. Primary responsibility of JC is to foster coordination of

research, extension, and teaching activities of

the Federal Government, the States, colleges

and universities, and other public and private

institutions involved in the food and agricultural sciences. The JC took over the functions

of ARPAC.

The responsibilities of the JC as specified in

the legislation suggest the formation of a central planning agency for research, extension,

and teaching. The responsibilities include

evaluation of program impacts, identification

of high-priority research, developing memoranda of understanding among the participants, establishing priorities, recommending

responsibility for research, and summarizing

achievements. The Secretary is to use JC

recommendations, as well as other input, in

submitting to Congress a 5-year projection of

national research priorities.

In a sense, all JC activities lead to priority

setting. Recommended priorities form the basis for JC’s annual report. The JC has released

two reports on research planning and a planning report by the National Planning Committee. These reports basically summarize

trends that affect food needs in the future and

identify a long list of research priority areas.

The reports do not establish objectives, rank

priorities or develop implementing programs.

Without these, JC reports will have only minimal impact on agricultural research planning

(GAO, 1981).

JC’s planning and coordination structure

has evolved over a 3-year period. Considerable debate attended these efforts to broaden

participation in planning and coordination

and create a representative new structure. In

the structure finally adopted by the JC, each

of the four regions has three committees, one

for teaching, one for research, one for extension. The three fall under a regional council.

That is, all four regional research committees

operate under a national research committee.

The JC’s struggle to develop a workable

planning structure sometimes evoked images

of overorganization or tenuous communication links. In contrast, ARPAC, a product of

many years of development, sometimes

seemed a better planning structure (Mahlstede, 1980).

The JC faced a problem ARPAC had not encountered. In attempting to make teaching,

extension, and research equal partners in

research planning, it sought a program structure common to the three functions. However, it found that each function had a unique

structure, developed to suit its needs. When

the JC identified an area for which coordination across the three functions should have

high priority, these structures did not lend

themselves to examination of existing interrelationships or establishment of new ones

(Mahlstede, 1980).

There seems to be a perception—even

among some who make up its membership—

that the JC is not fulfilling its intended role.

One of its problems, according to USDA, is

lack of sufficient resources, particularly staff

support. USDA’s Economics and Statistics

Service stated that the JC suffers from the

dual role of supporter of the food and agricultural science system and evaluator of the
Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities . 143

system, The private sector is particularly

critical of the JC, believing that too much effort is devoted to “lubricating the machinery”

rather than identifying desired results and existing impediments to their achievement.

Within the administrative segments of the

JC itself, some dissension has developed. For

example, on July 31, 1980, the North Central

Regional Experiment Station Directors Association voted unanimously to suspend participation in the JC planning process. Their concern was that USDA did not use State input in

budgeting and the Association did not understand the role of the regional councils. They

also disapproved of the membership and size

of the JC national research planning committee, The Association recently resumed participation in the JC’s activities.

JC’s success has also been limited by a lack

of clear direction by the whole Council to its

role. Individual members define JC’s coordination role in widely differing terms from “facilitating exchange of information” to acting

“as an oversight council” and “setting research priorities. ” Adding to this confusion,

USDA takes the position that the JC’s role is

to supply input to USDA’s long-range planning process and to accomplish much of the

legislative planning responsibilities of the

Secretary. JC members, however, believe

their key role lies in fostering coordination

and that their role in planning is that of an advisor to other actual planners (GAO, 1981).

There is also debate over the composition of

JC. Through early 1981, the JC was composed

of 24 members, which represented the following: 9 from USDA, 5 from land-grant colleges

and SAES, 2 from UAB, 2 from private industry, 1 from Office of Science and Technology

policy, and 5 from extension, nonland-grant

universities and other interested parties. In

the view of SAES, they are not adequately

represented on the JC considering that they

fund and conduct a significant amount of

agricultural research (OTA letter of inquiry,

1981). There is a perception that because the

JC is composed of a large number of USDA

employees, it is dominated by USDA.

In relation to this concern is the fact that

the JC must use USDA for staff support. The

JC believes it would enhance its ability to be

an independent advisory committee if it had

its own staff (OTA letter of inquiry, 1980).

In evaluating its own performance, the JC

believes it has made some progress in its area

of responsibility. But it recognizes that certain responsibilities charged to it by Congress

have not been fulfilled (OTA letter of inquiry,

1980).

It is not surprising that the JC has not, in its 3

years of existence, fully satisfied all of its objectives. In fact, the JC only recently was able

to develop its 21-member committee on regional and national organizational structure.

Serious questions exist as to whether the JC

could ever effectively carry out the functions

assigned to it. Even more serious questions

exist as to whether, if it could carry out those

assignments, the results would be desirable.

Castle, in a recent evaluation of the food

and agricultural research planning system including ARPAC, put it this way:

This (the present) system is a vast exercise

in hypocrisy. All experienced administrators

know that planning and coordination exercises are not worth much if control of budget

and personnel resides elsewhere. If you

believe as I and many others do, that decentralization has been and is a necessary

characteristic of a productive system, the

only thing worse than the present planning

and coordination would be to give it control

over budget and/or personnel. There are

worse things than irrelevance; if the present

planning and coordination really became

relevant to budget and personnel the situation would be worse—much much worse (p.

16).
144 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

ROLE OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

AND EXTENSION USERS ADVISORY BOARD

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 also

directed the Secretary of Agriculture to appoint a National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB). Its

primary purpose is to represent the divergent

opinions of users and determine their needs

and priorities. UAB’s members come from

the food and agricultural sectors of the economy; others are consumers. They are chosen

for their potential to offer opinions independent of political considerations that might inhibit Federal employees or representatives of

organizations. Among UAB’s mandates are

the

●

●

●

●

.

following:

review USDA’s policies, plans, and goals

for research and extension;

examine relationships between private

and public programs and assess the extent of research conducted by the private

sector;

recommend policies, priorities, and strategies for research and extension; and

assess distribution of resources and allocation of funds for research and extension.

UAB is required to submit two reports annually. One is to the Secretary recommending

allocation of responsibilities and funding

levels among federally supported agricultural

research and extension programs, including a

review and assessment of the allocation of

funds for research and extension by the organizations represented on the JC. The second

is a report to the President and to the Senate

and House agriculture and appropriations

committees which reviews the President’s

proposed budget for food and agricultural

sciences.

UAB has focused its efforts on primarily

reviewing and advising the Secretary on national long-term research priorities, policies,

and strategies. In preparing the above reports

it develops research priorities in a multistep

procedure. First, members identify their own

concerns and after discussion develop a list

of priority areas. Next, UAB obtains an inventory of research and extension activity in

each area. After holding field meetings and

soliciting more opinions from users, the

original list is modified to develop a statement of UAB opinion.

Priorities recommended by UAB are examined by the JC, and UAB in turn reviews the

JC’s recommendations. In the end, the two

groups may agree on one set of priorities, but

they are not obligated to do so.

UAB’s responsibilities are more realistic

and attainable than those of the JC (Knutson,

Paarlberg, and McCalla, 1980). However, its

impact on research priorities is unclear. UAB

itself questions whether it has had any impact. USDA officials feel that UAB has been

effective. However, when questioned, these

officials were unable to point to specifics

(GAO, 1981). Some USDA administrators indicate that they refer to UAB reports when

establishing their priorities, but, because

UAB priorities often parallel USDA positions, the UAB’s impact is uncertain. USDA’s

responses to UAB reports indicate the similarity of the two groups’ positions. In response to UAB's October 1979 report, USDA

concurred fully or in part in 41 of UAB’s 46

recommendations. In concurring, USDA

often cited ongoing work as covering the

recommendations (GAO, 1981).

Critics have not been as harsh with UAB as

they have been with the JC. USDA believes

UAB is fulfilling its intended role but has yet

to deal effectively with negative or low

priorities. Moreover, says USDA, UAB needs

to: a) learn more about the science and education system, and b) improve its group decision processes and skills. Some critics in the

private sector believe that both the JC and

UAB have done a miserable job, have had little impact, and do not adequately represent

the private sector (Responses to OTA letters

of inquiry, 1980). These critics are for the
Ch. Vll—Determining Research Priorities ● 145

most part organizations that are not represented on UAB.

Lack of user representation on UAB is a

problem. UAB has limited membership and

cannot include individuals from all interested

groups. Representatives of interested groups

and organizations can appear before UAB,

but this procedure is less than satisfactory to

most organizations. Even if UAB were to arrange for formal and periodic meetings, it is

only an advisory board, and most organizations desire direct contact with those responsible for public-supported research. However,

UAB members do not see themselves as representatives of organized groups. They believe their task is to interact among themselves and with researchers, not to serve as

mere conduits for the opinions of others.

They believe they represent the multiple interests of all users, rather than the interests of

groups (Response to OTA letter of inquiry,

1980),

UAB, like the JC, must rely on USDA for its

resources. It does not have operating funds or

authority to appoint staff. Thus, the scope of

work performed by UAB relies on the benevolence of USDA.

UAB was established as a citizens group to

represent users of research. However, some

represented on the present UAB are more

providers or performers of research than

strictly users. Examples include the Rockefeller Foundation and retired researchers.

These entities should more appropriately be

represented on the JC.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES IN DETERMINING

RESEARCH

The process for determining priorities for

food and agricultural research in the United

States invariably raises problems for those

who administer the system. Moreover, these

problems are exploding into complex policy

issues. Unfortunately, the processes that were

formerly used to determine priorities no

longer seem to be functioning as smoothly as

they did. New processes for improving the

priority-setting system are necessary for three

reasons.

First, decisions will always have to be

made, but they should not be made by default.

Decisions deserve to be arrived at by a responsible process.

Second, most of the expertise for making

appropriate decisions is within the system

itself. Some persons would prefer to shift the

decision process— or at least some segments

of it—outside the system. However, the rec8The information presented in this section draws heavily

from the OTA resource paper, “The Process of Setting Priorities for Food and Agricultural Research, ” prepared by

Charles E. French.

PRIORlTIES6

ord of the system is too commanding to allow

its leadership to abandon its role.

Third, the evolving planning system somewhat legitimized by the Food and Agriculture

Act of 1977 threatens the system. Castle characterizes the research system as a troubled

and uncertain system, and the proposed system of national planning and coordination as

a vast exercise in hypocrisy (Castle, 1980).

This disturbing evaluation has been endorsed

by others.

Those managing the system must work

within it to adapt it as needed; otherwise the

inevitable result is to lose the freedom which

the system now enjoys. What is needed is a

strategy that can discipline the system, protect its integrity, retain reasonable control of

it, provide a framework for more accountability, and give more positive direction to the

system.

A number of new processes for priority setting are available for research management to

consider. One is the project ranking system,

in which an attempt is made to place judg-
146 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

ment on research priorities into some kind of

rigorous evaluation system. Another is an approach to optimize resource allocation, such

as benefit-cost analysis.

Another new process that deserves careful

consideration is the one used in the World

Food and Nutrition Study conducted by the

National Academy of Sciences in 1977. This

process included: a) a thorough analysis of

the need for the study and the time required

to complete it, b) an evaluation of the various

constraints involved, c) a thoughtful study of

the criteria for choice, and d) an accurate

delineation of the parameters of the study

(French, 1981).

Within the current planning system, consensus development does indeed occur, but it

occurs more on a give-and-take negotiation

among managers than on approaching the

problem on a more systematic basis of project-ranking, benefit-cost analysis, or the

methodology used in the World Food and Nutrition Study.

The most important guidance gleaned from

the new processes is that they are mechanisms for developing a consensus. This

avoids certain drawbacks such as indecision,

internal bickering and resultant weak bargaining power, outsiders, failure to communicate clearly, and underrating society’s expectations about putting parts of the research

house in order. Consensus by those within

the system would help on all these problems.

In setting up a priority-setting process, consensus making protects the integrity of the individual and demands rigor—i.e., being realistic about the situations in which the participants can be expected to make reasonable

judgments. Another useful principle about

consensus making is that it must provide for

interaction. Feedback is a powerful modern

concept, and it can prove itself in the prioritysetting process.

A good, workable priority-setting process

keeps the research system from being bogged

down with other problems and gives the system a chance to stand on its own in making

priority judgments. Moreover, a rigorous

planning-process approach goes a long way

in arguing for a fairly open, freely operating

research system. There is no room for internal strife. And finally, the need for continuity

in planning and evaluation within the system

seems obvious. In the present planning systems, continuity is often lacking.

It should be kept in mind that these new

processes are still evolving and have not yet

proved themselves in some situations. They

cannot surround problems that the mind cannot comprehend; they cannot create judgment. They cannot substitute for peer accountability or scientific objectivity. Priority

planners should also realize that consensus

making is only one part of these processes.

But it is an important one. Scientists may not

always want a consensus. Scientists make

convincing arguments that the lifeblood of

their creativity and objectivity lies in their

diversity and controversy. These processes,

therefore, have limits and any use made of

them in priority setting should take their latent limitations into consideration.

● To adequately determine research priorities there need to be explicitly stated goals for

food and agriculture. There are no explicitly

stated food and agricultural goals for the research community to use in determining research priorities.

● There is concern whether the functions

assigned to the JC are attainable. It has had

major problems in attempting to satisfy these

functions and as a result has had limited impact. Its effectiveness is limited by a lack of

consensus by its members on its role, percep-
Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities ● 1 4 7

tion of USDA dominance, and overorganization.

● Functions of UAB are more attainable

than those of the JC. Impact of UAB on research priorities is unclear. It cannot represent all users of research, and those not represented are critical of UAB’s performance.

UAB, like the JC, lacks its own operating

funds and is dependent on USDA for its resources. Its membership includes performers

as well as users.

. There is lack of satisfactory long-term

process for evaluating existing research activities, potential research opportunities, and

development of a new set of research priorities. Long-term research planning which is

updated every 4 years or more can be accomplished by an intensive, comprehensive study

involving research administrators, scientists,

and users.

CHAPTER VII REFERENCES

French, Charles E., “The Process of Setting Priorities for Food and Agricultural Research, ”

OTA background paper, 1981.

Guither, Harold, The Food Lobbyists: Behind the

Scenes of Food and Agri-Politics (Lexington,

Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980).

Hadwiger, Don, and William Brown, The New Politics of Food (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath,

1978),

Huston, Keith, “Priority Setting Process in the

State Agricultural Experiment Stations, ” OTA

background paper, 1980.

Knutson, R., D. Paarlberg, and A. McCalla,

“Forces Affecting Food and Agricultural Research Decisions, ” OTA background paper,

1980.

Mahlstede, John, “Role of the Joint Council on

Food and Agricultural Sciences and the National Agricultural Research and Extension

Users Advisory Board in Coordinating Research and Determining Research Priorities, ”

OTA background paper, 1981.

Paarlberg, Don, Food and Food Policy: Issues of the

1980’s (Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska

Press, 1980).

Paarlberg, Don, “The Land Grant Colleges and the

Structural Issue, ” Amer. Jour. of Agr. Econ.,

vol. 63, No. 1, February 1981, pp. 129-134.

USDA/SEA, written responses by SEA to inquiry

by OTA, July 25, 1980,

U.S. General Accounting Office, Long-Range Planning Can Improve the Efficiency of Agricultural Research and Development (Washington,

D. C.: GAO, July 1981).

Report of the National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board, Washington, D. C., October 1979.

Report of the National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board, Washington, D. C., March 1981.

Report of the National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board,

Washington, D, C., March 1981.

USDA, 1979 Annual Report on Food and Agricultural Sciences by the Secretary of Agriculture to

the President and Congress, Washington, D. C.,

February 1980.

USDA, 1980 Annual Report in Food and Agricultural Sciences by the Secretary of Agriculture to

the President and Congress, Washington, D. C.,

February 1981.

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Science,

response to OTA letter of inquiry, Aug. 28 and

Dec. 23, 1980.

National Agricultural Research and Extension

Users Advisory Board, Response to OTA letter of inquiry, Sept. 4, 1980.
Chapter VIII

International Dimensions 

of Research
Page

Development of U.S. International Research Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....152

U.S. Agency for International Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

Origins of Research Component. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,...,153

Research at the Country Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

Centrally Funded Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....155

Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1975. . . . . . . .......................155

U.S. Department of Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........157

General Administrative Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .157

Special Foreign Currency Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ...158

Tropical and Subtropical Research and Training Program., . ..................158

Recent Legislative and Administrative Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,,.......159

Private Sector Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................159

The Emerging International Research System. . . ...............,..........160

Structure and Growth of the System . . . . . . . . . . . ....................,.........160

International Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........161

National Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................162

International Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................163

Potential Value of the System to the United States... . .........................163

General Nature of Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............163

Specific Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,..,.......164

Status of U.S.-International Linkages . . . . . . . . . . ..............................164

Constraints on International participation. . . . . ................................165

AID: Lower Income Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............165

The Basic Problems.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................165

Title XII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............167

USDA: Middle- and High-Income Nations. ...,... . ...........................167

The Role of States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................167

The International Research Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....168

Engaging the Private Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................168

Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................168

Principal Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................169

Chapter VIII References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............,169

List of Tables

Table No. Page

11. CGIAR-Sponsored International Agricultural Research Centers and Programs., ..161

12. Total Core Expenditures on Centers and Programs Sponsored by CGIAR,

1972-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......162

13, AID Contributions to International Agricultural Research Centers. . ..........,.162

14. Public Expenditures on Agricultural Research, Major Regions of

the World, 1959 and 1974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........................162
Chapter Vlll

International Dimensions

of Research

Until the 1930’s, the U.S. food and agricultural research system was concerned almost

wholly with domestic problems. Immediately

following World War II, however, changing

world conditions caused agricultural research to be viewed in a broader international

setting. There are several reasons why this

viewpoint has become even more important

over the past 30 years.

The United States is becoming increasingly

dependent on the developing nations for a

growing amount and diversity of food imports (largely noncompetitive) and raw materials. For these countries to continue to assist

the United States they must have economic

and political stability, and one way that the

United States can assure such stability is to

help them meet their own increasing food

needs (caused by rapid population growth

and rising incomes).

Another reason for strengthening the international research and technology base of

poorer nations is to assist them in producing

more of their basic food needs. This is in their

own best interest, but is also of value to the

United States to the extent that it enables the

Nation to cut down on foreign food aid. Since

the end of World War II, the United States

has spent about $30 billion to alleviate starvation among these nations (Furtick, 1981).

Because of rapidly rising world population,

decreasing self-sufficiency, and increasing

commodity prices, the annual food-aid cost is

rising sharply and could become an impossible burden for the United States and other

donors.

Helping the developing nations to improve

their economic standing will, in turn, aid in

opening up vast foreign markets for U.S.-produced goods. Now, as never before, we need

added trade to offset the decline in balance of

payments caused largely by burgeoning oil

imports. Serious disincentives for the American private sector make expanded foreign

trade difficult or unattractive.

Yet another reason for stressing expanded

international involvement in agriculture is

that there is much the United States could

learn from agricultural research conducted in

the rest of the world. Once the United States

was far ahead of the rest of the world in the

scope of agricultural research achievements;

but in recent years, this status has declined

significantly as the U.S. agricultural research

system has languished and the systems of

other nations have advanced. There is an increasing amount of research available, which

the United States could draw on in meeting

its own needs.

Finally, and perhaps foremost in the minds

of many, provision of such assistance is the

humanitarian thing to do, even where the

United States secures no immediate benefit.

The world will not be a better place solely

or simply because of agricultural research.

But it plays a kingpin role in agricultural development, and agricultural development is

of much greater importance to many nations

than may be generally recognized in the

highly urbanized U.S. society.

While there is great promise for the United

States and others in a broadened international dimension in agricultural research,

there is a long way to go before this potential

is fully reached. Much will depend on the performance of two organizations–the U.S.

Agency for International Development (AID)

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA). At present, both face substantial, but

differing, handicaps in carrying out this task.

151
152 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

This chapter traces the development of in- search system, and presents findings on the

ternational agricultural research activities in problems of current U.S. international parAID and USDA, notes concurrent develop- ticipation

ments in the international agricultural reDEVELOPMENT OF U.S. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES1

Originally, neither USDA nor the landgrant colleges had any governmental charge

or funding for international activities. But as

the research capability of both groups grew,

their scientists were increasingly called on by

foreign governments and organizations. By

the 1930’s Americans had provided technical

agricultural assistance on five continents.

All of this was done on an individual and ad

hoc basis. Not until 1938 was USDA given

legal authority to provide technical assistance

in the Convention of Cultural Relations. In

1939, Public Law 355 established cooperative

tropical experiment stations in Latin America

to develop crops complementary (noncompetitive) to U.S. production. Funds were appropriated in July 1941, and the first program

began with the signing of an agreement with

Peru in April 1942. The onset of World War II

delayed progress.

