2011 U.S. Intellectual Propert y 

Enforcement Coordinator

An nual Report on 

Intellectual Propert y 

Enforcement

cover title here

2011 U.S. Intellectual Propert y 

Enforcement Coordinator

An nual Report on 

Intellectual Propert y 

Enforcement

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON

AGRICULTURAL PREPAREDNESS

and

THE AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

Executive Office of the President

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

D ecember 2012

2011 U.S. Intellectual Propert y 

Enforcement Coordinator

An nual Report on 

Intellectual Propert y 

Enforcement

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON

AGRICULTURAL PREPAREDNESS

and

THE AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

Executive Office of the President

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

december 2012
About the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the 

Nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other 

Federal agencies. PCAST is consulted about, and often makes policy recommendations concerning, the 

full range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation bear 

potentially on the policy choices before the President.

For more information about PCAST, see www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.
i

The President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

Co-Chairs

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for 

Science and Technology

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Eric Lander

President

Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Vice Chairs 

William Press

Raymer Professor, Computer Science and 

Integrative Biology

University of Texas at Austin

Maxine Savitz

Vice President

National Academy of Engineering

Members

Rosina Bierbaum

Professor, Natural Resources and Environmental 

Policy

School of Natural Resources and Environment 

and School of Public Health

University of Michigan

Christine Cassel

President and CEO

American Board of Internal Medicine

Christopher Chyba

Professor, Astrophysical Sciences and 

International Affairs

Director, Program on Science and Global Security

Princeton University

S. James Gates, Jr.

John S. Toll Professor of Physics

Director, Center for String and Particle Theory

University of Maryland, College Park

Mark Gorenberg 

Managing Director

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

Shirley Ann Jackson

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Richard C. Levin

President

Yale University

Chad Mirkin

Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials 

Science and Engineering, Chemical and 

Biological Engineering and Medicine

Director, International Institute for 

Nanotechnology

Northwestern University
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

ii

Mario Molina

Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry

University of California, San Diego

Professor, Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Director, Mario Molina Center for Energy and 

Environment, Mexico City

Ernest J. Moniz

Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and 

Engineering Systems

Director, MIT’s Energy Initiative

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig Mundie

Chief Research and Strategy Officer

Microsoft Corporation

Ed Penhoet

Director, Alta Partners

Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public 

Health

University of California, Berkeley

Barbara Schaal

Mary-Dell Chilton Distinguished Professor of 

Biology

Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Washington University, St. Louis

Vice President, National Academy of Sciences

Eric Schmidt

Executive Chairman

Google, Inc.

Daniel Schrag

Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology

Professor, Environmental Science and 

Engineering

Director, Harvard University Center for 

Environment

Harvard University

David E. Shaw

Chief Scientist, D.E. Shaw Research

Senior Research Fellow, Center for 

Computational Biology and Bioinformatics

Columbia University

Ahmed Zewail

Linus Pauling Professor of Chemistry and Physics

Director, Physical Biology Center

California Institute of Technology

Staff

Deborah Stine

Executive Director

Amber Hartman Scholz

Assistant Executive Director
iii

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President,

We are pleased to send you this new report from your Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Agricultural 

Preparedness and the Agriculture Research Enterprise. This report addresses the scientific challenges facing 

the Nation’s agricultural research enterprise and makes recommendations on how to refocus and rebalance 

the Federal Government’s support of agricultural research to enable U.S. farmers to meet the critical challenges 

facing U.S. agriculture in the 21st century. 

As we worked on this report, the Nation’s farmers were suffering through one of the worst droughts in history. 

Low snowfall last winter, record temperatures last spring, and drought this summer combined to decimate the 

corn and soybean crops across the Midwest. Corn prices are at record high levels, with over 1300 counties in 

31 states designated as disaster areas by Secretary Vilsack. Agricultural research cannot immediately protect 

the farmers whose corn is withering in the field, but it can provide long-term strategies for dealing with heat 

waves and other weather-related problems that we anticipate as climate change proceeds. Beyond responding to climate change, there are other growing challenges in agriculture, including new pests and pathogens, 

controlling agriculture’s environmental impacts, health and nutritional concerns, and international food security. 

In the report, your PCAST calls for increased public investment in agricultural research to meet these growing 

challenges. The goal of the additional investment is to enable creation of an innovation ecosystem for agriculture 

that combines public and private R&D efforts to most efficiently meet both the short- and long-term dimensions 

of the challenges. We further recommend that the Department of Agriculture make some important changes 

in the way it administers research funds, in particular an expansion of competitive opportunities for both 

intramural and extramural research. Additional investment in agricultural research would create opportunities 

for new business ventures funded by the private sector and provide the means to train the next generation of 

farmers and agricultural researchers and meet the workforce demands of U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.

We appreciate your interest in this important field of work and sincerely hope that you find this report useful.

Sincerely,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

March 25, 2010

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President,

We are pleased to send you this “Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative,” prepared by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology (PCAST). This report reflects a PCAST decision to advise you on this topic and fulfills PCAST’s 

responsibilities under the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-153) 

and Executive Order 13349 to provide periodic updates to Congress.

To provide a solid scientific basis for our recommendations, the Council assembled a PCAST Working Group 

of three PCAST members and 12 non-governmental members with broad expertise in nanotechnology. The 

Working Group addressed the requirements of Public Law 108-153, with additional efforts aimed in four 

areas: NNI program management; the outputs of nanotechnology; environment, health, and safety research; 

and the vision for NNI for the next ten years. The Working Group’s deliberations were informed by 

discussions with 37 government officials, industry leaders, and technical experts from a wide range of fields 

involving nanotechnology. 

The report finds that the NNI—which has provided $12 billion in investments by 25 Federal agencies over the 

past decade—has had a “catalytic and substantial impact” on the growth of the U.S. nanotechnology industry 

and should be continued. Further, the report finds that in large part as a result of the NNI the United States is 

today, by a wide range of measures, the global leader in this exciting and economically promising field of 

research and technological development. 

But the report also finds that U.S. leadership in nanotechnology is threatened by several aggressively investing 

competitors such as China, South Korea, and the European Union. In response to this threat, the report 

recommends a number of changes in Federal programs and policies, with the goal of assuring continued U.S. 

dominance in the decade ahead.

The full PCAST discussed and approved this report, pending modest revisions that have now been completed, 

at its most recent public meeting on March 12, 2010. We appreciate your interest in this important field of 

work and sincerely hope that you find this report useful.

John P. Holdren

Co-Chair

Harold Varmus

Co-Chair

Eric Lander

Co-Chair

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

March 25, 2010

resident Barack Obama

he White House

Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President,

We are pleased to send you this “Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative,” prepared by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

echnology (PCAST). This report reflects a PCAST decision to advise you on this topic and fulfills PCAST’s 

esponsibilities under the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-153) 

nd Executive Order 13349 to provide periodic updates to Congress.

o provide a solid scientific basis for our recommendations, the Council assembled a PCAST Working Group 

f three PCAST members and 12 non-governmental members with broad expertise in nanotechnology. The 

Working Group addressed the requirements of Public Law 108-153, with additional efforts aimed in four 

reas: NNI program management; the outputs of nanotechnology; environment, health, and safety research; 

nd the vision for NNI for the next ten years. The Working Group’s deliberations were informed by 

iscussions with 37 government officials, industry leaders, and technical experts from a wide range of fields 

nvolving nanotechnology. 

he report finds that the NNI—which has provided $12 billion in investments by 25 Federal agencies over the 

ast decade—has had a “catalytic and substantial impact” on the growth of the U.S. nanotechnology industry 

nd should be continued. Further, the report finds that in large part as a result of the NNI the United States is 

oday, by a wide range of measures, the global leader in this exciting and economically promising field of 

esearch and technological development. 

ut the report also finds that U.S. leadership in nanotechnology is threatened by several aggressively investing 

ompetitors such as China, South Korea, and the European Union. In response to this threat, the report 

ecommends a number of changes in Federal programs and policies, with the goal of assuring continued U.S. 

ominance in the decade ahead.

he full PCAST discussed and approved this report, pending modest revisions that have now been completed, 

t its most recent public meeting on March 12, 2010. We appreciate your interest in this important field of 

work and sincerely hope that you find this report useful.

ohn P. Holdren

o-Chair

Harold Varmus

Co-Chair

Eric Lander

Co-Chair

v

The President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

Executive Summary

The United States is the undisputed world leader in agricultural production today, but as we look out 

across the 21st century, agriculture faces a series of challenges: 

• Managing new pests, pathogens, and invasive plants.

• Increasing the efficiency of water use.

• Reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture.

• Growing food in a changing climate.

• Managing the production of bioenergy.

• Producing safe and nutritious food.

• Assisting with global food security and maintaining abundant yields.

Meeting these challenges requires a renewed commitment to research, innovation, and technology 

development in agriculture. Private industry will continue to play an important role meeting these 

challenges in areas directly related to commercial developments and commodities. But many of the 

developments necessary to meet these challenges are public goods and not easily monetized. These 

challenges require a strong public commitment to agricultural research, one that fosters a culture of 

innovation and excellence to address some of the greatest threats to U.S. long-term prosperity and 

security. 

In January 2011, Catherine Woteki, the Undersecretary for Research, Education, and Economics, and 

Roger Beachy, then-Director of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, spoke to the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and subsequently requested an examination of areas of critical need within agriculture. In March 2012, the Secretary of Agriculture addressed 

PCAST and noted the critical role of the U.S. agricultural research enterprise was to prepare the Nation 

to meet future challenges. He asked PCAST to identify and recommend ways to optimize innovative 

public sector agricultural research, to stimulate training of the workforce, and to ensure that the United 

States maintains its leadership in agriculture around the world. In response, PCAST formed a working 

group of PCAST members and experts from the public and private sectors to address the charge and 

to formulate recommendations. Informed by the working group’s deliberations, PCAST has developed 

this report to provide advice to the Administration about Federal actions that can promote agricultural 

research innovation.

Our most important conclusion is that our Nation’s agricultural research enterprise is not prepared to 

meet the challenges that U.S. agriculture faces in the 21st century for two major reasons. First, PCAST 
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

vi

finds that the proportion of Federal funding for agricultural research allocated through competitive 

mechanisms is far below the proportion in other agencies, which fails to adequately encourage innovation. Second, PCAST finds that the current agricultural research portfolio is not optimally balanced; it 

overlaps with private sector activities in several significant areas, while underfunding other important 

areas that are not addressed through private efforts. 

PCAST recommends the creation of a new innovation ecosystem for agriculture that leverages 

the best from different parts of the broad U.S. science and technology enterprise, focusing public 

investment on challenges that enhance the public good and are not readily done by the private 

sector alone. PCAST calls for a strategic investment that will create the path toward an improved 

innovation ecosystem for the U.S. heartland, enhancing the economy and harnessing the power 

of U.S. innovation in science and technology to address this set of great challenges to the Nation. 

A new agricultural research enterprise should be centered on competitive intramural and extramural 

research efforts that bring together scientists from traditional agricultural fields and those from the 

biological and physical sciences. A focused public investment would not only invigorate agricultural 

research and create opportunities for new business ventures funded by the private sector, but also 

provide the means to train the next generation of farmers and agricultural researchers to meet the 

workforce demands of U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.

Creating an innovation ecosystem for agricultural research requires investment in three main areas: 

research support, training and workforce development, and research infrastructure. In all three areas, 

PCAST has considered how to enhance and invigorate the existing structure while preserving the 

strengths and important roles of existing programs. In some cases, these reforms will require new funding to achieve the stated goals. In other cases, a restructuring of existing funds can enhance the use of 

competition for distribution of funding and can expand the Federal research portfolio with respect to 

issues of public good. 

Overall, PCAST recommends that the United States increase its investment in agricultural research 

by a total of $700 million per year as detailed below, focusing on addressing the emerging challenges described above.1

Overview of PCAST Recommendations to Improve Agricultural 

Preparedness and Maintain U.S. Leadership in Agriculture

1. Expand the role of competition in agricultural research funding:

a. Expand the use of competition in allocation of research funding within intramural and 

extramural programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

b. Increase the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget for basic science relevant to agriculture from $120 million to $250 million per year.

1. Details are outlined in Chapter 4. Briefly, $180 million for new graduate and post-doctoral fellowships; $235 

million for new competitively funded research at USDA AFRI; $130 million for basic research at NSF; and $150 

million for new public-private institutes.
The President ’s Council of Adviso rs on Science and Tech n o lo g y 

vii

c. Increase the USDA budget for competitive funding of extramural research from $265 million 

to $500 million per year, consistent with the 2008 congressional authorization.

 2. Greatly expand a competitively awarded fellowship program for graduate students and 

 post-doctoral researchers at a level of $180 million per year with at least 5-year funding.

 3. Expand the USDA program of competitive awards for new infrastructure investments for 

 agricultural research with an emphasis on specialization and consolidation to avoid redundancies.

4. Create six large, multidisciplinary innovation institutes focused on emerging challenges to 

agriculture, supported by public-private partnerships at an initial new Federal investment of 

$150 million per year to create six institutes at a funding level of $25 million per year for no less 

than 5 years.

5. Conduct an internal review of Federal regulatory policy for agriculture to promote regulatory 

clarity, consistent with Executive Order 13563, as well as the Presidential Memorandum on 

technology transfer from the national laboratories to the marketplace.

6. Establish an implementation committee to act on these recommendations. Create a permanent, 

independent science advisory committee to advise the Chief Scientist of the USDA.

ix

The President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology

Report to the President on Agricultural Preparedness 

and the Agriculture Research Enterprise

xi

PCAST Agricultural Preparedness 

Working Group

PCAST Members

Barbara Schaal, study co-chair

Mary-Dell Chilton Distinguished Professor

Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Washington University, St. Louis

Vice President, National Academy of Sciences

Rosina Bierbaum

Professor, Natural Resources and Environmental 

Policy

School of Natural Resources and Environment 

and School of Public Health

University of Michigan

Daniel Schrag, study co-chair

Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology

Professor, Environmental Science and 

Engineering

Director, Harvard University Center for 

Environment

Harvard University

Mark Gorenberg 

Managing Director

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

Working Group

Sharon Clay

Professor of Plant Science

South Dakota State University

Jeff Dangl

John N. Couch Distinguished Professor Biology

HHMI-GBMF Plant Science Investigator

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

David Fischhoff

Vice President, Technology Strategy & 

Development

Monsanto Company

Molly Jahn

Professor of Genetics and Agronomy

Special Advisor to the Provost for Sustainability 

Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Don Latham

President

DTB Farms

Frank Mitloehner

Associate Professor

Department of Animal Science

University of California, Davis

Air Quality Specialist

State of California Cooperative Extension

Tom Sinclair

Adjunct Professor

North Carolina State University

Chris Somerville

Director 

Energy Biosciences Institute

Professor

Department of Plant and Microbial Biology 

University of California, Berkeley
Staff

Amber Hartman Scholz

Assistant Executive Director, PCAST

1

Mary Maxon left OSTP in July 2012.

Mary Maxon1

Assistant Director for Biological Research, OSTP
1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

PCAST Agricultural Preparedness Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

I. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AT A CROSSROADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

II. NEW CHALLENGES REQUIRE A NEW PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH . . . . 7

III. CURRENT STATUS OF THE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH ENTERPRISE . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS: TOWARD AN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 37

New, Refocused Investments in Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Human Capital for U.S. Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Agricultural Research Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Public-Private Partnerships 44

Technology Development and Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Implementation and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Summary 46

Appendix A. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix B. Additional Experts Providing Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3

I. Agricultural Research at a Crossroads

Since its earliest colonial history, agriculture has played a central role in the social and economic activity of the United States. Since that time, the Nation has depended on agriculture not only to feed its 

citizens, but also as a major driver of its economy. Exports of agricultural products produced a $34 billion 

trade surplus in 2010 and a $37 billion trade surplus in 2011,2 and the agricultural sector is currently 

responsible for 1 in 12 American jobs.3 Beyond its economic impact, U.S. agriculture provides a foundation for world food stability and security, supplying most of the food aid to developing nations around 

the world. Looking to the future, U.S. agriculture must continue to be the backbone for the emerging 

U.S. bioeconomy, helping the Nation meet its need for sustainable sources of energy and materials, and 

simultaneously contributing to the prosperity of rural communities. A vibrant U.S. agriculture enterprise 

is paramount to the future well-being of the Nation.4

U.S. prominence across many different areas of agriculture derives in part from a rich history of commitment to agricultural research. Our current agricultural research system dates to 1862, when President 

Lincoln signed into law two pieces of legislation creating the USDA and the network of Morrill Land 

Grant Colleges. Twenty-five years later, in 1887, the role of agricultural research in supporting and 

promoting the rural economy was established with the passage of the Hatch Experiment Station Act, 

which jointly established agricultural research outposts and expanded land grant universities. Then in 

1917, the United States recognized that the fruits of agricultural research must be applied to the field 

and shared with farmers in the Cooperative Extension Act.5

Research at the land-grant colleges was organized around local problems and local knowledge. This is 

partly due to the parochial nature of agriculture, which requires knowledge of biological interactions 

within the framework of local weather, soil, and pests. At the same time, the wide distribution of agriculture research across the country also served to translate new research into practice, as agricultural 

institutions, including the USDA Cooperative Extension Service, were designed to supply research findings to farmers in the form of local management practices for plant and animal varieties, feed, fertilizers, 

and pest management. 

Agricultural institutions also led the Nation toward the democratization of education. For example, 

George Washington Carver received his education as the first African American college student (and later, 

the first African American faculty member) at Iowa State University. The opportunities he was afforded 

were not unique, but shared by a multitude of students from working-class communities across the 

country who received levels of education previously unthinkable in rural areas. 

2. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. (2012). “Value of U.S. trade—agricultural, 

nonagricultural, and total—and trade balance, by calendar year.” Accessed May 18, 2012 at www.ers.usda.gov

 datafatus.

3. Public comments from USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack before PCAST, March 9, 2012. Accessed August 24, 2012 at 

www.tvworldwide.com/events/pcast/120309/globe_show/default_go_archive.cfm?gsid=1977&type=flv&test

 =0&live=0.

4. National Research Council. (2009). A New Biology for the 21st Century. Accessed June 19, 2012 at 

 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32509.

5. Alston, J.M., M.A. Andersen, J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey. (2010). Persistence Pays: U.S. Agricultural Productivity 

 Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending. “Chapter 2 - A Brief History of U.S. Agriculture.” 504. 
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

4

Agricultural research has helped to make the U.S. farmer among the most efficient in the world. Today, 

the United States stands as the global leader in meeting the world’s demand for food, thanks to significant productivity gains achieved since the middle of the 20th century. The American agricultural 

enterprise has consistently boosted productivity over the past few decades for most major crops and 

livestock, and it has been a hallmark of industrial innovation. Since the 1930s, yields of staple crops 

such as soybeans have more than tripled despite a decrease in available cropland area, and corn yields 

have increased fivefold since the 1930s.6 Numerous studies attribute these successes to the discovery, 

development, and rapid adoption of new technologies and agronomic practices, which directly stem 

from the U.S. investment in basic and applied plant, animal, and agricultural research across the Federal 

agencies and its translation to farms by both the land grant universities and the private sector.7,8

Public financial support for agricultural research has waned over the past three decades (relative to the 

increases of the 1960s and 1970s) as other areas of science and technology research and development 

(R&D) have seen substantial growth. Public funding of agricultural research, in real dollars, has remained 

at nearly the same level for the last 30 years.9 (Note that other Federal agencies, particularly the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE), have provided additional support for 

basic research underpinning the explicitly agricultural mission of USDA). Excluding recent research on 

biofuels production, less than $500 million per year is available for competitive grants in agriculture, 

roughly 2 percent of the amount of competitive funding from the National Institutes of Health and 

6 percent from the NSF (see Chapter 3 for more detail).10,11 One consequence of the small amount of 

competitive funding for agricultural research is the decline in the training of new agricultural scientists 

and the hindered recruitment of a new generation of the best young scientists into this area. Indeed, 

recruitment of students into agricultural research is one of the major challenges to the U.S. agricultural 

research enterprise in the coming decades.

The success of the agricultural industry over this period, despite the paucity of public investment and 

declining workforce, can be seen in part as a residual benefit of the long history of agricultural research 

investment, but it also reflects a significant shift from public to private dominance in agricultural research 

and development. Indeed, private industry now outspends the USDA in agricultural research by more 

than three to one (see Chapter 3 and Figures 1 and 2). 

With this shift toward the private sector has come a narrower focus—the vast majority of agricultural 

research funding is now spent on a very small number of major or commodity crops, in particular corn 

6. Egli, D.B. (2008). “Comparison of Corn and Soybean Yields in the United States: Historical Trends and Future 

Prospects.” Agronomy Journal, “Celebrate the Centennial” supplement.S79-88. 

7. Evenson, R.E. and D. Gollin. (2003). “Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960-2000.” Science 300: 758762.

8. Pretty, J. (2008). “Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence.” Philosophical Transactions of the 

 Royal Society B 363: 447-465.

9. Congressional Research Service. (23 March 2012). “Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and 

 Background.” Figure 6:8.

10. NSF NCSES. Data from Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2008–10. Accessed August 24, 

 2012 at www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf12308/content.cfm?pub_id=4121&id=2.

11. Note: For NSF and NIH, total extramural funding budget numbers were used as a proxy for competitive funding 

 amounts because these two funding agencies award all of their extramural research grants through 

competitive, merit review. Similar estimations are not possible for DOD, DOE, or NASA, which are also 

 agricultural research funders presented in Figure 3.
I. Agricu ltu ral Research at a Crossroads

5

and soybeans. The shift from public to private investment in R&D continues to drive remarkable innovation, especially in those areas that are most directly related to product development over a relatively 

short time frame consistent with industry’s profit timeframe. For example, major seed companies have 

thousands of Ph.D.- and M.S.-trained scientists working in plant breeding to develop new strains of 

corn and other major crops. This workforce includes plant breeders, geneticists, field technicians, and 

laboratory personnel supporting activities such as genotyping. In light of this private investment, there 

are significant questions about the role and nature of public research investment in agricultural research. 

Specifically, it is not clear that the current public investment is being optimally used, especially where 

some public investments overlap research topics supported by industry. 

Although the United States is the undisputed world leader in agricultural production today, continued 

innovation and investment are essential to maintaining a competitive advantage in the future. The private sector’s commitment to agricultural research in the United States remains strong. However, many 

of the most important companies for agricultural research are large international corporations; many 

of them are investing and even outsourcing significant research dollars overseas, as China, India, and 

Brazil start to make large public investments in agricultural research.12 The waning public investment in 

agricultural research in the United States contributes significantly to the risk of losing its international 

leadership in agriculture. 

As we look across the 21st century, we see that agriculture faces a series of new challenges that will require 

a renewed commitment to innovation and advanced technology development. Private industry will 

play an important role in the research required to meet these challenges, just as it does today in areas 

directly related to product development. But much of the necessary research is unlikely to result in new 

products in a time horizon short enough to incent the private sector to shoulder the entire research 

burden. Moreover, many of these challenges are clearly in the public domain, as they focus on critical 

public goods, such as long-term water security; integrated pest-management strategies; or the development of new varieties of livestock, cereal, vegetable, and cover crops that commercial enterprises may 

not have an interest in. In many cases, important benefits of agricultural research cannot be monetized, 

making them an unlikely focus for the private sector.

These challenges require a public commitment to re-imagining agricultural research in this country. 

The United States requires an agriculture system that (1) meets its population’s needs in long-term 

balance with its natural resource base and (2) fosters a culture of innovation and excellence to address 

some of the greatest threats to its long-term prosperity and domestic and international security. In 

this report we explore these emerging challenges to agriculture and examine the roles that public and 

private investments in agricultural research can contribute to the sustainability of agriculture over the 

next century. We also examine the structure of the existing Federally supported agricultural research 

enterprise and discuss possible ways to reshape public investment in agricultural research to best face 

the challenges ahead. 

We note that agricultural research is only one of the ways that the Federal Government influences agricultural activities in the United States. A wide variety of policies, including farm subsidies and regulatory 

12. USDA ERS. (2011). Global Public Agricultural Research Spending. Graph derived from OECD, Eurostat and ASTI. 

 The graph indicates that China, India, and Brazil have made steady and continuous investments in agriculture 

 research over the last decade in particular.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

6

policy, are also important components of an innovation ecosystem for agriculture that we describe 

in this report. For simplicity, we do not discuss these components of agricultural policy in this report, 

but we recognize that they, like the agricultural research enterprise discussed below, must be subject 

to review and revision to encourage the greatest benefits from agricultural research to flow from the 

laboratory to the farm.

As we worked on this report, the Nation’s farmers are suffering through one of the worst droughts in U.S. 

history. Low snowfall last winter, record high temperatures last spring, and heat waves and drought this 

summer have combined to decimate the corn and soybean crops across the Midwest. Corn prices are at 

record high levels, with over 2,000 U.S. counties in 31 states designated as disaster areas by the USDA. 

Agricultural research cannot immediately protect the farmer whose corn is withering in the field, but it 

may provide future long-term strategies for dealing with heat waves and other extreme weather-related 

problems that are anticipated as climate change proceeds. Further, the need to deal with these growing 

challenges in agriculture, including new pests and pathogens, controlling agriculture’s environmental 

impact, health and nutritional concerns, and international food security underscores the importance 

of agricultural research to the health, prosperity, and security of the Nation. Agricultural research that 

addresses these concerns requires an up-front national investment and commitment to long-term 

returns on the investment shared by all. 
7

II. New Challenges Require a 

New Investment in Agricultural Research

Over the next few decades, U.S. agriculture will confront more competition from overseas; struggle with 

global resource challenges, including limits to the inputs of water, soil, and nutrients; combat new and 

more virulent pests and pathogens; and be asked to meet the ever-increasing demand for improved 

dietary health, food security, and other agricultural products and materials including biofuels, all in the 

face of a growing population and changing climate. Successfully overcoming these challenges requires 

a U.S. agricultural research enterprise that harnesses the newest advances from across the physical and 

life sciences, builds on a broader public investment in science and technology, and then applies these 

discoveries to the specific challenges of agriculture. 

The major focus of the U.S. agricultural research enterprise over the past two decades in both the public 

and private sectors has been on increasing yields of major grains and livestock. Crop yields will continue 

to be a focus for the private sector, but the case for public investment in this area of research and development is less compelling. Although there is certainly a need for more basic research on plant and animal 

science that may someday contribute to new products and new agronomic practices, it is not clear that 

Federally-funded research focused solely on increased corn yields, for example, is adding substantially 

to what the private sector is already doing very effectively. Public investment in agricultural research 

could shift its attention toward problems that the private sector does not address. In some cases, there 

are market failures that prevent private investment, even when commercial applications exist; in other 

cases, the argument for public investment in research and development comes from concerns that are 

squarely in the public domain. 

The emerging challenges to agriculture provide a strong case for a new public investment in agricultural research. These challenges require a change in focus for our Federally-funded research programs 

towards an emphasis on basic research as well as managing the risks associated with emerging threats 

such as new pests and pathogens, limited water availability, environmental impacts of agriculture on 

human and environmental health, or adaptation to a changing climate. In the following section we 

describe some of the challenges that we see as most pressing, along with some of the specific research 

areas that are worthy of increased public investment. Some of these areas can best be addressed through 

public-private partnerships, where there are strong commercial interests with direct applications to 

product development. Other areas are entirely in the public domain and just as deserving of vigorous 

public support because the research outcomes could lead to a more resilient, more sustainable agricultural system, with benefits shared by all. 

Managing New Pests, Pathogens, and Invasive Plants

Agriculture is in a constant race to develop new and better strategies for dealing with short-generation 

pests and disease species that continually evolve resistance to the current control strategies and to 

changing growing conditions. Whether focused on major grains, specialty or cover crops, or livestock, 

these pests, parasites, and pathogens represent a major risk to successful food production. For crops, 
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

8

weeds that have developed resistance to conventional herbicides are a serious threat to sustaining 

high yields. For animals, biosurveillance and food safety are critical concerns for U.S. agriculture and 

food systems. And for both crops and livestock in the 21st century, new insights regarding the roles of 

beneficial microbial communities may stand to boost health and productivity.

A good example of the threat of new plant pathogens is the problem of wheat stem rust, a fungal disease (Puccinia graminins f.sp. tritici) that can reduce normal wheat yields by 70 percent. Wheat varieties 

resistant to these diseases were bred in Mexico in the 1940s and 1950s and distributed over millions 

of hectares in the 1960s and 1970s, thus starting the ”green revolution.” But following the success of 

this program, resistance breeding for stem rust ceased to be a priority. Today, a new stem rust, Ug99 (a 

stem rust race identified from Uganda in 1999) poses a worldwide threat to wheat as this virulent strain 

begins to move by wind currents out of Africa and into the Middle East. Over 80 percent or more of the 

worldwide wheat crop is considered susceptible to this rust.13 The narrow genetic base for wheat in the 

United States may severely compromise food supplies and stability if this disease gains a foothold in 

North America. Equally important is the potential for disruption of wheat commodity markets worldwide, for example, if the major wheat-growing regions of the Punjab are infected by Ug99. And wheat 

stem rust is only one example of a serious new disease threatening a major crop. The result of such a 

catastrophe is the potential for an exacerbated security situation in the Middle East, South Asia, and 

other restive parts of the world.

Specialty crops are also put at risk by new plant pathogens that have no effective management strategy. 

For example, citrus greening disease, caused by a bacterium (Candidatus Liberibacter spp.) and spread by 

an insect, was detected in Florida for the first time in 2005 and now threatens the state’s citrus industry, 

putting at risk the $9.3 billion in economic benefits it provides. The disease was detected in California 

and Texas earlier this year14 and endangers western citrus production as well.15 Another example is 

Pierce’s disease of grapes, caused by Xylella fastidiosa, which endangered the wine industry in California 

after its vector, the invasive glassy winged sharpshooter, arrived in 1996.16 In both of these cases, there 

is no detailed knowledge of how the bacterial pathogen causes disease or how plants might resist it. 

Furthermore, insecticide treatments can result in insecticide-resistant insects, decreased numbers of 

beneficial insects, and groundwater contamination. As with wheat stem rust, these two diseases have 

already caused disruptions of global food and wine production, leading to economic consequences 

with widespread ripple effects. Protecting crops of all kinds against emerging diseases requires an 

understanding of the basic functional principles of the plant immune system and its deployment in a 

variety of contexts, as well as the ecological relationships between plants, pathogens, and other organisms, and their interactions with the local physical environment.

13. Hodson, D. and E. Depauw. (2011). Use of GIS Applications to Combat the Threat of Emerging Virulent Wheat 

 Stem Rust Races: 129-157. In: Clay, S. (Ed.) GIS Applications in Agriculture 3: Invasive Species. CRC Press, Boca 

 Raton, FL.

14. Stokstad, E. (2012). “Dread Citrus Disease Turns Up in California, Texas.” Science 336: 283-284.

15. National Research Council. (2010). “Strategic Planning for the Florida Citrus Industry: Addressing Citrus 

 Greening.” Accessed June 25, 2012 at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12880.

16. National Research Council. (2004). California Agricultural Research Priorities: Pierce’s Disease. Accessed June 26, 

 2012 at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11060.
II. New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agricu ltu ral Research 

9

New, emerging, and evolving pathogens are also a challenge to animal health and production. Although 

improved management and better diagnostic and prophylactic tools are now available, emerging 

diseases and changes in animal management will always create new opportunities for old diseases. 

Many of the best therapeutic agents heavily used in controlling the more problematic pathogens are 

losing their effectiveness due to evolved resistance by the pathogens. For example, the pathogenic 

roundworm of ruminants (which include production livestock such as cattle and sheep), Haemonchus 

contortus, has developed resistance to every available drug. Public demands for the humane treatment 

of animals and against the non-medical use of antibiotics also make it difficult to fight many diseases 

in conventional ways, potentially contributing to public health challenges as a result of antimicrobial 

resistance andthe spread of deadly antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

Using a range of discoveries in basic molecular biology and genetics, new approaches must be developed to deal with the problem of resistance to treatments of both plant and animal diseases. In addition, 

new treatment strategies must consider the impact of medicines or chemical treatments on the nutrition 

and health of the consumers and of the environment. This is illustrated aptly by the yearly “essential use 

allowance” afforded to the ozone-depleting chemical methyl bromide, which is the only effective treatment of soil to protect plants against a variety of fungal and oomycete pathogens.17 Included here are 

the increasingly problematic agents of the potato late blight, Pytophthora infestans, and other species 

in this genus that infect oaks, tomatoes, and a variety of important crops. A diversity of safe and effective treatments for a wide suite of pests and pathogens must be developed to ensure that agricultural 

practitioners have an arsenal of defenses in reserve to protect their crops.

Increasing the Efficiency of Water Use

A second major challenge for agriculture is the reduction of water use. Today, agriculture accounts for 

80 percent of the Nation’s overall consumptive water use, and in many Western States, it accounts for 

over 90 percent.18 In the Great Plains, recent droughts have substantially depleted the Ogalala aquifer, 

which runs from South Dakota to Texas, and create the dual problem of high soil salinity and water shortages, thus making the water unavailable or unusable for farmers. In naturally arid lands (particularly the 

western part of the country), the productivity of irrigated land is approximately two to four times greater 

than that of rain-fed land.19 But in some of these regions, such as the Southwest where the population 

is growing rapidly, water is being diverted from agricultural use to meet the water needs of urban 

communities. In general, as cities draw on more water resources for their rapidly growing populations, 

agriculture production must significantly improve its water use efficiency, perhaps by shifting crops and 

changing current agricultural practices.

Reducing agricultural water use will not be easy. For some crops, significant improvements in efficiency are possible through better design of irrigation systems (such as microirrigation, a technique 

pioneered by the 2012 World Food Prize winner, Daniel Hillel) and the continued development and 

17. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ozone layer protection—regulatory programs: “Phaseout of methyl 

 bromide.” Accessed August 24, 2012 at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.

18. USDA ERS. “ERS investigates and quantifies water allocation, water conservation, and water management 

 issues facing irrigated agriculture.” Accessed May 21, 2012 at www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wateruse.

19. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). “Improving irrigated production.” Accessed June 15, 

 2012 at www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y3918E/y3918e10.htm.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

10

use of advanced crop-management tools. Improvements on a scale that will meet future demands 

for agricultural production will only come with the development of new crop varieties that are more 

drought tolerant. Development of these new varieties will result predominantly from major advances in 

our understanding of basic plant physiology and genetics, particularly as it relates to water use efficiency 

and photosynthesis. 

Research to reduce water use for food production, whether from cropping shifts, improved water 

management in livestock operations, new plant varieties, or better irrigation technologies, requires a 

blend of public and private research investment, similar to that required to address the general problem 

of increasing food production. Major breakthroughs in this area are likely to require a broad research 

program with investments including germplasm, ongoing monitoring of water resources, weather and 

climate, and plant and animal physiology rather than targeted, applied research. Such investments are 

difficult to recover by a single company and yet are essential for meeting a critical national need for 

reduced vulnerability to drought conditions.

Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Agriculture

A third major challenge for agriculture is to increase production of food, fiber, and fuel while simultaneously decreasing the environmental footprint with respect to fertilizers, pesticides, soil erosion and 

depletion, pollution associated with livestock production, and agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse 

gas emissions. Modern methods of agriculture, for both crops and livestock, have come at a cost to 

the environment. For example, fertilizers applied to farms across the middle of the country add to the 

nitrogen load of waterways in the Midwest, which in turn flow into the Mississippi river and create a dead 

zone in the Gulf of Mexico,20 a problem further exacerbated by animal waste disposal.21 As commodity 

prices increase and agriculture expands to meet growing food demand, these impacts are likely to grow, 

with concomitant increased negative effects on ecosystems.22

Since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring 50 years ago this fall, concerns about the impacts 

of pesticides on the health of humans and wildlife have motivated broad research discoveries in the 

area of integrated pest management and host plant resistance, as well as new product development. 

Ensuring that chemicals used in agriculture are safe for humans and for the environment is a critical 

role for government. It requires continued investment in agricultural research focused on the full life 

cycle of pesticide usage.

Another important impact of the conversion of land from prairie or forest to agriculture is the effect on 

biodiversity. To keep up with the demand for food from a growing U.S. population and more recently 

for biofuels, agriculture has converted the native U.S. landscape into pastures and fields. This conversion now covers 46 percent of the U.S. land base.23 The loss of native landscapes24 has severely affected 

native biodiversity. This biodiversity is responsible for essential ecosystem services such as water con20. Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman. (2002). “Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, a.k.a. ‘The Dead Zone.’” Annual 

 Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 235-263.

21. Marder, J. (2011). “Farm Runoff in Mississippi River Floodwater Fuels Dead Zone in Gulf.” Accessed June 15, 2012 

 at www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/the-gulf-of-mexico-has.html.

22. Tilman, D. Global. (1999). “Environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and 

 efficient practices.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(11): 5995-6000.

23. USDA ERS. “Land use statistics summary.” Accessed May 18, 2012 at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse.

24. Ibid.
II. New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agricu ltu ral Research 

11

servation and flow management, soil conservation, and pollination services essential for agriculture, as 

documented in our recent PCAST report on sustaining environmental capital.25

A further environmental impact of agriculture involves the soil that supports all future plant production. 

Agricultural practices such as tilling have sometimes reduced soil quality, resulting in soil erosion, carbon 

and mineral depletion, reduced water infiltration, and increased reliance on chemical fertilizers.26 Soil 

erosion may also be affected by climate change that causes more extreme storms and intense rainfalls. 

A major research challenge is to understand how different agricultural practices affect soil quality and 

nutrient-enriching microbial communities, identifying trade-offs, new treatments, and best practices 

that can enhance soil fertility, making our agricultural system more resilient to a wide variety of stresses.

Finally, agriculture accounts for between seven and eight percent of all U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, even before accounting for land-use change and downstream emissions associated with food 

processing and food waste.27 Some of these emissions are related to the use of nitrogen fertilizers and 

pollution from animal waste, which can lead to nitrous oxide formation and emission; others are related 

to rice cultivation and animal production, which lead to methane emissions. Finding ways to reduce 

these agriculture emissions is an important component of a responsible climate-mitigation strategy. 

Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions can be achieved through various techniques, including precision 

agriculture (the highly targeted use of fertilizer), animal dietary manipulation, improved plant and 

animal productivity, and manure management. But new approaches and practices are needed, and 

their development will again rest on research.

The big-picture challenge, then, is to develop new management practices that reduce the different 

environmental impacts attributable to agriculture and to improve and restore the natural resource base 

such as soil and water, while maintaining a high level of productivity. Some trade-offs will be inevitable, 

but new technologies can be used to reduce the environmental impacts of fertilizers, livestock waste, and 

other inputs by enhancing efficiency and management. New practices are essential for the stewardship 

of U.S. agricultural lands to ensure that they continue to provide the yields necessary to feed the population, contribute to the U.S. economy, and support the well-being of rural communities. Such research 

efforts are clearly in the public interest, and the resulting benefits may accrue to the farmer (e.g., through 

reduced costs), but the greater benefits are an improved environment and improved public health.

Growing Food in a Changing Climate 

A fourth major challenge for U.S. agriculture results from changes in temperature and precipitation 

associated with global climate change. The United States must develop greater resilience to a changing climate through a broad research program aimed at new agricultural strategies to adapt to shifts 

in weather and climate. 

It is likely that no one is more attuned to weather and climate than a farmer. Agriculture depends on 

the weather in a more direct manner than nearly any other sector of our economy. In fact, U.S. farmers 

25. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2011). Report to the President on Sustaining 

 Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy. Accessed August 24, 2012 at 

 www.WhiteHouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf.

26. Janzen, H. et al. (2011). “Global prospects rooted in the soil.” Soil Science Society of America Journal 75: 1-8.

27. EPA. (2012). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010. Accessed May 18, 2012 at 

 www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

12

have already witnessed a remarkable change in climate over the past four decades, as planting times 

have moved earlier and earlier, and even greater changes are predicted for the future. Natural variability 

is a prominent feature of America’s climate, across all of its diverse regions. The American farmer must 

already prepare for adverse weather conditions, from flooding and late snowfalls in some regions, to 

heat waves and droughts in others. But climate change, driven primarily by the addition of greenhouse 

gases to the atmosphere, is changing the nature of the challenge that farmers now face. 

One major issue is the gradually warming summer temperatures, and their impact on crop yields. 

Numerous studies have shown that crop yields can drop precipitously when summer temperatures rise 

above a critical level—typically 29 to 32 degrees Celsius.28,29 Such temperatures will become more and 

more common as Earth warms throughout this century. This effect is illustrated by the European heat 

wave of 2003, which resulted in a 30 percent decline in regional harvest; the more extreme heat wave 

in Russia in 2010, which resulted in a 33 percent loss of Russia’s wheat harvest;30 and the U.S. drought of 

summer 2012, the effects of which are not yet fully known but promise to be dramatic in some regions. As 

climate continues to change, such heat waves are expected to increase as a result of the shift in average 

conditions. This presents a formidable challenge to the agricultural system. Not only do our crops need to 

be bred for regional adaptation to the average growing season, new varieties must be developed that are 

resilient and tolerant of extremes, particularly during critical periods of plant development. Furthermore, 

we need to develop new types of interventions to prevent massive losses when such weather events do 

inevitably occur, such as the Texas drought of 2011 or the Midwest-wide drought of 2012. 

Climate change is also changing the life cycle and range of pests and pathogens, creating new threats to 

plant and animal agricultural production. Among these recent threats are the pine blister beetle that is 

ravaging U.S. forests31 and soybean rust that recently arrived in the United States from Brazil. Losses due 

to insects and other pathogens may increase in the coming decades because insect, fungal, and bacterial 

metabolism should increase in a warmer climate.32 New research into the basic genetic mechanisms 

of plant and animal defense systems and subsequent tolerance, resistance, or avoidance strategies for 

pests and pathogens is desperately needed. 

Climate change is also affecting the impact of weeds on agricultural productivity. In some cases, the 

early emergence of some weeds (due to warmer conditions) results in a dramatic increase in their 

competitive ability. These weeds might not represent a major threat to crops if they emerge late in the 

growing season, but earlier emergence can be highly disruptive. Climate change will also alter growing 

28. Schlenker, W. and M. J. Roberts. (2009). “Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop 

 yields under climate change.” Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 106(37): 15594-15598.

29. Lobell, D.B., M. Bänziger, C. Magorokosho, and B. Vivek. (2011). “Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as 

 evidenced by historical yield trials.” Nature Climate Change 1: 42-45.

30. Wegren, S.K. (2011). “Food security and Russia’s 2010 drought.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 52 (1): 140- 

 156.

31. Carroll, A.L., S.W. Taylor, J. Regniere, and L. Safranyik. (2003). “Effects of climate change on range expansion 

 by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia.” 223-232 in Shore, T.L., J.E. Brooks, and J.E. Stone (eds.), 

Proceedings of the Symposium on Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. Oct. 30-31, 

 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia. Information Rpt. BC-X-399. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest 

 Service, and the Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC.

32. Battisti, D.S., J.J. Tewksbury, and C.A. Deutsch. The impact of global warming on global crop yields due to 

 changes in pest pressure. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2011, abstract 3#U53F-04.
II. New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agricu ltu ral Research 

13

environments, so that they may be more hospitable to invasive plant species such as kudzu, which is 

currently spreading northward.

Climate change will also directly affect water availability through changes in the patterns and amounts 

of precipitation. Warmer summer temperatures will also reduce soil moisture, which lessens evaporative cooling, thus amplifying the impact of heat waves. But an even more serious impact of a changing 

climate on water resources may be the timing of mountain snow melt across the western regions of 

the United States. As the climate warms, snowpack is expected to decrease, and melting of snowpack 

will occur over a briefer time interval.33 This means that spring snow melt will be more intense, driving regional flooding, with reduced stream flow available for agriculture in the summer and fall. Such 

changes make the challenge of finding more water-efficient plant varieties and developing better irrigation technologies even more important. Early snow melt also extends the fire season,34 particularly in 

the Southwest, and it is a contributing factor to the massive fires this year in Colorado and New Mexico.

A silver lining in the impending threat of climate change to agricultural systems is that U.S. farmers have 

already demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to changing weather patterns through a variety of 

practices, including altered planting times, new crop varieties, use of cover crops, and double-cropping 

where conditions permit. Research on improving adaptive strategies for a changing climate can lead to 

greater preparedness for unusual weather conditions. Building resilience of plant and animal production 

systems to climate change and variability also requires a public investment in extension and education. 

Managing the Production of Biofuels and Bioenergy

A fifth challenge for agriculture involves managing a large sector of the bioeconomy, the biofuels industry. The production of fuel from agricultural products has persisted for many years, growing steadily since 

the 1980s, but the last decade has seen a huge expansion in domestic biofuel production, primarily 

as corn ethanol. In 2011, the United States produced nearly 14 billion gallons of ethanol, more than a 

sixfold increase from 2002.35

There is widespread concern that the use of arable land for biofuels production competes with food 

production. To address this concern, there has been a substantial public investment in biofuels research 

both by the USDA and by the DOE in the production of biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks such as corn 

stover, components of municipal waste, forest residues, and high biomass crops grown specifically for 

energy production (in other words, energy crops). Using cellulosic materials does not necessarily solve 

the problem because some types of biofuels might still compete for arable land. But a shift away from 

corn ethanol may allow for biofuel production from marginal lands that are not suitable for crop production, and it is likely to increase biofuel yields per acre of land.36 A continuing challenge is to accelerate 

33. Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. (2005). “Declining mountain snowpack in Western 

North America. Bull.” American Meteorological Society 86(1):39–49.

34. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. (2006). “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase 

 Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity.” Science 313: 940-943.

35. USDA FAS. (2011). Foreign Agriculture Service Report: “U.S. on Track to become World’s Largest Ethanol 

 Exporter in 2011.” Accessed August 24, 2012 at www.fas.usda.gov/info/IATR/072011_Ethanol_IATR.pdf; and 

 Urbanchuk, J.M. (2012). Contribution of the ethanol industry to the economy of the United States. 

Remarks prepared for the Renewable Fuels Association. Accessed August 24, 2012 at ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/ 

 c0db7443e48926e95f_j7m6i6zi2.pdf.

36. Kazi, F. K., et al. (2010). Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochemical Scenarios for Production of Cellulosic Ethanol. 

 Technical Report. NREL/TP-6A2-46588. Accessed May 18, 2012 at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46588.pdf.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

14

basic research on plant physiology and biochemistry, along with making investments in conversion 

methods for fuel production. This research and investment is needed to enable breakthroughs in biofuel 

yields. These efforts are largely underway, funded by USDA, DOE, and the private sector, but a series of 

accompanying challenges has received less attention.

There is a pressing need to expand the scope of agricultural research to include annual and perennial 

plant species (including trees) that can thrive on marginal land but that have not previously attracted 

significant interest in the context of biomass production. Managing the growth of the biofuels industry 

requires a new look at agronomic and forestry practices, such as using water and land resources to balance short-term needs with longer-term questions of sustainability. For instance, in contrast to the largeacreage food crops, most prospective energy crops are perennials that require low inputs and provide 

improved ecosystem services but entail other challenges such as management of pest and pathogens. 

In addition, few studies have looked at security issues associated with an expanded bioenergy system, 

such as vulnerabilities associated with droughts or other extreme weather events. The expanded use 

of bioenergy is an enormous opportunity for U.S. agriculture and other sectors of the bioeconomy, but 

supporting food and energy needs will require continued research not only on biofuel production but 

also on how our agricultural system and energy infrastructure can best be structured to incorporate 

new markets and new practices.

Safe and Nutritious Food

A sixth major challenge for the U.S. agricultural enterprise is to continue to provide high-quality and 

safe food to enhance nutrition in the face of growing levels of obesity and diabetes and the emergence 

of new types of food-borne diseases. The U.S. food system is among the safest in the world. When an 

outbreak of a food-borne illness does occur, it receives widespread attention, in part because the U.S. 

public is so used to having nearly universal access to safe food products. The USDA and the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) play an important role in promoting and ensuring food safety 

and also in promoting a nutritious diet for all Americans, especially in younger schoolchildren. 

However, the recent outbreaks of food-borne disease due to bacterial contamination, while rare, point 

to the vulnerability of the food supply, whether domestically produced or imported. The U.S. food supply has become increasingly diverse in origin; as this trend continues, protecting the public from both 

known and potentially new sources and kinds of bacterial and food-borne illnesses will be an increasing 

challenge.

A continued public investment in food safety requires integrating the newest scientific and technological 

discoveries from the health sciences, developing new detection technologies, and a deep understanding of the entire process of food production, from the environmental conditions on the farm or ranch, 

through any possible exposure opportunity in food processing and distribution. Research opportunities 

also include continued investment in the regulatory science that supports the regulatory framework 

applied by the Food Safety and Inspection Service, as well as the FDA and the Department of Homeland 

Security (in cases of potential deliberate contamination). The goal of these efforts is to prevent food 

contamination from any source, safeguard livestock health, limit potential for zoonotic disease transmission, and build the evidence base for regulatory decision-making to protect and promote the Nation’s 

public health.
II. New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agricu ltu ral Research 

15

In terms of nutrition, two related major challenges for the United States and for the world are the epidemics of obesity and diabetes. According to the CDC, more than one-third of U.S. adults are obese, another 

third are overweight, and 17 percent of U.S. children were obese in 2009–2010.37 As a consequence, 

diabetes in the United States is increasing at an alarming rate; from 1980 through 2010, the percentage of 

people with diagnosed diabetes increased between 125 to 200 percent, depending on the age group.38

This epidemic affects not only the health of the U.S. population, but also the entire U.S. economy due 

to increasing health-care costs and a decline in the productivity of its workforce.39

How is this tied to agriculture? Essential components for combating the obesity epidemic are consumer 

education and access to nutritious food choices at affordable prices; it is also important to improve or 

augment the nutritional value of widely consumed foods for both domestic and international consumers. Much of the U.S. commodity crop yield is not used directly for human consumption, but rather used 

to provide derived food, either through animal production or processed food. Such food can be high in 

sugars, starch, and fat and low in protein and other nutrients. Nutritious food, such as fruits, vegetables, 

and lean meats, can be more expensive than processed foods, but there are also challenging social 

science issues that underpin consumer choice and preference.40

Currently, USDA nutrition guidelines focus strongly on lowering and controlling fat and salt intake, yet 

there is a wealth of accumulating scientific evidence that sugar should also be limited, especially in 

light of the diabetes epidemic: “The open policy question for agriculture and food policy is how to more 

widely and cheaply grow healthy crops and healthy sugars and limit highly processed, diabetes-inducing 

sugar.”41 As part of the public investment in agricultural research, funding should be provided to explore 

how plant and animal products can be used or modified to respond to this crisis in nutrition and health 

by developing new varieties of food products and new approaches to food processing. Historically, 

food processing and technology research was exclusively the domain of the private sector. But given 

the nationwide public health crisis presented by the obesity epidemic, there is a clear public need to 

understand how food, nutrition, and food processing can contribute to or alleviate this nationwide 

epidemic. Public-private partnerships are needed to translate and develop the connections between 

nutrition research, the box of food on the grocery store shelf, consumer choices, and health outcomes.

Feeding the World

The seventh major challenge facing agriculture is complex: The United States currently produces more 

than enough food for its own population. Indeed, over the past decade, roughly one third of U.S. corn 

production has been used for ethanol production rather than as food for livestock or people (corn 

37. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (2012). “Weight of the Nation.” Accessed May 18, 2012 at 

 www.cdc.gov/media/matte/2012/05_weight_of_nation.pdf.

38. CDC Data. (2012). Accessed June 19, 2012 at www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figbyage.htm. 

 Diabetes increased between 1980 and 2010 200 percent (from 0.6 percent to 1.8 percent) for those aged 

 0–44 years, 124 percent (from 5.5 percent to 12.3 percent) for those aged 45–64 years, 127 percent (9.1 percent 

 to 20.7 percent) for those aged 65–74 years, and 126 percent (8.9 percent to 20.1 percent) for those aged 75 

 years and older

39. CDC. 2012. “Weight of the Nation.” Accessed May 18, 2012 at 

 www.cdc.gov/media/matte/2012/05_weight_of_nation.pdf.

