Organizing and Financing Basic Research

To Increase Food Production

June 1977

NTIS order #PB-273182
Organizing and Financing

Basic Research to

Increase Food Production

Food Program Staff

J, B. Cordaro, Program Manager

Walter Wilcox, Project Leader

Ray Torrey, Senior Analyst

Ann Woodbridge, Administrative Assistant

Reita Crossen, Secretary

Jane Mason, Secretary

Elizabeth Galloway, Secretary

CONGRESS OF

THE UNITED STATES

Office of Technology Assessment

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600025

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 05 2-003-0039&8
T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSME N T BOAR D COngre$$ of the United States

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.. CHAIRMAN

MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD., VICE CHAIRMAN O FFIC E

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEX.

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ.

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA CLARENCE E. MILLER, OHlO

ORRIN G. HATCH. UTAH LARRY WINN, JR., KANS.

EMILIO Q. DAOOARIO

—

OF T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMEN T

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

JUN 3 0 1977

EMILIO 0. DADDARIO

DIRECTOR

DANIEL V. DE SIMONI

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey

United States Senat e

Washington, D. C. 20510

The Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology

U. S. House of Representatives

Washington, D. C. 20515

Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment,

we are forwarding to You the report Organizing and Financing

Basic Research to Increase Food Production.

This assessment was performed in accordance with your request

to the Office of Technology Assessment and authorized by the

Technology Assessment Board on February 17, 1976.

Sincerely ,

Edward M. Kennedy Marjorie S. Holt

Chairman Vice Chairman

ii.
T ECHNO LOGY ASSESS MENT BO A RD Congress of the United States EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

DIRECTOR

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.. CHAIRMAN

MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD.. VICE CHAIRMAN O FFICE OF T ECHNOL O GY ASSESSM ENT DANIEL V. DESIMON E

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEX.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

W ASHING T O N, D.C. 20510

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. MINN. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ.

CLIFFORD P. CASE. N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA CLARENCE E. MILLER, OHIO

ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH LARRY WINN. JR.. KANS.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Chairman

Technology Assessment Board

Off ice of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The enclosed report, Organizing and Financing Basic Research to Increas e

Food Production, analyzes alternatives for organizing and financing basi c

research in the biological sciences. It supplements the more general

report of the National Academy of Sciences, “World Food and Nutrition

Study: The Potenial Contributions of Research,” which was issued in

June 1977, and takes a world view of the potential contributions of re -

search in food and nutrition, recommending expanded research in 22 fields.

The OTA report presents specific suggestions for congressional action. It

describes and evaluates alternative organizations of basic research in the

biological sciences; discusses alternative levels of increased funding

for basic research in three areas that possess great opportunity for

fundamental scientific discoveries (photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation ,

and genetic engineering for plants); and suggests alternative administra -

tive structures for Federal support of basic research related to food

production.

The assessment was requested by Chairman Olin E. Teague of the House

Committee on Science and Technology and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey in h is

capacity as a member of the Technology Assessment Board. It was performed

by OTA’s Food Program Staff under the direction of J.B. Cordaro, assisted

by the Food Advisory Committee and a panel of scientists representing

agricultural and non-agricultural interests.

DANIEL De SIMONE

Acting Director

Ill.
Office of Technology Assessment

Food Advisory Committee

Martin E, Abel, Chairman

University of Minnesota

W. D. Buddemier

University of Illinois

David Call

Cornell University

Arnold Mayer

Amalgamated Meat Cutters and

Butcher Workmen of North America

Max Milner

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Robert Nesheim

Quaker Oats Company

Roger Revelle

Harvard University

Lauren Seth

West Des Moines, Iowa

E. T, York

University of Florida

Advisory Panel on High-Priority Basic Research

Dr. W. Keith Kennedy, Chairman

Dean, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Cornell University

Dr. Martin E. Abel Dr. Marvin Lamborg

Professor of Agricultural Chief, Cell Specialization Branch

Development Policy Kettering Research Laboratories

University of Minnesota

Dr. G. W. Salisbury

Professor David I. Cleland Associate Dean, College of

School of Engineering Agriculture

University of Pittsburgh University of Illinois

Dr. Richard T. Darragh Dr. Louis N. Wise

Director of Industrial Product Vice President, Agriculture and

Development Forestry

Procter and Gamble Company Mississippi State University

Dean Charles E. Hess Dr. Sylvan H, Wittwer

College of Agriculture and Assistant Dean, College of

Environmental Science Agriculture

University of California Michigan State University

Mr. H. Richard Johnson Professor Ronald D, Knutson

President, Watkins-Johnson Department of Agricultural

Company Economics

Texas A&M University

iv
This assessment is an analysis of alternatives for organizing and financing basic research to increase food production, Alternative organizations of

basic research are described and evaluated. Alternative levels of increased

funding for basic research in three areas which possess great opportunity for

fundamental scientific discoveries-photosy nthesis, nitrogen fixation, and

genetic engineering for plants-are proposed by a panel of scientists representing agricultural and nonagricultural interests, private research organizations, and industry. These areas are used as illustrations of how high-priority

basic research may be organized and financed, This assessment does not endorse nor limit future basic research to these areas,

The assessment was requested by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, member of the Technology Assessment Board, and Representative Olin E.

Teague, Chairman, House Committee on Science and Technology, The

report identifies the options available to Congress in placing a priority on an

expansion in basic research to increase food production.

The ad hoc advisory panel on high-priority basic research provided

detailed technical information and judgments with respect to ongoing basic

research and research institutions. The permanent Food Advisory Committee provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, reviewed the

final draft, and has recommended publication of this report.

The Technology Assessment Board, governing body of OTA, approves

the release of this report, which identifies a range of viewpoints on a significant issue facing the U.S. Congress, The views expressed in this report are

not necessarily those of the Board, the OTA Advisory Council, or of individual members thereof.

v
Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . ● . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . 3

ORGANIZING AND FINANCING BASIC RESEARCH TO INCREASE

FOOD PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic Food Production Research Inadequately Supported. . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings of Scientific Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Returns From Additional Investments in Basic Research To Increase

Food Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Institutions for Administering Basic Research for Food Production. . .

Alternative Levels of Financing High-Priority Basic Research To Increase Food Production ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic Research in Other Areas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Congressional Options . .0....0.......0.....00.0..0..0.00. ....0. .

9

9

10

11

13

15

18

20

20

20

APPENDIX

Supplementary Technical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

vii

In early 1975 the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) received requests from

Senator Hubert Humphrey and Representative Olin Teague for an independent assessment of the current status of research and development in food and agriculture. At that

time a number of other agencies and committees were engaged in reviewing and

evaluating food, agriculture, and nutrition research,

OTA’s Food Advisory Committee reviewed the scope and preliminary findings of

the studies in progress and counseled OTA to focus its food and agriculture research

and development activities on two areas: (I) Implications of Increased Support of

Research on Major Food Crops in Developing Countries, and (2) the area addressed in

this report, Organizing and Financing Basic Research to Increase Food Production.

In the past ten years, four different scientific groups have reviewed the agricultural

research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the State

Agricultural Experiment Stations. AH recommended an expansion in research

programs, and three of the groups emphasized the need to accelerate basic research in

the sciences which undergird food production,

The Need for Basic Research

Bas c research for increasing food production includes areas possessing exceptional opportunity for discovery of knowledge vital to

the understanding of biological processes in

plants and animals. Food and agriculture

research is the search for new technologies

within the boundaries of existing scientific

knowledge. If basic research remains static,

food and agriculture research is subject to

diminishing returns and eventual exhaustion.

Basic research to increase food production

has primarily been carried on by scientists in

the Agricultural Research Service of USDA

and in State Agricultural Experiment Stations

(SAES) who also adapt research and development. Increases in appropriations for these

scientists in the past two decades have not

equaled the infla ionary increases in research

costs, Practical problems associated with increased food production have increased during this period rather than declined, As a consequence, the scientific talent available for this

research has declined sharply.

Several recent reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) listed the

areas of basic research offering the greatest

potential returns in the near future from accelerated programs. Three areas with outstanding potential returns are listed in all of

these reports. They are photosynthesis,

biological nitrogen fixation, and cell culture

studies.

Achieving Return on Investment

Studies of U.S. agricultural research pro- million to $500 million over a 10-year period

ductivity show annual rates of return of 30 to would yield returns of $1 billion to $2 billion

40 percent. On the basis of past studies and the over the next 20 years.

potential payoff from accelerated basic

research to increase food production, it is Food and agricultural research funds are

highly probable that an investment of $300 appropriated for specific USDA projects and
for major functional areas at State Agricultural

Experiment Stations. Funds for these stations

are allocated on a formula basis. No funds are

appropriated specifically for basic research in

the biological sciences.

Both university and Federal agency scientists agree that the creation of new Federal

agencies to conduct basic research would not

be cost effective, There is also substantial

agreement that the use of a formula for the

allocation of funds for high-priority basic

research would not be cost effective.

The most effective means of allocating additional funds for this high-priority research appears to be through a competitive grants

program. These grants should be available to

qualified scientists, on the basis of peer

review, in USDA research agencies, State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, public and

private universities, and nonprofit research

institutions, This approach

opportunisties beyond

USDA/SAES complex.

Administering Basic Research Grants

The administration of high-priority basic

research to increase food production could be

assigned to either USDA or NSF,

Basic research, applied research, and

developmental technology are inter-related.

There is merit in supporting accelerated basic

research through USDA, the Federal agency

which has the responsibility for both applied

research and technology development,

There are several alternative means within

USDA for administering a

program for high-priority

broadens research

the traditiona l

competitive grants

basic research. It

could be administered under Public Law

89-106, if amended to permit scientists in the

Agricultural Research Service to participate in

the grants. No other authorizing legislation

would be required.

Congress, if it wished, could mandate a

specific administrative structure within USDA

or NSF for the administration of this highpriority basic research.

Funding Needs

The USDA’s Agricultural Research Policy

Advisory Committee and the Stat e

Agricultural Experiment Stations recommended expanded research on the 117 most

important problems as identified at the 1975

Kansas City Conference on Research To Meet

U.S. and World Food Needs, The committee

did not distinguish between basic and applied

research and recommended increases totaling

$215 million over a 4-year period.