After World War II, the Marshall Plan provided the main vehicle for U.S. involvement

in international agricultural matters. It is not

known, however, how much assistance the

plan provided directly to agricultural research in Europe. Subsequently, point IV, established in 1949, extended U.S. assistance to

other areas. The early emphasis in point IV

was on the transfer of American agricultural

technology and establishment of extension

services. In the early 1950’s, the need for institutions of teaching, research, and extension was recognized, but it was still thought

that technology could be directly transferred

to developing countries.

By the early 1960’s, it became apparent that

U.S. technology simply was not immediately

useful to many tropical and semitropical developing nations. Adaptation was necessary,

and this required an indigenous research

capacity. This realization came slowly and

unevenly, and many nonagriculturalists do

not comprehend it to this day.

Meanwhile, some useful related activities

had been carried out. Early in the 1950’s,

American foreign assistance agencies contracted with a number of American agricultural colleges to help establish comparable institutions in developing nations. 2 American

colleges also provided training for foreign

students, resulting in development of institutions and trained staff which could later contribute to research.

One of the most significant research developments at midcentury started quite differently. In the early 1940’s following a visit by

Secretary of Agriculture Wallace to Mexico,

the Rockefeller Foundation sent a small team

of’ prominent agricultural scientists to that

country to see what steps might be taken to

increase its agricultural production. A grain

improvement program was begun in 1943 in

cooperation with the Office of Special Studies

of’ the Ministry of Agriculture. Dr. Norman

Borlaug soon joined the program, and in

1959, he became head of Rockefeller’s International Wheat Improvement Project. The

wheat project was merged with a comparable

corn program in 1963 to form the International Center for Corn and Wheat Improvement. Work sponsored by the Mexican Government was shifted to the National Institute

of Agricultural Research in 1961 (Stakman,

Bradfield, and Mangelsdorf, pp. 1-93).

IThis section draws heavily from vol. V of the Supporting

Papers: World Food and Nutrition Study, pp. 91-127, and from

Furtick, 1981.

‘See Read for details on a highly successful program in

India.
——

Ch. VIII—International Dimensions of Research ● 153

In looking back on the early post-World

War II period in 1964, one observer stated:

Although our government has been actively

engaged in technical assistance in agriculture

throughout Latin America for two decades,

the sad truth is that not a single first-class

agricultural research center has been developed as a consequence of these activities.

Mexico has done well, but not because of any

technical assistance from the U.S. Government. . , . Japan has done exceedingly well on

her own. But throughout South Asia, where

we have both public and private commitments to assist agriculture, with few exceptions new agricultural research has been neglected (Schultz, p. 201)

Despite the strong dependence of U.S. agriculture on a steady generation of new technology, the U.S. technical assistance programs for nearly 20 years neither developed

nor used new agricultural technology in the

cooperating countries with any real degree of

effectiveness (Moseman, 1970).

U.S. Agency for International

Development

In 1961, the various scattered international

assistance activities of the United States were

combined into a new AID. This agency provided the link for much of the involvement of

USDA and the States in developing countries

for the next 20 years. However, AID had little

to do with developed nations.

Origins of Research Component

The lack of a sound research component

within the U.S. foreign assistance program

was recognized when AID was established.

Hence a research program with special budget support was initiated in 1962. In July 1964,

a conference on international rural development concluded that greater support should

be given to the research component by AID,

in its own programs and within its contracts

with U.S. agricultural universities. Although

data are fragmentary, it appears that there

was a substantial expansion in expenditures

on agricultural research during the 1960’s.

Prior to the formation of AID, agriculturalists involved in foreign assistance were

grouped in one central Office of Agriculture

in the Department of State. Senior members

had line responsibility and could make budget decisions involving projects and programs.

With the establishment of AID, however,

many of the agriculturalists were dispersed to

regional bureaus, and those that remained

were given staff duties. With this dispersion

came a decline in responsibility, in Washington and in the field. Some efforts were made

to return to the pattern of the 1950’s, but the

proponents were outdone by the powerful regional bureaus which preferred to retain their

new status.

There were other constraints. One was a

congressionally imposed lid on the amount of

money that could be spent on all forms of research, which continued to the mid-1970’s.

The other constraint was on commodities

that were considered to be in surplus, such as

wheat and rice.

The tide began to change for food crops in

February 1966. President Johnson, in his

“War on Hunger” message of February 10,

emphasized the need to help countries in balancing agricultural productivity with population growth and to eliminate the surplus

concept in food aid. On March 7, 1968, AID

issued a new order that liberalized the commodity focus and made it possible to provide

support for a broader range of research activities.

Despite the provincialism of the regional

bureaus and the substantial difficulties of the

period, the AID research specialists had a

global vision. At a meeting of the Development Advisory Committee in the spring of

1967, the U.S. delegation presented a proposal for strengthening international collaboration in adaptive research with special emphasis on: 1) world centers patterned after the

International Rice Research Institute, 2) regional centers to be concerned with the problems of major ecological regions, and 3) national centers for attention to localized problems (Moseman, 1970, pp. 93-94).
154 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

While this concept exceeded the realities of

research in AID at the time, there was some

followthrough. AID became involved in some

program reviews of national agricultural research systems in several Asian nations. AID

also began to provide funding to the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

in 1969 and to three other international

centers in 1970. A massive review of the new

cereal varieties was held in the spring of

1969, and later that year, a Technica l

Assistance Bureau, which provided a needed

focus on research, was established.

The Technical Assistance Bureau (to become the Development Support Bureau in

1977) and the regional bureaus sharply expanded their support for research in the

1970’s. Three main avenues of support were

used: bilateral, multilateral, and contracts

with American institutions. The regional bureaus were involved in bilateral activities

which were principally research loans supplemented by some grant funds. The Technical Assistance Bureau was involved in varying degrees with all three activities. It provided technical assistance in the bilateral loan

activities and grant funding for multilateral

and contract activities. The multilateral research activities involved the support of the

international centers sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR) plus two other international research organizations, which are not

members.

Although overall funding for research increased sharply over the period, only that

portion funded by the Technical Assistance

Bureau can be documented with much precision. The bilateral programs sponsored by the

regional bureaus and country mission usually

involved many other activities beyond research.

While the research funding levels rose in

AID, research continued to have a relatively

uncertain position in the organization and

staffing of the agency. AID continued to be a

general purpose organization run by generalists rather than by scientists. There were

relatively few trained agriculturalists and

even fewer experienced agricultural researchers.

To provide a more clearly defined role for

research, consideration was given in the late

1970’s to establishing a separate—though

companion—research agency, the Institute

for Scientific and Technological Cooperation

(ISTC). ISTC, however, did not receive congressional approval.

AID added a science advisor and allocated

some funds to the National Academy of Sciences to cosponsor modest research projects

in developing nations. There is some concern

among AID research specialists that these

projects could be counterproductive and

divert less-developed-country researchers

from projects of greatest importance to their

country to those of interest to a few U.S.

scientists, who may have little knowledge of

the developing country. An attempt is being

made to avoid this problem.

Research at the Country Level

AID support of research and related programs has not been consistent. By far the

largest expenditure (though small in relation

to total funds for AID food and nutrition programs) has been at the country mission level

in response to requests by host governments.

Even so, there has often been reluctance to

fund research because most AID country mission administrative personnel do not have

agricultural backgrounds. They tend to think,

as was common in the 1950’s and early

1960’s, that all the answers are available from

U.S. agriculture. Projects with more rapid

payoff tend to be favored in order to show

concrete results during their tour of duty

(Furtick, 1981). This is unfortunate because of

all the donors, AID usually has: 1) the best access to information in host countries, 2) a

greater chance to affect local priorities, and

3) the largest reservoir of food and agricultural expertise. AID missions can readily

work with most donors informally to ensure

balanced programs with realistic objectives.
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research “ 155

Research projects at the country mission

level have usually been aimed at building or

strengthening the research capacity of local

research institutions. Such programs have

usually been carried out through contracts

with universities, interagency agreements

with USDA, or private contractors. Increasingly, these activities have required close coordination with other bilateral and multilateral donors that may be supporting different

aspects of the same institution. The effectiveness of these projects has been hampered by

lack of qualified persons in the field missions,

compounded by frequent transfers. This has

made it difficult for AID to effectively serve

the needs of the host countries. In addition,

lengthy review and contracting procedures

have made timely assistance difficult.

AID support for this research has long been

handicapped by inadequate or inappropriate

staffing (Furtick, 1981). Use of foreign service

officers as project monitors between foreign

service assignments has led to rapid turnover

of administrative staff, frequently with little

or no research training, resulting in delays

and mismanagement. Some regional bureau

staff have been suspicious of research as lacking impact and relevance; this has prevented

competent planning and implementation.

There has also been a chronic lack of adequate project evaluations during and after the

contract period.

Centrally Funded Research

Centrally funded research covers the various activities that are not country specific.

Many of the funded contracts are strictly research in nature. Others have a technical assistance component to provide educational

and other activities to hasten use of the

research results. (Centrally funded research

at the international agricultural research

centers is discussed in a subsequent section.)

Because AID does not have a research staff

of its own, all centrally funded research has

been contracted primarily to universities,

consortia of universities, USDA, other Federal agencies, or in a few cases, to private research organizations. This research has included grants that, as a result of insistence by

the university community, have been contracted to universities with minimum restrictions on their use (Furtick, 1981). Their purpose was to strengthen research capability in

areas where AID anticipated continuing requests for assistance and current capacity

was inadequate to respond. These strengthening programs usually covered a 5-year period.

A major difficulty in use of expertise was

that strengthening grants were centrally

funded, and the regional bureaus were at

odds with the central bureau. Further, the regional bureau management had little or no

training in agriculture and did not understand or appreciate the role of science and

technology in country development. In a few

cases, this expertise was used by AID. However, with changing missions and regional

personnel who had changing ideas and lack

of expertise in agriculture, these resources

were soon forgotten.

Other contracts have been aimed at solution of problems of multicountry importance

such as specific pest and disease problems,

biological nitrogen fixation by tropical legumes, and control of major weed problems.

In some missions, these research activities

have been used to backstop specific problems

identified by AID country missions.

Title XII of the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1975

Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of

1975 provided for the establishment of a

Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The purpose of

the act was to more fully use the expertise of

American land-grant colleges and universities in agricultural development programs.

The congressional sponsors originally proposed to the Secretary of Agriculture that this

program be made part of USDA. This suggestion was not accepted, and the program was

incorporated within AID, but without

separate funding. BIFAD members are appointed by the President, of which the first

were appointed in late 1976. The legislation
156 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

requires that a majority be from universities

and the others from outside government.

This legislation was viewed among some

AID staff as an attempt by the universities to

take over part of the AID functions (Furtick,

1981). A long struggle between AID and

BIFAD followed. AID viewed the role of

BIFAD as advisory to AID; however, the legislation gave it policy and oversight authority

without AID representation. After the appointment of the first BIFAD, the implementation of title XII appeared to bog down in a

jurisdictional wrangle between BIFAD and

AID. The legislation created much of the

problem because title XII did not carry new

funding or provide BIFAD authority over existing funds. Thus, all programs and projects

identified as title XII had to come from ongoing food and agricultural programs of AID.

Without tearing down ongoing programs,

programs to be established with university

participation required either: 1) a long wait

for new funds or 2) accepting ongoing programs or commitments as title XII activities.

BIFAD was reluctant to become identified

with programs for which it had not been involved in the planning and programing. The

latter solution has been used primarily (Furtick, 1981).

Eventually under the current process, a

large segment of both country AID mission

programs and central AID programs will

have had major title XII input and will be the

result of joint AID-university interaction.

This process is moving more smoothly. The

long and often stormy period required to implement title XII has caused congressional

impatience and provided ammunition to the

program’s critics. It has taken nearly 5 years

for the program to become functional in the

ways intended, but there are still many unresolved problems.

As developed, the title XII program has two

main components: the Joint Committee for

Agricultural Development (JCAD) and the

Joint Research Committee (JRC). JCAD deals

with education and technical assistance. At

the country level, JRC has given particular attention to developing collaborative research

support programs (CRSPs). The concept of a

CRSP is one of cooperation and collaboration

in program development among the qualified

scientists in the United States, national institutions in developing countries, and appropriate international agricultural research centers. Each participant must make a significant contribution of its own resources. Each

program covers a specific area of research

priority. The first of these projects is in effect;

others are under development, and implementation will depend on availability of

funds. As in the case of BIFAD, it took time to

get this program under way and there were

considerable problems. Initial administrative

costs of such programs were substantial (Furtick, 1981).

Title XII has been promoted as providing

the means for universities to commit themselves to long-term assistance in international

food and agricultural development. Although

many of the major universities have had multimillions of dollars annually from AID contracts for many years, contracts have usually

been approached on an ad hoc basis. This has

prevented the development of career tracks

and promotion and tenure criteria for international activities. Moreover, it became hazardous for younger faculty members to accept assignments without jeopardizing their

careers. The condition has made administrators reluctant to release senior faculty,

because of the interruption in ongoing programs. This has often caused the universities

to become hiring halls to fill contract obligations, rather than develop a pool of permanent faculty with international experience

available for use in international programs.

BIFAD issued a major policy paper in 1980

on ways to overcome these deficiencies in the

university system; it was entitled “Toward

More Effective Involvement of Title XII Universities in International Agricultural Development.” A companion document was

adopted by the Executive Committee of the

National Association of State Universities

and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) on Feb-
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research ● 157

ruary 13, 1979, and distributed to all member

universities; it was entitled “Statement of

Principles for Effective Participation of Colleges and Universities in International Development Activities. ” These documents are excellent reviews of the problems and potential

solutions.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA, since its early history, interpreted

the Organic Act of 1862 as limiting its role to

the service of U.S. agriculture. Many dedicated employees, however, have individually

contributed significantly to foreign assistance

programs in recent years. USDA also has

managed two international research and

training programs. Some recent legislative

and administrative changes have provided

the basis for further involvement.

General Administrative Arrangements

Most of these individual contributions have

been made through interagency personnel

agreements (PASA in the case of overseas assignment; RSSA in the case of Washington assignment) to carry out AID programs.

Such assignments have distinct limitations

for those involved, including jeopardy to promotion and retention of career assignments,

and thus career development. Because PASA/

RSSA’s are not part of the regular agency

budget, they have always been approached on

an ad hoc basis, in spite of the relatively large

size of this annual funding. Because there is

no continuing agency funding base, there has

never been a career track established for international research and development; thus,

it has not been possible to develop a current

pool of experienced international staff. Because these assignments are disruptive to

regular ongoing programs, USDA administrators are reluctant to authorize qualified

staff to take PASA/RSSA assignments. It is

not surprising, therefore, that USDA employees are often hesitant to participate in international work under such circumstances.

To fill AID requests, USDA has sometimes

turned outside the organization and hired individuals on a temporary basis—in effect acting as a hiring hall for AID. The PASA’s have

been popular with AID because of the rapidity of implementation in contrast to lengthy

contract procedures required with universities and private contractors.

The result is that in the U.S. Government,

AID has the money and USDA has the predominant agricultural expertise. USDA does

not use its expertise in the planning and program development stage of AID programs,

and is reluctant to release its experts for implementation. Thus, USDA has a limited pool

of talent with overseas experience and no

career staff for continuity.

The lack of USDA direct involvement in

foreign assistance is the result of deliberate

past administrative decisions by Secretaries

of Agriculture. They felt this to be a conflict

of interest with promoting domestic production and trade. An example was the proposal

by the authors of title XII to place it under the

jurisdiction of USDA. Because this did not

find favor with USDA administration, it was

placed in AID.

Many lower level USDA administrators

have tried unsuccessfully to strengthen the

USDA role in foreign assistance. Efforts have

included detailed recommendations for implementing section 406 (tropical and subtropical agricultural research), involvement

in title XII, and support of other international

programs including the International Agricultural Research Centers (Furtick, 1981).

These efforts were not favored in the USDA

budget decision process until recently.

For many years, USDA had a small international program staff, but during the Carter administration, the various international programs were consolidated under a new Office

of International Cooperation and Development (OICD) reporting to an Undersecretary

of Agriculture. This has led to an international program advocacy group in USDA that

could interact at the final budget decision

level.
158 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Special Foreign Currency Research

Program (SFCRP)

One early activity was the SFCRP authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development

and Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480)

as amended in 1958 and 1959. SFCRP did not,

however, attain substantial proportions until

the 1960’s, It used local currencies paid to the

United States for Public Law 480 sales to finance in-country research of mutual interest

to the foreign nation and the United States. It

was administered by the International Programs Division of the Agricultural Research

Service (ARS).

Public Law 480 sales were initially made to

a number of countries that are not now classified as developing nations. Thus in fiscal year

1965, out of total research expenditures of

local currencies equivalent to $7.16 million,

68.4 percent was made in countries not now

classified as developing nations.

During the 1970’s, there was a shift in

Public Law 480 repayment terms from local

currencies to dollars, which sharply reduced

the number of countries with excess local

currencies available for the purpose. Hence,

SFCRP gradually became limited to just a few

countries. By fiscal year 1975, the leading

countries were Pakistan, India, and Egypt.

Although a large number of research projects have been conducted under SFCRP, no

formal evaluation has ever been made. Thus,

it is difficult to comment on the project’s

value to and impact on the host country or the

United States. Some observers, however, feel

that the program diverted less-developedcountry researchers from tasks that might

have been of greater national benefit. At the

same time, the benefits to the United States,

except for work done in Israel, are not wellknown.

Tropical and Subtropical Research and

Training Program (TSRTP)

A second research program was authorized

under section 406(4) of the Food for Peace Act

of 1966 as amended. USDA was allowed to

enter into research contracts or agreements

with American institutions in the field of

tropical and subtropical agriculture and to

make the results available to friendly developing nations.

Authorization was provided to spend up to

$33 million a year. No funding was provided

under the Food for Peace Act; it was to be

obtained through regular USDA channels.

USDA, in turn, evidently did not give the program high priority, No funding was obtained

until fiscal year 1975, when $500,000 was appropriated, partly to establish two research

and training centers, in Hawaii and in Puerto

Rico. Two principal objectives were set: 1) to

provide tropical training and experience for

USDA and land-grant college personnel by

working on tropical research problems under

tropical conditions, and 2) to provide foreign

nationals with a place to learn techniques and

methodology under tropical conditions from

U.S. specialists.

As TSRTP evolved by the mid-1970’s, the

program centered on the University of Hawaii and the Federal Experiment Station at

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, designated as the

Mayaguez Institute for Tropical Agriculture.

In addition, some universities had projects

financed by TSRTP funds. Coordination was

provided by the International Programs Division of ARS. Funding levels were $529,000 in

fiscal 1976 and $681,000 in fiscal year 1977,

Subsequently, the Hawaiian and Puerto

Rican sites were renamed the Pacific Basin

Center and the Caribbean Basin Center,

Funding was raised to $1,8 million in fiscal

year 1978, to $2.2 million in fiscal year 1979,

and $2.8 million in fiscal year 1980. Funding

was shifted from the supplementary budget to

the regular budget in fiscal year 1981.

As of early 1981, Furtick noted that:

Competition between universities and AR

(USDA) scientists for the limited funding has

at times hampered sound program development. It is currently being conducted more as

a competitive grants program than as a cohesive program to establish overall tropical re-
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research ● 159

search priorities and utilize the best scientific

talents to solve critical tropical problems.

The program also appears to be domestic in

orientation, This focus was brought out in a

recent internal struggle for control of the program with another USDA agency (OICD): The

Science and Education Administration “decided to give it a strictly domestic tropical

agriculture focus and keep it” (Furtick, 1981).

Recent Legislative and

Administrative Changes

During the 1970’s, USDA became increasingly involved in bilateral programs and other

activities that involved a research component. Many of these were with middle-income

nations (not covered by AID), which paid the

bills.

International scientific cooperative programs were developed under an agreement

between USDA and NASULGC. The agreement was implemented through the establishment of an International Science and Education Council in 1974.

Under section 1458 of title XIV of the Food

and Agriculture Act of 1977, Congress authorized USDA to: a) become involved in international research, extension and related technical programs in developing nations in collaboration with AID and land-grant universities, and b) work directly with the more developed countries that are ineligible for AID

support.

As discussed earlier, to improve consolidation and administer existing and emerging international activities, OICD was established

in May 1978. In early 1980, it absorbed some

of the research activities formerly administered by the International Programs Office of

ARS.

As of early 1981, the most relevant OICD

programs were concentrated in two divisions: a) Scientific and Technical Exchange,

and b) International Research. The latter division administers: a) SFCRP discussed earlier,

b) research carried out under its binational

program with Spain, and c) the Binational

Agricultural Research and Development

Fund. The last program is carried out with

Israel; it became operational in November

1978 and operates off the interest from an $80

million endowment fund established by the

United States and Israel, with a focus on subjects of mutual interest. In one sense, it is an

outgrowth of the SFCRP, which once included Israel.