40. USDA ERS. “Are Healthy Foods Really More Expensive? It Depends on How You Measure the Price.” Accessed 

 August 24, 2012 at www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib96.aspx.

41. Lustig, R.H., L.A. Schmidt, and C.D. Brindis. (2012). “The toxic truth about sugar.” Nature 482: 27029.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

16

production has increased in response to demand for ethanol). Partly due to the success of the agricultural enterprise, the area of land under cultivation in the United States has decreased from 4.2 million 

square kilometers in 198042 to 3.7 million square kilometers in 2010,43 even with an increasing demand 

for biofuels. This suggests that the United States will be able to feed its own population over the next 

several decades, assuming that it is able to meet the various challenges discussed above. This has not 

always been the case; as recently as 1970, the Southern Corn Leaf Blight swept through 80 percent of 

the existing U.S. corn crop in 4 months, creating a huge food and national security issue.44 We have been 

fortunate not to have such a crisis in more recent years, whether due to a new pest or pathogen or a 

heat wave like what Russia experienced in 2010. But the agricultural enterprise must remain vigilant 

to such disturbances because the United States depends on excess food production to support food 

security in the world and benefits economically from strong food exports. Western Europe is in a similar 

situation, as are many other countries in the developed world. 

Unfortunately, much of the rest of the world does not share our good fortune. A July 2012 report projects that within the next decade the proportion of the world population that will be food insecure will 

decline from 24 to 21 percent, but the total number of food-insecure people (given world population 

growth) will increase by 37 million to nearly 900 million people worldwide, with the greatest severity in 

sub-Saharan Africa.45 Because of growing population and changing diets (including increased demand 

for animal protein in emerging economies), global food production must roughly double (increase 100 

percent) over the next 40 years to meet global demand if current trends in population growth and dietary 

choices continue.46 Yet simulations by the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) project increases 

in global average farm productivity and increases in food of only 40 percent, defining the so-called 

"productivity gap" between need and output.47 Even this may be an optimistic view, as it does not consider the challenges of a changing climate. Failure to produce enough food may create security issues 

related to social unrest generated by food shortages, especially in the more volatile parts of the world, 

such as those that triggered the 2011 “Arab Spring.”48,49 The United States has a strategic and security 

interest in maintaining a strong global food market and avoiding food shortages, especially in regions 

42. U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995: 664. Accessed July 30, 

2012 at www.census.gov/prod/1/gen/95statab/agricult.pdf.

43. World Bank statistics. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical Abstract of the United States2012: 536. 

Accessed July 30, 2012 at www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/agricult.pdf.

44. This example emphasizes the crucial need to maintain genetic diversity in all food crops to prevent 

putting the Nation’s food supply at risk.  “Blight in the corn belt.” Accessed August 23, 2012 at 

www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/sex/cornbl.htm.

45. USDA ERS. International Food Security Assessment: 2012-22. Accessed August 8, 2012 at 

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/gfa-food-security-assessment-situation-and-outlook/gfa23.aspx.

46. Tilman, et al. (2011). “Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 108.

47. Helsey, P., S. L. Wang, and K. Fuglie. (2011). Public agricultural research spending and future U.S. 

agricultural productivity growth: scenarios for 2010-2050. USDA ERS Economic Brief 17. Accessed 

August 24, 2011 at www.ers.usda.gov/media/118663/eb17.pdf.

48. Rosenberg, D. (2011). “Food and the Arab Spring.” Accessed May 18, 2012 at 

www.gloria-center.org/2011/10/food-and-the-arab-spring/#_edn46.

49. Some early reporting on the protests that became known as the Arab Spring: Cha, A. E. (14 January 2011). 

“Spike in Global Food Prices Contributes to Tunisian Violence.” The Washington Post.; McDevitt, J. (15 January 

2011). “Jordanians Protest Against Soaring Food Prices.” The Guardian.; Geewax, M. (30 January 2011). “Rising 

Food Prices Can Topple Governments, Too.” National Public Radio.; Rubin, J.. (9 February 2011). “Food: What’s 

Really Behind the Unrest in Egypt.” Toronto Globe & Mail.
II. New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agricu ltu ral Research 

17

that are already politically or socially unstable. As President Obama remarked to the G-8 leaders on May 

18, 2012,50 “We’ve seen how spikes in food prices can plunge millions into poverty, which, in turn, can 

spark riots that cost lives, and can lead to instability. And this danger will only grow if a surging global 

population isn’t matched by surging food production. So reducing malnutrition and hunger around 

the world advances international peace and security—and that includes the national security of the 

United States.”

The U.S. agricultural research enterprise has two roles in helping alleviate the growing problem of international food security. The first is to invest in innovation that will increase the efficiency and intensity 

of food production in the developed world with respect to average yields per land area. But there is a 

question of whether the United States and other developed countries can continue to increase yields 

at the level of USDA projections. There are also significant scientific concerns about how far crop yields 

and livestock and livestock-derived productivity (milk, eggs) can be pushed by biological improvements 

from marker-assisted breeding or technological improvements from precision agriculture in the face of 

inherent physiological barriers and environmental limitations.

Increases in food production should also come from the development of nontraditional or newly 

domesticated crops, especially in marginal lands or in more temperature- or water-stressed conditions. 

Of the more than 50,000 edible species of plants, we currently exploit fewer than 50, with 15 plants supplying 90 percent of the world’s food, and three crops - rice, maize, and wheat - providing 60 percent of 

the total.51 To utilize species that are currently under-exploited, however, would require (1) research to 

understand their basic biology; (2) collecting, maintaining, and characterizing existing genetic diversity 

to envision how they might fit into existing or potential production systems; and (3) undertaking longterm, vigorous efforts to improve that crop or livestock strain for optimal performance. 

The research needed to address these concerns about increasing food production requires a blend 

of private and public funding. Critical points of emphasis include developing new crop varieties and 

reducing the fertilizer and pesticides required to maintain high yields. Many of these aspects will not 

be addressed by private-sector research alone. Some of the necessary scientific research is too basic 

and too far from direct product development, such as exploring and domesticating new food crops. 

No single company will fund such research because the expected results are too general and thus too 

difficult to monetize by the initial investor. 

A second role for the U.S. agricultural research enterprise in dealing with the challenge of global food 

security, and that may be most important in actually achieving these long-term goals, is to assist 

countries in developing their own agronomic practices that will increase yields while minimizing environmental impacts. Such investments will be particularly important in the poorest regions of the world, 

where yields of major crops like corn or wheat are as much as 10 times lower per unit land area than 

in the United States or in Western Europe.52 These research and outreach efforts, which are squarely in 

50. President Obama’s remarks to the G-8, Chicago, IL. Accessed June 11, 2012 at 

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/18/remarks-president-symposium-globalagriculture-and-food-security.

51. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). “Dimensions of need – An Atlas of food 

and agriculture.” (1995). Chapter on Staple foods: What do people eat?” Accessed May 19,2012 at 

www.fao.org/docrep/U8480E/U8480E00.htm.

52. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2012). FAOSTAT. Accessed August 22, 2012 at 

 faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor. As an example, the 2010 maize yield for North America is ~96 Hg/

 Ha, while the yield for middle Africa is ~10 Hg/Ha.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

18

the public domain, are supported by cooperative efforts between the USDA and the Department of 

State through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Investments in research aimed 

at assisting the world’s poorest people and minority farmers and women, with their agriculture will not 

only lead to greater food stability and security, potentially reducing our military expenditures in the 

future, but are also likely to result in other valuable outcomes such as decreased deforestation and local 

economic development. Note that private foundations have been active in this area and have stimulated 

significant agriculture developments, such as the effort by the Gates Foundation, in partnership with the 

NSF's Basic Research to Enhance Agricultural Development (BREAD) program, to advance basic research 

on key problems in small farmer agriculture in the developing world.

Summary, Integration, and Big Data

PCAST believes the seven scientific “grand challenges” for agriculture just described represent the 

most pressing and urgent challenges for agricultural research. We firmly believe that public investors 

in agricultural research at the Federal, state, and local level should organize R&D agendas around these 

challenges. 

Many of the challenges described earlier are highly interconnected. For example, addressing water 

use in agriculture should not be done independently of considering water quality and the efficient use 

of fertilizers and pesticides. Research on new pests and pathogens must simultaneously consider the 

impacts of a changing climate. As the agricultural research enterprise tackles these challenges, there 

will be a greater need for integration and synthesis. 

Along these lines, one overarching challenge is the need for better information technology capabilities. 

Modern technology allows for the collection and use of many different types of agricultural data, from 

soil moisture and chemistry, meteorology and market conditions, crop and market conditions, consumer 

nutrition and preference, to gene sequences and ecological variables. Data sets in many of these fields 

are massive, which presents challenges for accessibility, interoperability, and persistence. As research 

efforts proceed, there will be a need for better data-management strategies addressing such issues as 

data storage, search algorithms, analytical methods, data sharing, and data visualization. Other research 

communities, including medicine and energy, are struggling with similar issues, and there are good 

opportunities for collaboration with DOE, NIH, NSF, and their global partners in this effort.

Finally, we note that the challenges listed earlier overlap with previously identified high-priority areas 

within publicly funded agricultural research. For example, USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research 

Initiative, home of the competitive grants program, has five explicit goals: keep American agriculture 

competitive while ending world hunger; improve nutrition and end child obesity; improve food safety 

for all Americans; secure America’s energy future through renewable fuels; and mitigate the damage 

by, and adapt agriculture to, variations in climate. The hurdle going forward is not just identifying the 

looming challenges facing agriculture, but to continually optimize and focus the entire agriculture 

research enterprise on solving these grand scientific challenges.
19

III. Current Status of the 

Agriculture Research Enterprise

In the United States, agricultural research comprises a wide range of Federal, state, and private sector 

activities that range from understanding the basic biology of living systems to the high-tech development of precision agriculture. These activities are funded by a complex mixture of Federal and state 

agencies, the private sector through industry and venture capital, philanthropic foundations, and 

programs funded by agricultural producers who contribute portions of their profits through statutory 

“check-off” or voluntary programs.

The Federal investments alone span a continuum from fundamental research in a wide array of agriculture-related disciplines to applied innovations focused on increasing production of food, feed, materials, 

and energy and on food safety and nutrition. These efforts yield important societal returns. A large body 

of economic literature, including 35 studies published over the time period of 1965–2005, indicates that 

the median estimate of the social rate of return was 45 percent per year and that for every $1 spent on 

agricultural research, approximately $10 worth of benefits were returned to the economy.53

Assessing the scope of the U.S. agricultural R&D enterprise is not a trivial matter.54 After considering the 

publicly available information, we chose to take a broad view of the scope and the players involved in 

funding and performing U.S. agricultural R&D (see box below). We included both public and private 

funders, given that private expenditures represent 61 percent of total spending for agricultural R&D in 

2000 (Figure 1).55 Finally, estimating the total dollars spent on agriculture research presents a challenge 

due to the multiple agencies and funders, the global nature of agriculture, and whether or not specific 

activities are deemed as agricultural research.

This complex landscape of funding, organizations, and research both presents opportunities and represents liabilities. Opportunities include a broad base of support for agriculture, with multiple stakeholders 

representing different interests and expertise. Liabilities include a lack of coordination, lack of agreedupon priorities, and potential overlap and gaps in both funding and research (between the public and 

private sector and within public funding itself).

53. Fuglie, K.O., and P. W. Heisey. 2007. “Economic Returns to Public Agricultural Research.” United States 

 Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Economic Brief Number 10. 

54. Note: The terms “R&D” and “research” are used interchangeably throughout the report, but it is important 

 to note that different sectors have unique R&D portfolios. USDA R&D represents roughly 90 percent 

research and 10 percent development, whereas, most accounts indicate that the private sector agricultural 

 research portfolios are strongly weighted towards development. (Office of Management and Budget, Budget 

 of the US Government FY 2013, Analytical Perspectives Table 22-1. )In Figures 1 and 2, R&D amounts represent 

 specific data that cover both research and development according to standard measures. For clarification on 

 this and related methodology, see Appendix A.

55. Fuglie, K. O., et al. (December 2011). “Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, 

 Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

 Report Number 130.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

20

Agricultural Research & Development: Agricultural R&D includes a diverse set of scientific and technological disciplines that support the production of food for human or animal consumption within 

existing and future resource limitations. Public agricultural R&D largely focuses on the plants and 

animals used in agricultural production; the natural resources that are used or affected by agriculture 

production; production systems and their support; food and non-food products; human nutrition, 

well-being, and food safety; families and community systems; economics, marketing and policy; and 

research administration. Private R&D includes many of the same research topics, specifically plant 

breeding, agricultural chemicals, farm machinery, fertilizers, animal health, animal breeding, animal 

nutrition, and food and kindred products. This report broadly defines agriculture R&D to also include 

demonstrating existing or improved agricultural practices (extension services), as well as gathering 

agricultural statistics that are critical to the agricultural research mission, biofuels research, and 

forestry R&D funded by the U.S. Forest Service.

A. Research Funding for Agriculture in the United States56

Figures 1 and 2 describe funding of U.S. agricultural research. Figure 1 shows that U.S. public and private 

research in agriculture and food totaled more than $14 billion in 2009, of which $3.8 billion was Federal 

funds. R&D in the private sector accounted for the majority (61 percent, $8.7 billion) of research funding. Of this $8.7 billion, 89 percent went to industry-managed internal research, and 11 percent went 

to land grant universities, other research and comprehensive universities, and State Agricultural 

Experimentation Stations (SAESs).57 State funding accounted for $1.9 billion disbursed to land grant 

universities and experiment stations; most of this $1.9 billion is required state matching funds that must 

be appropriated to receive concomitant Federal funding.

56. Definition adopted from the Current Research Information Systems Manual of Classification for Agricultural 

 and Forestry Research, Education, and Extension. Accessed August 8, 2012 at www.ers.usda.gov/data- 

 products/agricultural-research-funding-in-the-public-and-private-sectors/definitions-and-related-resources.

 aspx.

57. An LGU is a higher education institution that has been designated by its State legislature or Congress to receive 

 unique Federal support based on the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. A map of Land-Grant Colleges and 

 Universities can be accessed at www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/partners_map.pdf (accessed August 22, 

 2012). State agricultural experiment stations were originally created in each State to link research with the 

 educational mission of the LGUs, as a result of the Hatch Act of 1887. They are generally affiliated with LGUs.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

21

Figure 1. 2009 U.S. public and private agricultural research, development, and extension 

expenditures.

Notes: “States” represents state funding of land grant universities (LGUs), State Agricultural Experimentation Stations 

(SAES), and extension services. “USDA” represents total USDA funding of Research, Education, and Economics (REE) 

budget for FY2009, and “USDA Intramural” represents research performed by the Agricultural Research Service, 

Economic Research Service, Forest Service, and National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Other Federal” represents 

all non-USDA Federal agency funding. “LGUs, SAES” represents non-extension funding from states, Federal sources, 

and additional non-public entities, including commodity groups. “Private Sector” represents all private U.S. research 

funding for agricultural inputs sector (“Ag Inputs”), the food manufacturing sector (“Food”), and the biofuels sector 

(“Biofuels”). “Biofuels” values have been adjusted to avoid double counting funding already accounted for under 

“Ag Inputs” companies. “Commodity Groups” represents the 18 Federally authorized check-off programs. “Other 

Universities/Unknown” represents non-land-grant universities and any research funding where performers are 

unknown. “Foundations” represents agricultural R&D funding from major U.S. foundations. The $20 million estimate 

from USDA to industry represents Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funding. Figures rounded to the nearest 

$100 million except those below $100 million. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Sources: Public funders and public performers from Current Research Information System (CRIS), USDA REE budget, 

and USDA Plan of Work for extension services. Extension services funding includes both Federal outlays from USDA 

and state matching funds as reported by LGUs to USDA but excludes $630 million in self-reported expenditures 

from sources of unknown origins that may overlap with other shown sources. SBIR estimate from National Science 

Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Federal Funds for Research and Development,” 

Table 8. “Ag Inputs” and “Food” estimates from USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), “Research Investments and 

Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide.” Data for certain 

sectors come from years other than 2009, and the latest data available were utilized. “Industry (Biofuel)” estimate 

also from ERS report, but updated based on personal communication with USDA. “Commodity Groups” estimate 

from PCAST survey of commodity groups. “Foundations” estimate from USDA personal communication. Flow from 

“Private” to “LGU-SAES” from CRIS and added to ERS data after removing spending by commodity groups, which 

was assumed to be included in CRIS. See Appendix A for description and limitations of each source and combined 

sources.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

22

Federal Agencies

Federally funded agricultural R&D accounted for approximately 26 percent of the total agricultural and 

food research in the United States in 2009, the last year for which all data sets are available (Figures 1 and 2).

1. USDA:

The USDA, appropriately, is the largest Federal funder of agriculture R&D (Figures 1 and 2), both for 

university and government researchers. Of the total Federal expenditures on agricultural R&D to 

universities in 2009, USDA provided more than half the total funding for agricultural research from its 

extramural programs (Figure 3).58 Through a variety of funding mechanisms (including formula funds, 

non-competitive grants, and competitive grants), $1.4 billion, is awarded extramurally to land grant 

universities, other research universities, SAESs, other cooperating institutions, and cooperative extension59 representing approximately one-third of the USDA research budget (see Figure 4).60

58. Total amounts of Federal funding for agricultural research depend on the definition of “agricultural research” and 

the data source. For more details of estimates and methods used, see Figure 3 legend and Appendix A.

59. A small proportion of the funds accounted for in CRIS ($58M of $5.1B in FY09) is identified as “other 

cooperating institutions” that represents performers of National Institute of Food and Agriculture-funded 

research outside of LGUs and SAESs.