The NAS world Food and Nutrition Study

issued in June 1977 proposes a first-year appropriation of $60 million in Federal funds for

a new high-priority basic and applied research

competitive grants program. The report suggests that these funds be increased 10 percent

each year for a 5-year period.

An OTA advisory panel found that about

$15.6 million annually is being spent on current research in the three high-priority areas

of photosynthesis, biological nitrogen fixation,

and cell culture studies. It estimated that in the

first year of an expanded basic research

program in these three areas, an additional

funding of $12.25 million plus $200,000 additional administration expenses appeared cost

beneficial,

4
The panel proposed that after starting at a

minimum of $12.45 million the first year the

program should be increased $4 to $6 million a

year for a 6-year period, as more scientists are

attracted into research in these areas. The

panel did not address the problem of desirable

financial support for basic research in other

high-priority areas, although it recognized that

other areas should be included. Thus, their

conclusions should not be viewed as limiting

the competitive grant program to $12,45

million.

The merits of including other research areas

as high-priority basic research areas should be

evaluated by the administrator of the highpriority basic research program with the advice and counsel of an advisory committee.

Options for Congress

one option for Congress would be to continue funding food and agriculture research at

the current level,

A second option for Congress would be to

appropriate funds specifically for basic

research to be administered by the Secretary

of Agriculture under Public Law 89-106, with

or without minor amendments,

A third option for Congress would be to

mandate administrative changes in USDA,

creating an office of competitive grants and

authorizing a long-term program of highpriority basic research to increase food production.

A fourth option for Congress would be to

authorize and finance an NSF program for expanded basic research to increase food production.

An appendix, prepared by OTA’s ad hoc

advisory panel, provides supplementary technical analysis upon which the OTA report

draws. Any reference to this material should

cite the panel.

5
Organizing and Financing Basic Research

To Increase Food Production
Background

In February 1975, Senator Hubert

Humphrey, as a member of the Technology

Assessment Board, asked the Office of Technology Assessment to assess the current status

of research and development in food and

agriculture, Senator Humphrey’s request was

followed by a similar request from Representative Olin E. Teague, Chairman of the House

Committee on Science and Technology. Chairman Teague asked OTA, with the help of its

Food Advisory Committee, to report its findings as a supplement to the Committee’s

planned oversight hearings on agricultural

research and development.

At the time these requests were received, a

number of agencies and committees were

reviewing and evaluating food, agriculture,

and nutrition research:

● The General Accounting Office was

engaged in a general overview study of

the organization, scope, and management of publicly supported agricultural

research;

● The Congressional Research Service

was preparing responses to several

congressional requests on aspects of the

organization, priorities, and funding for

publicly financed food and agriculture

research and development;

● The Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee of the National

Association of State Universities and

Land-Grant Colleges and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

were organizing a National Food and

Agriculture Research Users Conference

to be held July 9 to 11, 1975, in Kansas

City. The purpose of the conference

was to inventory the wide-ranging food

and agricultural research activities underway at USDA and the universities,

and to establish priorities for future

research funding.

● Special oversight hearings on food and

agriculture research were scheduled by

two subcommittees of the House Committee on Science and Technology for

the summer and fall of 1975;

The Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources of the National Academy

of Sciences had completed a report,

Enhancement of Food Production in

the United States, released in late 1975.

Responding to a 1974 request from

President Ford, the National Academy

of Sciences (NAS) was engaged in a 2-

year World Food and Nutrition Study

involving 14 committees and numerous

subcommittees, (The NAS issued an interim report in November 1975. )

The requests for an OTA assessment were

discussed with OTA’s Food Advisory Committee against the background of these activities, Chairman* Clifton Wharton, Jr,, appointed a subcommittee to confer with OTA

staff, review the scope and preliminary findings of related studies, and narrow the assessment scope.

The subcommittee and staff established the

following guidelines for a response to the congressional requests. The response should:

● avoid duplication of similar reports;

● be a significant and unique undertaking;

● be manageable in size;

• lead to options for congressional action;

and

● be completed in time for legislative use.

Using these guidelines, OTA focused its

food and agriculture research and development activities on two areas: implications of

increased support of research on major food

crops in developing countries, and the area addressed in this report, organizing and financing basic research to increase food production,

“Dr. Wharton, President, Michigan State University served as

Chairman until June 1976.

92.759 0- 77 - 9
Bask Food Production Research

Inadequately Supported

Public support for research to increase food

production has declined in the last two

decades for a number of reasons. In the 1950’s

and 1960’s, Congress was concerned more

with the costs of storing surplus crops and

maintaining farm income support programs

than with food production research. Although

public support has increased modestly, in recent years increases in appropriated funds

have not been large enough to offset the loss in

the purchasing power of the appropriations

due to inflation.

Basic research in the biological sciences related to food production has historically been

an undifferentiated segment of the research

programs supported both by USDA, in its own

Agricultural Research Service, and in the State

Agricultural Experiment Stations. Under conditions of declining funds, however, increasing demands for research to solve current production problems has forced a sharp decline

in the support for basic research in the biological sciences related to food production. Scientists who testified at the hearings on

agricultural research and development (before

the subcommittees of the House Committee on

Science and Technology, September 2 3

through October Z, 1975, ) observed that recent

technological advances in crop production in

the United States have exhausted the previously existing backlog of basic research

available to plant and animal production

scientists in a number of areas and that additional basic research is needed,

Administrators of publicly supported

agricultural research institutions have been

successful in obtaining modest increases in

funds for agricultural research in recent years.

Almost all increases have been utilized to support urgently requested pest, disease control,

and adaptive research, Thus with the need to

tackle immediate problems, only a small

amount of the additional funds have been

channeled into basic research to increase food

production. The Department of Agriculture

does not have established procedures for financing basic research, as distinguished from

adaptive or developmental research.

The National Science Foundation (NSF)

recognizes USDA as the lead agency in

agricultural research, and in the past has provided only limited support for basic research

in biological sciences to increase food production, Although the need for increased research

in the biological sciences related to agriculture

has been recognized by groups of scientists for

several years, little progress has been made in

developing plans for organizing and financing

increased basic research to increase food production,

There is substantial agreement among

agricultural scientists that three high-priority

basic research areas-photosynthesis, biological nitrogen fixation, and cell culture studiesoffer unusual promise of high potential payoff

over a moderate to long-term time period, To

illustrate its points, OTA’s assessment includes:

1. A consideration of methods for organizing and financing research in these

three areas, and the application of these

methods to the administration of highpriority basic research to increase food

production in related areas; and

2. An examination of the costs and

benefits of increased research in these

three areas.

To obtain the advice of a diverse group of

scientists, OTA established an n-member advisory panel that represented views from the

university community, both agricultural and

non-agricultural, private research organizations, and industry,

The advisory panel addressed both issues:

alternatives for administering basic research

to increase food production, and the costs and

benefits of expanded research in the three

selected areas.

10
This report reviews the findings of scientific

groups concerned with both the need for basic

research in high-priority areas and the

prospective returns from additional investments in basic research to increase food production, It considers alternatives for administering such research and the implications of alternative levels of financing this

research, Finally, it reviews the options open

to Congress in dealing with this issue. In preparing this OTA report, the OTA staff drew

upon the findings and conclusions of the advisory panel, as well as supplementa l

materials. The panel’s detailed review of the

research underway in photosynthesis, biological nitrogen fixation, and cell-culture studies

and suggestions for expanding this research

over a 6- to lo-year period are attached to provide technical background for the report.

Findings of Scientific Groups

In the past 10 years, four scientific groups

have reviewed the agricultural research conducted by USDA and the State Agricultural

In February 1969 Clifford M, Hardin, then

Secretary of Agriculture, requested the Division of Biology and Agriculture, NAS, “To

ascertain gaps in agricultural research and

make such recommendations as might be appropriate ., . “

Panels were appointed by NAS to review

areas of research, visit laboratories, and interview research scientists and administrators in

both USDA and the universities,

An NAS committee, under the chairmanship of Dean Glenn Pound of the University of

Wisconsin, issued an 80-page report of its

findings and conclusions in 1972, together

with a 384-page appendix consisting chiefly of

the reports of the individual panels. 2 In its

general summary, the committee said:

Bold moves are called for in reshaping administrative philosophies and organizations, in establishing goals and missions,

in training and management of scientists

and in allocation of resources. There are

too many field laboratories . . .

Experiment Stations,

This underscored the report’s conclusion

In April 1965, the Senate Committee on Ap- that effective use could be made of additional

propriations requested, in Senate Report No. funding,

156,

that the Secretary of Agriculture give im- With respect to level of funding, the committee

. . .

mediate consideration to the establishment of recommended:

an appropriate research review committee ● That increases in Federal support to the

comprised equally of representatives of land- SAES via formula funds be maintained

grant experiment stations, Department at a level at least proportionately as

research activities, affected producer organizations, and with appropriate industry represengreat as for USDA in-house research.

tation, to examine fully each and every- line of

agricultural research conducted by the Department and by the State Experiment Stations,

A USDA-SAES task force was organized

and a response to this request was issued in

October 1966.

1 The task force found that I Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, A National Program of USDA-SAES agricultural research activities Research for Agriculture~, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

required 10,330 scientist years in 1965, and Agriculture. 1966

recommended an increase to 14,250 scientist

2Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to

years for the year 1972, 18,170 by the year the U.S. Departnlent of Agriculture. Washington, D.c.: National

1977. Academy of Sciences, 1975.

11
● That the USDA seek a greatly increased

level of appropriations for a competitive

grants program, which should include

support of basic research in the

sciences-biological, physical, social—

that underpin the USDA mission. These

appropriations should be without commodity earmarking, although they

should not exclude commodity-related

research. They should be available to

scientists in the USDA, in land-grant

and nonland-grant public universities

or colleges, and in private universities

or colleges, institutes, and other

research agencies.

● That this program be administered in

such a way that research proposals are

subjected to evaluation by peer panels

of selected scientists drawn from those

eligible for support, and that administration of the program be different

from the administration which allocated

funds for USDA in-house research.