In fiscal yea r 1981, the International

Cooperative Research Program was proposed

by OICD for the International Research Division. It would have focused on problems

shared with other nations, developed and developing, The proposal was not funded by

Congress but was to have been resubmitted as

part of the fiscal year 1982 budget (this was

not done because of budget constraints). It

would have called for initial funding of $2.5

million, and would have included 15 individual research projects ranging in cost from

$50,000 to $400,000. One would have involved cooperation with the international

agricultural research centers and another

would have involved programs between U.S.

agricultural universities and other nations.

USDA maintains administration of certain

in-house overseas research. Some USDA research programs have found it advantageous

to maintain overseas laboratories. The subjects include controlling insect and weed

pests, exotic plant and animal diseases, and

improvement of storage and transportation

procedures in shipping international products, In 1977, there were six such laboratories.

Private Sector Activities

Although the private sector plays a major

role in domestic food and agriculture, particularly in developmental research, its activity has not been as significant in the international area.

One of the most important reasons is the

size, stability and corporate experience of the

private sector in the U.S. market, For example, the United States consumes most of the
160 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

world hybrid seed corn, nearly half of the

world’s pesticide production, and is the largest single consumer of fertilizer, machinery,

animal health products, etc. By far the largest

part of the remaining market for these products is in the other temperate zone, hard currency, industrial countries of Europe, Japan,

Australia, etc. Why should the private sector

devote energies to the developing world,

largely in the tropics, where their current

products often do not work well, where small

farms predominate, where local infrastructure is inadequate, where governments are

not stable, where illegal payments are a standard procedure, and where currencies are difficult to convert and repatriate? Yet, the

potential of the future market is enormous; if

it were ever fully developed, it would dwarf

the domestic market.

European and Japanese private sectors

have been much more aggressive in developing or modifying technology for the developing country market because of their relatively

restricted domestic market, a history of trade

as a way of life, and the variety of government

incentives used for this purpose. These incentives include complete tax exemption for expatriates, aggressive marketing assistance as

part of diplomatic initiatives, acceptance of

the need for special payments to gain business, and allowance for these payments as

deductible business expenses. They also provide export incentives and insurance against

expropriations or losses from government instability.

In contrast, even the $20,000 short-term

and $25,000 long-term overseas U.S. income

tax exemptions were voided in recent years,

but restored again beginning in 1982. * There

have been limits on deductions of local tax

payments and fringe benefits, ignoring the

preponderance of services provided to resident U.S. citizens that are not enjoyed by

those living overseas. When American firms

decided to do business abroad where expatriate staff was required, they were largely

turned to non-Americans to solve the tax

costs that otherwise should have been added

to salary. As noted, recent passage of the 1981

omnibus tax bill has alleviated some of these

constraints.

Under current amendments to the Corrupt

Practices Act, special payment to gain business abroad is a criminal offense. Thus,

American firms have increasingly stayed in

business by becoming subcontractors to nonAmerican firms that make the illega l

payments.

Less export assistance and fewer incentives

are available to American firms than to their

competitors. In addition, the imposition of

special environmental protection restrictions

on some products often makes the development of new products for overseas markets

impossible.

*Effective January 1, 1982, the newly enacted tax law will

free from U.S.–though not foreign–taxes income up to

$7!5,000 a year from working expatriates. The maximum also

will rise by $5,OOO a year until 1986 when it reaches $95,000.

Housing allowances will become largely tax exempt.

THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH SYSTEM

Although growth of the U.S. agricultural Structure and Growth

research system stagnated somewhat in re- of the System

cent years, much has been happening in agricultural research in the rest of the world. An The two main institutional components are:

international agricultural research network is a) a group of international agricultural revolving. It is perhaps not yet a system in a search centers and b) national agricultural reformal sense, but the major pieces are in search systems in developed and developing

place. nations.
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research ● 161

International Centers3

The international centers may be the best

known component of the system, Most are

sponsored by CGIAR. CGIAR sponsors 10

centers and three related programs (table 11),

Several other centers exist outside the CGIAR

system, including the International Fertilizer

Development Center in the United States, the

Asian Vegetable Research and Development

Center in Taiwan, and the International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology in

Kenya.

Development of the international centers

began in 1960 with the establishment of the

3Further details on these centers are provided by the Consultative Croup.

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)

in the Philippines by the Ford and Rockefeller

Foundations. This step was followed by establishment of three other centers later in the

decade by the same groups. CGIAR was established in 1971 to secure and coordinate

funding from other sources. Both the number

of programs and funding grew sharply during

the 1970’s (tables 11 and 12). CGIAR had 31

donor members by 1980; 33 in 1981. The

United States, through AID, is a charter member and provides about 25 percent of total

funding (table 13).

In the relatively short period of their existence, the international centers have had an

extraordinary effect on international agricultural research. While their focus is on tropical

Table 11 .—CGIAR-Sponsored International Agricultural

Research Centers and Programs

Core funding,

Year 198&

Location established (in millions)

Centers

1. International Rice Research

Institute (IRRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. International Maize and Wheat

Improvement Center (CIMMYT) . . . . .

3. International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (IITA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. International Center for Tropical

Agriculture (CIAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. International Potato Center (CIP) . . . . .

6. International Crops Research

Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics (lCRISAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. International Laboratory for

Research on Animal Diseases

(ILRAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. International Livestock Center for

Africa (lLCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. International Center for Agricultural

Research in the Dry Areas

(ICARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Programs

11. West African Rice Development

Association (WARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. International Board for Plant

Genetic Resources (IBPGR). . . . . . . .

13. International Service for National

Agricultural Research (ISNAR) . . . . .

Philippines 1960

Mexico 1966

Nigeria 1968

Colombia 1968

Peru 1972

India 1972

Kenya 1974

Ethiopia 1974

Syria, Lebanon 1975

United States 1975

Liberia 1968

Italy 1973

Netherlands 1979

$15,032

16,056

14,038

14,275

7,100

10,375

10,031

8,954

11,292

2,305

2,562

2,925

1,095

ao~~~ not in~l”d~ ~~eclal p~oje~t~, s~~~ contributions remained to be allocated tO Individual CerlterS/prOgrarIIS,

SOURCE U S. Agency for International Development, 1981.
. ——

162 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table 12.—Total Core Expenditures on Centers and

Programs Sponsored by CGIAR, 1972-80

have created a new appreciation of the value

of applied agricultural research.

Year Millions of dollars

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1981 (prop.) . . . . . . . .

$20,060

24,955

34,525

47,545

62,870

77,225

85,280

98,535

118,565

139,200

SOURCE: CGIAR Secretariat.

Table 13.—AlD Contributions to international

Agricultural Research Centers

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal year CGIA R

a AVRD Cb

IFDCCTotal

1970 . . . . . . . . .

1971 . . . . . . . . .

1972 . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . .

1974 . . . . . . . . .

1975 . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . .

1977 . . . . . . . . .

1978 . . . . . . . . .

1979 . . . . . . . . .

1980 . . . . . . . . .

$ 1.679

2.984

3.770

5.390

6.805

10.755

14.870

18.140

21.400

24.800

29.000

$0

0

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

$0

0

0

0

0

4.100d

5.100d

3.445d

3.800

4.000

4.000

$ 1.679

2.984

4.370

5.990

7.405

15.455

20.570

22.185

25.800

29.460

33.600

acenters arldprograrns sponsored by the Consultative Groupon International

Agricultural Research (tistedintablell).

bAsian vegetable Researcfland hKt10pment(hIh3r, Taiwan.

Clnternational Fertilizer Development Center, Nabarna.

dOfthetotalof $12.6 million for the 3years, $8,8 milhon bVasfOr caPital cOnstructlon and equipment and$3.8mlllion was for operations.

SOURCE: AID/DS/AGR.

and semitropical agriculture for the developing nations, they provide an international

point of exchange for agricultural research in

their respective fields—for developed country

donors and developing country recipients.

They are firmly in the mainstream of international research, and their research quickly

becomes known and used in national research programs. They have also shown the

need for further development of national research systems in developing nations.

The centers are excellent, productive research organizations. They have modern facilities and highly qualified staffs. Naturally

they have their own difficulties and limitations. They are not, for example, designed to

do basic research, which may be more effectively done in developed nations. But they

National Programs

While the international centers may have

taken center stage in recent years, the national (public) research programs of other

developed and developing countries have expanded significantly. This expansion is documented in financial terms in table 14. From

1959 to 1974, total global expenditures (in

constant dollars) increased three times. The

largest increase was in Asia (excluding

Japan). The smallest increase (excluding perhaps some small developing nation) was in

the United States. In 1959, public research expenditures in Western Europe were less than

half of those in the United States; by 1974,

Western Europe exceeded the United States.

Or to view the matter differently, in 1959,

U.S. expenditures represented about 27.7 percent of global agricultural research expenditures; by 1974, the U.S. proportion had

dropped by 10 percent to 17.9 percent. If privately sponsored research, which is of significant importance in the United States, were

included, the situation might be somewhat

different, but the same might be true of other

developed nations.

Table 14.—Public Expenditures on Agricultural

Research, Major Regions of the World, 1959 and 1974

(in millions of constant 1971 dollars)

—

Expenditures a Change

1959 1974 1959 to 1974

Region/country (millions of dollars) (percent)

Asia (excluding

Japan) . . . . . . . . . . $ 40.9 $210.5 414%

Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.7 260.4 451

Western Europe . . . . 117.1 452.4 287

Latin America . . . . . . 33.9 129.4 281

Canada, Australia,

and New Zealand . 83.6 241.5 189

U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . . . . . 158.6 425.0 168

Eastern Europe. . . . . 83.4 216.4 159

Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.5 115.4 120

United States . . . . . . 240.3 447.5 86

World total . . . . . . $868.0 $2,498.4 188%0 —

aDOeS not include expenditures on intwnatlmd agricultural research centers.

SOURCE: Compiled from James K. Boyce and Robert E. Evenson, Natiorrfd and

International Agricultural Research and Extension Programs,

Agricultural Development Council, New York, 1975, pp. 21-31 (table

2.1) (’”Constructed Time Series”).
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research ● 163

It would be useful to know what has happened since 1974; it is probable that the same

general trends have continued. The increase

in funding in the developing nations may

have become even more pronounced as international assistance agencies, particularly the

World Bank, have sharply increased the

volume of lending for agricultural research

(World Bank, p. 34). CGIAR, as noted in table

11, has recently established an International

Service for National Agricultural Research to

assist developing nations. Preliminary data

gathered by Evenson indicate that a particularly sharp increase in research expenditures has taken place in Southeast Asia

(Evenson, phone conversation, Jan. 28, 1981). 4

U.S. funding during this recent period appears to have increased only slightly.

International Networks

As suggested earlier, national and international agricultural research programs are increasingly being linked in scientific networks

at the commodity level. One example in

which the United States is particularly active

is the International Winter and Spring Wheat

Research Networks The United States is one

of several developed-country members that

provide or coordinate the transfer of germ

plasm or some other needed technology. They

also report on the results of multisite testing.

In this way, participants can have prompt

access to the results of international trials.

The system is inexpensive and extraordinarily efficient.

Potential Value of the System to the

United States

Few nations cannot benefit directly or indirectly from agricultural research done elsewhere. This is particularly true of nations

with well-developed research systems that are

able to adapt the research to their own conditions. Hence the United States, as one of the

4The International Food Policy Research Institute has completed a study of research funding in developing Nations. The

data are not quite comparable with Evenson’s, but do confirm

the growth in funding. See Oram and Bindlish.

sFor details, see Kern.

world’s largest generators and users of agricultural technology, should be in a position to

contribute and gain as much as any nation.

Considering the need to continually improve

our agriculture in order to keep domestic

food costs down and to maintain our competitive ability in foreign markets, this is a

significant matter,

General Nature of Benefits

Direct benefits to U.S. agriculture include

new and improved technologies that could

either be put directly to use or be applied with

some further modifications, The United

States, like other nations, has borrowed agricultural technology for centuries. Over time,

foreign borrowing may have played a smaller

role. When the United States dominated

world research, it was perhaps felt that there

was less to learn elsewhere, but with the rest

of the world now surpassing the United

States in research growth, there will be much

more that the United States might profitably

use.

Similarly, the United States might do well

to study the structure of research systems in

other nations in order to identify useful ideas

for our system. Despite an early interest in

foreign systems (see footnote 1 on p. 30 in ch.

III), the United States has paid little attention

to them for the past 75 years. One of the

papers prepared for this study has briefly

reviewed six leading foreign systems and has

identified several features that might be worthy of further study (Smith, 1980).

The existence of expanded research systems in other developed and developing nations should contribute significantly to the

improvement of agriculture in those nations.

From the point of view of the U.S. foreign-assistance program, this means that there is a

larger research base from which to draw,

both in the other developed nations and in the

international centers, and a greater opportunity to profitably use it in the developing

nations.

Improvement of agriculture in developing

nations can benefit the United States in sev-
164 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

eral ways. First, as it contributes to economic

development, it will improve commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products.

Second, it will reduce the need for United

States confessional food aid—which is getting increasingly expensive as U.S. surpluses

disappear. Third, moderation of food prices

in other nations may have a moderating effect

on food prices in the United States. Fourth,

the United States is a major importer of agricultural products that are not grown here; improvements in this area can mean lower costs

to U.S. consumers.

Specific Examples

The assistance provided by the United

States to international research has already

found use in U.S. agriculture. One example is

rice (Dalrymple, 1980).

Semidwarf rice originated in East Asia, and

most of the varieties in use trace their origins

to varieties developed at IRRI. These varieties, along with semidwarf varieties developed through irradiation of domestic varieties, were used as parents in breeding programs in the United States, particularly in

California. 6

Semidwarf rice varieties adapted for U.S.

conditions are fairly recent and as yet have

only been used in California. Semidwarf

rice varieties are under development in the

Southern States and may make a contribution

there. Of the semidwarf area in California,

half or more was recently planted with a variety (M9) of IRRI parentage (60 percent in 1979

and 50 percent in 1980). It in turn represented

about 30 percent of the California rice area in

1979 and 37.5 percent in 1980.

California specialists estimate that the

semidwarf varieties have increased yields 10

to 15 percent. California yields were at a

record level in 1979 (6,520 lb/acre) and nextto-record level in 1980 (6,440 lb/acre). The

1979 yield was 11.1 percent above the previous high. California yields in turn were 41.8

and 46.3 percent above the U.S. average in

1979 and 1980.

8For details, see Rutger and Brandon.

A related example is semidwarf wheat varieties, which occupied over 30 percent of the

U.S. wheat area in 1979 (Dalrymple, 1980).

The United States has also benefited in irrigation technology from bilateral research with

Israel: drip irrigation and the use of water

containing higher salt concentration are two

such areas.

The future will offer many further opportunities for the United States to benefit from

research done elsewhere. The major constraint at present is the rather limited U.S.

connection with the emerging international

research system

Status of U.S.-International Linkages

The degree of U.S. involvement with the international research system varies somewhat

with the direction of linkage and the groups

involved. It is probably stronger on the giving

than the receiving end, and AID probably has

stronger connections than USDA.

The reasons are fairly simple: AID has a

charge and funding to support this sort of activity; USDA as yet does not have a direct

charge or funding to link into the system. The

latter group has some AID-funded programs

with certain aspects of the international system, but these are more in the nature of providing assistance; any return flow is a side

benefit. A question might be raised as to how

well AID does in terms of making use of

American agricultural research knowledge

overseas, but there can be little question that

the United States is poorly organized to stimulate a return flow from the international

system.

Much of what has been drawn from the international system to date has been a result of

individual initiative and contacts of American scientists. They have generally received

little encouragement or financial support

from their administrators. Travel budgets are

nearly always restricted when budgets are

tight, and high-cost international travel is

prone to be at the head of the list. Yet, only so

much can be done at the international level by

mail; ultimately the scientists must travel.
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research “ 165

Other arrangements may have to be made,

which present troublesome administrative

problems or suggest less than complete fidelity to some immediate domestic problems.

Thus, what has been accomplished in some

cases may be in spite of the system rather

than because of it.

Furtick has outlined the specific charge in

the following terms (1981):

The need now is for the United States to

link its scientific capacity into this major national and international research network to

both contribute and gain from the new knowledge that they are generating.

With reference to the international research

centers themselves, he states:

In spite of their importance, the United

States to date has made only limited government effort to link its scientific community to

these centers or build major linkages that will

insure that new technology discovered by

these centers which is useful to the United

States will be rapidly transferred from these

centers to the mainstream of U.S. science.

Finally:

The question is, how can we develop a

sound partnership between our science and

that of the rest of the world for mutual benefit? We are no longer going to be only a

donor in the future, We will also become a recipient.

It is not very difficult to list the many constraints on more effective participation in the

international agricultural research system. It

is much more difficult to provide realistic

suggestions as to what might be done about it.

Because of current economic constraints, additional resources in funding and staffing will

be hard to obtain. In any case, the U.S. international research effort has not organized in

a manner to make optimum use of available

resources.

AID: Lower Income Nations

Although the United States may not have

the commanding lead in agricultural research

that it once had, it still harbors one of the

largest agricultural research systems in the

world. It also has a very large and perhaps

better funded system of research on more

basic but related scientific matters; however,

little attention has been given to using this

resource.

AID is the main outlet for assistance to

lower income nations, but many legitimate

questions have been raised about AID’s ability to perform this task efficiently and effectively,

The Bask Problems

One of the major AID limitations in addressing international research is an inadequate number of appropriately trained professional staff. Records of the past 10 years show

a dramatic increase in funding levels in the

AID agricultural sector ($270 million in 1971

to $720 million in 1980) (Furtick, 1981). The

relative share of the agricultural sector in AIDappropriated funds has gone from 19 to 50 percent since 1970, In addition, congressional

and other mandates have proliferated the

type of special issues that AID is expected to

address in the agricultural sector.

AID’s total employment level peaked in

1968. Since that time, the numbers in certain

professional categories have been substantially reduced, particularly in agriculture. Between 1968 and 1976, the total number of

AID’s U.S. employees was reduced by 55 percent; however, during the same period, agriculturists were reduced 78 percent. It appears that

the reduction in professional staff has been

somewhat inversely proportional to funding

increases.

As of 1980, with 50 percent of the resources, the agricultural officers composed
166 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

only 5 percent of the agencies’ total personnel. There were 256 agricultural positions

and more than 20 percent were vacant,

Almost 80 percent of the agricultural officers

are assigned overseas; and most of them act

as program generalists/administrators. Many

are older, and although about 75 percent have

advanced degrees, mostly M, S., very few

have had recent specialized technical experience. Very few have been released for in-service professional improvement in agriculture

during their careers.

The lack of an agricultural career ladder

and professional identification has made recruitment and retention of qualified personnel difficult. Recently, the pressure for recruitment has become more critical due to the

large number of staff reaching retirement age.

Understaffing and vacancies make adequate

in-service orientation and training nearly impossible (TPCA, 1980).

The personnel system is inadequately designed to attract or retain agricultural scientists. There are two categories of professional

staff: Foreign Service and General Service

(GS). Foreign Service personnel are, as a

result of recent congressional initiatives,

clearly favored over GS personnel in top-level

staffing and promotion. Most of AID’s few

trained scientists, however, are GS employees

who can expect little or nothing in the way of

promotion. As a result, about one-third of the

staff of the Office of Agriculture in the Development Support Bureau is composed of agriculturalists on short-term loan from other

Government agencies (particularly USDA)

and universities. Most are not enhancing

their careers by working for AID; AID, moreover, shows little gratitude.

The other key problem is organization of

agricultural and research staff. Through early

1981, no one person or office was in charge of

agriculture or agricultural research. Nor were

any agriculturalists to be found at high administrative levels.* Those on the staff are

*This situation changed later in 1981 with the appointment

of Dr. Nyle Brady, a prominent soil scientist and former Director General of IRRI, as Senior Assistant Administrator of the

Agency for Science and Technology.

scattered throughout the agency, almost invariably serving in a staff capacity. They have

no line authority and are not in a position to

make budget decisions, Most are found in

regional bureaus, where they are a distinct

minority and hardly have time to focus on research. The situation is even worse in country

or field missions, where there are usually

only one or two agriculturalists, and sometimes none. Even in the central Office of Agriculture in the Development Support Bureau

(DSB), research is only one of many activities

and often seems to play a subordinate role. *

DSB is considered a service organization by

the regional bureaus, which often have quite

different concepts of research,

Some improvements could be made in staffing and organization, but this will not be easy.

The Foreign Service problem transcends

AID; it permeates the whole State Department structure. The organization problem

transcends agriculture and involves the

whole AID structure. There are vested interests in both groups which would mitigate

against change, Yet unless something is done

about these fundamental points, other efforts

to improve the scientific component of AID

will be frustrated. It may be easier to modify

the organizational structure than the personnel system.