60. Many R&D portfolio comparisons, including the NCSES data presented in Figure 4, do not include extension funding 

 within the R&D category. However, because extension is listed in Figures 1-2, it is important to note that the inclusion of 

 extension in the total USDA R&D budget would bring the total extramural proportion to approximately 43 percent. 

Figure 2. Total U.S. agriculture and food research, development, and extension expenditures by 

research funder and performer for 2009. Public entities fund 39 percent and perform 46 percent of 

agricultural research. Private entities fund 61 percent and perform 54 percent of agricultural research.

For notes and sources, see Figure 1.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

23

USDA also has a large intramural R&D program; 66 percent61 of USDA’s research funding was disbursed 

to intramural sources in 2009 including ARS, ERS, and FS (see Figure 4). Note that this is a substantial 

divergence (roughly double) from other Federal research-focused agencies, which devote 30 percent 

or less of their R&D budgets to intramural research (Figure 4).

61. The data shown in Figure 4 do not include Extension Services. If using Figure 1 data are used and 

including Extension Services, this number drops to 55 percent.

Figure 3. Federal funding of agriculture-related research to universities is between $850 

million and $2.3 billion. USDA funds approximately half of agricultural research at universities 

(Lower CRIS, Lower NCSES, Upper CRIS), but funds a smaller share of more broadly related research 

that includes basic plant and biological research, as well as biofuels (Upper CRIS). Two data sources 

(CRIS and NCSES) were used to assess agriculture-related research funding to universities, and 

final totals depend on the definition of agricultural research and the data source. The lower bound 

includes only funding for agricultural R&D, but the upper bound includes both agricultural and 

biological R&D. Note that there is some spillover and crossover between basic biological biomedical 

research and basic plant and animal research. Thus, the Upper CRIS data should only be interpreted 

as agricultural research related to, but not explicitly defined as, agricultural research.

Notes: “FFRDC” is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. “Intramural” includes costs associated with 

the administration of intramural and extramural programs by Federal personnel and actual intramural performance. 

“Other” includes non-FFRDC nonprofits, foreign performers, and state and local governments.

Source: National Science Foundation/National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Survey of Federal Funds 

for Research and Development: FY 2008–10.” See Appendix A for description and limitations of source. 
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

24

Figure 4. Distribution of the R&D portfolio across Federal funders of agricultural research 

(as listed in Figure 3). Intramural R&D at USDA accounts for 66 percent of the R&D budget. Total 

R&D funding of agencies: USDA at $2.3 billion, DOD at $68 billion, DOE at $9.9 billion, DHHS at $36 

billion, NASA at $5.9 billion, and NSF at $6.1 billion.

Notes: DOD is Department of Defense. DOE is Department of Energy. HHS is Department of Health and Human Services. 

NASA is National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NSF is National Science Foundation. “Lower NCSES” includes 

agricultural science R&D funding only, which is assumed to not fully capture basic biological science. “Upper NCSES” includes 

agricultural science and biological science R&D funding. “Upper NCSES” estimate from HHS is adjusted to equal the “Upper 

CRIS” estimate to account for the large overestimate of agriculture-relevant R&D stemming from medical research. “Upper 

CRIS” represents full estimate of agency R&D expenditures from CRIS data, and “Lower CRIS” removes rural development, 

agricultural engineering, food systems, economics, nutrition, and basic plant and animal biology to compare with the definition from NCSES agricultural science (Knowledge Areas 400-900, 206, 304, and 305 in CRIS). NCSES and CRIS data exclude 

extension services.

Sources: Lower and Upper CRIS estimates from Current Research Information System (CRIS). Lower and Upper NCSES 

estimates are from National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), “Survey 

of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges,” FY 2009. See Appendix A for methodology and a 

description and limitations of each source.

Note that the data presented in Figure 3 were collected separately and from different data sources than the data presented 

in Figures 1 and 2. Therefore, the USDA data represented here are not entirely consistent with Figure 1 and 2. However, the 

NCSES data here are collected and reported using a standardized method for all Federal agencies, which thus provides a 

uniform, comparable view of different agencies.

62

62. Note: Some other Federal science-based agencies that also have large fraction of intramural funding are 

not listed here, including the Department of Interior (which includes the U.S. Geological Survey) and the 

 Department of Commerce (which includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). We exclude 

 these agencies because they do not have a primary responsibility for Federal support of extramural research 

 (i.e., these areas are also funded by NSF, DOE and NASA). 
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

25

2. Other Federal Agencies: DOE, NSF, HHS, EPA, USAID, DOD

Other Federal agencies also provide critical and substantial investments to agricultural research. The 

total agriculture-related R&D investment to land grant universities, other research universities, and 

SAESs by all other Federal agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation, Health and Human Services, 

Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency) was $700 million in 2009 (see Figures 

1 and 2). The Department of Energy (DOE) invests in energy crops and cropping systems, renewable/

bioenergy technologies, relevant ecosystem and Earth-observation sciences, systems biology, and 

engineered innovation at the water/energy/land/agriculture nexus. The NSF supports an interagency 

plant genomics program devoted to crop plants and other basic research in a host of related disciplines 

across the life and physical sciences. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) invests 

in relevant Earth observations and natural resources assessment. The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), the USAID, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), through the FDA and the 

NIH, invest in diet-related research, public health, nutrition, food security, food safety, pesticides and 

related chemicals, as well as associated regulatory science for their respective regulatory activities. The 

Department of Homeland Security holds responsibility for security and protection of U.S. agricultural 

operations, food, and water supplies from intentional criminal acts. USAID with USDA is currently overseeing the distribution of funds from the President’s Feed the Future Initiative, which focuses on global 

food security via innovation that promotes “sustainable intensification” of agricultural production with 

improved outcomes in human dimensions, particularly poverty alleviation and food and nutritional 

security. The DOD funds some programs in agriculture as it relates to global security and development.

State Support for Agricultural Research

State support for agriculture is relatively small and declining but still a critically important component 

of total public support. State government expenditures totaled $1.9 billion, with most of this funding dedicated to support State Agricultural Experiment Stations (often associated with Land Grant 

Universities) as a required state match to appropriated Federal formula funds. Indeed, two-thirds of 

the total University of California Experiment Station’s budget was historically funded through state 

support. In the last few years, however, state support has declined throughout the United States63 and 

now makes up less that 15 percent of the total agriculture research enterprise (Figure 2). States also 

provide support for the Extension Service, which serves as an important interface between the land grant 

universities and farmers and provides farmers, industry, and citizens with information and advice based 

on university research. Pressures on state budgets have led some states to substantially reduce funding 

for Extension, which creates a gap in delivery of information to farmers. As a result, in many active areas, 

other agricultural input suppliers are substituting for public institutions as sources of extension advice.

As Federal support remains flat and state support declines, experts note that a shift in the use of Federal 

resources can occur with Federal dollars more frequently directed toward gap-filling, short-term, local 

agricultural problems with consequent erosion of longer term and enabling investments. While emergency Federal measures are sometimes necessary, it remains vital for states to support local and regional 

agricultural research activities, with Federal support focused on regional or national issues.

63. Fuglie, K., et al. (1996). “Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under 

 Alternative Markets and Institutions.” USDA ERS Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-735).
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

26

Private Sector

The private sector constitutes the majority of annual agricultural R&D spending in the United States. The 

two major private R&D sectors are agricultural inputs (e.g., commodity crop seed and biotechnology, 

crop chemicals, livestock, farm machinery, etc.), estimated at $4.2 billion and food manufacturing and 

processing, estimated at $2.9 billion. Along with $600 million for biofuels research, private sector funding 

amounted to $8.5 billion in 2009 (Figure 1). The private sector also funded $800 million of R&D performed 

at the land grant universities. Although private sector funding of research at land grant universities has 

played a critical role in recent years as state funding has declined, some critics have noted that this can 

sometimes lead to tensions between academic researchers and their private funders when research 

outcomes differ from industry goals. This emphasizes the crucial role of continued public funding in 

the overall agricultural research enterprise.

1. Large corporations

Private sector investment in agricultural input R&D continues to be dedicated primarily to commodity 

and high-value crop production and specifically to the development of improved seeds and crop protection chemicals for the most lucrative global markets, increased yields, and improved resource-use 

efficiency. In 2011, the six largest multinational companies with significant agriculture focus invested 

nearly $6 billion globally in R&D for these two product categories (commodity and high-value crop 

production), representing an average level of funding just above 10 percent of sales in these product 

categories.64,65,66 Over the past several decades, the private agriculture sector has experienced substantial 

market consolidation across the food-supply system. For example, the eight-firm concentration ratio, 

that is, the current market share covered by the eight largest firms in the farm machinery, crop seed and 

traits, animal health, and crop-protection chemicals sectors, are 61, 63, 72, and 75 percent, respectively, 

for 2009.67

2. Small corporations

Private investment in crop production research beyond large corporations is small by comparison. A 

handful of companies, such as Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. and Ceres, Inc., conduct basic plant biology 

research and work to develop improved dedicated bioenergy crops. The total annual R&D investment 

of these companies and other smaller start-ups approaches $50 million worldwide for biofuel R&D.68 In 

most cases, such small companies exist for a relatively short period of time, usually less than 10 years, 

during which projects reach the proof-of-concept stage, at which point they either fail or are acquired 

64. McDougal, P. (2012). “Trends in Industry Research and Development.” Agrifutura newsletter 150. 

65. Comparatively, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent about $67 billion, approximately 17 percent of 

its total sales, on R&D in 2011. Source: Research!America biomedical research industry survey. Accessed May 

30, 2012 at www.researchamerica.org/uploads/healthdollar10.pdf. Industry-reported data from the 

 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA). Accessed May 30, 2012 at 

 www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/159/phrma_profile_2011_final.pdf.

66. Note: We have chosen to include the total agricultural R&D spending by the major multi-national agricultural 

 companies including those based in and outside of the United States. Most of the R&D conducted by these 

 companies benefits U.S. farmers, and the United States is the largest single market for the products developed 

 by these companies.

67. Fuglie et al. (2011). “Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and 

 Biofuel Industries Worldwide,” USDA, Economic Research Service Report No 130, Table 1.7. 

68. Ibid.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

27

by a large, established company. There are estimated to be fewer than 60 small agricultural biotech 

companies in the United States with more than a handful of employees, and only 5 of these have been 

in existence for more than 10 years. In contrast, there are approximately 800 small- to medium-sized 

biomedical biotechnology companies in the San Francisco region alone.

3. Venture capital and Other Strategic Investments

Small agricultural biotech companies are usually financed with a mixture of venture capital and “strategic 

investment” by large companies from a diverse set of sectors. Between 2001 and 2011, approximately 

$7.5 billion was reportedly invested in equity stakes in small agricultural biotech companies in the 

United States. The average equity investment was approximately $11.4 million, enough to support 

approximately 45 full-time-equivalent years (i.e., 10 people for 4.5 years).69 Note, however, that many of 

the investments are in biofuels, which are more related to energy than agriculture investing and have 

seen substantial increases in the last six years. The biofuels/bioenergy mandates and subsidies created a 

demand for innovation that previously was nonexistent and that may be a useful future lens to stimulate 

core agriculture investing.

Although independent venture capital firms have been increasing their investments in the life sciences 

and energy areas over the past two decades, their support of core agriculture-focused investments has 

been anemic. Between 2005 and 2011, U.S.-based venture capital firms invested $404 million70 in the 

agriculture and forestry sector out of about $209 billion, which is just 0.2 percent of this sector. As a 

global marker of the current landscape of the agricultural innovation ecosystem, there were no initial 

public offerings (IPOs) from agriculture-related companies between 2005 and 2011, suggesting that a 

crucial generator of capital, IPOs—and a major route by which venture capital recoups its investment—is 

difficult to create in this sector. Until there are one or two headline venture capital successes in the 

agricultural sector, it will be hard to generate substantial venture capital activity.

There are significant hurdles that limit the ability of venture capital to take on the fully developed role it 

does play in other sectors such as information technology or health care. In many sectors of agriculture, 

strategic funding from large companies has been a much larger component of financial support for 

small companies than independent venture capital equity investments. Sometimes this comes in the 

form of strategic equity investing, and in very recent years, there has been greater involvement from 

the venture-capital arms of large firms, such as Dow and Pioneer.

One way to bridge these challenges for agriculture is to mobilize research universities to play a larger 

role in agriculture-related technology transfer. Some expert observers note opportunities for land 

grant universities and other research universities to form regional hubs and centers of excellence that 

can stimulate more activity from the lab to the marketplace. The energy field of the past seven years 

is a potential model for agriculture of the symbiotic relationship between universities, government 

involvement, and venture capital investing. By 2005, the energy challenge became clear in general 

69. Data provided by Dan Broderick of the National Venture Capital Association in May 2012, based on a Thomson 

 Reuters investment search of currently or formerly private-equity/venture-capital backed portfolios, or 

portfolios of unknown status except real estate properties in the following industries: Agriculture, Forestry, 

 Fishing, Animal Husbandry, etc., Agriculture related, Animal husbandry, Other Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, 

 Water Treatment Equipment & Waste Disposal Systems, and Other.

70. Data from Dow Jones Venture Source database query of agriculture and forestry sector deals. Deal & Dollar

Raised for US Venture-Backed Companies, by Industry (2005-2011). Accessed June 26, 2012 at www. 

 venturesource.com.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

28

society, and the energy opportunity therefore became clear in many leading universities. This spurred 

greater interest by entrepreneurial students and faculty and led many universities to redouble their 

efforts. Today, a high proportion of venture capital investments in energy are in new private commercial 

opportunities spun directly out of university laboratories.71 Also, from 2005 to 2011, energy investing by 

venture firms increased from $320 million to $2.9 billion a year, or from 1.3 percent to 9 percent of U.S. 

Venture Capital investment dollars per year,72 propelling energy to the third largest investment sector, 

just behind information technology and biotechnology.73

Farmer and Commodity Groups

Farmer-funded and farmer-controlled commodity “checkoff” programs fund a substantial amount of agricultural research, mostly at land grant universities, through national, state, and local commodity boards 

that legally obligate producers to contribute a percentage of their profits back into the shared checkoff 

programs for future product-specific R&D. There are 18 Federally authorized checkoff programs and 

several that continue as coalitions of state authorized programs. Both short-term and long-term research 

are funded by national, state, and local commodity boards. In 2012, total funding from these combined 

programs for research purposes at the national checkoff level exceeded $130 million, although this is 

probably an underestimate and does not accurately represent many state and local checkoff activities. 

The commitment of the commodity boards to research is often influenced by the enacting legislation, 

the nature of the commodity, and the value of the commodity. Funding ranges from less than $500,000 

for blueberries to almost $61 million for soybeans.74

The national commodity boards tend to largely fund research on new use and product development 

research, while state commodity boards tend to fund more production-oriented research with an 

emphasis on problems that are unique to a given state or region. The majority of commodity boardfunded research includes an extension and outreach component to enable the farmers funding the 

research to benefit as quickly as possible. Hence, these are not typically venues for long-range research.

Nevertheless, although the amount of funding by commodity boards is relatively small in comparison to 

public institutions, agricultural commodity groups have a substantial impact on agricultural research well 

beyond their funding amounts. Most funding is leveraged by requiring matching funds from industry 

or the research institutions that receive the funds. In the case of soybeans, for example, the leveraged 

funds over the past 8 years have averaged about $3 for every $1 invested by the United Soybean Board.75

Funding from commodity boards can influence research priorities for an institution, not only through 

grants to individual researchers but by funding facilities at land grant universities that are devoted to 

specific needs of the commodity groups. Although extremely useful, this mechanism is focused on 

short-term gains for a narrow, commodity-limited user group.

71. Interview with Ray Rothrock, Chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, in May 2012 who estimates 

 that 32 percent of energy venture deals are directly spun from university labs. 

72. Data from Dow Jones Venture Source database query of energy sector deals. Accessed on June 26, 2012. Deal 

 & Dollar Raised for US Venture-Backed Companies, by Industry (2005-2011) at www.venturesource.com.

73. Ibid.

74. Personal communication from the checkoff programs to Don Latham (Working Group member) upon request. 

 Data compiled May 2012. Only research dollars in four broad categories were included in totals: Nutrition & 

 Health, Production, New Uses, and Food Safety & Disease.

75. “Overview of the Leveraging of Checkoff Funds” by John Becherer, February 22, 2012, United Soybean Board 

 Board Meeting.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

29

Table 1. Checkoff program research funding by product in thousands of dollars. More than $130 

million in funding is available for crop-specific research through checkoff programs. Checkoff programs 

are mandatory farmer contributions to the state or national checkoff program as a percentage of crop 

sold; these funds are used for a variety of purposes, including education, marketing, and consumer 

research. The data presented here only account for scientific research funded by the checkoff program 

in four broad categories: Nutrition & Health, Production, New Uses, and Food Safety & Disease.76

Research Funding Category ($Thousands)

Product Nutrition & 

Health Production New Uses Food Safety 

& Disease Total

Almond 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,500

Beef 940 845 1,400 3,185

Blueberry 421 421

Cherry 285 135 420

Citrus 3,100 5,500 8,600

Corn 500 500 1,000

Cotton 11,000

Dairy ~10,000

Eggs 2,000 2,000

Honey 80 200 280

Lamb 100

Lumber 1,200 1,200

Mushroom 425 300 725

Peanut 1,374 1,374

Popcorn 0

Pork 9,500 500 10,000

Potatoes 750 750

Sorghum 1,400 1,400

Soybeans 34,447 26,533 60,980

Sugar Beets 1,300 1,300

Wheat 6,250 6,250 12,500

Total 5,651 60,906 35,678 8,400 131,735

Notes: Estimates represent national and some state totals. For some commodities, state and local numbers are not available. Hass avocado, mango, and watermelon had no data available and could not be estimated. 