A Committee on Agricultural Production

Efficiency of the Board on Agriculture and

Renewable Resources, NAS, was organized in

1971 to “evaluate the adequacy of the Nation’s

policies, knowledge, and technology relative to

agriculture research and education efforts. ”

The committee issued a 199-page monograph

in 1975, which reviewed new research and

agricultural technology, the practical problems

for getting improved technologies adopted by

small, undercapitalized farms, and the ability

of society to make wise choices when a technological change has the possibility of causing

adverse environmental effects. 3 The committee’s report included these statements:

● We see no way to avoid the problems of

basic uncertainty about the future , .,

● A recent study by the Battelle Institute

(1973) suggests that the average lead

time in research is about 20 years and

that it has not decreased appreciably

over the years . . ,

● For major advances in the practices and

technologies of agriculture, the Nation

must continue to look to the research

programs in public institutions and in

private industry . . .

The long-range breakthroughs in

knowledge and technology that can

boost our apparent productivity ceilings

will require greater emphasis on basic

research attuned to clearly perceived

goals ., ,

There is an urgent need for agricultural

research to receive increasing-emphasis

and much greater support. The future

well-being of mankind could be at

stake . . .

The monograph closes with the following sentence:

The breakthrough in science and technology

that must precede the long-range achievement

of increased agricultural production efficiency

requires additional investment in promising

basic research areas such as cell fusion, photosynthesis, and biological nitrogen transformations, being ever mindful of the need to seek

practical field applications of major advances

in knowledge . . .

The Board on Agriculture and Renewable

Resources, NAS, recommended a substantial

increase in support for research directed

toward the production, dependability, and

quality of the food supply in its 1975 report,

Enhancement of Food Production in the

United States4

:

● Financial support for such research should

be increased to restore at least the 1966 buying power, and the support should be

broadly distributed.

● State and Federal support, now totaling about

$450 million per year, for research related to

agricultural productivity should be increased immediately by 40 percent.

3Committee on Agricultural Production Efficiency, Agricultural

Production Efficiency. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of

Sciences, 1975.

Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources, Enhancement

of Food Production in the United States. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

12
Regarding basic or fundamental research, the

report stated:

● Fundamental research undergirding food

production technology has languished for

two decades.

Ž The National Science Foundation has not

focused on agriculturally related research,

although it has given substantial support to

botany, zoology, and plant and animal

physiology and pathology.

● USDA-SAES complex has not adequately

funded basic research relating to biological

processes that control crop and livestock

productivity and insure a greater stability of

supply,

The Steering Committee, Commission on

International Relations, National Research

Council, repeated several of the recommendations made in the earlier report of the Board

on Agriculture and Renewable Resources in

its interim report, World Food and Nutrition

Study, issued in November 1975. The Steering

Committee stressed the potential for increasing crop productivity both through improvement in photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation

and through the development and use of tissue

culture techniques. The interdependence of

these three research areas was emphasized as

follows:

● To the extent that greater nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis can be induced

by genetic changes, the prospects will

be multiplied by progress in the application of cell fusion or DNA recombination techniques to genetic manipulation.5

Returns From Additional Investments in

Basic Research to Increase Food Production

Scientific groups concerned with priorities

in food and agricultural research are agreed

that the returns from a long-term program of

expanded basic research are likely to be great,

although additional investments in a wide

variety of projects are needed.

An increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis in a crop like soybeans could result

in 50-percent increase in yield per acre. The

annual value of increased production, reduced

acreage, and/or production costs would

amount to no less than $1 biIliOn, assuming

this increase of only 50 percent in the yield of

soybeans in the United States.

Improvement in nitrogen fixation in

legumes also would result in large gains. A 1 0

percent increase in soybean yield has been

reported in the last few months where improved nitrogen-fixing bacteria have been

utilized in producing the crop.6 An even

greater gain would be achieved with the

development of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in

corn, cereal grains, or any important crop

other than legumes, Such a discovery could

reduce the need for nitrogen fertilizer by

millions of tons per year in the United States

and throughout the world. A saving of half a

billion dollars a year in the United States for

nitrogen fertilizer is not an unrealistic expectation.

Cell-culture studies offer promise for

developing new combinations of germ plasm

and thus provide a means for geneti c

engineering which could lead to new strains of

Rhizobium with much higher nitrogen-fixing

capacity. They could also lead to new varieties

of soybeans, cereals, potatoes, and other crops

with substantially higher photosynthetic efficiency levels than occur in conventional plantbreeding methods. In addition, cell and tissue

cultures have demonstrated their value both in

freeing important cultivars of viruses and

other pathogens and as a method for rapidly

propagating new improved cultivars,

especially those that are reproduced asexSsteering Committee, NRC Study on World Food and Nutrition,

World Food and Nutrition Study, interim Report. Washington,

D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, November 1975, p. 28.

BNew York Times, Sept. 27, lg76.
ually. Further research with cell and tissue

cultures are likely to lead to additional

possibilities for plant improvement,

Scientists consulted by OTA on this project

are agreed that:

● The potential for making a major

breakthrough within the next 10 years in

any one or all three of these high-priority

areas is so great that significant expansion in

research support is fully justified.

● Sustained research effort is likely to be required for the balance of the 20th century if

we are to realize the gain to be made from

substantially increasing and exploiting

scientific knowledge.

There is a wide consensus in the scientific

community that the results of additional investments in research in the areas cited above

could be greater than in most other basic

research areas. Groups of scientists have identified several areas in addition to photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation, and cell-culture

studies which could have substantial returns

from expanded research could be substantial.

Most studies of the, productivity of

agricultural research indicate that investments

in agricultural research in the United States

since World War II have shown an annual

return of 30 to 40 percent, A summary of the

findings of a number of cost-benefit studies of

agricultural research investments in the

United States and in other countries as compiled by T.W. Arndt and V.W. Ruttan is shown

below:
On the basis of these studies, it is likely that

an investment of $300 to $500 million over a

lo-year period in expanding basic research

would yield returns over the next 20 years of

$1 to $2 billion.

Institutions for Administering Basic

Research for Food Production*

Basic research to increase food production

is defined as those research areas 1) possessing exceptional opportunity for discovery of

knowledge vital to the basic understanding of

important biological processes in plants and

animals, and 2) which can contribute to applied research on problems that have large impact on societal needs and urgency of implementation, They require the participation of a

small group of scientists and frequently will

benefit from large-scale multidisciplinary and

interinstitutional cooperation.

The Federal Government might support additional basic food production research by

creating new or expanding existing Federal

agricultural research agencies. It could earmark funds for basic research and allocate

them to the 55 State Agricultural Experiment

Stations on a formula basis. Or, it could make

Federal funds for basic research available

through a competitive awards program administered by USDA or NSF.

Federal funds are presently appropriated

for specific agricultural research projects in

USDA and for major research areas such as

marketing, production and rural development

at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations.

The stations’ funds are allocated on a formula

basis, taking into account population and other

factors, Most efforts to increase appropriations for agricultural research in recent years

have focused on increased funding for

research on pressing problems, such as pest

and disease control, or on increasing funds

available to State Agricultural Experiment

Stations on a formula basis. These increased

*Some scientists perceive the term “basic research” to pertain to

investigations of fundamental processes and relationships without regard to how such knowledge might be applied in a production process,

funds in turn being used to deal with immediate problems. The net effect has been to short

change basic research whose payoff is long

term.

There is a widespread agreement among

both university and Federal agency scientists

that creating new Federal agencies to conduct

basic research to increase food production

would be less cost effective than providing additional funding for institutions and scientists

who now have ongoing basic research

programs, There is also substantial agreement

that funds for high-priority basic food production research should not be allocated on a formula basis if additional basic research funds

were made available to USDA and the SAES

on a formula basis, There is a high probability

that the funds would continue to be utilized in

many cases for adapative research and the

numerous pressing problems. Further, such a

distribution precludes the opportunity to obtain the needed critical mass of funds and personnel to make the kind of breakthroughs expected of basic research.

There are wide variations both in the staffing of Federal, State, and private research

agencies and in their ability to provide increased basic research related to food production. For this reason, the usual project and formula basis for allocating agricultural research

funds would not be cost effective in allocating

high-priority basic research. The greatest

progress in basic research in the near future

can be achieved by increased funding for

those scientists and groups of scientists who

now have both ongoing basic research

programs to increase food production and

proven competence in the field.

Competitive Awards. There is substantial

concensus among scientists that the most costeffective way of financing increased basic

research to increase food production is

through a competitive awards program. Competitive grants should be available to qualified

scientists in USDA research agencies, the State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, public and

private universities, and nonprofit research
institutions, The key features of such a

program would be:

1. Research proposals should b e

developed in detail by the principal investigators.

2. Research proposals should be reviewed

and rated by peer review committees.

3. Funds should be distributed, usually in

the form of grants for 3 to 5 years, according to the scientific merit of the proposals and an appraisal of past performance.

Disadvantage s of Competitiv e

Awards. Research grants made on a competitive awards basis tend to be awarded to scientists located at well-established research institutions, thus contributing to the rapid

growth of these institutions relative to younger

and smaller research institutions. The allocation of research grants on a competitive basis

also requires that qualified scientists spend

considerable time as members of peer review

committees, reviewing research proposals.

The administration of high-priority basic

research to increase food production could be

assigned to USDA, NSF, another existing

agency, or a new Federal agency. Historically,

USDA has borne the responsibility for food

and agricultural research. It has met these

responsibilities within the limits of its funds.

There is ample evidence of excellent basic

research in the USDA-SAES complex. It appears that with adequate levels of funding and

changes in allocation procedures, USDA could

administer a first-rate program in basic

research to increase food production,

An advantage to assigning the responsibility

for basic research in the biological sciences to

USDA is that the purpose of increasing the Nation’s commitment to basic agricultural

research is to provide new knowledge which

will enable this Nation to significantly increase its production of food. Lines between

basic research, applied research, and development of technology are not clear, but the three

are interrelated. USDA and SAES scientists

have demonstrated their ability to take new information in the biological and physical sciences and apply it to the production and protection of plants and animals through applied

research and the development of improved

technology, There is merit in supporting basic

research through an agency that has the ability

to followup with applied research and technological development, and both USDA and

SAES have this ability.

The National Science Foundation ha s

established an excellent record for supporting

basic research, including work in the biological sciences important to agriculture. It has

devised effective procedures for soliciting

research proposals in the basic sciences,

reviewing the proposals, and making awards

to the most productive and promising scientists. The National Science Foundation is capable of handling basic agricultural research but

does not have the responsibility, nor is it as

well-equipped to support or to integrate the

necessary applied research and the development of new technology.

While increased funding for basic research

to increase food production could be administered by NSF, it appears that a more efficient and less costly way to proceed would be

to assign the responsibility to USDA.

Administering Agencies within USDA. A

number of agencies within USDA could administer basic research. Any agency selected

would require an experienced administrative

officer with high standards of performance in

research. The person in charge of administration should be a recognized authority in an important area of basic agricultural research.

If a new office for awarding grants for basic

research to increase food production were

established, it would not need a large staff.

The staff should be sufficient to solicit and

acknowledge receipt of research proposals,

organize and assist peer-review panels, allocate and administer grants, organize and sponsor special symposia, and prepare annual

reports and budgets. In addition to his or her

16
other responsibilities, the person in charge of

the administration of grants for basic research

to increase food production should have

liaison with other agencies supporting or conducting agricultural research and be a member of the interagency Federal Coordinating

Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, and other such relevant groups as may

be established.

An advisory board of 12 to 15 rotating members, appointed by the Secretary of

Agriculture and representing a variety of disciplines, regions of the county, and Federal,

State, and private organizations, may be

needed to oversee the program, If such a

board were established, it could assist the administrator in the development of proposals

and in the selection of areas of research which

should be given priority.

The board could also periodically or annually review the areas of basic research to increase food production which should be given

priority. It would be the board’s responsibility

to recommend to the administrator of the

program, as conditions change, and to the

Secretary of Agriculture the designation of additional basic research areas to be given

priority funding,

In establishing operating and review procedures, the administrator and the advisory

board should be guided by current practices

in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and

by the recommendations in National Science

Foundation Peer Review, Volume I, January

1976.

USDA Has Competitive Grants

Authority. Under Public Law 89-106, the

Secretary of Agriculture now has authority to

make research grants on a competitive basis

for a period not to exceed 5 years for any one

grant. Scientists in Federal agencies, however,

are not eligible for grants under Public Law

89-106. This authority has been delegated to

the Administrator of the Cooperative State

Research Service. Congress appropriated

funds for FY 1977 for research grants totaling

$4.5 million to be awarded on a competitive

basis in 11 specified areas.

Administration of grants for basic research

to increase food production could be assigned

to the Administrator of the Cooperative State

Research Service (CSRS). He or she would be

responsible for administering all research

grants.

There would be a number of advantages in

making such an arrangement, as CSRS has experience in administering grants awarded on a

competitive basis. Congressional concern

could be minimized, overhead costs reduced,

and continuity provided. There are also disadvantages to such an arrangement, since CSRS

is primarily concerned with activities of the

State Agricultural Experiment Stations. Current CSRS programs require increasing

amounts of funds and might prevent programs

in basic research from receiving the attention

and funds they need. The Secretary of

Agriculture would have to see to it that participation in the program is open to all

qualified scientists, whether they are at State

Agricultural Experiment Stations, publicly or

privately endowed universities, or at nonprofit

research agencies.

An alternative would be to establish an

Office of Basic Research Grants as a separate

USDA agency, This would provide a high

visibility within USDA, assure program integrity, and it would not disrupt operations. It

would prevent domination of research grants

by a single agency and prevent confusion with

other competitive grants. The major disadvantage of this arrangement is that a separate

agency would require a separate accounting

staff and other administrative services; such

services are available in other research agencies in USDA, Since it would be a leading

office, its future budget might be restricted

despite its small size.

Alternative number 3 is a variation on

number 2, It would establish an Office of

Basic Research Grants as a separate USDA

agency, However, it would have a pass17
through provision for funding other agencies

which support or conduct basic research to increase food production, such as NSF. This arrangement would recognize USDA as the

leading Government agency for food and

nutrition research, but would assure the entire

scientific community access to funds supporting basic research, Coordination of research

funding activities in USDA, NSF, and other

agencies concerned with funding basi c

research would be improved, The scientific

community might have greater confidence in

the new funding program under such an administrative arrangement.

The significant disadvantage is that it reduces

the leadership role of USDA as the agency to

promote basic research to increase food production, and increases the costs of administering the grant funds.

Alternative Levels of Financing HighPriority Bask Research To increase Food

Production

A comprehensive statement concerning the

additional research needed on the more important problems relating to food was prepared by an ad hoc work group of the

Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee, 7 This group reviewed the adequacy of

current research for each of 134 of the most

important problem areas identified at the 1975

Kansas City Conference on Research to Meet

U.S. and World Food Needs and, in its 1975

report, by the NAS Board on Agriculture and

Renewable Resources.

The ad hoc working group of the committee

concluded that research should be increased

7 Report of Ad Hoc Work Group on Most Important Problems,

U.S. Food Research. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, May 1976 (duplicated).

on 117 of the problems. The increases recommended for all 117 problems would require

2,031 scientist years and cost $215 million over

a period of 4 years.

The amount of labor expressed in scientist

years and the recommended increases over a

4-year period in each of three broad subject

areas is shown below:

Safety. ‘

-

Organization of

Resources to provide

Public Policy,, Finance,

and international

Development.

Management of

Resources to Provide

Food, Including Land

Water, Crop, and

Livestock Production

582 191 33

4702 1535- 33

Total 5906 2031 35

No comparable analysis has been made for

the number of scientist years and necessary

increases in basic research to increase food

production.

The OTA advisory panel was asked to direct

its attention to the more limited subject of

needed increase in basic research in photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation, and cell-culture

studies, Their analysis indicates that current

research funding through all public and private sources amounts to about $15,6 million

annually for the three areas. About 290 USDASAES scientists are engaged in the three areas

of research. In addition, approximately 75

scientists are at other universities, nonprofit

organizations, and in private industry. (Table

1.)

18
The advisory panel estimated that in the

first year of an expanded basic research

program in the three areas of photosynthesis,

biological nitrogen fixation, and cell-culture

studies, research funding requests of merit

would total $12.25 million. Additional funds

would be needed for administering the

program of grants to be awarded on a competitive basis.

The advisory panel emphasized the close

relationship among the three areas of research

and urged maximum flexibility in allocating

them any increased funding. The panel’s technical analysis and discussion is included in

their attached “Supplementary Technical

Analysis.”

The first objective of an expanded basic

research program should be the provision of

more adequate support for scientists now

doing high-quality research in these areas.

After their needs have been met, the panel

recommends annual increases in funds for a 6-

year period in order to increase the number of

scientists working in these high-priority areas

by 40 to 50 percent,

The minimum expansion program for the

three research areas would start at $12.45

Table 1. Estimated Annual Expenditures and Scientist Yews for

Research on Photosynthesis, Nitrogen Fixation and Cell Studies

(Expenditures in $1000)

Current Research lnformation System’ NSF4

CSRS Admin./ Other Non- No. Res. Number of Scientists

USDA Approp. Federal Federal a Total Projects Scientists Years’

Photosynthesis

Nitrogen Fixation

Cell Studies

Totals

$2,497 $63 3 $2,849 $5,979 1 4 0 182 77 $3,723

867 415 920 2,202 54 71 30 1,285

451 58 601 1,110 28 37 16 612

$3,815 $1,106 $4,370 $9,291 222 290 123 $5,620

‘Analysis of Juno W76 CRIS data by W. K. Kennedy.

2Agriculturol Research ond Development Speciol Oversight Hearings, f%rt 11, More Subcommittee on Science, Research,

ond Technology ond the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Plonnin$ ond Anolysis of the Committee

on Science ond Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, No. S1, U.S, Govornmant Prlnfhg Office, 1976, Poges

1126 ond 1127.

‘Note: Scientist years indicates the number of full-time sclentkt eq@vgkts. A somewhot greater numbr of scientists are

engoged in the designated areos of research, since those ot the universities hove ttichhg os well os reseorch

responsibilities. /+.

4Note: At least o portion of the support provided by NSF for roseordt on photosynthesis ond nitrogen fixotion may be

inchded in the other federal funds listed under CRIS. Hence the MM for photosynthesis

T

be obout $9.2 million

ond for nitrogen f{xofion about $3.1 mil[ion. The fotol level of onrwol research support for t ese three high. priority

oreos moy be obout $13.4 million through USDA, NSF, ond SAES.
million the first year, increasing to about $50

million in the tenth year. The advisory panel

believed that such an expansion program

should be considered a minimum effort. The

provision of funds for an even greater expansion was recommended, permitting a 60 to 70

percent increase in the number of scientists

engaged in basic research in photosynthesis,

biological nitrogen fixation, and cell-culture

studies over a lo-year period.

A complete review of basic research in the

three areas and a proposed lo-year expansion

program is developed in detail in the advisory

panel’s attached “Supplementary Technical

Analysis, ”

Bask Research in Other Areas

Expansion programs for basic research to

increase food production in other areas, such

as management and breeding of plants to

minimize environmental stress, plant growth

regulators, or more effective and less

dangerous pesticides, would merit perhaps

roughly comparable funding.

The NAS World Food and Nutrition Study

issued in June 1977 proposes a first-year increase in Federal funds for food and nutrition

research of $l20 million to be divided equally

between (1) USDA in-house research a n d

Hatch formula allocations, and (z) a new

grants award program. The study proposes

that after the first-year research funds be increased 10 percent per year for a 5-year period.

Such a program of increases would raise

USDA research support from $522 million to

nearly $1 billion annually.8 Although the

scientists in this study emphasize the need for

increased basic research to increase food production, they do not indicate how the funds

for competitive grant programs should be allocated between basic and applied research. It is

probable that fully half to two-thirds of the

funds made available in the next 5 to 10 years

%teering Committee, NRC Study on World Food and Nutrition,

world Food and Nutrition Study, final report, Washington, D.c.,

National Academy of Sciences, June 1977, p. 19.

for expanded food and nutrition research

under a competitive grants program should be

allocated for basic research.

Summary

Available studies and discussions with informed agricultural scientists point to an

urgent need for additional basic research

directed toward increasing food production.

The three highest priority areas, from the

standpoint of prospective payoff, appear to be

those discussed in this report—photosynthesis, biological nitrogen fixation, and

cell-culture studies. A minimum expansion

program in these three areas should start at

$12.45 million and increase several million

dollars a year for a 6-year period, An even

larger program would be needed to fully use

the potential opportunities for an accelerated

program of basic research in five or six important basic research areas.

Congressional Options

The past 10 years have been years of rapidly

growing research programs in health, space

explorations, energy, environmental protection, and related fields, but years of declining

research programs for the enhancement of

food production. Scientists have been drawn

from basic food and nutrition research into

these other fields. The sharp inflationary price

increases in the past 5 years have not been

matched by comparable increases in Federal

funds for food and agriculture research.

Federal appropriations for research in USDA

and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations totaled $522,284,000 for FY 1977.

However, appropriations of $570,584,000

would have been required to provide the same

level of research support as in 1966. Federal

appropriations for USDA-SAES research for

FY 1977 lack $48.3 million of equal purchasing

power of the 1966 appropriations for research.

The issue for Congress is what priority to

place on an expansion in basic research to

20
enhance food production. If Congress desires

more public funds invested in such basic

research, it appears that funds will have to be

earmarked for this purpose. Otherwise, as

research funds are now administered both in

USDA and in the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, there is no assurance that additional funds will be utilized for these specific

purposes. Thus option number one for Congress is to continue the status quo. However,

if changes are desired, option number two

would be to earmark funds allocated under a

competitive grants program utilizing a peer

review system. This appears to be the most

satisfactory means of assuring that such funds

will be utilized effectively in expanding highpriority basic research. Additional legislation

is not required for the administration of such

funds. Without additional directives the Secretary of Agriculture would have discretion, as

provided in Public Law 89-106, to delegate the

administration of such funds to any member

of his administrative staff, Legislation may be

required, however, to authorize th e

Agricultural Research Service to participate in

competitive grants programs,

The third option for Congress would be to

pass legislation setting up a USDA Office of

Basic Research Grants, with or without a passthrough provision. The legislation could provide for a 5- to lo-year or longer term program

at either minimum or higher funding levels,

A fourth option for Congress would be to

authorize and fund an NSF program of expanded basic research to increase food production.
.

The views expressed in this material are not necessarily

those of the OTA Board, or its individual members. Any reference to this

.
Rationale for selecting photosynthesis,

nitrogen-fixation, and tissue culture as

high-priority areas

The need for basic research in the plant

sciences, and the potential for increasing crop

productivity both through improvements in

the efficiency of photosynthesis and nitrogen

fixation and through the development and use

of tissue culture techniques, have been outlined in the November 1975 Interim Report of

the Steering Committee of the NRC Study on

World Food and Nutrition and the Board on

Agriculture and Renewable Resources report,

“Enhancement of Food Production for the

United States;” in the report prepared by a

panel of eight scientists in February 1976 for

the National Science Foundation, “Researchable Areas which have Potential for Increasing

Crop Production;” and in the report of the International Conference in October 1975, sponsored by Michigan State University and the

Charles F. Kettering Foundation, “Crop Productivity—Research Imperatives, ” Reports of

the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory

Committee (ARPAC) of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) and the National

Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges, and internal documents of the

Agricultural Research Service, also recognize

the need for expanded research on photosynthesis, nitrogen use and fixation, and cell

cultures, The above-cited reports properly

emphasize the tremendous opportunity for

enhancing food production through expanded

research in the three areas, but additional

benefits that should be noted are the resulting

technologies would be nonpolluting, would

produce no noise, would add to the resources

of the earth, and are nonpolitical, All mankind

would benefit from significant advances in

any one or all three areas.

Excellent review articles on the current

state of knowledge and the opportunities and

need for expanded research in each of the

three areas appeared in Science, Volume 188,

May 9, 1975, “Improving the Efficiency of

Photo synthesis,” by Israel Zelitch, pp. 626-633;

“Nitrogen Fixation Research: A Key to World

Food?, ” by R.W.F. Hardy and U.S. Hevelka,

pp. 633-643; and “Plant Cell Cultures: Genetic

Aspects of Crop Improvement,” by Peter S.

Carlson and Joseph C. Polacco, pp. 622-625.

While promising research in the three areas

is being carried out in a limited number of

laboratories throughout the United States, the

advisory panel is distressed that world leadership for research in the three areas currently

does not rest with the United States, and

available data indicate that there will be a

further decline in the relative position of U.S.

mission-oriented basic research to enhance

food production unless there is a major change

in U.S. agricultural research policies and

levels of support.

The importance of photosynthesis is obvious because the ultimate yield of crop and

animal products is dependent upon the net accumulation of photosynthate and the partitioning of accumulated photosynthate between the

usable portions of the plant and those that are

not usable by humans or animals. The integration of photosynthate accumulation and its

partitioning among the usable and nonusable

portions of the plant gives realized yield, The

maximum daily efficiency of converting light

energy into photosynthate only approaches 3

percent in a highly efficient crop such as corn,

and most plants have even lower light-energy

conversions. Utilizing 1 percent more of the

sunlight falling on a plant during the growing

season for production of photosynthate could

lead to realized yield increased from 50 percent to well over 100 percent, if the ratio of

usable and nonusable portions remained the

same.

Achievement of high crop yield under a

given set of soil and climatic variables requires exact integration and precise balance

among the numerous gene-directed a n d

enzyme-implemented biochemical actions and

physiological processes. High-yielding crop

cultivars often differ extensively, indicating

not one or only a few genetic-biochemicalphysiological pathways, but rather numerous

25
combinations with potential for giving high

yield. Unfortunately, low- and moderate-yielding combinations occur far more frequently

than high-yielding combinations, making the

breeding of higher-yielding cultivars a slow

and difficult process,

Currently, limited understanding of the

physiological genetics of yield leaves genetic

improvement of plants almost totally dependent upon chance recombination of favorable

genes and of the accompanying enzyme-implemented biochemical and physiological

processes. Efficiency of breeding higher-yielding cultivars would be increased if the roles,

interactions, and modes of integration of the

many physiological components of yield expression were better understood.

Experience accumulated over the past 40

years indicates that improvement in efficiency

of breeding higher-yielding cultivars requires

consideration of more than one or a few of the

physiological component processes leading to

yield, Benefits from crosses using genetic

variation in one or a few components have

been disappointing. Major improvement in the

efficiency of breeding high-yielding cultivars

will require broad and coherent research, including integration of the efforts of different

scientific disciplines directed toward the common goal of enhancing crop productivity.

While realized yield is dependent upon the

net accumulation of photosynthate in usable

organs of the plant, the availability of adequate supplies of nitrogen also is essential for

high crop yields. Increased input of fertilizer

nitrogen during the past quarter century has

been an important factor for the 3-percent

average annual increase in world cereal production. Increasing yields in both lessdeveloped countries and more-developed

countries parallel increasing use rates of fertilizer nitrogen during this period. In 1974,

world consumption of fertilizer nitrogen was

40 x 106 tons compared with 3.5 x 106 in 1950.

The additional nitrogen inputs required for

increasing world crop production during the

next quarter century could be provided by the

construction and operation of about 500 additional large-scale ammonia synthesis plants to

produce a total of 160 x 106 tons annually.

There are many reasons, including energy and

economic costs, that support the desirability of

developing and applying improved or alternate technologies for nitrogen input rather

than relying solely on fertilizer nitrogen. Exploratory leads available in both chemistry

and biology suggest that the opportunities for

development of such technologies for nitrogen

input in the short- and long-term appear to be

favorable.

Recent advances in the culture of plant cells

and tissues in vitro have provided the basis of

a novel technology that permits the application

of microbiological methods to higher plants.

By employing populations of haploid or

diploid cells as experimental material, it is

possible to utilize the genetic, physiological,

and biochemical procedures developed with

microorganisms to induce and recover potentially desirable mutations, to make possible

the rapid screening of natural-occurring

variability and to extend the range of plant hybridization beyond the bounds of sexual compatibility, Since, in some species, plants can be

regenerated from cultured cells, modifications

induced in culture can be examined and

utilized in the whole plant. The development

of cell-culture technology is of importance for

practical applications in agriculture and for

continued long-term advances in crop improvement,

It should be noted that there is an interrelationship among the three selected highpriority research areas. Realized yield is dependent upon the accumulation and partitioning of photosynthate. Realized yield also is dependent upon the availability of adequate supplies of nitrogen for vigorous growth of leaves

(where most of the photosynthesis occurs) and

for the protein portions of the photosynthate

accumulation in usable plant organs such as

the seeds of cereals, corn, and soybeans, Much

of the nitrogen taken up by plants is in the

26
nitrate form, and energy derived through

photosynthesis is required to reduce the nitrate in order that it can be utilized by the

plant to synthesize protein. If the nitrogen is

obtained through the symbiotic fixation of nitrogen, there is an energy requirement for the

growth and development of the nodule as well

as the support of the Rhizobium nitrogen-fixing bacteria, In fact, available photosynthate is

a limiting factor in biological nitrogen fixation

by Rhizobium. Thus, the level of nitrogen

utilization in all plants and of nitrogen fixation

in legumes is governed by the efficiency of

photosynthesis.

Improving crops through the recombination

of currently available genetic material is felt

by many to have great potential for future advances in photosynthetic efficiency and

nitrogen fixation. Both depend upon the integration or recombination of new types of

genetic material, and such advances will require the combined efforts and close cooperation of biochemists, plant physiologists,

microbiologists, plant breeders, agronomists,

and horticultural scientists. The perfection of

cell-culture techniques will provide these

scientists with more rapid ways of screening

potential new sources of biochemical pathways and/or new ways of inducing more efficient mechanisms for accumulating and partitioning photosynthate and in utilizing applied

nitrogen fertilizer or in enhancing biological

nitrogen fixation,

A more detailed listing of research opportunities in each of the three areas wa s

developed at the International Conference on

Crop Productivity-Research Imperatives held

at Harbor Springs, Mich., October 20-24 ,

1975. More than zoo participants-most of

them active scientist+ examined how plant

scientists with input from other disciplines

could best contribute to enhancing crop productivity and dependability on a global scale,

The focus of the conference was on the fundamental biological processes that control productivity of economically important food

crops, with appropriate concern for husbanding nonrenewable resources. The conference

included six discussion groups of 30 to 40

scientists, each group addressing itself to key

areas affecting crop productivity, The conclusions and recommendations of each discussion group represented the consensus of the

participating scientists as summarized by the

selected reporters. Portions of the reports of

three discussion groups—photosynthesis,

nitrogen fixation, and genetic engineering of

plants follow.

Photosynthesis

During the past 15 months several papers

have been prepared by scientists engaged in

photosynthesis research in which current

knowledge was summarized and the opportunities for increasing photosynthetic efficiency were discussed. The paper by Bukovac,

Moss, and Zelitch in Crop Productivity—

Research Imperatives summarizes the analysis

of a work group of 37 scientists at the International Conference at Harbor Springs, Mich. on

the research needs and opportunities in the

following areas of photosynthesis:

I, Identify the aspects of photosynthesis

which limit C02 input in natural environments.

“a.

“b,

“c.

Interception and Utilization of

Light: Crop photosynthetic productivity is strongly influenced by

growth rate of leaves, leaf angle. leaf

lifetime, and photosynthetic capacity.

Research is needed to determine how

these factors interact and the degree

to which they can be exploited to increase photosynthetic productivity

per unit field area.

C O2 Absorption: The opportunities

must be explored to increase the rate

of CO2 fixation in plants by altering

leaf stomatal characteristics, cell size

and shape, and components of the

system of plants.

Biochemical Processes of Carbon

Metabolism: Emphasis should he

2 7
placed on characterizing the properties of the enzymes of CO2 fixation

and subsequent metabolism. How

are these enzymes controlled, and

what are the limits within which they

can be altered? The limitations imposed by electron transport processes should be determined. The

role of photorespiration and its relation to photosynthesis and plant

growth must be evaluated. The range

of enzyme variation of natural

ecosystems should be determined

with particular emphasis on the

different biochemical systems for

photosynthesis in the C3

-, C4-, CAMtype plants. The roles of respiratory

processes in carbon input in plant

productivity should be examined.

The environmental responses of

rate-limiting steps i n carbon

metabolism should be studied.

Genetic basis of these processes and

chemicals to modify them need to be

identified.

“II. Relationship of plant development to

photosynthesis: We need to know how

photosynthesis influences plant growth

and which developmental stages of crop

plants are limited by the availability of

products of photosynthesis.

“a, Translocation and Partitioning:

Studies are needed on the transport

processes in crop plants and on the

partitioning of photosynthetic products among the sites of utilization

such as fruits or other storage organs

or sites of nitrogen-fixation. We need

to know the mechanisms and controls that determine whether photosynthate remains in the leaf cell or

moves into the phloem and on to sites

of storage or utilization,

“b. Hormonal and Chemical Regulation

in Crop Plants: Both basic and applied research on plant growth

regulators is needed. What plant hormone systems are involved? What

are the signals between cells and

plant organs? Which signals control

plant productivity and how can the

signals be altered? Synthetic growth

regulators and genetic means should

“III.

be developed to modify beneficially

the production, internal partitioning,

and storage of carbon compounds in

plants.

Provide plant breeders with new screening procedures: Research is needed to provide plant breeders with rapid screening

procedures which would aid in identifying

and incorporating yield-enhancing carbon

input characteristics into crops. ” Tissue

culture (in vitro) techniques offer considerable potential in providing these new

screening procedures.

Nitrogen Fixation

The opportunity for increasing plant yields

through greater biological fixation of nitrogen

and more effective use of available nitrogen

by plants has been outlined in several recent

papers, The chapter, “Nitrogen Input,” by

Hardy, Filner, and Hagemen in Crop Productivity y—Research Imperatives, summarizes

the judgments of 32 scientists regarding

research imperatives in the chemical and

biological fixation of nitrogen and its

availability and efficient use by plants, The

authors point out the advantages of developing

improved technology that would “minimize

the energy and capital costs of nitrogen fertilizers. ”

Recommended areas of research include:

1.

2.

3.

Development of “catalysts that work at lower

temperatures and pressures” for the production of synthetic nitrogen fetilizer,

Increased understanding of the role of

molybdenum and iron in N2 reduction in

nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

Decrease the need for nitrogen fertilizer

through improved procedures for rotational-,

inter-, and relay-cropping of legumes and

cereals, by the development of better recycling processes for recovering nitrogen from

urban and agricultural wastes, and by maximizing “the efficiency of use of soil nitrogen

and fertilizer nitrogen” through:

“a) improved utilization of nitrogen by

plants through chemical, cultural and

genetic means:

28
“b) modulating the rate of soil nitrogen

transformations by chemical and

cultural means (such as denitrification):

and

“c) improved rate data for each of the steps

of the global nitrogen cycle, ”

4. “Develop nitrogen self-sufficiency in crops”

by:

a) ‘ ‘ Developing optimal plantmicroorganismal combinations’ increasing nitrogen fixation of legumerhizobial associations by optimization

of host-strain combinations, quality

c ontro1 of r h i z o b i a 1 i n n o c u 1 u m,

development of effective inoculation

technology and overcoming inhibition

of nitrogen fixation by fixed nitrogen.

b) “Increasing the transfer of photosynthetic energy from the plant to N, -

fixing microorganisms associated with

the plant. ” Major attention should be

given to improved nitrogen fixation of

legume-rhizobial associations by increasing photosynthate available to

nodules through genetic or chemical

means, but the photosynthetic requirements of N2 -fixing associations in

c e r e a 1s and g r asses s u c h as t h e

Spirillum-grass association should not

be ignored.

c) “Seeking, evaluating, and developing

N 2

-fixing microorganisms for use in

supplying nitrogen to cereals and

grasses.

The panel of eight scientists who prepared a

report for the National Science Foundation in

February 1976 entitled, “Researchable Areas

Which Have Potential for Increasing Crop

Production, ” recommended two additional

areas of research that are long-term projects

(perhaps 25 or more years):

1. “Extend rhizobial-based nitrogen fixation to non-legume crops. ”

2, “Transfer genetic information for N2

fixation and necessary associated reactions to higher crop plants. ”

There is little hope of attaining either of

these goals until cell culture techniques have

been improved. Furthermore, they will involve recombinant DNA research that in turn

will require special containment facilities.

Genetic Engineering of Plants

Increasing our knowledge and understanding of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation

and utilization will enable plant breeders to

make more rapid progress in crop improvement through the use of conventional but timeconsuming plant-breeding methods. Considerable potential exists for increasing the

rate of plant improvement through the use of

in vitro (tissue culture) techniques. The paper

by Adams, Carlson, Grafius, and Wallace in

Crop Productivity—Research Imperatives,

outlines the conclusions of 33 scientists about

needed research in plant cell and tissue

culture. These authors list the following shortterm research imperatives:

,* 1,

“2,

“3.

“4.

“5.

Determine how to regenerate whole plants

of the major crop species.

Adapt and apply the techniques of somatic

cell genetics to the goals of understanding

genetic modification, organization and

regulation in higher plants.

Perform mass selective screening for traits

of agronomic value, as well as for processes

involved in the agronomic expression of

components,

Cell and tissue cultures might be used for

preservation of germ plasm of vegetatively

propagated species.

Two currently applicable techniques of in

vitro culture in plant improvement are: (a)

recovery of pathogen-free plants and (h)

rapid vegetative increase of new clones and

cultivars. The first is especially important in

vegetatively reproduced crops such as

potato and sugar cane, and it is predicted

that the second will become very important

in forest crops and in certain orchard crops,

The techniques now available should be applied to a wide range of crop species, ”

The authors outline long-term research imperatives while recognizing that the current

absence of proper techniques limit progress,

Perfection of cell- and tissue-culture tech29
niques for the major food plants such as

cereals, corn, and soybeans will permit new

approaches to the improvement of these crops.

.

1. Severe limitation of cell culture technology

stems from limited knowledge of plant

physiological and biochemical processes.

The recognition and recovery of genetic

variation in vitro is dependent upon distinct

cellular phenomena. Further research will

provide insight into the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying agronomically

important traits. The biochemical and

physiological components of whole plant

characters must then be duplicated in vitro.

Selection schemes which recover variants

for processes unique to higher plants must

be developed. There are also certainly limits

as to the types of variants which can be

recovered in vitro. Selective systems

designed to recover mutuants in basic

metabolism have a high probability of success, Mutant systems attempting to modify

tissue specific characters or characters

unique to certain differentiated states

would have a lower probability of success.

If a character is not expressed by cells in

culture, then it is impossible to select for

variants of that character in vitro. At the

present time, in vitro methods are inadequate for attempting to modify complex

developmental characteristics. This area requires further research.

“Z. An area which holds promise for increased

productivity is increased genetic diversity.

Fusion of protoplasts from different species

is one approach to increasing genetic disparity, In many instances, the goal of increasing genetic diversity is not limited by

hybrid production but by the integration of

evolutionary divergent genomes. Sterility

and lack of recombination between the

genomes do not permit the potentially novel

germplasm to be utilized. In vitro techniques often reveal ways to circumvent this

problem. Research which focuses on inducing , recognizing , and recoverin g

chromosornal changes in somatic cells

should be encouraged. These techniques

should particularly attempt to develop

methods to induce chromosome loss. There

is also a need for techniques to induce and

recover genetic recombinant from somatic

“3.

“ 4

cells. In this fashion, in vitro culture can be

used in conjunction with sexually and

somatically produced hybrids where incompatibilities present barriers to growth

and development, Tissue from the hybrids

might be cultured in vitro, subject to the

treatments which caused genetic alterations

and then regenerated into plants, Fertile individuals which display the derived combinations of characteristics could then be

recovered from the population of regenerated plants.

Cell-culture techniques offer the possibility

of exploring the importance of genetically

different organelles and cytoplasm to plant

improvement. In normal sexual reproduction, the male gamete contributes little to no

cytoplasm to the zygote. Somatic hybridization allows the production of cells which are

hybrid for the cytoplasmic components.

Genetic utilization and manipulation of

these cytoplasmic hybrid should permit a

more refined analysis of the importance of

these components in plant improvement,

Long-term approaches to genetic engineering

should be encouraged. - Such speculative

goals as accomplishing genetic transformation, transduction and plasmid transfer may

provide a future source of geneti c

variability as well as an analytical technique

to define the genetic organization in crop

plant species,”,

A special case for cell studies (less long

term) is that of the legumes, The bacteroid is

the repositor of some important genetic traits

(particularly nitrogen fixation). The technology for genetic engineering (gene transfer)

between microorganisms is known and has

been well developed. Therefore it should be

possible to increase the gene dosage for

nitrogen fixation in Rhizobium and evaluate

the consequences of that enrichment, and this

should be possible for all legumes, Similar

transfers to the grasses should take much

longer because:

(a)

(b)

they do not associate with bacteria

(which is the ‘mutated’ agent);

they have not the characteristic structure (nodules, leghemaglobin, etc. ) to

protect the nitrogenase enzyme.

30
Current and Proposed Levels of Funding

for Research on Photosynthesis, Nitrogen

Fixation, and Cell Cultures

The ad hoc Work Group established by ARPAC to study the 134 most important research

problems submitted its report in May 1976.

The report summarizes current levels of support in USDA’s Agricultural Research Service

(ARS) and the State Agricultural Experiment

Stat ions ( SAES) for different areas of

agricultural and related research. The Work

Group estimates 68 scientist years are devoted

to research on photosynthesis mechanisms

and improvements and recommends an increase of 31 scientist years over the next 4

years, The current average expenditure for a

scientist year is approximately $73,000, which

is an inadequate level of support for most

highly productive scientists. Present expenditures by ARS and SAES for photosynthesis

research amount to approximately $4,960,000

annually and the ad hoc Work Group suggests

an increase of $2,250,000 annually by the

fourth year.

The ad hoc Work Group estimates 38 scientist years are allocated to nitrogen fixation by

ARS and the SAES, and it recommends an increase of 30 scientist years for research on

nitrogen fixation by legumes and nonlegumes,

Present annual expenditures are estimated at

$2,524,000 and the Work Group proposes an

increase in annual research support of about

$2,000,000 within the next 4 years,

The ad hoc Work Group estimates 14 scientist years devoted to cell studies and recommends an increase of 8 scientist years for

research on basic cell and tissue-culture techniques and “16 scientist years to develop cell

and tissue-culture approaches for (1) studying

biochemical pathways of protein synthesis, (2)

tracing pathways and identifying desirable

metabolic products and defining regulators of

many growth processes, and (3) determining

and quantifying plant metabolic disruptions

caused by diseases and other host-specific

pests. ” Current levels of expenditures total

$1,163,000 annually, and the recommended increase would amount to $2 million annually

within 3 years.

The annual research expenditures estimated by BARR in “Enhancement of Food

Production for the United States, ” include

research support provided by NSF, NIH,

AEC-ERDA and SAES (ARS was not listed but

was included ). BARR indicates annual

expenditures for photosynthesis research are

$10 million, and recommends a two-fold in:

crease in level of funding,

BARR reports current funding level for

nitrogen fixation at less than $5 million for all

sources. It states, “Research funding should be

increased to $25 million beginning in FY 1977,

with a 25 percent increment of the base for the

next 5 years, ” The same group reports that

less than $500,000 is currently invested in cell

studies and proposes a five-fold increas e

beginning with a doubling in FY 1977.

A recent analysis of the research work included in the USDA Current Research Information System (CRIS) by the OTA panel

chairman indicates that current levels of support in the USDA-SAES complex are approximately $6 million, 182 scientists, and 77 scientist years for photosynthesis, $2.2 million, 71

scientists and 30 scientist years for nitrogen

fixation, and $1.1 million, 37 scientists and 16

scientist years for cell and tissue studies (table 1). Research support through NSF for

these three areas amounts to about $5.6 million

annually, but a portion of the NSF funding

probably is included in the support for CRIS

research projects. Research in all three areas

is being carried out by scientists not receiving

support through USDA, SAES, and/or NSF.

Total research funding through all public and

private sources for photosynthesis, nitrogen

fixation, and cell and tissue studies probably

amounts to about $15.5 million (approximately

the same level, but with a slightly different

distribution as estimated in the BARR report).

The total number of scientists engaged in

these areas of research is about 290 in the

USDA-SAES complex, with perhaps at least

31
75 scientists at other universities, nonprofit

organizations, and private industry, for a total

of approximately 365 scientists,

The November 1975 Interim Report of the

NRC Steering Committee supports increased

funding for agricultural research with the

statement, “We believe that an overall food

and nutrition research budget increase, compared to FY 1974 of at least 50 percent in real

terms over the next 2 or 3 years is needed to

make a strong start on the new priorities, and

that a steadily rising real expenditure trend is

essential over the next decade and beyond to

do justice to the purpose of reducing world

hunger and malnutrition. ”

The close interrelationship of these three

high-priority areas of research should be

emphasized. Maximum flexibility in allocating any increased funding among the three

areas is urged, Some exciting advances are currently being made in our knowledge of the

basic processes governing biological fixation

of nitrogen, including the discovery that some

strains of Rhizobium are capable of fixing

(Expenditures in $1,000)

Current Research Information Systemt NSF4

CSRS Admin./ Other Non- No. Res. Number of Scientists

USDA Approp.

Photosynthesis

Nitrogen Fixation

Cell Studies

Totals

$2,497 $63 3 $2,849 $5,979 140 182 77 $3,723

867 415 920 2,202 54 71 30 1,285

451 ,58 601 1,110 28 37 16 612

$3,815 $1,706 $4370 $9,291 ~ ~ 123 $5,620

‘Analysis of June 1976 CRiS data by W. K. Kmmedy.

*Ag~@lfural R~~~h ad ~q~ Spocia[ ~Qrsight Hearings, Part II,-r. sUbC-i* on **co~ ‘@~mht

and Technol

a

and the Subcommittee on Oomosfic and International Scientific Plann@g and Analysis of the Committee

on Science Technology, U.S. House of Ropr@sWatives, No. 51, U.S. Government Printing Offke, 1976, Pages

1126 and 1127.

~~~: ~lm~t y-m i~~s tho number of full=time scientist equivalents. A wrnwhat greater number of scientists are

engaged in the des@natod areas of ~rch, since thosa at the universities hav~ teaching as well as research

responsibiWies.

a

4~o~: At 1- a portion Of ~su~fl -W N$F for research on photosyntksis and nitrogen fixation may be

included k tho other Fed@tsl funtk Ilstd under IS. Home the total for photosynth~sis

T

b. about $9.2 miilion

and for nitqen fixation about $3.1 million, ‘The total level of annual research support for me three high-priority

areas may be about $13.4 million through USDA, NSF, ond SAES.

3 2
nitrogen in the free-living form, Hence, it can

be argued that so to 60 percent of the additional funds should be allocated to nitrogen

research. Yet, one of the limiting. factors in

symbiotic nitrogen fixation is available photosynthate to support the nodule an d

Rhizobiurn, Thus, a counterargument can be

made for major emphasis on photosynthesis

research. Cell and tissue studies may provide

the key for making major advances in understanding and improving either or both photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation, and perhaps

this research should receive the most favorable consideration.

The panel recommends the use of competitive grants for the allocation of increased funding for high-priority basic research to enhance

food production. It urges that decisions about

relative level of funding in the three areas be

based upon the quality of the submitted proposals and the assessment at the time of the

awards by the peer review committees, the

program administrator, and the proposed advisory board as to which of these areas, if any,

should receive the most favorable consideration.

The first priority in increased funding is to

provide adequate support and equipment for

the scientists currently doing high-quality

research in the three areas, Discussions with a

number of recognized scientists engaged in

these areas of research reveal that on the

average most of them could utilize, effectively

approximately $70,000 of additional direct

support annually, Indirect costs (overhead)

would be in addition to the direct support of

the scientists and would amount to about 4 0

percent of the direct costs, Some scientists

need funds for additional supporting personnel such as post-doctorates, graduate assistants, technicians, field, and greenhouse help,

Others need substantially more funds fo r

chemicals and special supplies; all scientists

need continuing funds for new replacement

laboratory equipment, The specific needs of

some scientists are substantially greater than

an additional $70,000 annually, while an additional $50,000 or less would be adequate for a

few of the better-supported scientists currently engaged in these three areas of

research.

If it is estimated that high-quality research

proposals would be submitted by at least 1 25

established scientists currently doing research

in the three areas, as individual research

workers or as members of research teams, the

increased funds to meet these existing needs

would be $12.25 million for direct and indirect

costs (overhead) in FY 1978. Using a 7-percent

annual inflation rate, the annual level of increased funding for 125 existing scientists

would be $13.10 million in FY 1979, $14,03

million in FY 1980, $19,67 million in FY 1985,

$27.58 million in FY 1990, and $54.25 million

in FY 2000, (Table 2.) Additional funds would

be required for operating the office administering the competitive grants.

Specialized containment facilities will be required for cell studies directed towards

recombinant DNA research in nitrogen fixing

microorganisms and, desirably, four in number, The estimated cost for a single containment facility is approximately $600,000 (1976

prices). It is proposed that funds be provided

for two containment facilities in FY 1979 and

for two additional facilities in FY 1981, A 7-

percent annual inflation rate was used to estimate a unit cost of approximately $690,()()0 in

FY 1979, and $790,000 in FY 1981.

Research progress would be enhanced substantially if additional scientists were encouraged to shift their research efforts to these

three high-priority areas, The added scientific

capability would include young scientists who

are just launching their research careers, and

established scientists who have demonstrated

excellent research capability in related disciplines or areas of research and who would

bring a new set of skills into these highpriority areas of research, Such scientists

would be outstanding members o f

multidisciplinary teams that are prepared to

direct their efforts to a comprehensive

33
Table 2. Alternative Levels of Increased Funding by Years for
Research on Photosynthesis, Nitrogen Fixation and Cell Studies*

FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85

(in millions of dollars)

FY 90 FY 2000

13.13 14*05

5.25 . 5.62%

0.64 0.6 8

. 

0.26 0.28

19.70 38.75

7.8 8 15.50

12.27

4.91

10.72 11.47

4.29 4.59

0.50 0.54 0.58 0.95 1.88

0.21 0.23 0.24 0.42 0.83

3.60 3.86 4.13

1.44 1.54 1.65

2.89 3.09 3.30

1.16 1.24 1.32

3.15 3.37

1.26 1.35

5.79 11.39

2.32 4.56

2.52 2.70

1.01 1.08

4.63 9.11

1 .85 3.64

1.58 0.23 0.24 0.26 0,28 0.42 0.83

2.89 3.09 3.30

1.16 1 .24 1.32

4.63

1.85

9.11

3.64

2.52 2.70

1.01 1.08

2.89 3.09 3.30

1.16 1.24 1.32

2.70

-———--———- 1.08

4.63

1.85

9.11

3.& l

2.89 3.09 3.30

1.16 1.24 1.32

4.63

1.85

9.11

3.64

3.09 - 3.30 4.63

1.85

9.11

------—----— - 1.32 3.64

2.49 3.49

73.37

—

73.37

6.87

144.36

—

144.36

27.19 33.12 39.48 46.59 52.28

1.58 — — — —

28.77 33.12 39.48 46.59 52.28

that institution; currently it is 60 to 70 percent of salaries and wages for most institutions.
research program on the interrelationships of

photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation, including the full use of cell- and tissue-culture techniques.

Establishing new scientists in these areas of

high-priority research will require an average

annual funding of at least $110,000 per scientist in FY 1979, Young scientists can be funded

adequately at $85,000 to $110,000 per year.

Scientists shifting their research efforts from

other fields probably have some level of basic

support, but they will frequently need substantial sums to remodel and equip laboratories as well as meet increased annual operating funds. The ad hoc Work Group of ARPAC

recommended an increase over the next 3 to 4

years of 31 scientist years for photosynthesis,

30 for nitrogen fixation, and 24 for cell studies.

The BARR report recommended substantially

larger increases in terms of total funding, but

did not specify the number of additional scientists,

The panel suggests that an expansion in

scientific capability be phased over a 6-year

period beginning with an increase of 25 scientist years in FY 1979 at a cost of $110,000 indirect costs and $44,000 for overhead (1978

dollars) per scientist, or a total of $3.85 million

above the funds for the increased support to

established scientists.

Further increases in support would be for

20 additional scientists in each of the subsequent fiscal years of 1-980, 1981, 1982, 1983,

and 1984, It is proposed that a 5-percent increase in operating funds (above the 7-percent

inflationary rate) be provided for 1985 and

subsequent fiscal years.

Sequential levels of funding are outlined in

table 2. As stated earlier, the first priority for

increased funding is to provide qualified

scientists currently working in the three areas

with realistic levels of support by means of

competitive research grants. Funds will be required for establishing and operating the competitive grant program office, including funds

to support peer-review panels, special symposia, and other program needs. At least two

special containment facilities should be constructed for recombinant DNA research with

plant cell and related microorganism cultures.

This would appear to be the bare minimum

for increased funding, It would provide existing scientists with much needed support and

would accelerate their individual and collective programs. This level of funding would not

provide the support required to bring new

talent and skills into the research arena and,

thus, the tremendous need and opportunity

for establishing multidisciplinary teams of

scientists would be largely lost.

Much would be gained by moving to a level

of funding that would permit the establishment of four containment chambers and the

addition of at least 45 scientist years (through

item 6 in table 2). The level of funding would

provide adequate support for the present

scientists and would attract a modest amount

of new talent into these areas of research. It

would provide the resources necessary for the

development of all important new and expanded multidisciplinary teams for research

in these three high-priority areas to enhance

U.S. and world food production.

The benefits from modest improvements in

photosynthesis efficiency and/or in nitrogen

fixation and utilization would be so great that

the panel urges full funding of the entire

program presented in table 2, Research work

could be expanded substantially and in an orderly manner. Full funding would permit considered judgments through FY 1984 as to

where new breakthroughs have or are likely

to occur, with additional resources to support

the most promising research. Beyond FY 1984

the projected levels of additional funding are

extremely modest (only 5 percent increase per

year above a projected rate of inflation of 7

percent), but the panel recognizes tha t

reallocation of resources should also occur as

new knowledge opens up new avenues of

research in these three high-priority areas.

Hence, funds beyond those proposed for 5

percent annual growth would be available for

new or expanded research.

36
Finally, as stated near the beginning of this

section, the panel urges that a fixed percentage of available funds not be assigned to each

of the three areas. Rather it urges that all three

areas receive increased attention by the

quality of the proposals and the judgment of

the program administrator, the advisory

board, and the peer-review committees.

Most Promising Areas of Research in

Photosynthesis, Nitrogen Fixation, and

Cell Studies.

As pointed out in the panel’s report, maximum flexibility should be maintained in the

selection and funding of proposals. The most

promising research proposals as judged by

peers are the ones that should be funded even

though some may fall outside of the areas

listed below:

Photosynthesis:

1.

2.

Role of photorespiration in C3 plants, with

the aim of reducing the large losses of CO2

shortly after carbon fixation occurs. Some

plants (such as soybeans) lose, through

photorespiration, up to 50 percent of the

carbon dioxide fixed by photosynthesis.

At the present time, this enormous loss

through photorespiration serves no known

useful purpose, It is important to discover

if it indeed does serve a useful function

and, if not, how it can be reduced, Increased research on photorespiration

should yield extremely useful information

about photosynthetic efficiency.

Understanding the factors governing leaf

and whole-plant senescence. Currently,

leaf senescence and, in some cases, wholeplant senescence, occurs in many food

plants before they reach maturity. Many of

the leaves are dead or dying at the time

when seed (grain) development is occurring, and the demand for photosynthate is

high. Developing cultivars that would retain active photosynthetic activity for a

3.

greater portion of the growing season

would increase the yield potential of many

food plants by 20 percent or more,

Research on translocation and partitioning

of photosynthate.What are the factors that

determine the amount of photosynthate

translocated to usable portions of the

plants, such as the seeds (grain) or to other

important sites, such as the nodules of

legumes, as a source of energy for the

nitrogen fixing Rhizobium? Differences

exist among cultivars in the ratio of weight

of usable portions of the plant to weight of

nonusable portions, but the basic processes causing these differences are not

understood, and thus selection of plants

with higher yield of usable parts continues

to be by trial and error.

Nitrogen Fixation

1. Three relatively recent and important observations in biological nitrogen fixation

merit substantial increases in research

funding.

a) There are reports from severa l

laboratories that some strains o f

Rhizobium are capable of nitrogen fixation in the freeliving form ( Bergerson

in Australia, Keister in the United

States, Child in Saskatoon, Scowcroft

in New Zealand). This observation

permits the selection of efficien t

nitrogen-fixers without having to infect plants. It also permits geneti c

engineering experiments in which the

complement of nitrogen fixation genes

is increased, It allows mapping of the

Rhizobium chromosome, with special

emphasis on the structural an d

regulatory genes for nitrogen fixation.

b) Valentine of California and Brill of

Wisconsin have observed that certain

double mutants of Klebsiella an d

Azotobacter are capable

ammonia. These results

possibility of ammonia

through fermentation.

of excreting

suggest the

product ion

37
2.

3.

c) The very recent observation of Evans

of Oregon that hydrogen evolution is a

major factor affecting the efficiency of

nitrogen fixation in nodulated symbionts. This observation suggests that

legumes should be screened for

H2evolution capability.

Loss of fertilizer nitrogen due to

denitrification is a major problem,

especially in Southeast Asia. More effort

needs to be devoted to studying the

denitrification process—the organisms involved, the nature of the enzyme catalysis

process, and chemical inhibitors of the

denitrification process.

Crop legumes should be screened for

varieties that can utilize fertilizer nitrogen

without, at the same time, impairing

nitrogen fixing ability. Some available information suggests that strains of legumes

have variability in sensitivity to nitrogen

fixation in the presence of nitrogen fertilizer (especially ammonia).

Cell Studies and Genetic Engineering of

Plants

1. Determine how to regenerate whole plants

from the cells of major food plants. The

use of cell cultures as a means of improving food plants is of limited value until we

know how to regenerate from cells such

important crops as rice, corn, wheat, soybeans, etc. Research with carrots and

tobacco indicate that such regeneration of

whole plants is possible, but intensive

research with other plants, especially

those in the grass family—cereals and

corn—is required to develop the required

techniques.

2. Learn how to use cell cultures effectively

in selecting improved sources of germ

plasm in important food crops, The use of

cell cultures offers a way of hastening the

development of improved cultivars by

plant breeders, but current knowledge is

insufficient to permit effective use of this

potentially invaluable technique.

3. Increase the gene dosage for nitrogen fixation in Rhizobium. The techniques are

available for transferring or bringing

about recombinations of DNA in

microorganisms and other cellular

material. The likelihood, of being able to

develop a highly efficient nitrogen fixing

strain of Rhizobium is extremely high if

specialized facilities for recombinant

DNA research are constructed at selected

sites.

Team Research in All Three High-Priority

Areas

This material has stressed the interrelationships of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation

and how cell studies can contribute to the improvement of the efficiency of photosynthesis

in food plants and/or to the development of

more effective strains of nitrogen-fixing

organisms,

The panel urges that special consideration

be given to funding teams of scientists who

can demonstrate, through the quality of their

proposals and peer assessment of past

performance, the ability and desire to undertake fully integrated research programs for the

improvement of the efficiency of photosynthesis and biological fixation of nitrogen in

important food crops. It would appear that cell

cultures and genetic engineering of plants

would be an important component of such a

research effort in addition to the other contributions of biochemists, plant physiologists,

microbiologists, and other plant scientists,

OTA Advisory Panel

W.K. Kennedy, Chairman

38 u. s. GoVERNMENT PRINting OFFICE 1977 0- 92-759