Many observers think that AID needs to

pull all its technical staff members together

into one or more central bureaus with line

authority and responsibility equivalent to

those of the regional bureaus. Agriculture

would be a major component of such a consolidation, Each of the major functional divisions, including agriculture, might have a

research division. * *

Another alternative is to abolish the

regional bureaus and establish technical operating bureaus around the major thrusts of

*DSB has subsequently been designated the Bureau of Science and Technology (S&T).

**A partial shift has recently been made in this direction

with the designation of four technical directorates within S&T.

Food and Nutrition is one of the four. Technical staff members

from the regional bureaus will be allowed to become associate

members of S&T, Agency-wide sector councils are being established. But in most other respects, the regional bureau structure remains the same.
Ch. VIII—lnternational Dimensions of Research ● 167

AID programs as defined in legislation—i.e.,

food and nutrition, population and health,

and natural resources and energy. These

technical bureaus would be headed by technical career professionals. They would have

responsibility for country as well as control

programs of technical assistance, research,

training, and institution building. The necessary continuing functions of the eliminated

regional bureaus would be assigned to regional office positions under the Bureau of

Program and Policy Coordination (PPC) or an

assistant administrator with limited role and

powers necessary for liaison with State and

collation of normal desk functions.

Title XII

As previously discussed, title XII originated

as an effort by the university community to

set a framework within which university participation would be more compatible with

university capabilities. The law created high

expectations in the university community for

substantial funds to build an international

dimension in all interested universities. They

expected to receive enough funds to institutionalize their hopes (Furtick, 1981).

The law provided everything needed except

for new appropriations or authority over old

appropriations. This condition has led to disenchantment for many in the university community, AID, and Congress. For those that

have received significant funding at the country program level as a result of JCAD planning, it would probably have come to them

anyway without the tortuous process involved (Furtick, 1981). However, “strengthening grants, ” averaging $100,000 a year, have

been given to some universities over which

they can exercise major discretion in order to

strengthen their basic international programs.

Those few universities that have been

funded under CRSP, have received funds that

would normally have been available under

AID centrally funded research, but with

fewer strings attached and not eroded by the

high administrative costs levied by the title

XII process. They also would not have the

high administrative and matching fund requirements that are built into CRSP implementation system (Furtick, 1981).

USDA: Middle- and

High-Income Nations

USDA has inherited responsibility for dealing with AID-graduate or middle-income

countries and presumably is to deal with

high-income nations on matters relating to

agricultural research. For a long time, USDA

was not authorized funds to carry out this

task.

Countries wanting our help had to pay for

it. Since it was difficult to set up such programs without planning, which took considerable time on USDA’s part and for which it

had no funding, the situation sometimes got

rather awkward. Some Federal money has

recently become available for those initial expenses, but it is still a tight situation.

Essentially no funds are available for providing more general assistance. As noted earlier, a new International Cooperative Research Program has been proposed by OICD

that would make it possible to initiate and expand activities in this area. The proposal is

stalled for lack of funding.

TSRTP operated by USDA was also, as

noted earlier, established in part as a vehicle

to provide assistance to other nations. It does

not appear to have been used for this purpose,

and now has almost entirely a domestic orientation. Attention should be given to reviving

the international aspects of the program.

The Role of States

Much of the agricultural expertise used by

AID, and to a lesser extent by USDA, is provided by land-grant universities. Although

often called on for assistance, the States for a

long period had little voice in the process.

They also had, with a few exceptions, no

steady funds. With the establishment of

BIFAD in AID, they gained a voice, and with
168 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

the establishment of strengthening grants

under BIFAD’s auspices, they gained limited

funding.

A BIFAD staff member has prepared a project proposal that would facilitate cooperative

research activities between U.S. research institutions and the international agricultural

research centers (Nielson, 1981). As of the fall

of 1981, the proposal was undergoing review.

It is quite promising but has a long way to go

in the administrative process before it becomes a reality. *

The International Research Network

As suggested, the United States might well

do more to facilitate the acquisition and use

of knowledge generated by the world agricultural research community. This matter has

been given virtually no governmental attention. USDA is the logical agency to lead this

activity. Such a program could well be carried out in USDA in OICD, in cooperation

with ARS. OICD, in fact, sponsors a few activities that might be said to be of this nature,

but they are limited to just a few countries.

OICD’s proposed International Cooperative

Research Program would make it possible to

establish a significant and broad-based program. Until such an effort is funded, the

United States will continue to miss out on

many of the benefits of the international agricultural research network.

Engaging the Private Sector

It is probably safe to assume that any overseas research conducted by American private

firms will be used by them, as appropriate, in

their domestic activities. The trick is to stimulate their overseas research; this may not be

easy.

*There is some precedent for such activity. In mid-1981,

Australia established a center for International Agricultural

Research to fund research undertaken by Australian institutions to benefit developing countries (Australian ..., 1981).

The pattern, as previously noted, is for

American firms to do some research in other

developed nations, but very little in less developed nations because of the relatively limited

market. Incomes are low and agriculture is

generally not highly advanced. Until the potential market improves, American firms are

not likely to invest much in research.

A more subtle problem is that private firms

are more likely to do research on mechanical

rather than on biological technology because

of its patentability. It may not fit as well as

biological technology, however, with developing country needs.

Finally, some recent changes in U.S. Government actions pertaining to payments to

gain business and environmental regulations

may further dissuade American business.

This administration appears to be reconsidering these matters.

Private industry could play a greater role

but the role may be more limited and selective

than desired.

Coordination

If greater emphasis is ultimately forthcoming to strengthen U.S. participation in the

international agricultural research system,

there may well be need for a coordinating

process. There is so little formal activity at

present that this is hardly an issue.

AID has the additional problem that

through early 1981 it did not have one person

or office in charge of its agricultural research

activities; hence it would have difficulty in

designating a representative who could speak

for more than part of the organization, This

situation has recently started to change.

If AID, the prime Federal agency for

assistance to developing countries, is restructured to strengthen its technical capability

and accountability, it will be in a position to

make a significant contribution to coordinating its efforts with others.
Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research ● 169

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

● Benefits are derived in the United States

as well as globally from U.S. assistance to developing countries in solving technical problems and helping overcome socioeconomic

constraints to ensure adequate food production and consumption.

● AID and USDA are involved in international agricultural research and technical assistance, but from the developing country

standpoint, AID is the prime Federal agency.

● Research and technical assistance to

assist developing countries require an inhouse capability in the technical disciplines

and issues to be effective. Organizational

structure, responsibilities, accountabilities,

and procedures must reflect this fact.

● Through early 1981, AID was not organized or staffed to be effective in carrying out

its responsibilities. Technical leadership was

lacking in the decisionmaking positions. With

50 percent of the total budget in food and

agricultural activities, technical personnel

trained in these areas account for 5 percent of

the total personnel, Few, if any, were in decisionmaking positions.

● The United States has much to gain as

well as to give in the international research

network, At present, no Federal agency has

the specific responsibility for taking the lead

in coordination and cooperation on methods,

procedures, and actions necessary to accomplish maximum U.S. benefits.

CHAPTER VIII REFERENCES

Boyce, James K., and Robert E. Evenson, National

and International Agricultural Research and

Extension Programs (New York: Agricultural

Development Council, 1975).

Dalrymple, Dana G., “The Adoption of HighYielding Grain Varieties in Developing Nations, ” Agricultural History, vol. 53, No. 4,

October 1979, pp. 704-726.

Dalrymple Dana, G., ~eve]opment and Spread of

Semi-Dwarg Varieties of Wheat and Rice in the

United States; An International Perspective,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of International Cooperation and Development (in

cooperation with AID), Agricultural Economic Report No. 455, June 1980, 150 pp.

Furtick, William R., “The Role of U.S. Food and

Agricultural Research in International Development, ” OTA background paper, February

1981.

Kern, Robert K., Probing the Gene Pools: Spring

Winter Crosses in Bread Wheat, International

maize and Wheat Improvement Center,

CIMMYT Today, No. 12, November 1980, 11

Moseman, A. H., “Science and Technology in International Agriculture, ” Symposium on Research in Agriculture Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National A cademy of Sciences (Washington, D. C.: USDA,

Agricultural Research Service, , 1966).

Moseman, A, H., Building Agricultural Research

Systems in the Developing Nations (New York:

Agricultural Development Council, 1970),

p. 66.

Moseman, A. H., J. S. Robins, and Harold Wilcke,

“The Role of the Federal Government, State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Private Sector in Research, ” OTA background

paper, 1981.

Nielson, James., “A Proposal for a Cooperative

Research Program Between U.S. Research Institutions and the International Agricultural

Research Centers,” Board for International

Food and Agricultural Development, U.S.

Agency for International Development, unpublished draft, Sep. 22, 1981, 22 pp.

Oram, Peter A., and Vishva Bindlish, Resource

Allocations to National Agricultural Research:

Trends in the 1970’s; A Review of Third World

Systems (Washington, D. C,: International

Food Policy Research Institute and International Service for National Agricultural Research (The Hague], November 1981), 104 pp.

Read, H., Partners With India: Building Agricultural Universities, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, 1974.
170 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Rutger, Neil J., and D. Marlin Brandon, “California Rice Culture, ” Scientific American, February 1981, pp. 42-51.

Schultz, T. H., “Economic Growth from Traditional Agriculture, ” in Sciences for the Developing Nations, A. H. Moseman (cd.) (Washington, D. C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1964), p. 201.

Smith, Grahame J. C., “A Comparative Study of

National Agricultural Research Systems in

Selected Countries,” OTA background paper,

November 1980.

Stakman, E. C., Richard Bradfield, and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Campaigns Against Hunger (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, 1967), 328 pp.

True, A. C., and V. A. Clark, The Agricultural Experiment Stations in the United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Experiment

Stations, Bulletin No. 80, 1900, p. 100.

Official/Anonymous

“A proposal to the Agency for International Development to support the Academy’s Five

Year Program of Activities in Applying Science and Technology to Development, ” National Academy of Science, Board on Science

and Technology for International Development, Nov. 14, 1980.

Agricultural Research–Sector Policy Paper, World

Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, June 1981, 110 pp.

“Australian Centre for International Agricultural

Research; Information Paper,” Australian Development Assistance Bureau, Canberra, Oct.

29, 1981, 12 PP.

Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research: leaflet dated October 1979, 12 pp.;

bulletin dated 1980, 50 pp. (CGIAR Secretariat, 1818 H St., N. W., Washington, D.C.

20433)

Supporting Papers: World Food and Nutrition

Study, vol. V (Study Team 14, “Agricultural

Research Organization”) (Washington, D. C.:

National Academy of Sciences, 1977), 195 pp.

World Food and Nutrition Study: The Potential

Contributions of Research (Washington, D. C.:

National Academy of Sciences, 1977), 192 pp.

TPCA Agricultural Personnel Report and TPCA

Statements 1, 2 and 3. Internal working

papers of Technical Agricultural Staff of AID,

1980.
Chapter IX

Implications for
.
Implications for Research Funding

Information on the various aspects of fund- of funding and identifies the pertinent issues

ing U.S. agricultural research appears in sev- as they apply to the overall assessment of

eral chapters of this report. This chapter research.

brings together the more significant aspects

In approaching this topic, it is well to keep

in mind not only that the food and agricultural industry is the largest of all U.S. industries, but also that the application of science

to agriculture has played a major role in

bringing the United States to the center of

world power and leadership,

One of the major ways in which agriculture

has contributed to this status is the phenomenal increase in agricultural exports. The value of these exports rose from $2.9 billion in

1950 to $7.2 billion in 1970, and then increased sharply in 1975 to $21.9 billion and to

$41.2 billion in 1980. This growth had the effect of increasing the agricultural balance of

exports over imports from a deficit of $1,1 billion in 1950 to a positive balance of $23.8 billion in 1980. In contrast, the United States

had a negative trade balance for all other

commodities of $48.6 billion in 1980. Similar

data for the period 1930-80 appear in figure

25.

The fact that the rate of increase in yields of

some commodities seems to be leveling off—

together with the fact that the level of constant Federal dollars for some commodity research through U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been declining—raises concern as to whether the high level of agricultural exports can be maintained. Concern is

also being expressed as to whether this disparity might lead to markedly higher food

prices at home.

As discussed in chapter IV, most evaluations of food and agricultural public research

indicate an internal rate of return that is quite

Figure 25.—Agricultural and Nonagricultural Trade

Balance—1930-80 (in billions of dollars)

k

b

–40 i,

– 50/ 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I

/ / / /

<

/

1930 1940

1975

1950

1985

1960 1970 1980

5

Year

SOURCE: USDA/ESS.

favorable. For aggregate investment, rate-ofreturn estimates are predominantly in the

range of 30 to 40 percent. The estimates range

from a low of 23.5 percent to as high as 100

percent. However, these high rates of return

are evidence of a problem of inefficiency.

Economic efficiency calls for investment

funds to be allocated in such a manner that

the marginal returns in all categories are the

same. The high rate of return on agricultural

research indicates underinvestment by the

public sector. The present funding situation

reflects this fact.

Among the major Federal agencies conducting research, USDA ranks the lowest in

dollar expenditures for research. In 1978,

total Federal expenditures for research and

development were $26.2 billion. USDA’s ex173
174 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

penditures were $381 million, or about 1.5

percent of the total. This compared to Department of Defense—45 percent; Department of

Energy—16 percent; and Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare—12 percent.

USDA’s status among Federal agencies represents a continuing decline in the Federal research and development budget—from a high

of 39 percent in 1940 to 1.5 percent in 1978.

In addition to the low level of funding, the

cost of conducting research has increased

substantially. Research today requires more

sophisticated and expensive equipment and

support staff than was required 10 years ago.

For example, new research horizons, such as

genetic engineering and systems approaches

to agriculture, are much more expensive than

past traditional research.

Researchers are having great difficulty in

replacing wornout or obsolete equipment and

acquiring newly developed ones. Total capital expenditures per scientist doubled from

1975 to 1979 (Berlowitz, et al., 1981). In a recent study of five important physiochemical

subdiscipline, it was shown that the cost of

scientific instruments priced above $5,000

rose at an annual rate of 20 percent from 1970

through 1978, far exceeding the average rate

of inflation (Berger and Cooper, 1979).

At many public institutions, operation and

maintenance costs for scientific equipment

could be supported by other budgets in the

past, but now the costs exceed the capacity of

institutional funds to meet them (Berlowitz,

et al., 1981). When institutions cannot meet

operation and maintenance costs, scientific

equipment is improperly maintained, shortening the useful life thereof; support personnel are decreased and support activities

accumulate; and faculty and graduate students function as technicians, with a consequent loss of time for research and training.

These consequences greatly hinder a research program.

In addition to traditional research areas

such as production efficiency, resource conservation, and crops and livestock, there are

many new areas that require research such as

environmental concerns, community services, community living standards, and human

nutrition. Thus, many traditional research

areas actually are receiving less funding

today, because the total research funds are

being spread among a wider range of research areas, some of which require considerable support.

With reduced budgets, much of the basic

and long-term research efforts dwindle. Even

worse, new opportunities, such as genetic engineering in plant or animal breeding (the

new biology), do not receive attention due to

the pressure to keep current projects active.

For example, there is pressure to develop an

insect-resistant sorghum during the next 3

years, rather than develop a whole new breeding system for sorghum.

It appears that the primary responsibility

for this decline and low level of Federal

research funding for agriculture has been

USDA’s. USDA leadership has not had much

appreciation for the value of research and has

not given it high priority (this is particularly

likely to happen during a period of surpluses).

To be sure, the Office of Management and

Budget puts limits and pressure on all departments to stay within monetary budget levels,

but departments have discretion within these

limits to make priority adjustments within

their departments. Up to 1980, the executive

budgets have not shown the needed increases

in agricultural research. As a general rule,

Congress has appropriated the full requested

budget level for agricultural research and in

some cases has increased the level of USDA

funding.

Although Federal funding of agricultural

research has remained nearly static in constant dollars since 1965 and research on agricultural production has decreased, many

other countries have had major increases in

expenditures for agricultural research (see

table 14, p. 162). Even as late as 1959, U.S.

public expenditures for agricultural research

were significantly greater than any of the

countries or regions listed. This is not true

today.
Ch. IX—implications for Research Funding ● 1 7 5

To view the data in the right perspective,

one should keep in mind that most of the

other countries probably badly needed an increased emphasis on agricultural research

during the period surveyed, At the same time,

the United States was still reaping broad benefits from a past era when research had received greater emphasis,

Since the productivity of agriculture and

most industries relies heavily on research and

new technologies, it is evident that if the

United States is to remain the world leader in

agriculture, a major change will be needed in

the trend of expenditures in U.S. agricultural

research.

What should be the extent of public investment in U.S. agricultural research? This question cannot be answered precisely. Evidence

indicates, however, that it should be much

higher than it is. The trend to relatively slight

increases in agricultural research ha s

resulted in actual decreases in most old-line

agricultural research efforts. (The term "oldline research” refers to areas such as ways to

increase productivity of animals or crops.

Newer kinds of research that compete for the

research dollar would include studies in

areas such as environmental quality, energy

from nonfossil fuel sources, etc.)

FUTURE SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

From what source or sources should the

funding for public-supported research come?

There is little doubt that many States will continue to increase their investments in agricultural research, but the rate of increase will

probably be less than needed. Some will fall

behind; a few are already experiencing difficulties. There is ample evidence, based on

beneficiaries and spillover effects of research,

that from an equity standpoint the major

source of funding should be the Federal

Government.

The question also arises as to how agricultural research dollars funded by the Federal

Government should be distributed. Again,

there are no quantitative data to give precise

answers. There are, however, past records

and logic that can give some guidance. In the

first place, USDA has the responsibility as the

lead agency for the program and for working

cooperatively with the State agricultural experiment stations (SAES) and other institutions. Since 1916, the relative amount of

federally appropriated funds has averaged

about 78 percent for USDA in-house research

and 22 percent for the States in the form of

formula and special grant funds. Since that

system has served the United States well in

the past, there appears to be no overriding rationale for a major change in this ratio.

Formula (Hatch) funds were first made

available to the SAES on the basis that it was

in the national interest to have a SAES in

each State working on State and local problems. This need still exists, and now that we

have a better knowledge of the beneficiaries

and the spillover effects of research, the rationale for Federal funding is even greater

today. Unlike research in many other fields,

much agricultural research is site specific,

simply because it is so closely related to the

problems of a specific area. Hence there must

be facilities and professional staff available

for such research, none of which can be created or dissipated on short notice. Biological

research must be long term and continuous to

be effective. SAES are best equipped to manage the solution of local and State problems.

Formula funding, therefore, which has been a

continuing and secure source of funds, has

been a mainstay in developing strong SAES.

The need continues and will continue in the

forseeable future.

Competitive grant funds are useful in providing flexibility in funding research areas

that have high priority because of changing

economic or other conditions or where new

research indicates a greater effort has a high

probability of being successful. These grant

funds thus are concerned primarily with rela-
176 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

tively short-term projects—i.e., 2 to 6 years

(even though these may be on long-term problems). Another use of grant funds is to obtain

expertise in certain research areas where it

either is unavailable from the in-house staff or

would not be desirable or efficient for inhouse staff to conduct such research. All research institutions are eligible to compete for

these grants, and the desirable level of funding for such grant research is probably best

determined through experience. Unless some

specific amount is set aside for grant funding,

CHAPTER IX

Berger, M., and M. J. Cooper., “The Cost of R&D

Living, ” Science, vol. 204, June 1979.

Berlowitz, L., R. A. Zdanis, J. C. Crowley, and J. C.

there may well be a tendency to contract for a

less desirable level of research.

The SAES and the U.S. universities represent a tremendous resource—in physical facilities and in qualified personnel—for agricultural research and education. It is in the

U.S. interest to use these resources in carrying out the national research effort wherever

capability and mutual interest exist on specific objectives and programs.

REFERENCES

Vaughn, “Instrumentation Needs of Research

Universities, ” Science, vol. 22, March 1981.
Chapter x

Issues and Options

NOTE: This chapter was largely completed in early 1981 and refers to the

food and agricultural system as of that date. Draft copies were made available

at that time for congressional committee staff and executive agencies. Some

of the report’s policy options have already been enacted. The chapter has not

been revised to reflect these changes, but the options enacted or in the process of being enacted are mentioned in footnotes.

Chapter X

Issues and Options

This assessment of U.S. food and agricultural research addresses the structure of the

research system as it relates to meeting the

national and international research needs:

a] to define local, regional, and national problems on a scientific or other basis in order to

assign research responsibilities, b) to identify

research roles of participating agencies, c) to

evaluate present methods of priority determination, and d) to assess the quality of research

management, the adequacy of funding systems, and methods of fund allocation.

tinent findings for each issue. Those findings

that require action by the executive branch,

but that also may be of interest through oversight to Congress, are discussed in more

detail in appendix A. Others led to a number

of options which Congress might consider in

actions it chooses to take in strengthening

and improving the U.S. food and agricultural

research system. The relative merits and disadvantages of the options also are presented

to give guidance in choosing the most suitable

options and their possible courses of action.

Six main issues were identified and investigated. The study resulted in a number of perISSUE: ARE CURRENT ROLES OF THE PARTICIPANTS

IN THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM

WELL-DEFINED AND APPROPRIATE?

FINDINGS

There is a role for a strong national U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) research

program. This role has been carried out in the

past by USDA in-house research and Federal

funding to State agricultural experiment stations (SAES). Historically, the USDA role was

associated with broad regional, national, and

international activities. The role of SAES, insofar as Federal funds are concerned, has

been primarily for local, State, and regional

problems. These roles are becoming less

distinct.

Grant funds are provided for newly identified high-priority research needs. SAES,

nonland-grant universities, and others compete for these funds on the basis of their interest and ability to do Federal research. This is

a desirable aspect of the total research effort.

The Committee on Food and Renewable Resources has not yet satisfactorily fulfilled its

role. This is because it is a relatively new feature in a well-entrenched bureaucracy; it

needs more specific, highly defined objectives; and it does not have the authority of

individual agencies that might be addressing

the same problems from more authoritative

positions.

Under the 1977 Food and Agriculture Act,

the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee

Institute participate in research and receive

most of their funds from Federal resources.

Their academic role and functions are consistent with those of the 1862 land-grant institutions, They have pressing needs—one of

the more important being improved facilities.

Coordination with the rest of the system is

less than adequate.

The private sector tends to view its role primarily from a profit potential. It conducts research in areas of company interest and in

areas that may give it proprietary advantages.

There are significant research areas of interest to the public that are not receiving nor will

179
180 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

receive adequate research attention if left to

the private sector.

OPTION 1

Maintain present roles with clarification. This option would imply continuation

of most procedures in effect.

USDA would continue in its role as lead

agency in the Federal Government, including

coordination of all agricultural research, extension, and teaching activities conducted or

financed by Federal funds. Roles would be

more clearly defined as follows.

Federal funds allocated to USDA would be

primarily for problems of regional or national

importance, where: a) the nature or magnitude of the problem is such that a single State

or States cannot provide the resources for its

solution, b) there is regional or national concern for the problems, or c) from an industrial

standpoint, the risk is too high or too demanding for a single industry. USDA also would remain responsible for servicing the research

needs of action agencies within USDA.

USDA would remain responsible and accountable to the executive and legislative

branches of Government for the administration and national coordination of such programs. USDA would leave to the States those

local, State, and site-specific problems that

can be handled by the SAES.

SAES, insofar as formula funds are concerned, would have primary responsibilities

for State and local problems. SAES also

would deal with problems of a regional, national, and international nature that are an extension of their State and local problems. But,

where USDA has active regional and national

programs, such programs would be developed cooperatively. SAES and other institutions (e.g., nonland-grant universities) would

compete for grant funds on the basis of their

ability to effectively perform needed tasks.

The 1890 land-grant institutions would continue to receive Federal funds and carry out

their present role. However, coordination

with the rest of the system would be improved.

The private sector would continue without

special incentives or pressures to conduct the

research that best fits its interests.

Pros

This option provides Congress and the executive branch with one Federal agency,

USDA, to hold responsible and accountable

for the coordination of all Federal agricultural research funds, and within USDA, Agricultural Research (AR), which is responsible

and accountable for broad regional, national,

and international research programs. It provides a mechanism (when properly managed

and organized) to carry out programs of immediate concern to Congress and the executive branch and to respond quickly to their

mandates. It also provides a mechanism

whereby Federal funds can go directly

(through formula funding) to the SAES and

the 1890 land-grant institutions. This helps

maintain their research base and makes available the extensive resources of these institutions for problems of national concern—for

direct use through grant funding and through

cooperative efforts with AR. Further, through

grant and contract funding, other interested

research institutions can contribute to the national goals and needs of U.S. agricultural

research.

The private sector is encouraged to continue its research efforts in those areas of

most importance to the specific firms in accordance with the competitive and free enterprise system of this country,

Cons

This option continues to perpetuate the

concern on the part of SAES of too much

direction and coordination of research conducted with Federal funds. Non-USDA research institutions may feel that USDA is attempting to dictate their research programs

to them. It also continues to foster greater difficulties in coordination of regional research

funded through Federal sources than might

otherwise occur if earmarking of formula

funds by Congress for high-priority areas of
Ch. X—Issues and Options ● 1 8 1

research were implemented. It perpetuates

the problem of lack of strict accountability to

Congress or USDA regarding the types of research problems which are to be funded. In

addition, it perpetuates the lack of objectivity

or clear rationale reflected by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and

others as a basis for choosing the research

areas for funding. The decisionmaking process for agricultural research would remain

unclear to the outside critics concerned with

agricultural research.

OPTION 2

Eliminate the in-house USDA role. Provide increased funding to SAES to conduct

most publicly supported research.

Pros

The SAES have large and capable research

facilities and staff. They are well-acquainted

with local and State problems and can effectively conduct research on these problems.

Most regional and national problems are

made up of local and State problems and if

these are solved at the State level, eventually

all such regional and national problems will

be solved. Federal funds to the States provide

more freedom to the individual researchers,

and research can best be carried out in an atmosphere free of constraints.

This decentralization reduces the problem

of bottlenecks in the articulation of local and

State research needs and the flow of communication from the clientele to the researcher

by not having to pass through high levels of

administration in Washington, then back

down to the researchers themselves.

Cons

This option provides no mechanism for an

agency or individual to be responsible for the

identification of specific national or regional

research needs, methods of attack, and assurance that given programs could be carried

out. It provides for no agency with direct accountability. It provides no mechanism for

immediate and quick response to issues,

problems, and programs of immediate concern to Congress. It provides no direct support linkage to the research needs of USDA

and other Federal action agencies.

When funds are in short supply, priorities

must be set and funds allocated to the highpriority items. Researchers have to direct

their interests and efforts to the high-priority

items and the availability of funds. The important national research issues are not

solved by a large number of researchers working “on” a problem, but by a few concentrating their efforts on the more important

aspects of the problem and by coordinating

and using in a planned approach all interested efforts relating to the specific problem

in question. It is doubtful that an individual

State or group of States is capable of supporting and conducting research of major national interest problems involving, for example,

marketing, transportation, watersheds, and

Federal regulations.

OPTION 3

Eliminate the in-house USDA research

role. Use present in-house funds, special

grants, and competitive grant funds for

contract research to carry out important

USDA research programs.

All in-house USDA research funds and

USDA contract and grant funds except formula funds would be placed in one agency to

be used for contracting important USDA research programs, a system similar to that

used by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID). USDA laboratories and

field locations, including Beltsville, could be

organized into centers for contract purposes.

Federal positions, except those required for

contracting purposes, at such locations

would be eliminated. A fairly large overall

USDA management and contracting staff

with training in appropriate technical aspects

of agriculture would be required. Ownership

of field and laboratory facilities could be retained by the Government.

Pros

This would eliminate many Federal positions in USDA and would ease the personnel
182 ● An Assessment of the u.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

ceiling problem considerably, Coordination

might be improved in cases where SAES or

State universities received contracts to carry

out USDA programs. It might make the closing of some low-priority Federal facilities

easier. USDA’s ability to shift program emphasis when desired might be improved, It

could provide special funds for additional

short-term contracts on high-priority areas.

Land-grant university research programs and

those of the SAES receiving research contracts probably would be strengthened by the

influx of new research funds.

Cons

This would eliminate the largest agricultural research organization in the United

States under one management system. AID,

which did and does operate in this manner,

has never been able to attract sufficient competent technical staff. Thus, USDA would

probably find it difficult to maintain a highly

competent staff capable of planning broad

regional and national programs, Since conduct of agricultural research on these programs is the principal purpose of the Federal

in-house program, this function would be

mostly lost. Costs of conducting such research programs probably would increase,

because contractors, whether from State

agencies or the private sector, would require

a certain level of profit. It would be disruptive

to all affected Federal research scientists,

because they would have to become research

contract managers to stay in USDA, or lose

their Federal retirement and other benefits if

they became contractors themselves or if they

resigned. Many, if not most, scientists probably would seek employment elsewhere, and

it probably would be difficult to hire competent staff. It would be very disruptive to the

present research programs, and it would

make planning and coordination with SAES

more difficult, except where the SAES or

State university was the contractor.

OPTION 4

Reduce the role of SAES in regional, national, and international research from the

Federal standpoint by eliminating all formula funds, leaving grants as their source

of Federal funds.

Pros

This would help eliminate the criticism that

formula funds are given to SAES without sufficient accountability and Federal management, It might help to remove some of the

competition between SAES and USDA over

budgets. It would increase the probability

that Federal funds going to SAES and other

institutions would go to those most capable of

performing good research, if done on a competitive basis. It would make it easier to be

sure the funds were spent on problems

deemed by the Federal granting agency to be

of high priority at the time of the grant.

Cons

This would tend to eliminate or drastically

reduce the partnership between USDA and

SAES and have some negative effect on coordination and cooperation. Many SAES could

not maintain their research base without the

present formula funding.

Unlike research in many other fields, much

agricultural research is site specific, simply

because it is so closely related to the problems

of a specific area. There must be facilities and

professional staff available for such research,

none of which can be assembled or dissipated

on short notice. Biological research must be

long term and continuous to be effective.

SAES are best equipped to manage this

research, and formula funding provides a

continuous and secure source of funds for

this activity. In addition, overhead costs on

grant funds are high; there are no overhead

charges on formula funds. Therefore, from

the Federal standpoint, less money is actually

spent on research under grant funds than

under formula funds.

It would draw resources (scientists) to one

institution (receiving the funds) from other institutions. It would intensify competition for

an available pool of scientists and the total

social product could be decreased, It would

also weaken the positive interrelation be-
Ch. X—Issues and Options ● 183

tween fundamental knowledge creation and

applied technologies or processes that exist in

SAES. In addition, it could weaken the synergistic relationship among research, extension, and teaching. This would also decrease

the capacity and initiative of some land-grant .

universities to

scientists who

orientation.

develop young agricultural

have regional and national

OPTION 5

Increase the role of the private sector

through incentives to conduct more research of concern to the public.

Pros

The private sector now conducts research

for the agricultural industry on the basis of

business investment. It has the capability to

conduct more research and probably would if

it were profitable to do so. By providing

direct grants, tax deductions, or other incentives, the private sector might be induced to

increase its efforts in agricultural research.

Since most businesses are profit oriented, the

research would be directed more to practical

business needs and hence might be of more

immediate economic value than some longterm basic research efforts.

Cons

The very nature of the private sector requires it to be concerned with self-interest

and self-preservation. While increased incentives might be helpful in some areas, it would

be a mistake to assume any amount of incentives would assure adequate research on all

issues of public concern and priority needs.

Many public research needs in agriculture, if

solved, would be counterproductive to some

agribusiness firms—probably those that

would be the most capable of working on

such problems. Industry is not interested in

conducting research on nonproprietary products. Research conducted by USDA and

SAES maintains competition and is in the

public interest. Research in the private sector,

while frequently having many public benefits,

can help to decrease competition among

firms comprising the food and agricultural

sector and can have adverse effects on the

public in the absence of adequate public

research.

There is danger of research inquiry focused

on narrowly defined issues that are of proprietary interest to the business firms conducting the research. Most of the benefits would

tend to be focused on business-related activities of the firm and affiliated firms, with

much less attention directed to benefits to

consumers and the general public.

ISSUE: ARE CHANGES NEEDED IN THE

INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF USDA

TO EFFECTIVELY CONDUCT RESEARCH?

FINDINGS research programs. A change in responsibilThrough early 1981, the Director of the

ity would be conducive to improved staff caScience and Education Administration (SEA)

pability.

did not give adequate attention to policy and Rationale for establishing AR regions along

coordinating functions. Operational details of the same boundaries as SAES regions is manSEA interfere with effective management at agerial and has been beneficial for this purthe administrator’s level. pose. This rationale does not conform to

types of farming or to regional or national

The national program staff (NPS) has insuf- issues, and as AR is organized, is detrimental

ficient authority and responsibility to provide to the development of broad regional and naeffective leadership to regional and national tional programs.
184 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

There is little evidence of the need for area

director positions in AR.

Cooperative Research (CR) conducts Hatchsupported project reviews. These are less

than in-depth examinations. As a part of the

process, onsite reviews are held, but at no

specific intervals and with no required follow-up except as would be done locally.

CR lacks authority in dealing with the

States. It operates as though it were under the

supervision of SAES directors rather than the

administrator of SEA.

CR administers the competitive research

grants programs. Its major clientele, SAES,

compete for these grants. There is criticism of

this arrangement.

Human Nutrition (HN) has not accomplished the intent of the Food and Agriculture

Act of 1977 with respect to human nutrition

research. USDA established human nutrition

research as a mission, but it did not establish

human nutrition as a separate budget item.

Nor has it properly funded and staffed the six

research institutes to conduct meaningful

research.

Through early 1981, in the Economics and

Statistics Service (ESS), concern existed that

the combination of the statistical unit with

the economics research unit had caused confusion for the public between the statistical

unit’s information and the projections and

forecasts of the economics research unit. A

small proportion of the economic research

budget is allocated to research and there is

very little cooperative effort with AR.

SEA OrganizationaI Structure

OPTION 1

Operate as a policy and coordinating office. *

SEA would no longer have an operating

function. The administrators of the respective

agencies would be responsible for the operating functions of their agencies. For example, budgets and other management functions

*USDA has begun putting this option into effect.

would be prepared within each of the agencies and coordinated at the SEA level.

Pros

The administrators of AR, CR, HN, and Extension could operate more efficiently if SEA

were strictly a policy and coordinating office

rather than an operating office, thus delaying

decisions that can easily and more effectively

be made by the administrators, and often second-guessing them. The director of SEA

would have more time to carry out the policy

and coordinating responsibilities of the office. These are not given enough attention

and this may be one of the reasons research

has not done well financially in recent years.

This option would be helpful in removing the

criticism of the administrators and SAES of

the time involved and limited results produced from the SEA budget process. It would

reduce staff requirements of SEA and shorten

decisionmaking time for the administrators.

Cons

Removing the operating responsibilities of

SEA and placing full operating responsibilities with the administrators would strengthen

each of the respective administrators, but

might make coordination and planning at the

SEA level more difficult.

OPTION 2

Establish an Assistant Secretary for Research, Extension, and Higher Education

with a Deputy Assistant Secretary who

would coordinate agencies comprising

SEA. The position of Director of SEA

would not be retained.**

In recent years, research has become increasingly less important in USDA as evidenced in the budget and structure of the Secretary’s office. Most studies of U.S. agricultural research have recommended that the

present functions of SEA be headed by an

assistant secretary.

—

* *The presently drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

authorizes a USDA Assistant Secretary for Research, Extension, and Higher Education.
Ch. X—Issues and Options . 185

Pros

This option would give research increased

prominence in USDA and in the eyes of OMB

and Congress. The office would have a larger

role in forming overall policy and would give

agricultural research a higher level of recognition. Further, it would have additional advantages as discussed in option 1. The role of

knowledge creation and application in contributing to overall national policy and welfare would be strengthened within USDA.

The cost, both in terms of funds and social

product or welfare forgone, always goes up as

the number of individuals involved in coordination, planning, etc., is increased. Creating

an assistant secretary could reduce somewhat

the marginal social costs relative to current

operations.

Cons

USDA has a limited number of assistant

secretary positions. Since USDA in the recent

past has not rated research and the other

functions of SEA at a high level, it would not

like to see one of the present authorized

assistant secretary positions mandated for

these functions. This option would require

the removal of an assistant secretary position

from another function unless Congress authorized an additional one.

Agricultural Research

OPTION 1

Within AR, transfer line authority including the responsibility and accountability for planning and coordination of research, and resource allocation for regional and national research, from regional administrators to NPS staff. (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2

Same as above, but consider a change in

the number and/or location of regions to

provide more efficient management and

eliminate the offices of area directors.

(Discussed in app. A.)

Cooperative Research

OPTION 1

Strengthen authority in managing Federal funds to the States.

The authority of CR would need to be increased to enable it to administer Federal

funds more effectively. CR would exercise

more rigorous authority in approval and

disapproval of proposed projects under formula funding and for reviews of such projects to be continued, reduced, or discontinued than it does today,

Pros

With increased authority, CR could represent the SAES in a more meaningful way

within USDA concerning budgets, research

priorities, formula v. grant funds, etc. It

would increase their effectiveness in the

review of research projects funded by Hatch

or grant funds, as well as in their periodic

reviews at the individual SAES. Such reviews

would tend to increase the contributions of

these projects and programs to agricultural

research in general. This plan would help to

eliminate criticism by OMB and others that

these funds are not well-managed.

Cons

The original Hatch Act makes the directors

of the SAES responsible and accountable for

the Hatch funds they receive. It is doubtful

that all SAES directors would agree to a

stronger CR without legislation changing the

agency’s organic act. An effort to do this

without the support of the SAES would be

disruptive to the research effort.

OPTION 2

Establish formula funds as block grants

and eliminate the CR office; establish a

secretariat for handling block grants.

The directors of the SAES have the responsibility and accountability for the Hatch

funds they receive. At best, CR is a general

coordinating office with little or no real
186 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

authority. This option would eliminate CR

and set ‘up a

necessary to

block grants.

Pros

secretariat to perform the task

transmit the formula funds as

This option would save time, funds, and

personnel positions of SAES and USDA,

since the present reports, reviews, and planning with CR would not be required. It would

have little or no adverse effect on research

programs.

Cons

This option would tend to increase the criticisms that formula funds receive little or no

meaningful review by USDA. The present

reviews are desired and thought to be helpful

by a number of SAES, but this benefit would

be lost. CR staff provides services to the

States other than project reviews, such as

training for SAES directors, that would be

eliminated.

OPTION 3

For options 1 and 2 above, remove administration of all competitive grants from

CR or secretariat staff and establish an office for this function that would report

directly to the Assistant Secretary of

Research, or Director of Science and

Education.

Pros

The competitive grants would be administered by an agency or office that would have

no vested interest in who receives the grants.

Any office that has a vested interest and administers such grants is subject to criticism,

whether warranted or not. This option would

give more objectivity to the competitive

grants program. While this would mean an

extra office reporting to the Assistant

Secretary or Director of SEA, there would be

a comparable reduction in authority and

workload in CR.

Cons

It would require establishing an

office.

Human Nutrition

Interagency Options

additional

The OTA report Nutrition Research Alternatives discussed earlier dealt with interagency issues in nutrition research. The options on interagency cooperation stated in

that report are still pertinent. The following

option is added:

OPTION

Adopt a uniform accounting system for

nutrition research expenditures for Federal

agencies engaged in nutrition research.

This system would differentiate between

those projects whose primary goal was human nutrition and those in which human

nutrition was of secondary interest. A standard definition of human nutrition research

would be followed.

Pros

This system would give Congress a mechanism whereby it could reasonably compare

nutrition research efforts at USDA and the

Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS). At present, this cannot be done

because of the retrospective approach to the

nutrition-research budget taken by DHHS

and the large number of research projects

done by the National Institutes of Health

(NIH) in which nutrition is of secondary interest.

This system would eliminate double reporting of research funds which frequently occurs in an area such as nutrition because of

the interdisciplinary nature of the field and

its interactions with diseases, as well as

growth and aging.

This system would differentiate between

research actually carried out in humans and
Ch. X—Issues and Options ● 187

that which merely may have

humans.

Cons

applicability to

Unless Congress can articulate a satisfactory accounting method that will clarify the

research efforts of USDA and DHHS, it will

be left to the individual agencies to determine.

Intra-Agency Options

OPTION 1

Maintain present management structure

within USDA with clarifications in budget

and staffing. [Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2

Remove HN from SEA and place it under

the Assistant Secretary for Consumer Affairs. (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 3

Dispense with the HN center as an administrative and planning entity, and disperse human-nutrition research within AR,

with each of the centers under the authorit y of the director for that region. (Discussed

in app. A.)

OPTION 4

Dispense with HN as an administrative

and planning entity, disperse the clinical

and laboratory components within AR

under the authority of the regional directors, and place the survey and statistical research information services under the Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer

Services.* (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 5

For options 1 and 2 above, determine if

all regional HN research centers are

needed, and if not, which ones best serve

the public interest. Available funds for HN

would be allocated to the needed centers.

(Discussed in app. A.)

Economics and Statistics Service (ESS)

OPTION 1

Reinstate each ESS component to separate agency status reporting to the Assistant Secretary or Director for Economics.**

(Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2

Reinstate each ESS component to separate agency status with the Statistical

Reporting Service (SRS) reporting to the

Assistant Secretary or Director for Economics and the Economics Research Service (ERS) reporting to SEA. (Discussed in

app. A.)

* USDA has put this option into effect.

* *USDA has put this option into effect.

ISSUE: IS THE PRIORITY-SETTlNG SYSTEM FOR

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH WORKING?

FINDINGS

To adequately determine research priorities, explicitly stated goals for food and agriculture are required. There are no well-defined food and agricultural goals for the research community to use in determining priorities.

There is concern whether the functions

assigned to the Joint Council on Food and

Agricultural Science (JC) are attainable. It has

had major problems in attempting to satisfy

these functions and as a result has had limited impact. Its effectiveness is limited by a

lack of consensus among its members on its

role, perception of USDA dominance, and

overorganization.

Functions assigned to the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB) are more attainable than

those for the JC. Impact of UAB on research

priorities is unclear. It cannot represent all
188 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

users of research, and those not represented

are critical of UAB’s performance. UAB, like

the JC, lacks its own operating funds and is

dependent on USDA for its resources. Its

membership includes research performers as

well as users.

There is lack of a satisfactory long-term

process for evaluating existing research activities, potential research opportunities, and

development of a new set of research priorities. Long-term research planning covering a

period of 4 years or more can be accomplished by an intensive, comprehensive study

involving research administrators, scientists,

and users.

Food and Agricultural Goals

OPTION 1

Maintain present system of no goals.

Pros

Establishing goals for food and agriculture

is complex and time consuming. Not setting

goals saves much time and expense of elected

officials. Congressional action frequently represents the thinking of the most articulate

groups. This may or may not represent the

best action for a given sector.

Cons

With no goals set by society, the research

community must assume some goals in order

to prepare a research agenda. The research

community cannot agree on what these goals

should be, and this results in continuing confusion over the research agenda. The research community will continue to be criticized for its lack of direction. Further, since

Congress provides the funds for research, it

should set the broad long-term goals and expect the research community to respond to

them.

OPTION 2

Congress and/or the executive branch set

goals for food and agriculture.

Pros

This would give clear direction to the research community on what the research

agenda should be. Public funds would be

spent on research needed to meet goals established by society through its elected officials.

Congress and the executive branch must deal

with conflicting goals all the time, consequently they are in the best position to do this.

Since Congress provides the funds for research, it should set the broad goals and expect the

them.

Cons

Setting

plex and

research community to respond to

goals in food and agriculture is comtime consuming.

Research Agenda

OPTION 1

Prepare a national research agenda at

specific intervals using scientists, administrators, users, and consumers under

the auspices of USDA. *

Such a study would: a) evaluate what is being done, existing priorities, and needed research opportunities, and b) develop a new

set of research priorities and recommendations.

The study would use methodologies pioneered by the National Academy of Sciences’

World Food and Nutrition Study and the

OTA studies on nutrition research alternatives and emerging food marketing technologies for priority determination.

It would be conducted every 4 years with a

final report delivery date of December 1 of the

year of each Presidential election. The timing

would coincide with both the installment of

an administration and the enactment of the

farm bill.

—.—

“The presently drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

mandates USDA to conduct a long-range planning study for

food and agricultural research.
Ch. X—Issues and Options ● 189

Such a planning system would not be institutionalized in terms of the individuals involved. A cross section of scientists, research

administrators, users, and consumers would

be included. The staff conducting the study

would be very small, consisting of a director,

deputy director and a few assistants. The bulk

of the work would be conducted through the

various work groups of participants. This ad

hoc feature is viewed as being critical to success in long-range infusion of new ideas.

Short-range planning would be done regularly by each research entity in conjunction

with budget preparation. To bridge the gap

between priorities and budget, research units

would give special attention to how the proposed budget fits into the achievement of the

goals established by the priorities identified

in the long-range plan. Flexibility would exist

for individual research units to emphasize

those designated priorities that fit most closely their agricultural situation. This system is

not meant to be a national priority setting for

SAES, since they are primarily responsible

for State and local issues. But it is a system

for national priority setting for broad regional

and national issues.

Using the concept of long-term priority establishment and short-term budget planning,

the JC and UAB would modify their responsibilities to place emphasis on: 1) supervising

the planning process, Z) providing a forum

for communication, and 3) providing interim

evaluation of planning goals. Specifically,

they would assist in identifying and recruiting scientists, administrators, users, and consumers to be part of the long-range planning

process. They would be the focal point in

monitoring and evaluating the extent to

which the research system is meeting the objectives specified in the long-range plan. They

would also provide an interim evaluation of

priorities in light of conditions in agriculture.

The whole process would be conducted on

a continuous rolling basis that generates reports of past accomplishments, support for

budget hearings, and periodic reports on

longer term priority needs of budget planning

and authorization.

Pros

Priorities established in the long-range

study would serve as the basis for authorization and budget hearings with Congress and

give a sense of direction to the total research

effort. Hearings would reflect accomplishments and changes in the orientation that result from the planning process.

The modifications of responsibilities for the

JC and UAB would permit a more simplified

structure, particularly for the JC, than is currently anticipated. Also, the number of meetings required would be substantially reduced.

Coordinating the study under the auspices

of USDA would be in keeping with the lead

agency responsibilities for food and agricultural research given to USDA by Congress.

Cons

Because the study is coordinated under the

auspices of USDA, other participants in the

research system may feel it is a USDA study.

OPTION 2

Prepare a national research agenda at

specific intervals using scientists, administrators, users, and consumers under

the auspices of NAS.

This would be the same concept as discussed in the previous option. The only

change is that it would be coordinated under

the auspices of NAS rather than USDA.

Pros

NAS would be considered an unbiased and

thus more objective party than USDA by

some of the participants in the research

system.

Cons

Historically, NAS has resisted the use of

lesser known scientists, nonscientists, users

of research, and the public in conducting

such studies. The success of this effort depends to a large extent on the participation of

these groups. NAS expertise is more oriented

to basic rather than mission-oriented re-
190 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

search. Also, having NAS responsible for ship role in research, which is contrary to resuch a study would weaken USDA’s leader- cent legislation.

FOR IN-HOUSE USE AND

FINDINGS

Formula funds are necessary for maintaining a strong SAES in the pluralistic food and

agricultural research system.

Distribution of Federal funds for in-house

funds, formula funds, and special grants has

remained relatively constant over the last 65

years.

OPTION 1

Maintain present method for distribution

of in-house and formula funds.

The distribution of Federal funds to SAES

and USDA would continue to be determined

by negotiation between the two parties and

the relevant appropriations subcommittees.

Pros

Since historically the distribution of Federal funds for in-house and formula funds has

remained relatively constant and has seemed

to work well, there is little need for change.

Cons

Much time and energy are spent by many

individuals and organizations in vying for

these funds. Their efforts could be better

spent in conducting research.

The friction created by this process unnecessarily interferes with the needed close

relationship between SAES and USDA.

FORMULA DISTRIBUTION?

OPTION 2

Set Federal funds for formula funding

and special grants at a fixed percentage

based on historical precedents.

SAES would receive a specific percentage

of the total Federal funds for research. The

percentage to be derived is not meant to be a

minimum or maximum. It would be a fixed

amount that is determined by Congress based

on performance and historical precedent.

This would be based on the total of formula

funds, special grants, and AR in-house funds.

The base would not include competitive

research grants and capital investments.

Pros

A fixed percentage would end the vying for

funds by SAES and USDA at the expense of

each other and would reduce the time and effort involved. It would allow these two major

research institutions to work more closely

together toward their common goals and present to Congress a more unified approach to

solving our important food and agricultural

problems. It would eliminate the most important cause of friction between USDA and

SAES, which at times adversely affects the

whole system.

Cons

In the budget process, individual budgets

should be authorized on their merit and not

as a percentage. Budgets set as a percentage

of total funds introduce the likelihood of a

lack of rigor in responsibility and accountability of expenditures.
I

Ch. X—Issues and Options ● 191

ISSUE: WHAT

FOR U.S.

ARE

FINDINGS

SHOULD THE SOURCE OF FUNDING

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, AND

PRESENT LEVELS ADEQUATE?

USDA expenditures for research are the

lowest among major Federal agencies that

conduct research. In 1978, USDA’s share of

Federal expenditures for research was 1.5

percent of total expenditures.

Constant dollar agricultural research expenditures of USDA in-house research increased only 1 percent between 1966 and

1979, while those in SAES increased 40 percent.

State appropriations are the major source

of research funding at the SAES, and in constant dollars increased 57 percent from 1966

to 1979. Federal Hatch funds account for 20

percent of SAES funding, and in constant

terms have increased on the average only 1.5

percent a year from 1966 to 1979, or 20 percent for this time period.

The justification of public funding of food

and agricultural research is based on benefits

well in excess of costs. Issues of equity,

because of the interstate flow of food and

related commodities and the spillover effect

of research from one geographic region to

another, are also cited. Producers benefit

from expanding demand and from reduced

costs. The distribution of consuming population among States, however, is related to the

distribution of agricultural production only to

a very limited degree. From the equity consideration of the geographic distribution of

costs associated with research and the

benefits flowing from this research, substantial Federal funding of food and agricultural

research is considered the most equitable.

Paradoxically, Federal research funding, relative to State funding, has decreased as the

interstate flow of commodities has increased.

Therefore, taxpayers in food-surplus States

are subsidizing consumers in food-deficit

States, and the degree of subsidization is increasing steadily.

BE

●

Maintain present Federal funding levels.

Pros

From a management standpoint, limited

funding, up to a point, tends to increase the

efficiency in the use of funds. It focuses the

use of funds on the highest priority areas.

Even though funds are not adequate, in times

of austerity it may be all that can be afforded.

Cons

There is a certain level of funds needed just

to maintain the research establishment. This

does not allow research institutions to keep

pace with higher research costs and does not

allow research into new problem areas without reducing significant levels of effort in important traditional research areas. Nor does

it allow the United States to maintain the

strength and responsiveness necessary in

meeting growing U.S. and worldwide needs

and demands for food and other agricultural

products. From an equity consideration, the

ratio of Federal funding relative to State funding for research would not improve, causing

taxpayers in food-surplus States to continue

subsidizing consumers in food-deficit States.

OPTION 2

Significantly increase present Federal

funding levels for food and agricultural

research.

Pros

Significantly increasing the Federal level of

funding will: 1) allow the research institutions to better keep pace with the high cost of

conducting research, 2) allow the pluralistic

research system to embark into new areas of

research while maintaining significant levels

of effort in important traditional research

areas, and 3) allow the United States to maintain the strength and responsiveness neces-
192 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

sary in meeting growing U.S. and worldwide Cons

needs and demands for food and other agri- From a strict management standpoint an incultural products. From an equity standpoint

Federal funding relative to State funding for

crease in funding may tend to decrease the efficiency in the use of funds.

research would increase, which in turn

would decrease, if not eliminate, the subsidization by taxpayers in food-surplus States to

consumers in food-deficit States.

ISSUE: DOES THE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

SERVE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS?

FINDINGS

AID and USDA are involved in international agricultural research and technical

assistance, but from the developing country

standpoint, AID is the prime Federal agency.

Research and technical assistance to assist

developing countries requires an in-house capability in the technical disciplines and issues

to be effective. Organizational structure, responsibilities, accountabilities, and procedures must reflect this fact.

Through early 1981, AID was not organized

to be effective in carrying out its responsibilities. Technical leadership was lacking in

the decisionmaking positions. With 50 percent of the total budget in food and agricultural activities, technical personnel trained in

these areas accounted for 5 percent of the

total. Few, if any, were in decisionmaking

positions.

The United States has much to gain as well

as give in the international research network,

At present no Federal agency has the specific

responsibility for taking the lead in coordination and cooperation on methods, procedures, and actions necessary to accomplish

maximum U.S. benefits.

OPTION 1

Centralize technical staff in one bureau

in AID. USDA would maintain its present

level of activity. * (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2

Establish within AID technical operating

bureaus around the major thrusts of the

AID program as defined in legislation—

i.e., food and nutrition, population and

health, and natural resources and energy

(technical bureaus would be headed by

technical career professionals). USD A

would maintain its present level of activity. (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 3

Increase USDA involvement in the international agricultural research network

with major emphasis on maximizing U.S.

benefits. This applies to both options 1 and

2 above. (Discussed in app. A.)

*AID has moved in the direction of this option, but still retains the regional bureau structure,
Appendixes
Appendix A

Options That Relate Primarily to

Action by the Executive Branch but in

Which Congress May Wish To Be

Involved Through Oversight

Science and Education

Administration-Agricultural

Research (SEA-AR) (see p. 185)

OPTION 1

Within AR, transfer line authority including responsibility and accountability

for planning and coordination of research,

and resource allocation for regional and

national research, from regional administrators to the national program staff (NPS).

The reorganization of 1972 removed scientific

leadership from the former national technical

leaders (now NPS) and placed it in the hands of

regional deputy administrators and area officers,

NPS is divided into five units, headed by a chief,

as follows: livestock and veterinary science; soil,

water, and air; crop science (production and protection); post-harvest technology; and human

nutrition. Since most U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) laboratories or field locations are

organized around mission-oriented research, only

two or three of the chiefs are usually involved at

any location.

This move has resulted in a lack of national

leadership for national programs and, in effect,

substituted a series of programs more oriented to

local, State, or several State areas. NPS has no authority in research allocation. Instead, it offers

strictly staff recommendations which may or may

not be accepted.

Pros

This option would reduce wasted manpower

and eliminate many of the unnecessary and unproductive debates in developing regional and national programs. It would greatly facilitate the

development of national research leaders,

strengthen the scientific aspects of the programs,

help to focus the programs on the important regional and national issues, and improve cooperation with State agricultural experiment station

(SAES) scientists and other scientists. This provides an opportunity for close contact between

research scientists and their immediate NPS

specialists and the assurance of coordination of

various disciplines at the chief level. Scientists

and administrators can choose the appropriate

NPS specialists, chief, deputy administrator, or

administrator to contact according to their needs.

Cons

Resource allocation decisions would be made by

scientists interested in broad regional and national concerns. This would make it more difficult

for local interested groups to divert the efforts of

the local AR scientists and budgets to local and

State problems.

OPTION 2

Same as above, but consider a change in

the number and/or location of regions to

provide more efficient management and

eliminate the offices of area directors.

The geographical area covered by each regional

deputy administrator was chosen to coincide with

the SAES regional areas and has little significance

with truly regional research problems. Such problems do not follow State lines, nor does any group

of regional problems fall within the same cluster

of States. Consideration should be given to

whether there is a need for four such regional administrators and their best geographic locations,

including the D.C. area. It is beyond the scope of

this assessment to study the specific number

needed and their most effective location. However, the findings of this assessment raise ques195
196 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

tions concerning the need for and efficiency of the

present number and their location.

Pros

This option or option 1 would eliminate the

need for the area director positions. All technical

planning would be carried out by NPS and technical staff, and with the reduced workload, the

regional administrators could easily handle the

administrative functions without the need for area

directors. This would aid in eliminating in-house

opposition to the closing of unneeded AR field

locations. The area directors could find employment in the local and regional research stations or

laboratories, where they could use their talents to

the advantage of both. Locating the regional administrators in the D.C. area would facilitate

focusing on broad regional and national issues.

Cons

Locating the regional administrators in the field

and having their duties correspond to SAES regions assists in frequent contacts between the

regional administrators and the SAES directors of

his regions and probably helps in coordination at

the management level.

HN Intra-Agency Options (see p. 187)

OPTION 1

Maintain present management structure

within USDA with clarifications in budget

and staffing.

Human Nutrition (HN) would remain within

SEA but with its own budget. The administrator of

HN would be given budgetary authority similar to

the AR administrator. The administrative relationship of the HN administrator to the center directors who are not employed by USDA would be delineated.

Pros

This option would clarify HN’s status within

USDA. At present, administrative and budgetary

authority are split, in contrast to good management principles. It would obviate possible conflicts of interest between AR research interests

and HN research interests, This option would

remove one layer of bureaucracy between the administrator of HN and the Secretary. It also would

carry out the mandate of Congress.

Cons

The HN budget is not large enough to warrant a

separate system,

OPTION 2

Remove HN from SEA and place it under

the Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services.

Pros

This option would place all nutrition activity of

USDA within the purview of a single assistant

secretary concerned with nutrition, and would

give the administrator of HN direct access to the

assistant secretary.

Cons

This option would separate nutrition research

from all other research in USDA. Use could not be

made of the peer review mechanisms within SEA.

Placement of HN within an action arm of USDA

would cause research results to be less respected

than if they were produced by an independent research arm, It would cause research to be directed

toward the needs of that arm and thus hamper

long-term research projects. It would politicize

nutrition research so that research directions

might change with each change in administration,

Placing HN in a nonresearch division will place

it under administrators unfamiliar with research

administration and inexperienced in solving the

unique problems associated with human nutrition

research,

Situated as it is in SEA, HN is not tied to any one

constituency within USDA. By placing it in the

same division as the Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS), HN would be under tremendous pressure

to focus primarily on FNS’s research needs. While

FNS represents a large fraction of USDA’s budget,

the clientele served represent only a small fraction

of the U.S. public. The human nutrition research

needs of producers, processors, and a large segment of the consuming public might be neglected.

OPTION 3

Dispense with HN as an administrative

and planning entity and disperse HN within AR, with each of the centers under the

authority of the director for the region in

which it is situated.
App. A—Options That Relate Primarily to Action by the Executive Branch . 197

Pros

Any positive aspects of such a move would be

political rather than managerial. It would reassert

that USDA holds producers’ interests to have

greater priority than consumers’ interests.

Cons

Segmentation of human-nutrition research

would destroy the ability of USDA to develop a

coordinated research effort in human nutrition.

Human nutrition is one aspect of USDA’s research effort whose parameters are not “site specific.” Dispersal of HN component parts to the regional directors would make coordination of the

human nutrition research effort nearly impossible.

Dispersal of HN would also place the centers in

the position of competing for funds with other

research in its particular region. Since most

regional directors are agricultural-production

oriented, the HN centers’ budgets would not be

expected to fare well.

The regional directors have little experience in

administering human nutrition.

Research at the HN centers would lose its national character and could become focused on the

agricultural products of a region, rather than on

basic human conditions and their nutritional

needs, e.g., infancy, parturition, lactation, aging.

The coordination of all Federal HN research as

called for in the 1977 farm bill and the development of the nutritional surveillance network

would become difficult, if not impossible, when

the lead agency (USDA) for human nutrition research has no in-house administrative, budgetary,

or coordinating mechanism for the direction

and/or use of human-nutrition research. For example, the mechanism for the coordination of the

nutrient data bank and food consumption survey

in the Consumer Nutrition Center and Beltsville’s

nutrient composition laboratory with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey would be nonexistent.

The development of information and educational material relating to human nutrition—a nationwide concern—would be under regional authority.

OPTION 4

Dispense with HN as an administrative

and planning entity, disperse the clinical

and laboratory components within AR under the authority of the regional directors,

and place the survey and statistical research and information services under the

Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services. *

Pros

FNS would have closer coordination with the

developers of nutrition information and educational material and with researchers who survey

and analyze food consumption patterns in the

United States.

Cons

All the cons of options 2 and 3 apply. In addition, there is the problem of separating the development of educational and informative materials from the research on which they are based.

Not only would the possibility of misinterpretation arise, but it would be the necessary to hire additional staff to do the interpretive work, because

the scientists who developed it would be in a different division of USDA.

The clinical and laboratory research segments

of HN would presumably still use USDA’s information bureau for the dispersal of information.

With coordinating mechanisms absent, the information released could contradict that being released by FNS.

The informative and educational materials released by FNS would be seen by many to be politically tainted, since they are released by an action

arm of USDA, rather than by a research group.

Separation of either the nutrient-composition

labs or the nutrient data bank from the foodconsumption survey would be cumbersome and

inefficient. The development and transfer of

usable information would be severely hampered,

making use of the data bank extremely expensive

and time consuming.

OPTION 5

For all options above, determine if all

regional HN research centers are needed,

and if not, which ones best serve the public

interest. Available funds for HN would be

allocated to the needed centers.

Pros

This will assure that funds allocated to HN are

used for high-priority needs. It would assist in

*USDA has put this option into effect.
198 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

funding centers at a level commensurate with U.S.

national interests.

Cons

National laboratories for the six centers have

been built for or assigned to the objectives of the

centers. At the time it was authorized by Congress, there was a need for this research. Even

though the centers are inadequately funded, there

is continuing interest in these activities. Also,

because of the deluge of nutrition misinformation

and its increasing impact, as evidenced by the

growing health food and health care industry, it

would be in the best interest of U.S. producers and

consumers to maintain regional HN research centers that address areas of public concern in nutrition and can distribute to the public scientifically

based information on food and nutrition as it

relates to health.

Economics and Statistics Service (ESS)

(see p. 187)

OPTION 1

Reinstate each ESS component to separate agency status reporting to the Assistant Secretary or Director for Economics. *

The two components of ESS, the Economics Research Service (ERS) and the Statistical Reporting

Service (SRS), would become distinct operating

agencies, each headed by an administrator. This

option would eliminate positions in the present

administrator’s office.

Pros

This option would help eliminate confusion between the statistical unit’s information and the

projections and forecasts of the economics research unit.

It would also reduce the administrative layering

that exists by eliminating the present questionable

bureaucratic procedures and paperwork.

Cons

It would create two entities where the appearance of one existed before.

OPTION 2

Reinstate each ESS component to separate agency status with SRS reporting to

the Assistant Secretary or Director for Economics and the ERS reporting to SEA.

ERS would join the other research agencies

–-i. e., AR and HN in SEA. For the economic policy analysis that needs to be conducted, an analytical and policy staff would be assigned directly

to the Assistant Secretary or Director for Economics.

Pros

Having the main research agencies reporting to

SEA at either the director or assistant secretary

level has the following advantages: 1) coordination among research agencies is much easier, 2) it

facilitates the integration of economics research

with biological and physical science research,

3) much biological and physical science research

would become more relevant and productive with

leadership and participation by production and

marketing research economists, and 4) by working

more closely with the biological and physical

scientists, it may be easier for economics research

to obtain increased funding.

Cons

The disadvantages include: 1) not all economics

research lends itself to integration with biological

and physical science research, 2) the Assistant

Secretary for Economics would have only one

reporting agency which does not warrant position

at the level of assistant secretary or director, and

3) the economics unit maybe regarded as a service

unit to biological and physical research,

International Food and Agricultural

Research (see p. 192)

OPTION 1

Centralize technical staff in one bureau

in the Agency for International Development (AID). USDA would maintain its

present level of activity. *

The technical staff from the regional bureaus

and missions would be combined with the present

central staff of the Development Support Bureau

(DSB) to form an overall operating technical

bureau. The technical bureaus would have responsibility for country and central programs of

technical assistance, research, training, and institution building and would be headed by out-

*USDA has put this option into effect,

*AID has moved in the direction of this option, but still retains the regional bureau structure.
App. A—Options That Relate Primarily to Action by the Executive Branch ● 1 9 9

standing professionals in their relevant fields. The

functions of the regional bureaus would be reduced essentially to those necessary for liaison

with State and collation of normal desk functions.

Presidential appointees would not be required for

these positions. More study would be needed on

the details of structuring

reorganization.

Pros

This would permit but

and more coherent patterns

the agency within such a

not assure much better

of relationships between AID and sources of needed U.S. technical

expertise such as universities, other Federal agencies, voluntary agencies, and private firms, It

should permit improvement in developing strategies for various functional programs such as

agricultural development, population, etc. It

might result in more emphasis on research as an

instrument in development.

Cons

In the absence of major organizational and policy changes, centralization of technical staff

would result in confused line of authority, particularly to field staff.

Country program decisions are made “in-line”

—i. e., missions to regional bureaus to Program

and Policy Coordination (PPC) to administrator,

DSB’s central staff is involved only by regional

bureau sufferance and on a very limited basis. In

cases of differences, the regional bureau view prevails except on rare occasions where an administrator may override. DSB influence is largely via

professional relationships with regional bureau

specialists, who have some influence, albeit usually marginal, in mission/regional bureau decisions. The influence is usually on technical

details—not program strategy, program composition, or intercountry allocations. Unless buttressed by actions sharply reallocating decisionmaking responsibility, centralization of technical

staff would probably reduce even further technical staff participation in major decisions regarding country programs and “regional strategies. ”

This option could well sever the line of communication between technical personnel in field

missions and their counterparts in Washington.

This communication, in the formal sense of collaboration on program and project design and implementation, is currently nebulous and varies

greatly, Centralization of technical staff might

reduce it still further.

It would cause further program imbalance toward capital transfer (in some suitable disguise) as

this would reduce the need for intrusion of central

staffs in regional bureau decision making,

OPTION 2

Within AID establish technical operating

bureaus around the major thrusts of AID

programs as defined in legislation—i.e.,

food and nutrition, population and health,

and natural resources and energy (technical bureaus would be headed by technical

career professionals). USDA would maintain its present level of activity.

The technical bureaus would have responsibility for country as well as central programs of technical assistance, research, training, and institution building and would be headed by outstanding

professionals in their relevant fields. The regional

bureaus would be eliminated and regional office

positions set up in the PPC or under an assistant

administrator with limited role and power necessary for liaison with State and collation of normal

desk functions. Presidential appointees would not

be required for these positions. This would reduce

the cost and amount of manpower to perform

these functions. More study would be needed on

the details of structuring the agency within such a

reorganization.

Pros

This option would make desired organizational

changes and enlarge the role of technical to nontechnical personnel. With the technical operating

bureaus organized around the major thrusts as

defined in legislation, the program would focus

more clearly on U.S. interests. With it organized

around technical issues, it would strengthen tremendously the ability of AID efforts to identify the

important technical issues constraining development of the various countries, to recruit and

manage technical resources, and to work with the

departments or instruments of government of the

developing countries in solving their own problems. This would reduce both the cost and amount

of manpower to perform these functions.

Cons

This option would require a major change in the

types of personnel hired by AID. The number of

technical people would increase considerably

with a greater decrease in nontechnical people. It
200 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

would require either a reduction in force or a long

time in attrition. It would require special care in

choosing the administrators for the technical

bureaus. They would have to be competent in

their professional areas, international experience,

and administration.

OPTION 3

Increase USDA involvement in the international agricultural research network,

with major emphasis on maximizing U.S.

benefits. This applies to both options 1 and

2 above.

The United States has much to gain, as well as

give, in international agricultural research. USDA

would be given specific responsibility for taking

the lead in programs to maximize U.S. benefits

from agricultural research conducted in other

countries and the international centers. This

would be closely coordinated with AID agricultural activities.

Pros

One Federal agency would have the responsibility to assure maximum U.S. benefit from

agricultural research conducted abroad. It would

increase cooperation with other nations and

research institutions. It would increase our ability

to obtain knowledge quickly of breakthroughs and

current research. It would also expand opportunities for U.S. scientists.

Cons

A program to promote benefits to the United

States from research of the international centers

and developing countries could cause other

donors to accuse the United States of trying to be

a beneficiary as well as a donor to the international effort to assist Third World countries

through research in agriculture.
Appendix B

Statistics on Research Funding

Table B-1 .—Role of Research in Total USDA Budget,

1915-54

(1) (2) (3)

Research as

Funds for Total USDA proportion of

Fiscal research a

budget USDA budget

year (thousands) (millions) (percent)

1915 . . . . . .

1916 . . . . . .

1917 . . . . . .

1918 . . . . . .

1919 . . . . . .

1920 . . . . . .

1921 . . . . . .

1922 . . . . . .

1923 . . . . . .

1924 . . . . . .

1925 . . . . . .

1926 . . . . . .

1927 . . . . . .

1928 . . . . . .

1929 . . . . . .

1930 . . . . . .

1931 . . . . . .

1932 . . . . . .

1953 . . . . . .

1934 . . . . . .

1935 . . . . . .

1936 . . . . . .

1937 . . . . . .

1938 . . . . . .

1939 . . . . . .

1940 . . . . . .

1941 . . . . . .

1942 . . . . . .

1943 . . . . . .

1944 . . . . . .

1945 . . . . . .

1946 . . . . . .

1947 . . . . . .

1948 . . . . . .

1949 . . . . . .

1950 . . . . . .

1951 . . . . . .

1952 . . . . . .

1953 . . . . . .

1954 . . . . . .

$ 7,440

6,640

7,240

7,740

8,340

9,140

9,240

9,640

9,940

9,840

10,740

12,600

13,380

15,060

17,640

19,835

21,040

20,426

17,437

15,500

15,828

19,386

22,041

24,187

29,882

28,992

28,274

28,925

28,736

29,030

29,922

34,807

40,426

47,739

57,285

60,043

58,691

58,182

57,948

59,828

$ 29.9

29.1

37.4

73.4

117.3

149.4

151.7

134.5

87.5

89.9

79.8

168.5

155.0

151.0

166.8

213.4

371.6

288.6

425.4

626.6

1,060.7

710.5

789.4

931.7

1,529.2

1,656.0

1,548.0

1,610.0

1,131.0

1,185.0

1,169.0

1,258.0

1,292.0

1,241.0

1,198.0

1,507.0

1,311.0

1,365.0

1,318.0

1,504.0

24.9%

22.8

19.4

10.5

7.1

6.1

6.1

7.2

11.4

10.9

13.4

7.5

8.6

10.0

10.6

9.3

5.7

7.1

4.1

2.5

1.5

2.7

2.8

2.6

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.8

2.5

2.5

2.6

2.8

3.1

3.8

4.8

4.0

4.5

4.3

4.4

4.0

alncludes both Federal research and funds passed On to States.

SOURCES: Col. 1. Table B-2, col 1.

Col. 2. “USDA Appropriations:’ USDA Office of Budget and

Finance, B&FR 67-H-245, January 25,1966.

201

84-3’23 - ;1 - l!
202 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table B-2.–Appropriations for Research in USDA Budget, 1915-73

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Total research Proportion of

funds in USDA Funds allocated Funds for USDA funds used

budget to States Federal research for USDA research

Year (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) (percent)

1915 . . . . . . .

1916 . . . . . . .

1917 . . . . . . .

1918 . . . . . . .

1919 . . . . . . .

1920 . . . . . . .

1921 . . . . . . .

1922 . . . . . . .

1923 . . . . . . .

1924. . . . . . .

1925. . . . . . .

1926. . . . . . .

1927. . . . . . .

1928. . . . . . .

1929. . . . . . .

1930. . . . . . .

1931 ..,....

1932. . . . . . .

1933. . . . . . .

1934. . . . . . .

1935. . . . . . .

1936. . . . . . .

1937. . . . . . .

1938. . . . . . .

1939. . . . . . .

1940. . . . . . .

1941 . . . . . . .

1942. . . . . . .

1943. . . . . . .

1944. . . . . . .

1945. . . . . . .

1946. . . . . . .

1947. . . . . . .

1946. . . . . . .

1949. . . . . . .

$ 7,440

6,640

7,240

7,740

8,340

9,140

9,240

9,640

9,940

9,840

10,740

12,600

13,380

15,060

17,640

19,835

21,040

20,426

17,437

15,500

15,828

19,388

22,041

24,187

29,882

28,992

28,274

28,925

28,736

29,030

29,922

34,807

40,426

47,739

57,285

$ 1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

1,440

2,400

2,880

3,360

3,840

4,335

4,340

4,357

4,359

4,361

4,38a

4,995

5,620

6,232

6,541

6,849

6,862

6,926

6,926

7,001

7,001

7,206

7,206

9,572

11,295

$ 6,000

5,200

5,800

6,300

6,900

7,700

7,800

8,200

8,500

8,400

9,300

10,200

10,500

11,700

13,800

15,500

16,700

16,069

13,078

11,139

11,440

14,393

16,421

17,955

23,341

22,143

21,412

21,999

21,810

22,029

22,921

27,601

33,220

36,167

45,990

80.6%

78.3

80.1

81.4

82.7

84.2

84.4

85.1

85.5

85.4

86.6

81.0

78.5

77.7

78.2

78.1

79.4

78.7

75.0

71.9

72.3

74.2

74.5

74.2

78.1

76.4

75.7

76.0

76.1

76.0

76.6

79.3

82.2

79.9

80.3

SOURCES: Col.1. Cols.2and3.

COl.2. 1915-62. Robert GeorgeLatlmec “SomeEconomicA spectsof Agricultural flesearchand Educationlnthe

United States:’ Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ph.D. Dissertation, January

1964,p. 171.

1963-73. Funds for Research at State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDAICSRS, annual issues.

COI.3. 1915-62. Latimec pp.65-66.(The same statistics, unrounded form, are reported byW.L. PetersonandJ. C.

Fitzharris in ’’Operation and productlvityof the Federal-State Research Systemin the United States/’in

Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research (1. M. Arndt,

D. G. Dalrymple, and V. W. Ruttan, eds.), University of Minnesota Press, 1977, p. 63).

1963-73. Peterson and Fitzharris, pp. 63, 64.
App. B—Statistics on Research Funding “ 203

Table B-2.—Appropriations for Research in USDA Budget, 1915-73—Continued

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Total research Proportion of

funds in USDA Funds allocated Funds for USDA funds used

budget to States Federal research for USDA research

Year (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) (percent)

1950 . . . . . . .

1951 . . . . . . .

1952 . . . . . . .

1953 . . . . . . .

1954 . . . . . . .

1955 . . . . . . .

1956 . . . . . . .

1957. . . . . . .

1958. . . . . . .

1959. . . . . . .

1960. . . . . . .

1961 ..,....

1962. .,....

1963. . . . . . .

1964. . . . . . .

1965. . . . . . .

1966. ...,..

1967. . . . . . .

1968. . . . . . .

1969. . . . . . .

1970. . . . . . .

1971 . . . . . . .

1972. . . . . . .

1973. . . . . . .

$60,043

58,691

8,182

57,948

59,828

72,561

83,943

115,543

113,426

129,877

136,039

160,747

161,480

172,800

190,000

239,400

264,700

274,800

278,000

272,600

300,100

331,200

382,200

407,900

$ 13,219

13,585

13,230

12,587

13,564

19,118

24,304

28,890

29,702

30,863

30,853

31,825

34,728

36,700

40,200

46,900

52,000

56,300

58,500

59,400

61,400

68,100

88,200

104,000

$46,824

45,106

54,952

45,361

46,264

53,443

59,639

86,653

83,724

99,014

105,186

128,922

126,752

136,100

149,800

192,500

212,700

218,500

219,500

213,200

238,700

263,100

294,000

303,900

78.0%

76.9

77.3

78.3

77.3

73.7

71.0

75.0

73.8

76.2

77.3

80.2

78.5

78.8

78.8

80.4

80.4

79.5

79.0

78.2

79.5

79.4

76.9

74.5

Average. 1915-73 78.4%

SOURCES: Coil. Cols.2and3.

COI.2. 1915-62. Robert George Latimer, ’’Some Economic Aspects of Agricultural Research and Education inthe

United States;’ Purdue Unlverslty, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ph.D. Dissertation, January

1964,p. 171.

1963-73. Funds for Research at State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA/CSRS, annual Issues.

Col. 3. 1915-62. Latimer, pp. 65-66. (The same statistics, In rounded form, are reported byW. L. Peterson and J. C.

Fitzharris In “Operation and Productlvlty of the Federal. State Research System in the United States,” in

Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research (1. M. Arndt,

D. G. Dalrymple, and V. W. Ruttan, eds.), Urrlverslty of Minnesota Press, 1977, p. 63).

1963-73. Peterson and Fitzharrls, pp. 63, 64.
204 . An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table B-3.—Research and Development Expenditures by Government Agencies

(DOD, HEW, USDA, DOE, NASA, NSF, Other Selected Agencies and Total) at SAES

and USDA—1966-78 (in thousands of current and constant dollars)

DOE NASA NSF Other agencies

Year Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

1966 . . . .

1967 . . . .

1968 . . . .

1969 . . . .

1970 . . . .

1971 . . . .

1972 . . . .

1973 . . . .

1974 . . . .

1975 . . . .

1976 . . . .

1977 . . . .

1978 . . . .

$1,212 $1,271.77

1,257 1,257.00

1,369 1,296.40

1,406 1,260.99

1,346 1,117.01

1,303 1,009.30

1,298 942.63

1,363 925.95

1,489 912.94

2,047 1,153.24

2,464 1,308.55

3,536 1,761.83

4,196 1,930.97

DOD

$5,050

4,867

4,429

3,963

3,800

3,258

3,157

3,061

3,002

3,064

3,447

3,703

3,876

$5,299.06

4,867.00

4,194.13

3,554.26

3,153.53

2,523.63

2,292.67

2,079.48

1,840.59

1,726.20

1,830.59

1,845.04

1,783.71

$244

262

284

274

289

337

455

480

556

595

609

697

754

$256.034

262.000

268.939

245.740

239.834

261.038

330.428

326.087

340.895

335.211

323.420

347.285

346.986

$ 541

694

625

744

1,043

1,357

1,169

1,288

1,278

1,486

1,541

1,695

2,005

$567.68

694.00

591.86

667.26

865.56

1,051.12

848.95

875.00

783.57

837.18

818.37

844.54

922.69

HEW

Year Current Constant Current Constant

USDA

Current Constant

Total

Current Constant

1966 . . . .

1967 . . . .

1968 . . . .

1969 . . . .

1970 . . . .

1971 . . . .

1972 . . . .

1973 . . . .

1974 . . . .

1975 . . . .

1976 . . . .

1977 . . . .

1978 . . . .

$7,024

8,049

7,709

7,696

7,360

7,509

8,318

8,404

8,420

9,012

9,655

10,963

11,825

$7,370.41

8,049.00

7,300.19

6,902.24

6,107.88

5,816.42

6,040.67

5,709.24

5,162.48

5,077.18

5,127.46

5,462.38

5,441.79

$1,014

1,147

1,252

1,297

1,221

1,476

1,751

1,838

2,290

2,363

2,546

2,787

3,132

$1,064.01

1,147.00

1,185.61

1,163.23

1,013.28

1,143.30

1,271.60

1,248.64

1,404.05

1,331.27

1,352.10

1,388.64

1,441.33

$153 $160.546

165 165.000

159 150.568

163 146.188

177 146.888

197 152.595

224 162.672

236 160.326

240 147.149

265 149.296

303 160.913

344 171.400

381 175.334

$15,247

16,441

15,827

15,543

15,236

15,437

16,377

16,670

17,275

18,832

20,565

23,725

26,169

$15,999.0

16,441.0

14,987.7

13,939.9

12,644.0

11,957.4

11,893.2

11,324.7

10,591.7

10,609.6

10,921.4

11,821.1

12,042.8

SOURCE: NSF, Science Indicators 1979, “Table 4-2 Research and Development Expenditures by U.S. Government Departments, 1986 -1978.”

Table B-4.—Total Research Expenditures at SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

USDA—1966-79 (in thousands of current and constant dollars)

SAES USDA Combined SAES + USDA

Year Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

1966 . . . . . .

1967 ...., .

1968 . . . . . .

1969 . . . . . .

1970 . . . . . .

1971 . . . . . .

1972 . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . .

1974 . . . . . .

1975 . . . . . .

1976. , . . . .

1977 . . . . . .

1978, . . . . .

1979 .....,

$205,215

207,675

242,687

259,292

282,101

300,224

346,942

378,658

430,609

490,054

527,120

605,455

662,533

708,932

$215,336

207,675

229,817

232,549

234,109

232,552

251,955

257,240

264,015

276,087

279,936

301,672

304,893

301,288

$153,084

165,424

159,150

163,865

176,896

197,084

224,308

236,291

240,183

265,604

302,531

343,859

380,556

381,242

$160,634

165,424

150,710

146,964

146,802

152,660

162,896

160,524

147,261

149,636

160,664

171,330

175,129

162,024

$ 358,299

373,099

401,837

423,157

458,997

497,308

571,250

614,949

670,792

755,658

829,651

949,314

1,043,089

1,090,172

$375,970

373,099

380,527

379,513

380,911

385,212

414,851

417,764

411,276

425,723

440,601

473,001

480,022

463,312

SOURCE: Compiled from USDA, Inventory of Agricultural Research FY1966-79, vol. 11, Science and Education Administration.
App. B—Statistics on Research Funding ● 2 0 5

Table B-5.—USDA, SAES, and Combined USDA and

SAES Scientist Years, 1966-79

Year USDA SAES Combined

1966 . . . . . . 3,660.40

1967 . . . . . . 3,817.80

1968 . . . . . . 3,515.96

1969 . . . . . . 3,511.67

1970 . . . . . . 3,544.30

1971 . . . . . . 3,541.43

1972 . . . . . . 3,682.61

1973. . . . . . 3,610.91

1974. . . . . . 3,489.61

1975. . . . . . 3,436.86

1976. . . . . . 3,439.38

1977. . . . . . 3,540.23

1978. . . . . . 3,595.10

1979. . . . . . 3,451.40

6,146.00

6,179.00

5,752.50

5,955.90

6,031.10

5,841.10

5,914.30

5,953.50

6,034.20

6,133.40

6,281.30

6,556.70

6,514.02

6,520.47

9,806.4

9,996.8

9,268.5

9,467.7

9,575.4

9,382.5

9,597.0

9,564.3

9,523.8

9,570.1

9,720.5

10,096.7

10,114.5

9,971.8

SOURCE. Compiled from USDA, Inventory of Agricultural Research

FY1966-79, voI. II, Science and Education Administration.

Table B-6.—Total Research Expenditures by USDA Research Agencies

(ARS, ESS, and CR)–1966-79 (in current and constant dollars)

ARS CRa

ESS

Year Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

1966 . . . . . . $136,761 $143,506 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $16,323.0 $17,128.0

1967 . . . . . . 145,716 145,716 1,997.0 1,997.0 17,711.0 17,711.0

1968 . . . . .. 142,405 134,853 1,969.9 1,865.4 14,774.9 13,991.3

1969 . . . . . . 146,801 131,660 1,999.6 1,793.4 15,064.3 13,510.6

1970 . . . . . . 161,113 133,704 1,694.4 1,406.1 14,089.1 11,692.2

1971 . . . . . . 176,076 136,387 2,647.2 2,050.5 18,361.0 14,222.3

1972 . . . . . . 192,617 139,882 12,500.0 9,077.7 19,190.8 13,936.6

1973 . . . . . . 200,322 136,088 15,400.0 10,462.0 20,569.2 13,973.6

1974 . . . . . . 206,995 126,913 11,583.0 7,101.8 21,604.9 13,246.4

1975 . . . . . . 224,096 126,251 16,471.6 9,279.8 25,036.1 14,104.9

1976 . . . . . . 252,514 134,102 21,973.8 11,669.6 28,043.0 14,892.7

1977 . . . . . . 292,956 145,967 21,903.0 10,913.3 28,999.8 14,449.3

1978 . . . . . . 323,146 148,710 23,707.0 10,909.8 33,703.0 15,509.9

1979 . . . . . . 327,168 139,043 16,933.0 7,196.3 37,141.0 15,784.5

aTfleSeeXpendltureS Include only the funds used wlthln USDA foradmlnlsterlng research funds lntheStates and obligations of CR administered special grants They are not double-counted (n anyof the SAESexpendltures from Federal

sources

SOURCE: Comp!led from USDA, inventory of Agricultural Research FY1966-79, voI IL Science and Education Administratlon
206 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table B-7.—Total Research Expenditures at SAES by Source of Funding (Federal

Formula Funds, Cooperative Grants and Cooperative Agreements (CGCA), Other

Federal Funds, State Appropriations, and Private Grants)-–1966-79

(in thousands of current and constant dollars)

Federal Other

formula funds CGCA Federal funds

Year Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

1966 . . . .

1987 . . . .

1988 . . . .

1989 . . . .

1970 . . . .

1971 . . . .

1972 . . . .

1973 . . . .

1974 . . . .

1975 . . . .

1976 . . . .

1977 . . . .

1978, . . .

1979 . . . .

$ 48,017

48,694

52,449

53,912

56,439

62,743

70,587

77,220

82,127

90,302

102,505

116,761

132,179

142,735

$50,385.1

48,694.0

49,667.6

48,351.6

46,837.3

48,600.3

51,261.4

52,459.2

50,353.8

50,874.4

54,437.1

58,176.9

60,827.9

60,660.9

$6,008

6,260

9,594

7,784

6,837

6,320

6,850

7,476

8,631

10,773

9,882

11,758

14,783

17,827

$6,304.30

6,260.00

9,085.23

6,981.17

5,673.86

4,895.43

4,974.58

5,078.80

5,291.85

6,089.30

5,248.01

5,858.50

6,803.04

7,576.29

$24,522

23,566

28,602

27,834

26,440

25,957

27,299

28,748

31,205

34,236

37,772

51,759

53,590

56,165

$25,731.4

23,566.0

27,085.2

24,963.2

21,941.9

20,106.1

19,825.0

19,529.9

19,132.4

19,287.9

20,059.5

25,789.2

24,661.8

23,869.5

State appropriations

Year Current Constant

1966 . . . . . $117,942 $123,759

1967 . . . . . 120,610 120,610

1968 , ... , 142,276 134,731

1989 . . . . . 157,526 141,279

1970 . . . . . 178,666 148,271

1971 . . . . . 190,892 147,864

1972 . . . . . 226,185 164,259

1973 . . . . . 247,691 188,268

1974 . . . . . 288,022 176,592

1975 . . . . . 331,270 186,631

1976 . . . . . 349,502 185,609

1977 . . . . . 393,358 195,993

1978 . . . . . 428,489 197,187

1979 . . . . . 457,104 194,264

Private

Current Constant

$8,726

8,545

9,788

12,238

13,719

14,312

16,021

17,523

20,624

23,473

27,459

31,819

33,587

35,101

$9,156.3

8,545.0

9,248.1

10,974.0

11,385.1

11,086.0

11,634.7

11,904.2

12,645.0

13,224.2

14,582.6

15,854.0

15,456.5

14,917.6

SOURCE: Compiled from USDA, Inventory of Agricultural Research FY1966-79, vol. II, Science and Education Administration.

Table B-8.—Private Industry Funds for Applied Research and Development for

Agricultural Products—1963-75

(in millions of current and constant dollars)

Year

1963 . . . . .

1984 . . . . .

1965 . . . . .

1966 . . . . .

1967 . . . . .

1968 . . . . .

1969 . . . . .

1970 . . . . .

1971 . . . . .

1972 . . . . .

1973 . . . . .

1974 . . . . .

1975 . . . . .

Food and Farm

kindred machinery

Current Constant Current Constant

$102 $125.5 $ 7 6 $93.5 –

118 139.0 79 93.1

131 147.0 96 107.7

130 137.9 100 106.0

134 134.0 102 102.0

165 154.3 96 89.8

179 156.7 99 87.8

204 170.1 89 74.2

207 165.2 90 71.8

222 168.9 92 70.0

234 170.8 117 85.4

269 181.8 127 85.8

292 184.8 145 91.8

Agricultural Total private

chemicals agricultural research

Current Constant Current Constant

$ 4 5 $ 55.4 $223 $274.3

56.5

71.8

81.7

92.0

92.6

92.2

105.1

103.8

82.2

83.2

92.6

104.4

245

291

307

328

360

362

419

427

422

465

533

602

288.6

326.6

325.6

328.0

336.0

339.3

349.5

340.8

321.2

339.4

360.1

381.0

SOURCE: NSF, “Table B-51 Research and Development in Industry 1975,” Surveys of Science Resources series, p. 72,

NSF77-324.
Appendix C

Commissioned Papers,

Acknowledgments, and Food and

Renewable Resources Program

Advisory Committee

Commissioned Papers

The findings and options presented in this report are in large part based on the papers commissioned by OTA for this assessment. These papers

were reviewed and critiqued by the workgroups,

advisory panel, and outside reviewers. The papers

are available in a separate volume through the National Technical Information Service. * The

papers included are:

Evenson, Robert E., and Bryan D. Wright, “An

Evaluation of Methods for Examining the Quality of Agricultural Research. ”

Flatt, William P., Hugo 0. Graumann, and Arthur

W. Cooper, “Agricultural Research Classification for Management Purposes, ”

French, Charles E., “The Process of Setting Priorities for Food and Agricultural Research. ”

Furtick, William R., “The Role of U.S. Food and

Agricultural Research in International Agricultural Development. ”

Havlicek, Joseph, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “An Historical Analysis of Investment in Food and Agricultural Research. ”

Huston, Keith, “Priority Setting Processes in the

State Agricultural Experiment Stations. ”

Irving, George W., Frederic R. Senti, William T.

Pentzer, and Joseph C. Purcell, “The Role of the

Public Sector in Agricultural Post-Harvest

Technology Research. ”

Knutson, Ronald D., Don Paarlberg, and Alex F.

McCalla, “Forces Affecting Food and Agricultural Research Decisions. ”

Lewontin, Richard C., “Agricultural Research in

Private Universities. ”

Lovvorn, Roy L., “Effect of Organization, Policy,

and Procedures on Research Management. ”

* Requests for “An Aswssment of the (J.S. Foucf and Agricultural Resea r(. h System, 1’(JIu me I I —Corn m issiond Papers” shou Id he d i rccted

to: ,\’at ional Tm:hni(. al In fr)rmatlon Scrvicc, (j ,S. Department of Cnmmcr[.e, Spr] ngfield, L’a, 22151.

Mahlstede, John P., “The Role of the Joint Council

on Food and Agricultural Sciences and the National Agricultural Research and Extension

Users Advisory Board in Coordinating Research and Determining Research Priorities. ”

Moseman, A. H., J. S. Robins, and Harold Wilcke,

“The Role of the Federal Government, State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Private Sector in Research. ”

Ronningen, Thomas S., and Hugo O. Graumann,

“Incentives and Disincentives Important to Research Management and Administration. ”

Smallwood, Charles M., “The Role of Public State

Universities in Food and Agricultura l

Research. ”

Smith, Grahame J. C., “A Comparative Analysis of

Selected Non-U.S. Agricultural Research Establishments With the U. S.”

White, Fred C., B. R. Eddleman, and Joseph C.

Purcell, “Nature and Flow of Benefits From

Food and Agricultural Research. ”

Acknowledgments

A large number of individuals and organizations provided valuable advice, assistance, and

review of draft reports to OTA during the course

of this assessment. In particular, OTA would like

to thank the following:

Richard Aldrich

University of Missouri

Raymond Altevogt

National Food Processors Association

Edward Anderson

The National Grange

J. L. Apple

North Carolina State University

Tony Babb

Agency for International Development

Emmett Barker

Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute

207
208 “ An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Worth Bateman

Department of Energy

George Benton

Department of Commerce

Anson Bertrand

U.S. Department of Agriculture

John Birdsall

American Meat Institute

Billy Bond

Tennessee Valley Authority

Nyle Brady

Agency for International Development

Mark Buchanan

Western Association of Agricultural

Experiment Station Directors

Robert Buckman

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mahlon Burnette

Grocery Manufactures of America

Emery Castle

Resources for the Future

Eloise Clark

National Science Foundation

John Deutch

Department of Energy

Johanna Dwyer

Frances Stern Nutrition Center

Kenneth Farrell

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Stephen Gage

Environmental Protection Agency

Dean Gillette

Bell Laboratories

Ellen Haas

National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board

Don Hadwiger

Iowa State University

James Halpin

Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations

Charles Hardin

University of California Davis

Lowell Hardin

The Ford Foundation

Mark Hegsted

U.S. Department of Agriculture

John Hood

Agricultural Research Institute

Keith Huston

North Central Regional Association of State

Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

James Iacona

U.S. Department of Agriculture

James Johnston

The Rockefeller Foundation

Terry Kinney

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert Kramer

W. K. Kellogg Foundation

Gordon Law

Department of the Interior

Oran Little

Experiment Station Committee on

Organizations and Policy

Bill Long

Department of State

William Marion

Institute of Food Technologists

James Meyers

National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board

Don Paarlberg

Purdue University

Willis Powell

National Farmers Organization

Denis Prager

Office of Science and Technology Policy

John Ragan

National Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory Board

Wayne Rasmussen

U.S. Department of Agriculture

J. S. Robins

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural

Sciences

Thomas Ronningen

Northeast Association of Agricultural

Experiment Stations Directors

R. Dennis Rouse

Auburn University

O. C. Simpson

Association of Research Directors of

1980 Schools and Tuskegee Institute

Charles Smallwood

California State University, Fresno

Thomas Sporleder

Texas A&M University

George Stone

National Farmers Union

Walter Thomas

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert Wildman

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Phillip Winter

Department of Defense

Vivian Wiser

U.S. Department of Agriculture
App. C—commissioned Papers, Acknowledgments, and Food & Renewable Resources Program Advisory Committee ● 209

Sylvan Wittwer

Michigan State University

Catherine Woteki

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Food and Renewable Resources

Program Advisory Committee

Johanna Dwyer, Chairman

Frances Stern Nutrition Center,

New England Medical Center

Stephen H. Berwick

Chief Scientist

HDR Sciences

Cy Carpenter

President

Minnesota Farmers Union

Eliot Coleman

Director

Coolidge Center for the Study of

Agriculture

Richard L. Hall

Vice President, Science and Technology

McCormick & Co., Inc.

Laura Heuser

Agricultural Council of America

J. Frank McCormick

Professor and Director

Graduate Program in Ecology

University of Tennessee

R. Dennis Rouse

Dean, School of Agriculture

Auburn University

Daryl B. Simons

Associate Dean for Engineering Research

College of Engineering

Colorado State University

Thomas Sporleder

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas A&M University

William Stapp

Program Chairperson

Behavior and Environment

School of Natural Resources

University of Michigan

Sylvan Wittwer

Director and Assistant Dean

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Michigan State University
Appendix D

Glossary, Acronyms, and

. . . Abbreviations .-

Glossary

Biological nitrogen fixation—A term used for

processes by which organisms such as bacteria

or fungi take nitrogen out of the air and change

it into a form that plants can use. Nitrogen is

one of the most important plant nutrients, as it

is the basis of all protein compounds. Although

abundant in air, plants cannot use nitrogen directly from the air.

Block grant—Given primarily to general purpose

governmental units in accordance with a statutory formula and can be used for a variety of activities within a broad functional area.

Constant dollars—Current dollars adjusted for inflation,

Consumer surplus—The excess of the amount

consumers are prepared to pay for a product

(rather than go without it) over the amount actually paid for it.

Demand—A schedule of the quantities of a product or service consumers are willing and able to

buy at various prices.

Donors–Countries or organizations that make

major contributions directly or through group

action to support international development activities.

Economic surplus—The sum of consumer and

producer surplus.

Food and agricultural science-The biological,

social, economic, and political considerations

of: a) agriculture, including soil and water conservation and use, use of organic waste materials, plant and animal protection, and plant and

animal health; b) processing, distributing, marketing, and using food and agricultural products; c) aquiculture; d) home economics, human nutrition, and family life; and e) rural and

community development. For purposes of this

assessment it does not include forestry and forestry products.

Formula funds—Expenditure for agricultural research from the Federal Government to the

States, based on size of rural population and

number of farms.

Hatch Act—An 1887 Act of Congress establishing

experiment stations in all States,

Income elasticity–The responsiveness of the

quantity demanded of a product to a change in

income of consumers.

Integrated pest management—Optimization of

pest control in an economically and ecologically sound manner, accomplished by the coordinated use of multiple tactics to assure

stable crop production and to maintain pest

damage below the economic injury level while

minimizing hazards to humans, animals,

plants, and the environment.

International network—A multicountry cooperative program with common objectives in which

there is joint planning, assignment of areas for

primary responsibility, coordination of activities, reporting on results and decisions on

follow-up activities. These networks may be

partly or wholly funded from one source or entirely by the individual collaborators.

Land-grant university—An agricultural institution established by the Merrill Act in 1862,

Marginal product—The additional output from

the last input employed,

Marginal rate of return—The net value of the last

dollar invested.

Marketing margin—The difference between farm

price and retail price; includes processing and

transportation costs, etc.

Mission-oriented research—Research aimed at

the solution of a well-defined problem of economic importance such as the control of a specific insect problem, curing an animal disease,

etc.

Multilateral aid—The aid programs that represent contributions from numerous donors but

act in the same manner as would a single

donor. UN agencies are good examples.

Multiplier effects—A measure of the effect on

total national income arising from a unit

change in one of its components.

Nonland-grant university—A private university

or public State university.

Post-harvest technology research–Physical and

biological study of the functions involved in the

210
App. D—Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations “ 211

assembling, processing, fabricating, preserving, packaging, storing, distributing, and transporting of agricultural commodities and food

products.

Price elasticity of demand—The degree of responsiveness of the quantity demanded of a

product to changes in its price.

Price elasticity of supply—The responsiveness of

the quantity of a product supplied to a change

in its price.

Research management—Systematic allocation

and distribution of funds, scientists, support

personnel, and other resources to be used to

seek solutions to problems related to science.

Scientist-year—One scientist working full time

for a period of 1 year.

Spillover benefits—Research conducted in a geographic area, such as a State, that impacts

another geographic area.

Sustainability of farming system—A farming system that uses renewable resources in such a

way that farming can be continued in perpetuity.

Value of marginal product—The additional revenue generated from the last unit of an input.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AID

AMS

AR

ARA

ARPAC

ARS

AVRDC

BAI

BDI

BEPQ

BHNHE

BIFAD

BPISAE

— Agency for International

Development

—Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA

–Agricultural Research, SEA,

USDA (1977-81)

—Agricultural Research

Administration (1941-53), USDA

—Agricultural Research Policy

Advisory Committee

—Agricultural Research Service

(1953-77), (1981- ), USD A

—Asian Vegetable Research and

Development Center

— Bureau of Animal Industry,

USDA

– Bureau of Dairy Industry, USDA

— Bureau of Entomology and Plant

Quarantine, USDA

— Bureau of Human Nutrition and

Home Economics, USDA

— Board for International Food and

Agricultural Development,

USAID

— Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils,

and Agricultural Engineering,

USDA

CAS

CDC

CGIAR

.

CFRR

CNRU

CR

CRIS

CRSP

CSESS

CSRS

DAC

DHHS

DOC

DOD

DOE

DSB

EPA

ERS

ES

ESCOP

ESCS

ESS

FCCSET

FDA

FS

GAO

GNP

HEW

HN

ICARDA

ICRISAT

—Committee on Agricultural

Science (1963-69)

—Center for Disease Control

— Consultative Group on

International Agricultural

Research

—Committee on Food and

Renewable Resources

—Clinical Nutrition Research Unit

–Cooperative Research, SEA,

USDA (1977-81)

—Current Research Information

System

— Collaborative Research Support

Program

—Cooperative State Experiment

Station Service, USDA (1962)

—Cooperative State Research

Service, USDA (1962-77) (1981-

— Development Advisory

Committee

— Department of Health and

Human Services

— Department of Commerce

— Department of Defense

— Department of Energy

— Development Support Board

— Environmental Protection

Agency

— Economics Research Service,

USDA (1961-77) (1981- )

– Extension Service, USDA

— Experiment Station Committee

on Organization and Policy

— Economics, Statistics, and

Cooperatives Service, USDA

(1977-80)

— Economics and Statistics Service,

USDA (1980-81)

— Federal Coordinating Council on

Science, Engineering, and

Technology

— Food and Drug Administration

–Forest Service, USDA

–General Accounting Office

— gross national product

– Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare

– Human Nutrition, SEA, USDA

(1977-81)

— International Center for

Agricultural Research in the Dry

Areas

— International Crops Research

Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics
212 ● An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

IDCA-AID — International Development

IITA

ILCA

ILRAD

I PA

IRRI

ISNAR

ISTC

JC

JCAD

JPE

JRC

LAIR

MAPS

NAS

NASA

NASCD

NASULGC

NCHS

NCI

NCI-DNCP

NHLBI

NIAMDD

NIH

NIH-NCC

Cooperative Administration

— International Institute for

Tropical Agriculture

— International Livestock Center

for Africa

— International Laboratory for

Research in Animal Diseases

— Intergovernmental Personnel Act

— International Rice Research

Institute

— International Service for National

Agricultural Research

— Institute for Scientific and

Technological Cooperation

–Joint Council on Food and

Agricultural Sciences

– Joint Committee for Agricultural

Development

–Joint Planning and Evaluation

Staff, USDA

–Joint Research Committee

— Letterman Army Institute for

Research

— Management and Planning

System

— National Academy of Sciences

— National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

— National Association of Soil

Conservation Districts

— National Association of State

Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges

— National Center for Health

Statistics

— National Cancer Institute

— NCI-Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer

Program

– National Heart, Lung, and Blood

Institute

— National Institute of Arthritis,

Metabolism, and Digestive

Diseases

— National Institutes of Health

— NIH-Nutrition Coordinating

Committee

NOAA-DOC — National Ocean and Atmospheric

Administration

NPS

NSF

OES

OICD

OMB

OSTP

OTA

PAC

P.L.

PPC

PPS–

PSAC

RANN

R&D

RMA

RPs

RPAs

RPGs

SAES

SCS

SEA

SFCRP

SRS

TSRTP

UAB

UN

USDA

VA

n

–National Program Staff, USDA

— National Science Foundation

— Office of Experiment Stations,

USDA

—Office of International

Cooperation and Development,

USDA

—Office of Management and

Budget

— Office of Science and

Technology Policy

–Office of Technology

Assessment, U.S. Congress

— Program Analysis and

Coordination, USDA

— Public Law

— Bureau of Program and Policy

Coordination

Program Planning Staff, USDA

— President’s Science Advisory

Committee

— Research Applied to National

Needs

— research and development

— Research and Marketing Act of

1946

— Research Programs

— Research Program Areas

— Research Program Groups

— State Agricultural Experiment

Stations

— Soil Conservation Service

— Science and Education

Administration (1977-81)

— Special Foreign Currency

Research Program

— Statistical Reporting Service

— Tropical and Subtropical

Research and Training Program

— National Agricultural Research

and Extension Users Advisory

Board

— United Nations

— United States Department of

Agriculture

— Veterans Administration

w