Source: Accessed July 1 at: www.rti.org/pubs/beach_pork-checkoff_final.pdf. Figure 2-8 and 2-10 display production 

research and new product data. Pork, dairy, and lamb did not respond to survey requests, so they are estimated. Pork 

checkoff data derived from 2005 economic analysis of the pork check-off programs. Dairy numbers estimated at a small 

fraction of the $280 million entire dairy checkoff program. See Appendix A for description and limitations of source.

76. Personal communication from the checkoff programs to Don Latham and Molly Jahn (Working Group

members) upon request. Data compiled May 2012. Only research dollars in four broad categories were 

included in totals: Nutrition & Health, Production, New Uses, and Food Safety & Disease. See Appendix A for 

more detail.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

30

B. Agriculture Research Performers in the United States

As with funders, the performers of agriculture research are complex, occurring across many different 

types of Federal, state, and private institutions and companies. Below we discuss the institutions that 

conduct research and comment on the focus of their research.

Educational Institutions

University research and training generates agricultural innovation and the workforce to deploy those 

innovations. Land grant universities in particular provide a large portion (see Figure 2, right column) of 

today’s agricultural research activities for the United States. Indeed, according to NCSES data, approximately 94 percent of the Federal funding for agricultural science R&D was conducted at land grant universities in FY09.77 USDA distributes its funding for agricultural research at land grant universities through 

“formula funds” that are distributed to each SAES using a formula based on census data. These funds 

are subsequently distributed within the SAES-associated land grant university at the discretion of the 

SAES director. Some universities choose to distribute these funds competitively within their university, 

while others choose to use the funds for permanent faculty salaries. The latter option, where funds are 

guaranteed regardless of outcomes, could unintentionally dissuade researchers from the challenging 

work of performing at the cutting edge of science and ultimately producing novel, innovative research. 

Historically, some uses of these formula funds have been critiqued for not efficiently stimulating highquality research.78

Other research universities provide a core expertise in basic science that underlies many of the emerging solutions to U.S. agricultural challenges. Agricultural research funding at other universities is almost 

exclusively through peer-reviewed competitive grants from a variety of Federal agencies as discussed 

earlier and, at approximately $100 million, is a tiny fraction of the research performed at land grant 

universities. One of the drawbacks of the current system of agricultural research is that there is often a 

separation of agricultural research from other areas of biology, chemistry, social sciences, earth sciences, 

computer sciences, and engineering. Although it is understandable that the land grant universities 

play a leading role in the agricultural research enterprise, it is essential that other research universities 

participate in the effort to address these challenges (described in Chapter 2), allowing the agricultural 

research enterprise to benefit from the substantial public investments in basic research in other areas. 

Indeed, 18 of the top 20, and all of the top 15, university recipients of NIH funding are not land grant 

universities,79 suggesting little overlap between life sciences and agricultural research by institution. 

At times, this apparent fragmentation between agricultural research and sustained interaction with 

other basic sciences at the university level can perhaps prevent or delay the transfer of knowledge and 

discovery, ultimately delaying the agricultural gains that are needed. 

77. Derived from National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Academic Research and Development 

 Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2009, Table 50.Accessed August 24, 2012 at 

 www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/content.cfm?pub_id=4065&id=2.

78. National Research Council. 1996. Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant 

 University System. Report on Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: Public Service and Public 

 Policy; Alston and Pardey. 1996. Making Science Pay: the Economics of Agricultural R&D Policy.

79. NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), 2012 data. Accessed August 23, 2012 at 

 http://report.nih.gov/award/organizations.cfm.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

31

Furthermore, universities of all types play an essential role in the agricultural research enterprise by training the undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will form the foundation 

of tomorrow’s highly trained workforce. Land grant universities have additional mandates to disseminate 

their research findings to clientele—farmers, industry, and land managers—and the general public. This 

extension activity is the model for agriculture extension activities worldwide. 

Programs focused at the high-school level have recently become a strategic focus, in recognition of the 

historic positive impacts of national organizations such as FFA (formerly known as Future Farmers of 

America) and activities supported by USDA Cooperative Extension’s 4H programs. The FFA and the very 

successful “agricultural high schools” demonstrate that if students are exposed to agriculture in grades 

9–12, increased enrollment in agriculture majors in college result. And there is great demand for such 

training. The oldest such school is the public Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences (CHSAS), 

on the south side of Chicago and now in its 27th year.80 The school draws from an urban population, 

and only a small percentage of students who apply via lottery for admission can attend due to a large 

application pool and space limitation.81 Many CHSAS graduates are minority, first-generation college 

students and are now contributing to industry, government, and education, and some are now farming in urban or rural settings. At the same time, the growth in agronomy students from urban settings 

with little or no farm background creates other challenges. As budgets shrink, it is difficult to provide 

these students the meaningful, hands-on field and farm-scale experience that would be assumed for 

students who grew up on a farm.

Research at the USDA

Research performed at the USDA includes four intramural programs, the Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), the Forest Service (FS), and the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS), and one extramural program, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

NIFA, previously known as the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), was 

formed in 2009 to foster research innovations in agriculture.82 Although about half of NIFA funds are awarded 

to universities and state agricultural extension agencies through legislative formulas (based on population), 

and a substantial portion of other funds are small, congressionally mandated, non-competitive projects, 

some portion of NIFA funds are competitively awarded to extramural research at both land grant and other 

universities. In this capacity, NIFA is the primary source of competitive grants at the USDA. Competitive grants 

within NIFA in Fiscal Year 2012 represent 16 percent of the entire research budget of USDA, an increase 

from 10 percent in 2005 (Figure 5). The total budget for NIFA is much larger than this competitive portion 

(approximately $1.3 billion, or 45 percent of total USDA research funding), but much of this is prescribed to 

formula funds for research, education, and extension and other non-competitive programs. 

80. CHSAS website. Accessed October 23, 2012 at www.chicagoagr.org/about/principals_message.jsp

81. A Suntimes publication reported that “demand for the school is soaring as more than 3,000 applications were 

 submitted for only 150 freshman spots.” Accessed October 23, 2012 at 

 southtownstar.suntimes.com/business/10469839-420/quinn-at-ag-school-jobs-follow-brain-power.html.

82. NIFA was created by Congress in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. NIFA replaced the former 

 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), which had been in existence since 

 1994.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

32

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is responsible for the largest proportion of intramural research 

at the USDA. ARS has a large scientific staff of roughly 2,200 people and conducts research at multiple 

locations across the country.83 It maintains four regional centers as well as individual research stations, 

many of which are located on or near land grant university campuses. The Beltsville Agricultural Research 

Center in Beltsville, MD, is the largest and houses the National Agricultural Library, the National Plant 

Germplasm System, and the Human Nutrition Research Center. ARS represents the largest fraction of 

USDA research funding (37 percent in FY 2012; see Figure 5). Research at the ARS focuses on four national 

program areas: nutrition, food safety, and quality; animal production and protection; crop production 

and protection; and natural resources and sustainable agriculture systems.84 Historically, a mission of 

ARS was to undertake long-term research that would not be done by the private sector or by research 

universities. As a service to the broader agricultural research community, ARS has the additional responsibility to maintain unique research infrastructure for agriculture such as the Long Term Agricultural 

Research sites and important resources such as crop, animal, and microbial genetic collections.

83. Agricultural Research Service, USDA. About ARS. Accessed August 23, 2012 at 

 www.ars.usda.gov/aboutus/aboutus.htm.

84. Agricultural Research Service, USDA. Research. Accessed August 23, 2012 at 

 www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs.htm.

Figure 5. USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) funding from Fiscal Year 2005 to Fiscal Year 2012.

Notes: ARS is Agricultural Research Service. ERS is Economic Research Service. FS is Forest Service. NASS is National 

Agricultural Statistical Service. NIFA is National Institute of Food and Agriculture. NIFA Competitive and NIFA AFRI 

highlighted to represent percentage of competitive USDA funding. Before 2009, NIFA numbers represent Cooperative 

State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The NIFA budget is divided into three categories: (1) “NIFA 

Competitive” is all non-AFRI R&D expenditures open to universities and nongovernmental entities in a competitive 

manner; (2) “NIFA AFRI” is the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative; and (3) “NIFA Other” is all other NIFA expenditures 

including formula funding. 

Source: USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) and Forest Service budget information. See Appendix A for 

description and limitations of source.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

33

The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the primary source of economic information and research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The ERS mission is to inform and enhance public and private 

decision-making on economic and policy issues related to agriculture, food, the environment, and rural 

development. ERS staff disseminates economic information and research results through an array of 

outlets, including agency-published research reports, market analysis and outlook reports, economic 

briefs, and data products.85

The Forest Service R&D efforts range across the biological, physical, and social sciences to promote sustainable forest and rangeland management throughout the United States. Its work focuses on informing 

policy and land‐management decisions and involves a range of partners, including other Federal and 

USDA agencies, academia, nonprofit groups, and industry. Forest Service R&D is conducted at over 67 

field sites and 80 experimental forests and ranges.86

The mission of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S. agriculture. NASS conducts hundreds of surveys every year covering the 

production and supply of food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, farm labor and wages, 

farm finances, chemical use, and changes in the demographics of U.S. producers, among other areas.87

The U.S. Cooperative Extension Service is a nationwide educational network, based largely at land 

grant universities and connected to a system of local and regional offices. Although the number of local 

extension offices has declined over the years, and some county offices have consolidated into regional 

extension centers, there remain approximately 2,900 extension offices nationwide.88 Cooperative extension generally serves as the bridge between universities, the ARS, and local agricultural practitioners. 

University-based cooperative extension specialists and county-based cooperative extension educators 

(agents) conduct applied research and provide useful, practical, and science-based information to 

agricultural producers, small business owners, students, consumers, and others in rural areas. 

Public Sector Research Areas

The combined public research portfolio is distributed across a diversity of crops and animals (Figure 

6A-B). Commodity crop research (corn, soy, wheat, cotton, and rice) constitutes 27 percent of public 

research funding and 36 percent of USDA intramural funding. The “other plant” category shown in 

Figure 6A represents over 119 additional plant species and crop varieties, including all fruits, vegetables, 

legumes (other than soy), fiber crops, grasses, garden crops, and tree nuts. Animal funding is rather 

evenly distributed across the major food animals preferred by the American public (Figure 6B). 

85. Economic Research Service, USDA. About ERS. Accessed August 23, 2012 at www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers.aspx.

86. United States Forest Service. “US Forest Service Research & Development.” Accessed August 23, 2012 at 

 www.fs.fed.us/research.

87. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. “About NASS.” Accessed August 23, 2012 at 

 www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/index.asp.

88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. “About Us - Extension.” Accessed 

 October 10, 2012 at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

34

Figure 6. 2010 public agricultural R&D expenditures by crop (A) and animal (B). 

Crop R&D expenditures totaled $1.4 billion and animal R&D expenditures totaled $1 billion.

A. 

B. 

Notes: “General Plant” includes multiple crop research, general plant research, or non-crop plant research such as trees 

and ornamentals. “Other Crops” includes all other crops besides corn, soy, and wheat, including all fruits, vegetables, tree 

nuts, tobacco, sugar, other grains, other oilseeds, other fiber crops, grasses, garden plants, and specialty crops (over 119 

categories). “General Animal” refers to research relevant to multiple animals or general animal research. “Other Animal” 

includes all other animals besides pork, poultry, dairy, and beef, including companion animals, fish, horses, goats, laboratory animals, bees, invertebrates, and sheep. “USDA Intra” is intramural expenditures by the Agricultural Research Service 

and Forest Service. NIFA is National Institute of Food and Agriculture. ARS is the Agricultural Research Service. FS is the 

Forest Service. NIFA is the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Source: USDA Current Research Information System data by subject of investigation. See Appendix A for description and 

limitations of source.
III. Current Status of the Agricu lture Research Enterpr ise 

35

Private Sector Research Areas

Crop production research in the private sector primarily focuses on production of staple crops such as 

corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and cotton, as well as some large-scale vegetable crops. These represent the 

most widely grown and consumed crops globally, with well-defined markets and significant economic 

importance to the United States. Relatively little private investment is dedicated to the improvement 

of other crops with smaller market shares, including most of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the 

United States. 

One of the more pressing challenges and opportunities for private agricultural research is the simultaneous growth in the scientific disciplines involved in modern agriculture and in the quantity and complexity of biological and environmental data being generated. The scope and scale of scientific disciplines 

relevant to today’s crop and livestock production have dramatically changed in the past two decades. 

Private agricultural R&D programs must balance their efforts between basic discovery research and 

product-development activities and technologies such as precision agriculture. With both crop seed 

and chemical product-development costs and time lines expanding, the proportion of investment 

available for basic research is diminishing, particularly for those projects requiring long-term studies to 

receive regulatory approval.

Special Research Institutes

Although relatively few national research centers that involve collaborations between universities and 

government scientists have a focus on agricultural topics, a few have made important contributions. 

One example is the USDA Plant Gene Expression Center in Albany, California, which has a distinguished 

history of research in basic molecular biology of plants. (Approximately one-quarter of the staff scientists 

have been elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.) The U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center is 

a global leader in integrated research that improves livestock agriculture while innovating to reduce 

negative environmental consequences of livestock agriculture with particular focus on greenhouse-gas 

emissions. Another is the DOE Plant Research Laboratory at Michigan State University, which has been a 

leading center in plant biochemistry since the 1960s. These and other examples indicate that research 

institutes can be a highly productive way to create innovation in the agricultural system, especially if 

provided with core research funds to tackle long-term projects. An expansion of such research centers 

to focus on future challenges in the agricultural sciences across the land grant and other research universities would be one of the most efficient ways to encourage innovation and to provide consistent 

long-term funding commensurate with the long time lines of agricultural research. 

C. Summary

Several compelling points emerge from the current status of agriculture research funding in the United 

States. First, funding for competitive research is low within the USDA (16 percent of research budget), 

although it has been growing in recent years (Figure 5). We discuss the implications of this finding at 

length in Chapter 4. Second, funding levels for USDA research has changed little since 1990, and public 
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

36

funding overall for agricultural research has changed little since the 1980s.89,90 Third, the lack of a vigorous, competitive program in USDA handicaps the research effort upon which future developments in 

agriculture rest. Fourth, intramural research at USDA represents approximately two-thirds of the total 

research budget (Figure 4). Although ARS research is often dedicated to long-term, public goods, and is 

important for future preparedness, this large commitment may inhibit the growth of a vibrant competitive grants program. Finally, in response to stakeholder demands, USDA supports research on commodity 

crops that may have substantial overlap with the efforts of private industries and which dwarf the USDA 

funding commitments. Corn, soy, rice, wheat, and cotton account for 36 percent of the USDA intramural 

research budget and 27 percent of the public funding budget (Figure 6), raising questions about the 

appropriate allocation of research funds and whether they could be better spent on research challenges 

that are not a strong focus of the private sector. Public sector research also builds skills and trains the 

next generation of agricultural scientists. This training is a valuable public good but these skills are often 

transferable and can be developed through training on a wide variety of crops other than commodities.

89. Council of Economic Advisers. (June 2012). “Strengthening rural communities: Lessons from a growing farm 

 economy.” Figure 5: Public and Private U.S. Agricultural R&D Spending, 1971-2009. Total public funding has 

 hovered between approximately $4.5B and $5B for the last two decades.

90. Congressional Research Service. (23 March 2012). “Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and 

 Background.” Figure 6:8.
37

IV. Recommendations: Toward an Innovation 

Ecosystem for Agricultural Research

This year we celebrate the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln’s visionary legislation that founded 

the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. land grant university system. These institutions defined 

fundamentally new and different approaches to support the stabilization of democracy, the growth 

of the Nation, and its recovery from the Civil War. By focusing on agriculture and the development of 

a knowledge base, an educational system for the common person, and research capacity to improve 

agricultural outputs and outcomes, Lincoln supported the first transition of a rural population to the 

ranks of enfranchised citizen democrats, laying the foundation for the democratization of education 

that remains one of the country’s greatest achievements. 

Although vastly fewer U.S. citizens now engage in agriculture as a livelihood, the consequences of 

the choices we make in agriculture and in our food systems are arguably more significant now than in 

1862. The U.S. food systems now have global impact in economic, environmental, security, and other 

dimensions, linking all parts of the world its own successes and failures and linking the United States to 

the consequences of agricultural failures in any other part of the world. 

As discussed earlier, the U.S. agricultural research system is at a turning point. Decisions in the near future 

will determine how, when, and even if the United States meets the challenges to agriculture. Fortunately, 

there is good reason for optimism. Science is advancing at an unprecedented pace, with advances across 

the spectrum, from basic biological sciences, information sciences and engineering, to health-related 

sciences, presenting enormous opportunities for agriculture. With the application of new advances in 

science and technology, the opportunity for transformative change to U.S. agricultural systems with 

radical improvements in human, physical, and economic well-being, is near. But to accomplish the 

integration of scientific and technological changes into the agricultural system in a way that prepares 

the United States for the challenges ahead, we need to reconsider the current structure of agricultural 

research in the United States, reimagining our institutions and research programs for the next 150 years. 

First, PCAST finds that the proportion of Federal funding for agricultural research allocated 

through competitive mechanisms is far below the proportion in other agencies, which fails to 

adequately encourage innovation. 

Second, PCAST finds that the current agricultural research portfolio is not optimally balanced; 

areas that are identified as national challenges are in some cases underfunded while other programs overlap with private sector activities.91

PCAST recommends the creation of a new innovation ecosystem for agriculture that leverages 

the best from different parts of the broad U.S. science and technology enterprise, focusing public 

investment on addressing the entire set of challenges to the agriculture enterprise. PCAST calls 

for a strategic investment that will create the path toward an improved innovation ecosystem for 

91. See Chapter 3 for an in-depth discussion of these two findings.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

38

America’s heartland, enhancing our economy, and harnessing the power of American innovation 

in science and technology.

Creating an innovation ecosystem for agricultural research requires investment in three main areas: 

research support, training and workforce development, and research infrastructure. In all three areas, 

PCAST has considered how to enhance and invigorate the existing structure while preserving the 

strengths and important roles of existing programs. In some cases, these reforms will require new funding to achieve the stated goals. In other cases, a restructuring of existing funds can be accomplished that 

enhances the use of competition for distribution of funding and expands the federal research portfolio 

to address additional research areas. 

Overall, PCAST recommends that the United States increase its investment in agricultural research 

by a total of $700 million per year, focusing on addressing the emerging challenges described 

above.

In challenging budget times, PCAST recognizes the difficulty of recommending an increase in research funding. At the same time, PCAST feels that such an investment is appropriate, given the scale of the challenges and opportunities and the essential role that agricultural research has in the Nation’s economy. In a recent report, the 

White House Council of Economic Advisors observe, “The potential returns to increased research investment are particularly high today... These challenges will require supportive investment policies for basic 

and applied agricultural research to ensure that U.S. agricultural productivity continues to increase.”92

Moreover, the increased funding we recommend is a small fraction of the roughly $100 billion per year 

that the Federal Government spends on agriculture overall.

New, Refocused Investments in Agricultural Research 

The United States will be unable to meet future challenges in agriculture without increasing its current 

investment in research. The USDA, in partnership with states and land grant universities, has a critical 

research mission to respond to local, short-term, and immediate issues that threaten current agricultural 

productivity, such as natural resource depletion or outbreaks of pests and pathogens. Addressing these 

local, immediate challenges is an essential service that the USDA and land grant institutions provide 

to the Nation, and responding to these challenges is essential to maintaining agricultural productivity. 

At the same time, it is important for Federally funded agricultural research to address the longer term 

challenges that have been outlined herein; indeed, long-term solutions to short-term problems will 

require sustained investment in basic research in agricultural science. We recommend an increased 

Federal investment in the agricultural research enterprise across multiple Federal agencies to address 

both the short-term and long-term research needs. Because the current agricultural research investment 

devotes insufficient funding and is not well-focused on the seven emerging challenges discussed in 

Chapter 2, this new Federal research investment should focus on them. We believe this will provide a 

powerful return on investment. As a 2010 National Research Council report notes, “One dollar invested in 

92. Council of Economic Advisers. (June 2012). “Strengthening rural communities: Lessons from a growing farm 

 economy.” 
IV. Recommendations: Toward an Innovation Ecosystem for Agricultural Research

39

agriculture is one dollar invested in health, food, energy, and environment, as investments in agriculture 

are leveraged across these multiple areas.”93

A new Federal investment in agricultural research should be accompanied by a rebalancing of the 

research portfolio to ensure that there are not substantial redundancies between research supported 

by private and public funds. This does not mean that research on major crops (i.e., corn, wheat, soy, cotton, and rice) should be eliminated from the Federal research portfolio. To the contrary, there are many 

areas of research on major commodity crops that are squarely in the public domain, including basic 

research, research on local and regional challenges to commodity crops that are neglected by industry, 

and research on some of the long-term challenges described above. But duplication of industry efforts 

is an inefficient use of limited resources.

PCAST believes that to stimulate innovation, distributing research funds through a competitive process 

should be at the core of our agricultural research enterprise. Over the last three decades, multiple 

independent review panels of experts have called for an increase in competitive funding of agricultural 

research. Indeed, a series of reports by the National Research Council (NRC), beginning four decades 

ago, assert that competitive funding will improve the quality of public funding for agricultural research; 

similar sentiments were expressed in 2004 by an independent task force report from USDA, mandated 

by Congress, which led to the creation of NIFA.94 Some highlights from the NRC reports:

• From 1972: “that the Department of Agriculture seek a greatly increased level of appropriations for a competitive grants program, which should include support of basic research in the 

sciences...that underpin the USDA mission... The committee recommends further that this 

program be administered in such a way that research proposals are subjected to evaluation by 

peer panels of selected scientists.”95

• From 1989: “This proposal presents a program to strengthen the focus of U.S. science on agriculture. The premise is that a judicious but substantial increase in research funding through 

competitive grants is the best way to sustain and strengthen the U.S. agricultural, food, and 

environmental system.”96

• From 2000: “Without a dramatically enhanced commitment to merit-based peer-reviewed food, 

fiber, and natural-resources research, the nation places itself at risk.” And, “Our recommendations reaffirm and extend the earlier Research Council vision for fundamental merit-based 

peer-reviewed research in food, fiber, and natural resources.”97

93. National Research Council. (2009). “A New Biology for the 21st Century.” Accessed June 19, 2012 at 

 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32509.

94. Task Force of the United States Department of Agriculture 2004. National Institute for Food and Agriculture: A 

 Proposal. Accessed July 10, 2012 at www.ars.usda.gov/sp2userfiles/place/00000000/national.doc on July 10.

95. National Research Council. (1972). Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA:393-394.

96. National Research Council. (1989). Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and 

 Environmental System. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Accessed July 11, 2012 at 

 www.nap.edu/catalog/1397.html on July 11, 2012.

97. National Research Council. (2000). National Research Initiative: A Vital Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and 

 Natural-Resources Research. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Accessed July 11, 2012 at 

 www.nap.edu/catalog/9844.html on July 11, 2012.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

40

• From 2003: “A realignment of the existing research budget to increase the proportion of funds 

in competitive grants and cooperative agreements would be effective in achieving greater 

flexibility and for addressing new and emerging issues by engaging new talent and expertise.”98

Many of the advances in science and technology that led to new developments that enhanced the 

U.S. economy are the result of a significant Federal investment in competitive, peer-reviewed research 

grants. Such programs are at the heart of the highly successful research enterprises supported by NSF, 

NIH, and DOE. Because of political pressures to support the large intramural program and the land grant 

universities, the competitive grants program within the USDA has remained far below what is required 

to support a vibrant, successful research enterprise prepared to meet the scientific challenges of the 

next few decades. In addition, the investment in basic science supporting agricultural research by other 

Federal agencies has been insufficient to meet the impending challenges.

The need for the adoption of a competitive process for awarding agricultural research funding applies 

not only to the USDA extramural research portfolio within NIFA, but also to funds for the intramural 

research program and for land grant universities. A larger fraction of intramural funding with the USDA 

could be awarded through a competitive process, much like the DOE National Laboratories or the NIH 

intramural program. Formula funds distributed to land grant universities could also be distributed within 

each institution through a more competitive process to promote excellence and innovation, and we 

commend those universities that already distribute their formula funds in this manner. 

A healthy innovation ecosystem for agricultural research also requires a greater commitment to basic 

science relevant to the challenges to agriculture described previously, including plant, animal, and 

microbial biology; climatology; and health and nutritional research.

This investment should be made primarily through the NSF, with participation from USDA, as well as 

other Federal agencies such as NIH and DOE when appropriate. NSF has demonstrated a successful 

model of program management and peer review that balances pure, merit-based review with additional considerations such as geographic distribution and historical legacies. We recommend a new 

98. National Research Council. (2003). Frontiers in Agriculture Research: Food, Health, Environment, and 

 Communities. National Academies Press, Washington, DC:7.

Recommendation 1a: PCAST recommends that the focus of USDA research funding shift 

toward competitive grants, gradually rebalancing the research portfolio for intramural 

funding and funding for land grant institutions to incorporate incentives for innovation 

consistent with other research agencies across the Federal Government.

Recommendation 1b: PCAST recommends an increase in funding for basic science relevant 

to agriculture. 
IV. Recommendations: Toward an Innovation Ecosystem for Agricultural Research

41

investment, immediately doubling NSF research funding for basic agriculture-related science from a 

current level estimated at $120 million to $250 million for fiscal year 2014.99 Over a 5-year period, PCAST 

recommends that the overall Federal investment for basic science related to agriculture double as well. 

USDA participation in high-level program-development discussions within NSF and other agencies will 

help ensure coordination across the broad agricultural research effort, as was achieved in the National 

Plant Genome Research Program.100101

This new funding should be focused on the emerging challenges described in Chapter 2. The budget 

increase is consistent with the Administration’s FY2013 Budget Request for AFRI of $325 million. New 

funding should be coordinated with NSF and other Federal science agencies, and representatives from 

NSF should participate in program design and funding decisions. In general, because of the long-term 

nature of the research to address these scientific challenges, awards should be of longer duration than 

the 2- to 3-year awards that are common now.

Human Capital for U.S. Agriculture

To create a vibrant, innovative research enterprise, a primary concern is support for a well-trained 

workforce. We have heard from many of the experts who contributed to this report that the best students, particularly in the natural sciences, do not view agriculture, or agriculture-related research, as an 

attractive career option. At universities, relatively few graduate students enter into agricultural fields, 

and industry has difficultly recruiting the technical employees for its breeding and research programs, 

often turning to foreign students and workers, and then often employing them abroad. To meet the 

current and future challenges that agriculture will face, this situation must be reversed. 

As successful as the land grant university system has been at training students for careers in agriculture, 

it is clear that some of our most talented students, especially first-generation college students, do not 

choose to attend agriculture schools or select traditional majors in agriculture or the ever-broadening 

set of scientific disciplines that contribute to agricultural research innovation. There are some notable 

exceptions in recent years, such as agronomy where starting salaries are setting new records as high commodity prices spur new interest, but for the most part, agriculture is facing a knowledge and workforce 

deficit.102 Land grant universities and other research universities are facing a dual squeeze as both Federal 

99. See Figure 3, third bar, “Upper CRIS,” NSF investment is estimated at $121 million.

100. 110th Congress, Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) [H.R. 2419].

101. The President’s FY 2013 Budget request included an increase for AFRI from $250 million to $323 million and 

 indicates the Administration’s commitment to competitive funding for agricultural research.

102. According to data from the Crop Science Society of America, the scientific professional society for U.S. crop 

 scientists, the number of crop scientists has significantly declined in the past two decades. Specifically, total 

 membership of the Society’s two major disciplines, breeders and physiologists, has decreased 56 percent from 

 1990 to 2010, the majority from the public sector.

Recommendation 1c: PCAST also recommends an increase in competitively awarded funding 

within the USDA, raising the current level of funding for the Agriculture and Food Research 

Initiative (AFRI) from $265 million to $500 million (the original Congressional authorization 

was $700 million).
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

42

and state budgets are cut at institutions that lack a history of major private-donor support. At the same 

time, some private universities, including those among the Nation’s most elite schools, are renewing 

their focus on agriculture, water, energy, nutrition, and food systems because of student interest and 

the obvious strategic importance of these topics with respect to social and political stability, economic 

growth, and international development. Because of the historical exclusion of agricultural sciences from 

many of these colleges and universities, these students rarely receive the practical training provided in 

the more traditional agriculture schools.

First, we must recognize that the talent pipeline, especially for minority and first-generation college 

students from urban and rural backgrounds, begins well before college admission. A focus on secondary programs, such as the curriculum exemplified at the Chicago High School for Agricultural Science, 

hold tremendous potential to increase not only the number, but the diversity, of students entering 

baccalaureate programs, a requisite for the innovation we intend to spur. At the baccalaureate level, a 

comprehensive array of undergraduate programs relevant to agriculture and the food industry, as well 

as applied social and natural sciences, must remain strong and well-supported. 

Consolidated centers of excellence with tuition-reciprocity agreements will allow land grant universities and other research universities to specialize and share expertise and programs. Such programs are 

now already commonplace as states share veterinary schools and develop specialized undergraduate 

programs such as the Midwest Poultry Consortium. Developing these centers of excellence will allow us 

on a national level to maintain broad access to diverse, key specialized agricultural programs, including 

agricultural education, without using limited resources to maintain a research or education operation 

in every historical location. 

For the Nation to continue to provide the livestock and crops that feed the population, maintain the 

economic contributions of agriculture, and at the same time enhance nutrition, decrease the environmental footprint, and sustain yields in the face of an uncertain climate, careers in agriculture must 

be perceived as attractive to our brightest students. Further, the workforce must be well trained in 

traditional agriculture disciplines and emerging areas of biology, engineering, chemistry, computer 

science, and other mathematics-based sciences. While there are scattered success stories, for the most 

part, agriculture has not been able to attract sufficient numbers of students to careers in agriculture. In 

fact, a large proportion of the current students in graduate programs in agriculture are foreign.103 The 

United States needs a national strategy for training the agricultural workforce to produce the innovations, technology, and products for the future. More important, strategic investment can be leveraged 

to provide attractive career options in both the public and private sectors for our brightest students, 

who now flock to careers in medicine, law, and business.

103. NSF NCSES data. Accessed June 15, 2012 at www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf12300/pdf/nsf12300.pdf. Data from the 

 report “Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2009” shows that temporary 

 visa holders make up: 31 percent of full-time graduate students in all agriculture related areas; 26 percent of 

 full-time agricultural science graduate students, 55 percent of full-time agricultural engineering graduate 

students; 51 percent of full-time agricultural economics graduate students; 21 percent of all agricultural 

 science graduate students; and 52 percent of all agricultural engineering graduate students. 

Recommendation 2: PCAST recommends that the USDA, in collaboration with NSF, expand a 

national competitive fellowship program for graduate students and post-doctoral researchers.
IV. Recommendations: Toward an Innovation Ecosystem for Agricultural Research

43

Graduate fellowship programs have a long history of attracting students to new fields, from plant 

sciences to nuclear physics and bioinformatics. Providing a strong, well-funded fellowship program 

will serve as a conduit for new scientists entering the field of agriculture. As with graduate fellowships, 

expansion of a post-doctoral fellowship program, perhaps modeled after the NSF Science, Engineering 

and Education for Sustainability fellowships, will attract the brightest students from diverse fields of basic 

science into the field of agriculture to pursue research on the emerging challenges described earlier. To 

leverage the substantial Federal investment in basic research across the natural sciences, and to specifically enhance participation in agriculture-related disciplines, these fellowship programs must be open 

to students and researchers at all types of research institutions—public, private, and land grant—and 

the fellowship programs must not be used simply to fund additional work within the large intramural 

program. The program including graduate and postdoctoral fellowships should be initially established 

at a level of $180 million per year with 5-year funding. 

In addition to offering graduate and post-doctoral fellowships, the USDA, in partnership with NSF, should 

continue to develop programs to attract young students to agricultural careers. Agriculture is invisible 

to the majority of high school students and is often not considered a desirable career option. Programs 

that introduce students to agriculture, such as the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences are 

in contrast to this trend. These programs not only expose students to the field of agriculture, but they 

have proven records of graduating students who then go on to choose careers in the field. The USDA 

should enhance its support for such programs to stimulate agriculture as a career option for students 

at the secondary school level.

Agricultural Research Infrastructure

Historically, agricultural research infrastructure has been developed through partnerships between 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service and a distributed state-administered system of research farms, 

typically tied to and maintained by the SAES, that receive both Federal and state support. In recent 

years, both Federal and state support has declined for the Agricultural Experiment Stations, sometimes 

markedly. The loss of Federal earmarks or special grants in FY2011 had an especially negative effect on 

this infrastructure. The USDA ARS capital budgeting process is particularly antiquated, reflecting political 

strategies that might have been justified in times of plenty, but that in today’s budget environment can 

produce decades of delay in the construction of key facilities. 

It is critically important looking forward to outline, and assign priorities within, the necessary national 

agricultural research infrastructure needed for a comprehensive and modern agricultural innovation 

ecosystem. As is the case with educational programs, each state can no longer afford to maintain the 

full spectrum of research facilities for all crops and livestock of current and future interest in that state. 

A modern system would build on the specialization that is already evident in some parts of the agricultural and food research system, for example, in animal health where a world class facility in Ames, IA, 

was dedicated in 2010, or in the USDA Federal nutrition laboratories located at Tufts University, Emory 

University, University of California at Davis, and ARS Beltsville, Maryland.

As an alternative to the current system, which is inadequate and falling further behind each year due to 

limited funds and conflicting priorities, a clear national plan for infrastructure should be developed. Such 
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

44

a plan should have mechanisms to ensure that existing strengths, now distributed across the decentralized ARS and state systems, are leveraged into consortia that in turn build on private sector investments. 

Funding for critical facilities should be awarded through a competitive process that balances local and 

regional needs with national priorities. This has already been a very successful strategy in a number 

of critical areas of agricultural research, such as cattle genetics, but there is great opportunity looking 

forward to expand this approach to support adequate infrastructure for both research and training.

We recommend that the USDA convene a committee that evaluates the current infrastructure needs 

and sets priorities based on the research challenges described above. Awards should be made on a 

competitive basis, which will encourage all universities and the ARS to leverage their existing intellectual 

and capital resources to improve the overall quality of their programs. 

Public-Private Partnerships

The private sector must be a major participant in the national research enterprise. Agricultural businesses 

bring a strong tradition of moving research results to product development and to commercial sales. 

Although many of the most critical new challenges in agriculture do not have an immediate impact on 

commercial interests, new product development and application will depend directly on developing 

solutions to the challenges and problems confronting agriculture. 

There is no overarching structure in the United States that supports sustained, interactive research 

between public and private scientists interested in agricultural challenges as there is in fields such as 

nanotechnology and biofuels. Such a structure needs to be built and will likely require a clear definition of research responsibility for each aspect of the research, from conception to handling of data and 

publication. An open environment of investigation and publication is usually most beneficial, although 

the need to protect proprietary aspects of research must be considered for businesses to participate 

fully. The ultimate goal, however, needs to be a new structure for sustained close cooperation among all 

participants to expedite research. Such efforts should not be in areas where private research is already 

active as the issues relate directly to product development. New private-public partnerships should be 

created around those emerging challenges that do have some commercial interest, but that cannot be 

easily monetized in the short term. 

The USDA can begin immediately to invest in research toward meeting the challenges described 

earlier by establishing new innovation institutes supported by public-private partnerships, focused 

on addressing the specific challenges to agriculture. USDA could model these institutes after the 

bioenergy institutes established by DOE and BP or after the energy hubs and energy frontier research 

centers established by DOE. Consortia of private companies, universities, and researchers from the ARS 

could compete for large grants with support guaranteed for no less than 5 years to allow for bold new 

Recommendation 3: PCAST recommends that the USDA expand its program of competitive 

awards for new infrastructure investments in agricultural research, with an emphasis on 

specialization and consolidation to avoid redundancies. 
IV. Recommendations: Toward an Innovation Ecosystem for Agricultural Research

45

research investments. The research focus of each innovation institute must be on problems in the public 

domain, but where private sector participation can be important in advancing the research goals and 

also deploying the research outcomes. 

Technology Development and Deployment

Scientific and technological discovery leads to new technologies, which themselves need to be developed and deployed. Venture capital firms have played a significant role in other technology developments (energy, IT, and pharmaceuticals) and have been increasing their investments in the life sciences 

area over the past two decades. In the agricultural sector, large companies play a dominant role, as 

there are significant hurdles that limit the ability of venture capital to seed start-up companies. One 

obstacle that was repeatedly identified by members of the agricultural research community consulted 

for this report is the complex regulatory environment that delays or prevents new intellectual capital 

from being developed and translated into commercial products. A full discussion of regulatory policy 

for agriculture is beyond the scope of this report; however, creating a transparent regulatory system that 

protects public health and the environment, while encouraging commercialization of new products, is 

an essential component of the innovation ecosystem described herein.

Furthermore, technology transfer from lab bench to marketplace has historically been underdeveloped 

within the agricultural research enterprise. This is due in part to the the proud history of the extension service and direct communication with farmers and producers, which often directly transferred 

knowledge rather than commercially developed it. However, as science and technology advance and 

become ever more sophisticated, and as taxpayers and policymakers seek to understand the commercial 

outcomes of research, it is critical that land grant university and ARS leadership continue to develop and 

strengthen their technology transfer efforts and thus bear the fruit of their research labors.

104105

104. Executive Order 13563—Improving regulation and regulatory review. (January 18, 2011)

105. Presidential Memorandum—Accelerating technology transfer and commercialization of Federal research in 

 support of high-growth businesses. (October 28, 2011).

Recommendation 4: PCAST recommends an initial new Federal investment of $150 million per 

year to create six institutes at a funding level of $25 million per year for no less than 5 years. 

Administration of this new program should be done by USDA, but closely coordinated with 

other Federal science agencies including NSF, DOE, and NIH, and representatives of these 

agencies should participate in the planning and funding decisions.

Recommendation 5: PCAST recommends that the President request an internal review of 

Federal regulatory policy for agriculture to promote regulatory clarity, consistent with 

Executive Order 13563,104 as well as with the Presidential Memorandum105 on technology 

transfer from the national laboratories to the marketplace.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

46

Implementation and Planning

This committee should include representatives from government agencies, including the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), USDA, NSF, NIH, and DOE; members of the university 

research community, including public, private, and land grant universities; as well as members from 

farmer and commodity groups, industry, and the venture capital community. The committee should 

develop an implementation strategy that guides the Federal investment in research, that develops 

enhanced competitive grants programs, and that coordinates the development of educational programs. 

The committee should be charged with designing new competitive programs to address the challenges 

described in this report, including the investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation institutes. 

This committee will ensure that the new Federal investment is available for open competition and is 

focused on those challenges having strong justification for public support. The committee should also 

undertake an assessment of the research portfolio to determine whether some current research investments are redundant with private-sector activities.

Finally, as outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, agricultural research and related science and technology 

undergird the strength and long-term resiliency of the overall U.S. agricultural enterprise. The Federal 

investment in agricultural research should be administered to continually adjust priorities and focus on 

the most pressing challenges in as agile a manner as possible, while advocating strongly for a strong 

and broad basic science platform to provide future breakthroughs. To supplement the work of the 

implementation committee described above, a group of independent scientists and technologists 

from industry, academia, and nonprofit organizations can provide an important perspective, advising 

the Federal Government on how to best address the challenges facing agriculture and encouraging the 

USDA to pursue new opportunities and directions through time. PCAST recommends that a permanent, 

independent science advisory committee be formed to directly advise the Chief Scientist of the USDA. 

The advisory committee should provide an independent, science-based lens on the overall strength 

and direction of the agricultural research enterprise as governed by the USDA, as well as coordination 

with other U.S. research agencies, including the new investment through NSF described above. 

Summary

PCAST believes that meeting the impending challenges to agriculture is an achievable goal. The United 

States has a university system that remains the envy of other nations and produces brilliant, innovative 

minds that have led the country to its preeminence across the various fields of science and technology. 

We have a vibrant private industry that has transformed the production of some crops and livestock 

by the application of new technology, improved biological systems, and frontier engineering. The U.S. 

venture capital and investment community has the experience and record for fostering technology 

transfer. And the United States, through the USDA, has an agricultural extension agency and enterprise 

Recommendation 6: PCAST recommends that the President establish an implementation 

committee to act on these recommendations. 
IV. Recommendations: Toward an Innovation Ecosystem for Agricultural Research

47

that has been, and could continue to be, the model for the rest of the world. The raw material for a strong, 

vibrant innovation ecosystem is there. We need to develop a national strategy and a national will for 

bringing these components together, supporting the research enterprise where needed, and raising 

the profile of agriculture in rural and urban environments so that the best minds are attracted to careers 

in agricultural research. We believe that a new public investment in an agricultural research program 

designed for the challenges of the 21st century will not only enrich the U.S. heartland and communities 

everywhere, but will help the United States lead the world to a safer, healthier, more prosperous future.

49

Appendix A. Methodology

Commodity Groups 

Checkoff groups were surveyed between May and July of 2012 by Don Latham via personal communication. Checkoffs were asked to report their total agriculture research funding and, where possible, 

to categorize their research expenditures. Pork, dairy, and lamb did not report data, and so estimates 

were made based on available information. Hass avocado, mango, and watermelon also did not report 

data, but given their relatively small size, data were not estimated. Only scientific research activities were 

included in data totals and were aggregated into the four categories in Table 1. Purchasing data, education, consumer behavior, retail management, outreach, and retail best practices research categories 

were excluded from the total.

Current Research Information System (CRIS)

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) tracks publicly funded USDA, state agriculture, 

and forestry research system activities through CRIS. CRIS reports ongoing agricultural, food science, 

human nutrition, and forestry research, education, and extension activities. Representatives of land grant 

universities and SAESs report funding expenditures on USDA-funded projects into CRIS. CRIS topical R&D 

breakdowns provide three taxonomies for agricultural R&D: knowledge area, subject of investigation, 

and field of science.106 This allows organizations to report R&D funding by agriculture-relevant topics. 

CRIS data have several limitations. First, CRIS covers R&D projects performed by land grant universities 

and SAESs that have been funded with at least some USDA funding. Therefore, CRIS data are subject to 

underreporting of non-land-grant-university performers and agriculture-related R&D wholly funded by 

non-USDA agencies, industry, commodity groups, and foundations. Second, CRIS’ scope was designed 

to classify research performed by USDA and land grant universities. Thus, CRIS may undercount public 

R&D expenditures by excluding basic plant or animal science expenditures relevant to agriculture. Third, 

CRIS data do not add up to NIFA budget totals, as CRIS gathers data on research expenditures, which do 

not include some extension and education activities. Fourth, CRIS data are time-lagged from budget 

data due to the time it takes for USDA R&D funds to be disbursed, allocated to projects, and reported 

back to CRIS.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES)—Survey of Federal Funds 

for R&D

NCSES administers the Survey of Federal Funds for R&D annually. In this survey, Federal agencies report 

information regarding U.S. Federal funding for R&D, including breakdowns by agency and field. NCSES 

survey data for USDA do not capture certain expenditures considered to be R&D by this report’s broad 

definition, including agricultural extension, some educational activities, and agricultural statistics. 

106. The CRIS subject of investigation, knowledge area, and field of science classification schemes can be found at 

 cris.nifa.usda.gov/manual.html.
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

50

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics—Survey of R&D Expenditures at 

Universities and Colleges

The NCSES administered the “Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges” each year from 

1972 to 2009.107 This survey examines most university108 R&D funding by academic field and the source 

of these funds. Given that its scope covers all types of R&D rather than only that funded or co-funded 

by USDA, it provides a broader array of biological and life science R&D funding data than CRIS.109

The primary limitation of data from the NCSES “Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges” 

is that the survey does not break out agricultural or biological R&D into smaller categories or provide 

taxonomies for agricultural R&D. It is thus impossible to know how much of the “biological” discipline 

may be relevant to agriculture, as basic plant and animal biology are grouped together with all other 

types of biological science.110

USDA Economic Research Service

In 2011, USDA Economic Research Service published a report on private R&D investments for agricultural 

inputs, food processing, and biofuels by Fuglie et. al called “Research Investments and Market Structure 

in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide.” 111 To estimate U.S. agricultural inputs R&D expenditures, Fuglie et. al used information from firms’ annual financial reports, 

industry associations, consulting services, and interviews. To estimate U.S. food manufacturing R&D 

expenditures, they used country-level estimates from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development’s Analytical Business Enterprise Research and Development database. To estimate biofuel 

R&D estimates, they gathered information on sectors doing R&D on biofuel feedstocks and manufacturing.112 The Science and Technology Policy Institution (STPI) estimated U.S. foundations agricultural 

R&D expenditures from a personal conversation with Fuglie.

Data from “Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, 

and Biofuel Industries Worldwide” have several limitations for this study. First, U.S. agricultural inputs 

estimates from Fuglie et. al count only R&D performed by companies incorporated in the United States, 

assuming that the R&D performed by U.S. companies outside the country is balanced by companies 

incorporated outside the United States that do R&D inside the country. Second, while the data cover 

most traditional agricultural companies, they do not cover all areas of agricultural research captured in 

CRIS or NCSES, such as paper companies that perform forestry R&D and biopharmaceutical companies 

doing basic plant R&D. Third, agricultural inputs and food manufacturing R&D estimates may include 

biofuel R&D expenditures, although this report attempts to remove such double counting. Finally, 

107. More recent data are collected by the Higher Education R&D Survey, successor to the Survey of R&D

Expenditures at Universities and Colleges. 

108. The Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges surveys all institutions that budget at least 

 $150,000 to science and engineering R&D.

109. NCSES classifications can be found on the survey instrument at www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/.

110. Ibid.

111. Fuglie, et al. (2011). “Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, 

 and Biofuel Industries Worldwide.” USDA ERS Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-90). Accessed August 24, 

 2012 at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/193646/eib90_1_.pdf.

112. The U.S. share of biofuel R&D was based on this information but supplemented by a personal conversation 

 with K. Fuglie.
Appendix A. Methodology

51

while the report covers data for some sectors up to 2009, data were not available for all sectors to 2009. 

Because this report focused on recent funding levels, certain sectors’ funding levels were taken from 

the most recent year available (2006–2008).

USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) budget 

The USDA REE budget represents the portion of the USDA annual budget dedicated to R&D, education 

including student fellowships, extension activities, and economic and statistical analysis and research. 

REE budget numbers provide the broadest potential definition for R&D from USDA, as they include 

activities such as extension services, agricultural statistics, and education programs that are not always 

counted as research.113 The REE portion of the USDA budget does not include Forest Service R&D, which 

was added from the broader USDA budget.

Limitations to Combined Data Sources

Because no one data source provides a comprehensive view of agricultural R&D activities in the U.S., it 

was necessary to combine four sources—commodity groups, CRIS, USDA ERS, and USDA REE budget—to 

achieve the complete picture of U.S. agricultural R&D expenditures represented in Figures 1 and 2. Due 

to the limitations of each source as listed before, combining data sources produces uncertainty in the 

estimates. Further uncertainties in Figures 1 and 2 are due to different reporting periods for different 

sources, including different fiscal years and the time lag described for CRIS data.

While the previous descriptions of data sources highlight where undercounting of R&D expenditures 

might occur due to limited scope of performers or limited scope of field of research, combining data 

sources likely leads to double counting of agricultural R&D expenditures. For example, CRIS values for 

non-public expenditures at land grant universities and SAESs may duplicate values for the private sector and foundation R&D estimates. This report assumes that data from different sources are additive, 

with the exception of commodity groups, which are expected largely to fund research at land grant 

universities and be reported in CRIS. 

113. The 2009 REE budget (including the Forest Service) reports $3020 million in R&D funding for USDA, while 

 the NCSES Survey of Federal Funds reports only $2265 million. This difference is primarily due to lower NCSES 

 values for NASS and NIFA, likely caused by an undercounting of education activities, extension services, and 

 statistical analysis.

53

Appendix B. 

Additional Experts Providing Input

Jane Anders

Vice President, Research, Quality, and Innovation

ConAgra Foods

David Battisti

Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

University of Washington

Roger Beachy

Professor of Biology

Washington University of St. Louis

Jim Birchler

Curators Professor of Biological Sciences

University of Missouri

Ed Buckler

Research Geneticist

USDA Agricultural Research Service 

Adjunct Professor

Cornell University

Steven Burrill

Chief Executive Officer

Burrill & Company

Jim Carrington

President

Danforth Plant Science Center

R. James Cook

Professor Emeritus

Washington State University

Jack Dixon

Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Harvard University

Richard A. Dixon

Senior Vice President, Professor

Director of the Plant Biology Division

Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation

Mike Edgerton

Technology Lead for Corn Ethanol and Quality 

Traits

Monsanto

Nina Fedoroff

Evan Pugh Professor

Penn State University

Distinguished Visiting Professor

King Abdullah University of Science & 

Technology

Robb Fraley

Executive Vice President and Chief Technology 

Officer

Monsanto

Keith Fuglie

Chief of the Resource, Environmental, and 

Science Policy Branch

USDA Economic Research Service

Dan Glickman

Former Secretary of Agriculture

Former Congressman

Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center

Ray Goldberg

Professor, Agriculture and Business, Emeritus

Harvard Business School

M.R.C. Greenwood

President

University of Hawaii

Jerry Hjelle

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

Monsanto

Peter Huybers

Assistant Professor

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences

Harvard University
R EP O RT TO T H E P R E S I D EN T O N AG R I C U LT U R A L P R EPA R ED N E S S 

and T H E AG R I C U LT U R E R E S E A RC H EN T ER P R I S E

54

Richard Jackson

Professor and Chair, Environmental Health 

Sciences

University of California Los Angeles

Scott Jackson

Professor, Center for Applied Genetic 

Technologies

University of Georgia

Steve Koonin

Former Undersecretary for Science

Department of Energy

Director, Center for Urban Science and Progress 

New York University

Upmanu Lall

Professor of Engineering, Department of Earth 

and Environmental Engineering

Columbia University

Brian Larkins

Porterfield and Regents Professor, School of Plant 

Sciences, Molecular and Cellular Biology

University of Arizona

Steve Long

Professor, College of Agricultural, Consumer and 

Environmental Sciences

University of Illinois

Consuelo Madere

Vice President, Vegetable Seeds Division and Asia 

Commercial

Monsanto

Francis Pierce

Professor Emeritus

Washington State University

AgInfomatics, LLC

Charles Rice

Professor of Soil Microbiology

Kansas State University

Michael Roberts

Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural 

and Resource Economics

North Carolina State University

Pamela Ronald

Professor, Plant Pathology

University of California Davis

Director

Joint Bioenergy Institute

Robin Schoen

Director

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources 

National Resource Council

Norman R. Scott

Professor Emeritus

Cornell University

Chairman, Board on Agriculture and Natural 

Resources 

National Resource Council

John Soper

Vice President, Crop Genetics Research & 

Development

Pioneer, DuPont

David Stern

Scientist

Boyce Thompson Institute

David Tilman

Professor and Chair, Department of Ecology

University of Minnesota

Walter Willett

Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition

Harvard University

Catherine Woteki

Undersecretary for Research, Education, and 

Economics

Department of Agriculture

Roger Wyse

Managing Director

Burrill & Company
55

Appendix C. 

Acknowledgments

Joe Alper

Science Writer

Life Science and Nanotechnology Consulting

Wanda Archy

Student Volunteer

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Kaitlin Bernell

Student Volunteer

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Ben Buchanan

Student Volunteer

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Genevieve Croft

Student Volunteer

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Knatokie Ford

AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Paul Heisey

Agricultural Economist

USDA Economic Research Service

Kei Koizumi

Assistant Director for Federal R&D

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Falita Liles

Information Technology Specialist

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Brent Miller

IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

Gina Walejko

IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

Chris Weber

IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

Caren Wilcox

Special Assistant

USDA Office of the Undersecretary for Research, 

Education, and Economics

Richmond Wong

Student Volunteer

Office of Science and Technology Policy
President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology

www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast