agricultural research and technology transfer policies for the 1990s

Agricultural Research and TechnologyTransfer Policies for the 1990s

March 1990

OTA-F-448NTIS order #PB90-219981

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Agricultural Research and TechnologyTransfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTA’s Assessment on EmergingAgricultural Technology-Issues for the 1990s, OTA-F-448 Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, March 1990).

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

Foreword

Agricultural research and technology transfer policy will be a major subjectof debate in the 1990 Farm Bill. The debate will likely focus on the leveland type of Federal appropriations for and the planning and control ofagricultural research and extension. This report addresses the centralissues in that debate. It was requested as part of a larger study examiningemerging agricultural technologies and related issues for the 1990s by theSenate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the HouseCommittee on Agriculture.

Although the study will not be completed until later this year, some findingsfrom the study, provided in this report, are relevant to specific legislationregarding agricultural research and technology transfer that will be debatedand acted upon in Congress.

In the course of preparing this report, OTA drew on the experience of manyindividuals. In particular, we appreciate the efforts of the project’sconsultants and contractors and the assistance of all the workshopparticipants who spent two days in September discussing issues and policyalternatives. We would also like to acknowledge the help of the numerousreviewers who helped ensure the accuracy of our analysis. It should beunderstood, however, that OTA assumes full responsibility for the contentof this report.

( J O H N H. G I B B O N S

Director

Ill

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

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Michael J. Phillips, Project Director

Marie Walsh, Analyst

Laura Dye, Research Assistant

Carl-Joseph DeMarco, Research Assistant

Susan Wintsch, Editor

Administrative and Support Staff

Nathaniel Lewis, Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, PC Specialist

Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Issue Areas for the Research and Extension System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................00.

Chapter2. Overview

Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Priority Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........0Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Extension. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer .Status Quo Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Research and Extension Policy Alternative . . . . .Competitive Grants Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . * . * .

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AppendixB. Agricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AppendixC. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

1116

9

11121315161821

27282936

404247

49

Tables

3-1. Research Priorities, Extension Priorities and Joint Council Priorities . . . . . . . . . . 18B-1. Federal Expenditures by State for Agricultural Forestry, and Veterinary

Research and Development, As Reported by CRIS, FY86 (in dollars) . . . . . . . 42B-2. Federal Expenditures by State for Agricultural Forestry, and Veterinary

Research and Development As Reported by CRIS,FY88 (in dollars) . . . . . . . 44B-3. Top 10 State Agricultural Experiment Stations with Biotechnology Funds

from Federal Sources Other than the U.S. Department of Agriculturefor FY 1986 and 1988 (in dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figures

4-1. Current Organizational Structure for Agricultural Research and Extension . . . . . 284-2. Organizational Structure for National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314-3. Organizational Structure for Competitive Grants Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

v

Chapter 1

Summary

A new agenda is emerging for Americanagriculture in the 1990s, and there are seriousquestions as to whether the current agricul-tural research and extension system canrespond effectively. Agriculture is changingin at least two distinct ways. First, agriculturalresearch is broadening beyond its traditionalfocus on increasing production, and morerecently on competitiveness, to also addressissues of food safety and environmentalquality. Technology to increase production inthe future will be developed with increasedattention to food safety and the environment.

Second, agriculture is entering a new tech-nological era – the biotechnology and infor-mation technology era – that holds greatpromise for enhancing productivity, produc-ing a safe food supply, and sustaining the en-vironment.

Concern is growing that the traditionalagricultural research and extension (AR&E)system, if unchanged, maybe bypassed by thebroadening research base and emerging tech-nologies. Already one-third or more ofFederal funding of agricultural research isgranted by Federal agencies outside theUnited States Department of Agriculture(USDA) and non-USDA funding for researchis expected to increase significantly.

Ten of the 57 state agricultural experimentstations received 75 percent of the Federal fundsfor biotechnology research from agencies otherthan USDA. It is noteworthy that these 10 ex-periment stations are those that have basicscience departments within the associated col-leges of Agriculture. Unimportant prerequisitefor researchers in biotechnology is training inbasic fields that underpin this technology (e.g.,cellular physiology, biochemistry, genetics).These disciplines are generally lacking in col-leges of Agriculture. Approximately 40 per-

cent of the Ph.D. ’s currently working inagricultural research did not graduate from acollege of Agriculture.

All this implies that a broader base foragricultural research and its funding is evolv-ing. But the research and technology transfersystem is not well structured or coordinatedand this could lead to serious problems.Without a close working relationship betweenbasic and applied researchers on U.S. cam-puses and in Federal agencies, the lag timebetween the publication of basic scientificwork and its adaptation into new technologywill increase, damaging U.S. competitiveness.

There is the additional risk that withoutstrong links between researchers and prac-titioners, basic researchers might focus onproblems irrelevant to agriculture’s needs ordevelop inappropriate approaches to perceivedproblems of agriculture. Faculty in fundamentalsciences may not select problems meaningful toagriculture or design experiments that lead toreadily adaptable solutions.

Ultimately, the private sector could sur-pass a weak AR&E system. A strong, mission-oriented AR&E system is needed to providemethods, products, and technologies to solvekey agricultural problems. The United Statescannot afford to have a public sector AR&Esystem falling behind the private sector andrelegated to a role of simply reacting to,reviewing, or second guessing private sectorresearch.

ISSUE AREAS FOR THE RESEARCHAND EXTENSION SYSTEM

The new agricultural agenda demandsrenewed and creative efforts to keep theAR&E system an effective and viable one for

2. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

American agriculture. A review of the systempoints to concern in the following areas:

1. Mission: USDA lacks a statement of goals,action to achieve stated goals, and systemsto evaluate results against desired out-comes. As a result, no succinct writtenstatement of the mission or policies of theAR&E system, or of Science and Educa-tion seems to exist within USDA. Withoutmissions or policies, organizations can onlyexpress vague plans and priorities. It isvery difficult to express commitment toclientele in terms of programs.

2. Planning: Effective planning directsresources to priority programs, problems,and issues in a well-thought, orderly man-ner. Within Science and Education atUSDA, there are no short- or long-termplans for coordinating the activities ofSAES, ES, ARS, or NAL. Nor are thereplans for coordinating Science and Educa-tion activities with those of other USDAagencies such as ERS, FS, or its regulatoryagencies.

A number of planning activities exist atstate, multi-state, or regional levels, butthey usually relate to program implemen-tation. Sometimes plans are made by in-dividual scientists or groups of scientistswho have no authority over resources. Sig-nificant amounts of planning occur withoutnecessary commitment of resources to setgoals, implement plans, and measureprogress.

3. Priority Sett ing: There is little specificityand clarity in stating priorities for theAR&E system. Within USDA no setScience and Education priorities exist. In-dividual S&E agencies have identifiedtheir own research and research-relatedpriorities, and developed their own jus-

tifications without the benefit of closecoordination among themselves.

A number of advisory groups inde-pendently set priorities for the AR&E sys-tem. These include the Joint Council onFood and Agricultural Sciences, the Na-tional Agricultural Research and Exten-sion Users Advisory Board, theExperiment Station Committee on Policy,the Resident Instruction Committee onPolicy, the International Committee onPolicy, and the Extension Committee onPolicy. However, there is no mechanismfor reaching overall consensus. Statedneeds for research and extension fundingand for renovating facilities or replacingequipment are not prioritized.

4. Structu re: Structure should facilitate thecarrying out of mission, planning, andpriority setting of the AR&E system. Thepresent decentralized system is composedof Federal, state, and local partners. Asresearch and extension budgets havedeclined, there has been increasing com-petition and division both within S&E atUSDA and within universities. Littlecooperation exists between many collegesof Agriculture and other colleges such asArts and Sciences within the same univer-sity. In addition, new structures are evolv-ing outside the traditional AR&E systemas new technology is developed and trans-ferred to the private sector for use.Extension’s knowledge base, which hastraditionally been drawn from the stateexperiment stations, has not kept pace withtoday’s scientific advances. Extension runsthe risk of being left out of the research andproblem applications loop in the future.

5“ Funding: There is evidence that theAR&E system is inadequately funded.Congress, however, will not increase fund-

Ch. 1–Summary .3

ing as long as it considers the system’s jus-tification for additional funds to be inade-quate. Until problems of mission,planning, priority setting, and structure areresolved, determining the adequacy ofFederal funding will be difficult.

ALTERNATIVE POLICIES FORRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER

OTA has identified a clear need for theAR&E system to have a well-articulated andcoordinated research and technology transferpolicy and proposes three alternatives:

●

●

●

Status Quo Alternative: Continuationof the current policy as implementedunder the 1985 farm bill.

National Research and ExtensionPolicy Alternative: Development of alarger Federal role in planning to alignmore closely research to end-user needs,without necessarily anticipating largeincreases in aggregate funding levels.

Competitive Grants Alternative:Substantially increase the level ofcompetitive grants research whilecontinuing current levels of formulafunding and/or appropriated funding forresearch and extension.

Status Quo Alternative

Based on the findings in this report andthose of previous OTA reports dealing withthe AR&E system, the likely consequences ofthe Status Quo Alternative are:

1. The new era of biotechnology and infor-mation technology will likely bypass thetraditional AR&E system. A minority ofthe land-grant universities will compete ef-fectively as technological advances aremade in this new era.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Without a clearly enunciated mission-oriented policy, the AR&E system willcontinue to lack direction.

Planning and priority setting will continueto be ineffective, with no assurance of fol-low-through on initiatives and/or recom-mendations of the Joint Council and/orUsers Advisory Board.

The AR&E system will continue to berigidly structured and resistant to change.

Increased emphasis by land-grant univer-sities and USDA on basic research, com-bined with accelerated technical changeand continued neglect of applied researchneeds, will continue to widen theknowledge gap between research and ex-tension.

National Research and Extension PolicyAlternative

The National Research and ExtensionPolicy Alternative is a mission-oriented ap-proach designed to increase the AR&Esystem’s responsiveness to the needs of thefood and agriculture system. The major com-ponents of this system include:

●

●

●

A clearly enunciated mission-orientedAR&E policy.

A restructured, integrated andcoordinated AR&E planning system.

A combination of formula andcompetitive grant funds consistent withthe conclusions of the planning system.

AR&E Policy

The first, and perhaps the most importantcomponent of the National Research and Ex-tension Policy Alternative is a statement ofclearly enunciated policy supported by theSecretary of Agriculture. It will emphasize that:

4 ● AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

Research and extension will be integralto carrying out all aspects of agricultural,food, trade and rural policy.

The research and extension functions ofUSDA will be operated according to acomprehensive and coordinated plan.

These functions willbe mission-orientedwithsignificant user influence on the planningprocess as well as on the resultingresearch and education programs.

The research and technology transferfunctions will be carried out by thosescientists/institutions deemed to be themost competent, capable and efficient inachieving mission-oriented objectives.

Research and Extension Policy PlanningSystem

The proposed policy statement implies auser-oriented research and extension systemthat places increased emphasis on competi-tive grants in research and extensionprograms. The key operating components in-clude:

. Users Advisory Council (UAC)

. Agricultural Science and EducationPolicy Board (ASEPB)

. Technical Panels

. Existing research and extension agencies

Federal research and extension planningactivities would be operationally centered inASEPB, even though the planning processitself would begin in the UAC, in keeping withthe user- and mission-oriented basis of thesystem. Research and extension agencies atthe Federal, state, and local levels would alsohave planning functions.

Users Advisory Council. UAC would beindependent of USDA and its role would beexpanded considerably beyond that of the cur-

rent Users Advisory Board (UAB). Itsprimary functions would include:

Identification of important research andtechnology transfer problems. (Same asUAB)Development of recommendations ongoals and funding levels. (Expandedrole)

Coordination of industry support foragricultural research and extension atthe Federal level. (Expanded role)

Evaluation of results. (Expanded role)

UAC board members would be elected torepresent, and would serve at the pleasure of:private agribusiness firms and associations;farmers and farm organizations; public inter-est groups; foundations; and government ac-tion agencies. Each major group couldinclude specialized segments. For example,agribusiness might include a representativefrom suppliers of inputs, food processors, andexporters. The total membership on UACprobably should not exceed 25.

Agricultural Science and EducationPolicy Board. ASEPB would be the researchand technology transfer planning center forUSDA. It would be chaired by the AssistantSecretary for Science and Education andwould include the following members whowould be appointed by the Secretary ofAgriculture, or other relevant agency head inthe case of NIH and NSF:

●

●

●

●

Administrator of each USDA researchand technology transfer agency (ARS,CSRS, ERS, ES, FS, NAL)

Assistant Secretary for Economics

ESCOP chairmanor designated representative(experiment station representative)

ECOP chairmanor designated representative(extension representative)

Ch. 1–Summa~. 5

RICOP chairman or designatedre representative(resident instruction representative)

One 1890 university dean or designatedrepresentative

AASCARR chairman or designatedrepresentative (nonland-grant representative)

NIH director or designated representative

NSF director or designated representative

ASEPB Functions. ASEPB wouldmanage the Federal research and extensionmission-oriented planning process, and over-see the allocation of grants for research andtechnology transfer functions. Specific func-tions include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Establishment of Goals

Establishment of Priorities

Maintenance of Intelligence System

Creation of Technical Panels

Assignment of Responsibility

Evaluation of Results

AR&E Funding

Funding initiatives would come directlyfrom ASEPB and from UAC. Since theSecretary would overtly adopt the ASEPBpolicy, he/she should be more inclined to sup-port the recommendations of ASEPB withinthe Administration and the Congress.

Likely Consequences of the National Researchand Extension Policy Alternative

● A basis would exist for effectiveAR&E planning in a mission-orientedcontext. In contrast to the presentsystem, research funding would beallocated to programs, not agencies.

●

●

●

●

●

●

The argument that too much planningalready exists stems largely from theineffectiveness of current planningand follow-through.

The USDA would have an internallyconsistent AR&E policy. The Secreta~of Agriculture would be directlyinvolved in establishing and endorsingAR&E policy.

Multidisciplinary research would likelygrow. Increased integration ofbiological (CSRS, FS and ARS) andeconomic (ERS) research would occurthrough ASEPB, UAC and the technicalpanels.

The use of formula funds and competitivegrants would be more balanced.

Potential would exist for increasedconcentration of research and extensionat specific locales within the system.This is occurring now, but the processwould likely accelerate under thisalternative.

A mechanism would exist through theffectifUAC for increased and more effective

user input into AR&E decisions.

Potential would exist for increasedfinancial support for the AR&E systemwith improved planning, priority setting,and balance between research andextension.

Competitive Grants Alternative

The Competitive Grants Alternative wasdeveloped by the Board on Agriculture of theNational Research Council, NationalAcademy of Sciences. This proposal recom-mends:

Establishing a $500 million agriculture,food, and environment competitive researchgrants program within USDA. It would en-

6 ● Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

compass all science and technology relevantto research needs for agriculture, food, andenvironment, from basic biology to socialsciences and public policy. Grants would beopen to researchers in public and privateuniversities and colleges, not-for-profit in-stitutions, and research agencies of the stateand Federal government. Major emphasiswould be placed on fundamental and mission-linked multidisciplinary research. Mission-linked multidisciplinary funding would bedesigned to facilitate application ofknowledge and the transfer of technology tothe user through joint research-extensionstudies.

Other recommendations include:

● Provision of researchstrengtheninggrantstoinstitutions and individuals.

. An increase in the duration and size ofgrants.

● Continuation of present levels of formulafunds and USDA agency support forresearchor extension.

. Maintaining the Joint Council and UABstructure and the overall planning processnow in place.

Differences Between the CompetitiveGrants Alternative and the NationalResearch and Extension Policy Alternative

The Competitive Grants Alternativewould place less emphasis on planning thanthe National Research and Extension PolicyAlternative, which would make planning thedriving force of the AR&E system. Theprimary emphasis and driving force in theCompetitive Grants Alternative is moremoney for research; it assumes that a lack ofadequate research funding is the major prob-lem with the AR&E system. Structuralproblems in implementing a mission-orientedresearch and extension program are insteadhighlighted under the National Research andExtension Policy Alternative. The Competi-

tive Grants Alternative places virtually all ofits emphasis on research. In short, it is a re-search proposal whereas the National Re-search and Extension Policy Alternative is aresearch and extension proposal.

Likely Consequences of the CompetitiveGrants Alternative

●

●

●

●

●

●

More funds would be available to allpublic and private universities andgovernment research agencies able tocompete on a scientific basis. Thiswould greatly accelerate agriculturalresearch, rates of discovery andtechnological change without changingformula fund support.

Potential for dealing with complexmultidisciplinary problems would increase.

While funds would be available forstrengthening grants, this proposalwould inevitably lead to increasedconcentration of research talent.

The basic/applied research gap could bereduced. However, neglect of technologytransfer as a target for grant funds wouldinevitably lead to a serious gap betweenresearch and extension.

No changes would be made to improvethe planning system or the linkagebetween planning and execution.Nothing assures that funds will beallocated to the UAB - and JointCouncil-determined priorities.

The drain of the best scientific talentaway from extension would accelerate asmore funds become available forresearch.

CONCLUSIONS

Three alternatives have been describedand the likely consequences of institutingeach identified. It will be difficult for the

Ch. 1–Summa~ ● 7

current AR&E system to be effective in meet-ing the challenges facing American agricul-ture in the 1990s. In this regard, either of theother two alternatives represents an improve-ment over the Status Quo Alternative.

Questions remain as to whether a respon-sive mission-oriented system could beachieved by major structural change as im-plied by the National Research and ExtensionPolicy Alternative, by increased researchfunding as implied by the Competitive GrantsAlternative, or by a combination of the two. Itis clear that without increased appropriations,structural change of the type contemplated bythe National Research and Extension Policy

Alternative will be required to obtain a mis-sion-oriented system.

Increased mission-orientation andresponsiveness could be realized by combin-ing structural change with more competitivegrant money. Imbalances between researchand extension could be remedied by openingup the competitive grants process to thedevelopment and implementation of innova-tive extension programs. And, it seems likelythat these improvements could be ac-complished with a less than $500 million in-crease in appropriations for competitivegrants.

Chapter 2

Overview

The U.S. food and agricultural sectorenters the decade of the 1990s facing manynew problems and issues that will challengethe agricultural research and extension(AR&E) system. A major focus of the systemhas been to increase productivity on a con-tinual basis. In the decade of the 90’s produc-tivity will continue to be a concern, butadditional concerns for food safety and forthe environment will become equally impor-tant.

Agricultural productivity gains are slow-ing throughout the world. The slowdown,however, is more pronounced in the UnitedStates than elsewhere (16). As the U.S.agricultural sector slips from global leader-ship, its role in strengthening the nation’seconomy could decline. At the same time,however, consumers domestically and abroadare increasingly concerned about the safety ofthe food supply, and demand is growing formore emphasis on producing a safe andnutritious food supply at relatively low cost.

There is also increasing concern that gainsin agricultural productivity not come at theexpense of the environment or of biologicaland genetic diversity. Contaminants from avariety of current agricultural practices nega-tively affect water quality; certain agriculturalpractices also contribute to the release ofgreenhouse gases, possibly changing globalatmosphere.

Meeting the challenges posed by thesebroadening concerns will require an AR&Esystem with an effective national strategy. Itwill also require advances in science and tech-

nology of a scale and scope the system has notpreviously experienced.

Fortunately, the food and agricultural sec-tor stands on the threshold of a new tech-nological era – the biotechnology andinformation technology era. This representsthe third major technological era of the cen-tury following the mechanical era (1920-1950)and the chemical era (1950-1985). Biotech-nology (recombinant DNA, cell biology,genetic manipulation) and information tech-nology (artificial intelligence, expert systems,computers, networks) hold great promise forsolving problems in the food and agriculturesector.

A pressing question is whether the AR&Esystem is capable of capturing the potentialthese new technologies promise. Thedevelopment of these promising technologieswill require a different environment than thatof previous technological eras. Agriculturalscientists will need to thoroughly understandthe basic science underlying the technologyand the AR&E system will have to be flexibleand adaptive.

This report focuses on two major challen-ges to the AR&E system: 1) a broadening ofproblems to solve and 2) the advent of newtechnologies for solving these problems. Thereport identifies the problems these challen-ges bring to the system and concludes with aset of alternatives for structuring a nationalagricultural research and technology transferpolicy that will help the system meet the needsof the next decade.

9

Chapter 3

Problems and Issues ChallengingAgricultural Research and Extension

The twin forces of a broadening of re-search problems facing American agricultureand the advent of a new era in technology posesignificant challenges to the research and ex-tension system. Can the system readily adaptto this new agenda?

Evidence exists that it will be difficult. Forexample, researchers who want to adoptplant-cell biotechnology need education andtraining in the basic fields that underpin thistechnology. Cellular physiology, biochemistry,genetics, and microbiology are not generallyfound within colleges of agriculture at land-grant universities.

This problem in agricultural educationnotwithstanding, the application of biotech-nology to agriculture will proceed at a ratecommensurate with its benefits and with theabilities of the private sector to market aproduct both in the United States and else-where. Because many businesses are nowglobal, adoption rates will be similarworldwide (18).

There are several indications that adop-tion of biotechnology may bypass the tradi-tional agricultural research and extensionsystem if changes are not made:

1. At least one-third of the Federal funding ofagricultural research is granted by Federalagencies outside of USDA (AppendixTables B-1 and B-2). Therefore, USDA isno longer viewed as the only agricultureresearch-granting agency.

2. Ten of the 57 state agriculture experimentstations received the bulk of Federal fundsfor biotechnology from research agenciesother than the USDA (Appendix Table B-3). These 10 experiment stations are the

3.

4.

same ones that have basic science departments within the associated colleges oagriculture. A direct relationship seems toexist between an institution’s ability to capture Federal grants for biotechnology andthe strength of its basic science component.

A survey in 1987 concluded that 40 percerof the Ph.D.'s working in agricultural research did not graduate from a college cagriculture. At least 8,000 active agricultural scientists earned Ph.D.’s outside capplied agricultural disciplines (12).

The agriculture private sector seems to bgranting more research funds to educational institutions other than colleges cAgriculture. Land-grant universities arreceiving funds for basic science researcbut most recipients are faculty in the co’lege of Arts and Sciences, not faculty icolleges of Agriculture (9).

An argument can be made that this situation does not need fixing, that a much broadebase for agricultural research is evolvingHowever, this is risky. There is a lag timbetween “the publication of basic scientifwork and its development into a technologby applied agricultural public and private setor researchers. Without a close workinrelationship between basic scientists and alplied researchers on U.S. campuses and iFederal agencies, information transfer antechnology development will be no faster herthan anywhere else researchers read basiscientific journals. The United States will noobtain a lead-time advantage for its invesment without on-campus or inter-agency integration of basic and applied research, antechnology transfer that operates in partnership with research development.

27-690 - 90 - 2 : QL 3


In addition, scientists unfamiliar withagriculture may work on problems irrelevantto agriculture’s needs or develop inap-propriate approaches to solving the problemsof agriculture. Faculty in fundamental scien-ces are not necessarily concerned with practi-cal applications of their research andexperiments, and they are frequently unawareof the real needs of agriculture.

A strong, responsive agricultural researchand technology transfer system is also neededto complement private sector research. Theresearch investment by the private sector issubstantial today, and the private sectoroperates quite independently of the land-grant and USDA research establishment.The United States cannot afford to have apublic sector research component that lagsbehind the private sector, one relegated to arole of simply reacting to, reviewing, orsecond guessing private sector research.What is needed is a publicly supported systemthat provides new methods, products andtechnologies.

For one thing, the private sector will usebiotechnology primarily to protect and extendits investment in current products. This is anatural and predictable response. Little in-centive exists for a chemical company todevelop a plant that needs few chemical in-puts. Similarly, little incentive exists for aseed company to develop a plant with droughttolerance but reduced yield. This is merely torecognize the purpose of business and theneed to protect shareholder values. Publiclysupported research needs to provide the tech-nical foundation for a continuous new array oftechnologies to reduce input costs, to developnew uses of existing crops as well as new crops,and to help make agriculture more environ-mentally benign.

THE FUNCTIONS ANDCHALLENGES OF RESEARCH AND

EXTENSION

Providing a strong public sector researchand extension system means focusing on thecontinuum of technological change. Theprocess of achieving technological change inagriculture involves three basic steps, each acomponent of the research and extension sys-tem:

1. basic research- discovery of new knowledge,concepts, and relationships;

2. applied and developmental research:

●

●

●

development of ideas, concepts, andrelationships into products (outputs of technology);

adaptation of new technologies tovarious agroecosystems; and

maintenance of newly achievedproductivity in the face of evolvingpests,disease, decline in soil fertility, andother factors (sometimes referred to asmaintenance research).

3. adoption of products or processes (transferof technology).

Discovery is the primary function of basicresearch. Most basic research has traditional-ly been done in the public sector. Thereseems to be a general assumption that theprivate sector will not support sufficientamounts of high risk basic agricultural re-search because that research is unlikely toyield a near term payoff. However, this as-sumption is now being challenged by largeprivate sector investments in biotechnologyand information technology.

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

Developmental and applied research isconducted by both the public and private sec-tors. The marked increase in the quantity ofapplied private sector research has led someto suggest that the public sector support foragricultural research might logically bereduced. Such a suggestion, however, is over-ly simplistic. Most private sector applied re-search is aimed at development of ideas,concepts, and relationships into new products.The private sector directs little effort to theadaptation of new technologies to a specificagroecosystem or to defense of newlyachieved productivity gains (maintenance re-search) (14, 17).

The function of encouraging technologyadoption traditionally has been shared by thepublic and private sectors. In the public sec-tor, extension educators work directly withfarmers to test and demonstrate the useful-ness of new products. Private firms tend toconcentrate their adoption strategies on moreconventional promotion and advertisingstrategies.

The effort and resources required toachieve a technological breakthrough, as ageneral rule, increase over time. This is truebecause the simpler problems naturally tendto be solved first. More difficult problemsrequire more complex tools and analysis and,thus, a larger commitment in research andextension time, effort, and resources. This isbecoming clear as agriculture enters thebiotechnology era. To achieve the benefits ofthis era, large investments must be made inbasic research and research techniques.Laboratories and equipment will be morecomplex and expensive. Scientists withmodern biotechnology research skills must betrained for agricultural research, and existingagricultural scientists will need new training.Technology users will also have to be furthereducated if they wish to adopt and use themore complex new technologies effectively.

The research and extension system thusfaces numerous challenges. These evolvearound five issue areas: mission, structure,planning, priority setting, and funding of theAR&E system.

MISSION

A recent General Accounting Office(GAO) review of USDA management foundthat the Secretary of Agriculture faces a for-midable task: to mobilize a large work forcein 36 USDA agencies to implement policiesand programs under rapidly changing condi-tions in the face of many internal and externalconstraints. Despite dramatic changes in thefood and agricultural sector, USDA’s basicorganizational structure has changed little.Its agencies are tradition bound and highlyresistant to change. This rigidity and lack offlexibility, the report goes on to say, reducethe ability to redirect the allocation of scarcehuman and financial resources within theDepartment (22).

UOSDA’s stucture has served its clientelewell m a period dominated by domesticallyoriented agricultural policies. However,when faced with more complex problems andchanging international conditions, USDA’sgreat size and structural diversity presentproblems. The agency will have difficultydirecting the growing number of importantcross-cutting issues that demand a higher de-gree of interagency, intergovernmental, andinterdisciplinary cooperation than has pre-viously been required.

The GAO review concludes by stating thatto begin to address these weaknesses, theSecretary needs to develop and clearly articu-late an agenda for USDA focused on impor-tant cross-cutting issues and on improvedmanagement systems. The agenda should in-clude a statement of 1) goals, 2) actions to

14 Ž Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

achieve the stated goals, and 3) managementsystems to monitor implementation andevaluate results against desired outcomes.

Without such an agenda, it is not surpris-ing that no clearly defined or written missionor policies exist for the AR&E System, USDAScience and Education or related programs.Within USDA, individual research agencieshave mission statements but most are notcomprehensive. A mission statement shouldset out the goals and objectives of the or-ganization and strategies to achieve them.Critical to any mission statement is a set ofpolicies that define procedures, respon-sibilities, authorities, and operational factorsthat relate to the fulfillment of the mission andto “day-to-day” activities. There must also bea process for keeping the mission, policies,and clientele updated regularly. The missionstatement for the Agricultural Research Ser-vice comes the closest to meeting thesecriteria.

Perhaps because they lack similar state-ments, some agencies seem to be “all things toall people.” Without mission and policies, or-ganizations can only express vague plans andpriorities and it is difficult to define theirclientele. The respective research organiza-tions have a hard time understanding clearlythe roles, responsibilities, and clientele oftheir sister organizations. Likewise, it is dif-ficult for the public, industry, and technology-transfer organizations to understand andsupport agricultural research.

A mission statement is critical for Exten-sion. Currently, its programs encompassagriculture and natural resources, homeeconomics, 4-H youth, and rural communitydevelopment. As the number of U.S. farmsdecline and as urban populations expand,Extension’s clientele has become more urbanin its orientation. To many Extension hasbecome an institution trying to be “all thingsto all people.” This development has led to

friction between Extension and its traditionalagriculture clientele in the 1980s (15).

Congress in the 1985 Food Security Actdirected a number of questions at theCooperative Extension System. Among thesewere: a) what is Extension’s mission and whoare its clientele, b) how should Extension beorganized and structured, c) what is its role intechnology transfer and applied research, andd) how does Extension develop new educa-tional methods to meet the needs of its tradi-tional clientele on declining numbers ofmid-size farms. These questions were par-ticularly directed at state programs becausethey are responsible for program delivery.

If Extension is to escape the "all things toall people” label it will need to develop amission statement and criteria that will limitits programs to definable priorities and goals.Extension’s traditional focus has been agricul-ture and natural resources, and it is in theseareas that Extension has made its greatestcontributions in the past. As each state be-comes more urban, Extension resources areincreasingly drawn away from farmers andrural families. Extension must decidewhether this trend will continue. If so, theprograms displacing agriculture and naturalresource programs should have the samequality research and knowledge base, and theyshould have a high probability of making animpact on high priority problems.

Mission Issues

In defining the mission of the AR&E sys-tem, USDA Science and Education and re-lated programs several questions arise. Someof the them are:

1. Can mission statements and attendantpolicies related to research and extensionbe developed for USDA agencies (S&E,CSRS, ES, NAL) and other agenciesreceiving Federal funds?

Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and ExtensionŽ15

2. How can the mission statement be used toassist in setting priorities, allocatingresources, and defining clientele?

3. Who should be involved in development ofspecific missions, policies, and identifica-tion of clientele?

4. What management structure should beresponsible for maintaining and updatingmission and policies?

PLANNING

Effective planning allocates availableresources to priority programs, problems, andissues. Within Science and Education atUSDA no short- or long-term plans exist tocoordinate the activities of SAES, ES, ARS orNAL (7). Nor are there plans to coordinatethe activities of these agencies with those ofother USDA agencies such as ERS, FS, or theregulatory agencies. For example, in thereport Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain forInternational Trade, OTA identified research,extension, economic, marketing, transporta-tion, and regulatory strategies to meet the goalof enhancing quality. But no apparent plans,incentives, or mechanisms exist for coordinat-ing the expertise from Federal, state or privateresearch and research-related groups to ad-dress international trade or similarly complexproblems.

Occasionally, agencies develop joint func-tional plans to address a problem. For ex-ample, there are joint plans involving ARSand ES in a technology transfer system.Similar planned programs between ARS andNAL relate to dynamic information storageand retrieval systems. ARS is the only S&Eagency that has maintained an updated six

year program plan that covers all researchprograms in the agency. This is comple-mented by a set of agency policies that as-sures the maintenance of a functionalplanning system.

Science and Education at USDA has es-tablished a Board of Directors for the purposeof developing and approving plans for theallocation of competitive grants for nationalresearch initiatives within USDA (to be dis-cussed later). The Board is comprised of theadministrators of ARS, CSRS, ERS, ES, FS,and NAL; it is chaired by the AssistantSecretary for Science and Education. This isclearly a step in the right direction for effec-tive planning. It is, however, only for the pur-pose of allocating competitive grant funds.The Board does not address the planning andallocation of intramural and other grant fundsin the system. It also does not formally coor-dinate with other Federal food and agricul-ture research funding agencies such as NIHand NSF.

There are a number of planning activitiesat state, multi-state, or regional levels butthese usually relate to program implementa-tion, e.g., the Integrated Pest ManagementProgram. Sometimes plans are made by in-dividual scientists or groups of scientistswithout authority over resources. Commonly,there is a great deal of planning without thenecessary commitment of resources for goaldevelopment, implementation, and monitor-ing. Plans are not effectively impacting keydecision points locally or nationally.

Extension has historically not been a top-down planning organization. Much planningis done at the local level through advisorycommittees. Hence, local priorities andneeds have been expressed more than nation-


al ones. National planning takes place as localand state needs are consolidated and incor-porated into a framework of issues likely toreceive national attention for funding. Therehas been little interactive planning betweenFederal and state partners (15).

Planning Issues

To develop effective planning within theAR&E system, a number of issues need to beaddressed. They include the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

6.

7.

How can meaningful short- and long-termplans for research and extension bedeveloped?

How can local and state priorities be ade-quately reflected in national issues?

How can accountability be built into theplanning process to assess progresstowards goals and objectives?

How can a multidisciplinary approachtowards planning be accomplished?

Can plans be developed that identify pro-gram changes (reduction or expansion) asbudgets increase or decrease?

What is the role of the Joint Council andUsers Advisory Board in the planningprocess?

Who (which groups or individuals) shouldbe responsible for initiating planning?

PRIORITY SETTING

In a system that does not have a clearlydefined mission or effective planning, it is notsurprising to find a lack of specificity andclarity in stated priorities. Within USDAthere are no set Science and Educationpriorities. Individual S&E agencies haveidentified their research and research relatedpriorities independently of one another, and

each has developed its own justification. Anumber of groups have laid out priorities forthe system, including the Joint Council, UsersAdvisory Board, Experiment Station Com-mittee on Policy, Extension Committee onPolicy, and Resident Instruction Committeeon Policy among others; but no explicit agree-ment exists among them nor was it sought. Nopriorities are assigned the stated needs forresearch and extension funding, facilityrenovations and new equipment. WithinS&E, no apparent efforts have been made toset broad priorities (such as export marketing,or conversely, conservation of resources), orto prioritize sub-problems (such as food safetyor soil erosion). In addition, problems havenot been defined in terms of measurablegoals. Thus, recognition of water quality as aproblem has not led to questions like “how cannitrate levels in well water be reduced by 25percent by 1993?” And there is little, if any,indication of the program changes that wouldbe necessitated by lack of funding.

Extension’s response to the concernsraised in the 1985 Food Security Act (dis-cussed earlier) was a strong attempt todevelop priorities. The effort was sponsoredjointly by Extension Service and the Exten-sion Committee on Policy (ECOP). It em-phasized the efficiency, accountability, andclarity of Extension’s mission and its goal ofmaking innovative program changes to meetthe issues of the 1990s. Issues were identifiedwith input from clientele and Extension staffacross the United States. A number of hear-ings were held around the nation to secureadditional input. The result of this processwas the publication of the report CooperativeExtension System National Initiatives in con-junction with a national seminar that signaledExtension’s commitment to the changes iden-tified in the report and that outlined its planof action.

The nine identified initiatives in the reportencompass programs already offered by Ex-tension. They identify critical issues andproblems, describe what Extension will do,

Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension Ž 17

provide potential impacts of successful im-plementation, and provide examples of modelprograms.

The nine initiatives are well motivated anda step in the right direction. However, takentogether they are too all-encompassing. Thefirst and foremost concern is funding for in-itiative programs. It is highly unlikely thatnew Federal funds will be forthcoming in thenear future because the executive and legisla-tive branches are dealing with the difficultbudget deficit problem. Many state and localgovernments face similar budgetary con-straints. It may well be that funds will have tobe reallocated to accomplish even part of thenew initiatives, particularly if budgets decline.

Another concern is that no process existsto reallocate funds to the most critical issues.Currently, all nine initiatives are treated withequal weight. Some mechanism is needed toforce priority setting among and within initia-tives and to reallocate resources to those ofhigher priority. The initiatives assume thatlocal priorities are the same as national ones.Criteria and mechanisms are also needed tobalance local and state priorities with nationalones and to resolve differences if conflictsarise. A critical question is whether theseinitiatives are intended to direct resourcesfrom a national viewpoint or merely to pro-vide a descriptive framework into which statescan fit their self-determined programs. In theabsence of a mechanism to force action inguiding and planning resource use, the latterseems to be the outcome whether or not it isthe intent.

Questions arise about the specificity of thegoals in several initiatives and about whetherthe impacts described can be measured inspecific and meaningful terms. At present, noprocess exists to reevaluate priorities andreallocate resources to meet new and emerg-ing priorities. Evaluations should estimate

what impacts the initiatives have had and in-dicate whether goals have been reached andproblems solved. They should serve as a basisfor program adjustments or termination o:programs and reallocation of resources. Thisprocess is critical if the initiatives are to reachtheir full potential as a priority setting andplanning tool.

Because priority-setting efforts are un-coordinated within the AR&E system, exten-sion and research priorities do not match wellA comparison of the extension initiatives, re-search priorities and Joint Council prioritiesare shown in Table 3-1. Wadsworth (1989)concludes that “... over half of the ExtensionInitiatives will not be supported by researchpriorities.” Wadsworth attributes the dif-ference in priorities to the mismatch betweenthe mission-orientation of extension and thedisciplinary/basic research orientation of theexperiment stations. There is evidence thatthe Joint Council attempted to bridge the gapbetween research and extension. It is notclear, however, what changes were made ineither extension or research priorities afterthe Joint Council report was released.

Priority-Setting Issues

To develop clearly stated and specificpriorities for the AR&E system, a number ofquestions arise. They include the following:

1.

2.

3.

1. Is it possible to develop a single set ofnational priorities for the research and ex-tension system indicating the role, respon-sibilities, commitments and funding needsof each component?

Should priority setting be a top-down, bot-tom-up or a peer determined process, orsome combination of these?

Can priorities be set for national, regional,or local needs without the benefit of clearly

18 ● AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

stated missions and policies for the re-search and extension system?

4. What mechanisms and criteria should beused to rank one priority over another?

5. How can national priorities be incor-porated into state and local programs?

6. How can extension priorities be incor-porated with those of agencies with re-search and education responsibilities?

STRUCTURE

Structure should facilitate the carrying out ofmission, planning, and priority setting of any in-stitution. It is important to ask from time to timewhat purpose an institution should serve and howbest to structure it to fulfill that purpose.

The present AR&E system is decentral-ized, being composed of Federal, state, andlocal partners. Decentralization has ad-vantages and drawbacks. One advantage isresponsiveness to local problems. However,a major drawback of a decentralized system isthe difficulty of coordinating programs to ad-dress problems that extend beyond county,state, or regional boundaries. It is also dif-ficult to evaluate local and state efforts interms of national problems such as the com-petitiveness of the food and agriculture sec-tor, improvement of the environment, andsafety of the food supply. With a decentral-ized system, changes are not easily made at thenational level. This may be in part becausefunding is partitioned into Federal and stateappropriations, formula funds, competitivegrants, special grants, and private funding.Local organizations may also resist structuresand courses of action that are seen as weaken-

Table 3-l-Research Priorities, Extension Priorities, and Joint Council Priorities

NARC Research Priorities Extension Priorities Joint Council priorities

Water Quantity and Quality

Biotechnology

Genetically Improved Plants

Soil Productivity

— Pest Management

Food Processing and Preservation

Agricultural Product Diversification

Animal Efficiency in Food Production

Animal Health and Disease

Food and Nutritional Health

Water Quality

Competitiveness and Profitability ofAmerican Agriculture

— Improving Nutrition, Diet and Health

Revitalizing Rural America

Alternative Agriculture Opportunities

Conservation and Management ofNatural Resources

Family and Economic Well Being

Building Human Capital

Youth at Risk

Improve Water Quality and Quantity

Enhance Competitiveness ofAgriculture

improve Understanding of Diet,Human Nutrition and HealthRelationships

Enhance Rural EconomicDevelopment

Expand Biotechnology and ItsApplications

Develop Agricultural ProductionSystems Compatible With theEnvironment

Genetically Improve EconomicallyImportant Plants

Improve Safety and Quality of FoodProducts

Investigate Potential Effects ofGlobal Climate Changes onAgricultural and Forest Productivity

Nurture the Nation’s Talent Base inFood and Agricultural Sciences

Enhance Control of Agricultural andForests Pests and Diseases

Develop New and Expanded UsesFor Agricultural Products

Source: Wadsworth, H. A., “opportunities for Public Policy Education in the Extension Initiatives.” September 1989, and Joint Council onFood and Agricultural Sciences, Fiscal Year 199 1 Priorities for Research. Extension. and Higher Edu cation, June 1989.

Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challening Agricultural Research and Extension .19

ing local control or as potentially less respon-sive to perceived local needs.

There has been increasing competitionand division within the historical managementstructure of the research complex. The situa-tion has worsened as research budgets havedeclined, both within S&E at USDA andwithin universities. Little cooperation existsbetween ARS, CSRS, and ES within USDAand many colleges of Agriculture rarelycooperate with other colleges such as Arts andSciences within the same university (7, 9).

This problem might be solved by prioritiz-ing problems of national significance andstrengthening those structures, mechanisms,and policies that facilitate the effective alloca-tion of resources to solving those problems.Mechanisms will also be needed to preservethe strength of local and state programs andprovide enhanced support and leadershipfrom the Federal level.

New structures and mechanisms for tech-nology development and transfer to theprivate sector are evolving outside the AR&Esystem. This is having an impact on the sys-tem. Extension’s knowledge base traditional-ly has been drawn from the state experimentstations. This knowledge base is shrinking asstate experiment stations and the USDAAgricultural Research Service place in-creased emphasis on “basic” research (15, 17).As biotechnology is becoming more impor-tant in research, considerable sums of venturecapital have been invested in private biotech-nology firms for development of newproducts. All of this has left Extension out ofthe research and problem applications loop.

Changes in technology and technologydevelopment are taking place very rapidly.Technology is international in scope and thereis fierce competition for control. It is impera-tive to reexamine and reevaluate the struc-tures and mechanisms that tie Extension to

research and technology development in thepublic as well as the private sector. Extension’srelationships with the private sector need tobe reexamined if Extension is to link itself tothe emerging mechanisms that will control thedevelopment of new technology andknowledge. In particular, Extension needs tobe involved in the commercialization of newtechnologies and knowledge, not only for thepurpose of identifying new products and con-cepts that could be used in education programs,but also to assist actively in testing, evaluation,and directing these products and concepts tocritical problems and issues. Much researchis of no use until it is transferred into a usableproduct that can be incorporated into astrategy for solving a problem. Extension canand should be of valuable assistance in thisprocess.

The 1985 Food Security Act clarified therole of extension in conducting applied re-search. Although much applied research isbeing conducted by extension professionalstaff, with more planned, resistance has beenencountered from Federal Extension and ex-periment station directors who believe thatthis is not an appropriate role for extension.In any case, the adequacy of resources for thispurpose is questionable.

An applied research component to Exten-sion is essential, however, if its programs areto be integrated with research developments.The role of applied research in enhancingcooperation between experiment stations andextension services was addressed by a jointExperiment Station Committee on Organiza-tion and Policy (ESCOP) and Extension Com-mittee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) in1988. It concluded that an applied researchcomponent would allow Extension to link newtechnologies and knowledge with its educa-tion programs. It recommended that:

a. The College of Agriculture or equivalentunits at land grant universities develop

20• Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

b.

c.

d.

mechanisms to enhance joint programdevelopment, planning, priority setting,and evaluation. These should include butnot be limited to task forces, budget initia-tives, and publications/media programs.

The use of joint appointments betweenexperiment station and extension be fur-ther encouraged.

The ultimate basis for coordination, in-tegration, and quality control of extensionresearch be formal projects subjected tothe same peer review and evaluation andreporting requirements as those of experi-ment stations.

The extension efforts of experiment sta-tion scientists be integrated into extensionplanning and priority setting mechanismsand be subjected to peer review andreporting requirements as are other exten-sion programs.

Extension personnel need further trainingif they are to understand and use the advancesin biotechnology and information technologyin developing programs for clientele. Struc-tural changes are also needed to bring Exten-sion into the mainstream of development anddissemination of research results. Today, Ex-tension is segregated from the new structuresand mechanisms that are shaping the develop-ment of new technologies (15).

Finally, Federal Extensions’s role in lead-ing and coordinating the AR&E system and,in particular, the ability of Federal Extensionto direct resources to national priorities,needs to be reevaluated. Changes will beneeded in budgeting, planning, and evalua-tion if national goals and priorities are to bemet, thus justifying continued expenditures ofFederal resources. There is also concern thatFederal Extension is not taking the lead infacilitating technology transfer betweenUSDA agencies with research programs andstate Cooperative Extension programs, or be-

tween states. Information must be madeavailable and shared in a coordinated way toassure increased efficiency in technologytransfer (15).

Extension has initiated joint appoint-ments with other agencies. This concept isuseful and could be extended, particularlywith CSRS, ARS, and ERS where specificprogram areas need leadership in researchand technology transfer. In addition,mechanisms for joint programming with otherUSDA and Federal agencies might be useful.

Structure Issues

To facilitate the structural changesneeded for an effective AR&E system, a num-ber of issues need to be addressed. Some ofthe issues are:

1. How can the integrity of separate agenciesor research groups be retained while coor-dination of planning and other functions isimproved? What alternatives exist?

2. What structure(s) will promote coordina-tion of the various groups that contributerecommendations to S&E, e.g., AssistantSecretaries, industry groups, Crop AdvisoryCommittees, CSRS, SAES, JC, UAB,ESCOP, ECOP, RICOP, NASULGC, NPS-ARS, BOA-NAS and others? Are all thesegroups needed? Does the structure fosterexcessive planning?

3. The structure seems to work well at theSAES-ARS level, and at the CSRS-SAESlevel, but ineffectively for example, at themore complex, CSRS-ARS-SAES levelsand the Department level. Can the struc-ture be changed in a way that will make itmore effective at the higher or more com-plex organizational levels?

4. Much research of importance to agricul-ture is being carried out in institutionsother than agricultural institutions. How

Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension ● 21

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

can the structure be modified to incor-porate these institutions’ expertise andcontributions to agriculture?

What is the research and knowledge baseof extension? How does this base relate toextension programs?

How can new sources of research andknowledge be developed and incorporatedinto public and private technology transferprograms?

How can the developing gap between re-search and extension be overcome? Howcan the obstacles posed by funding con-straints and land-grant reward systems bemitigated?

How will training be provided to Extensionprofessionals in biotechnologies, informa-tion technologies, applied research, andemerging technologies?

What should be the balance between top-down planning and decentralizedprogramming?

What is the role of Federal Extension insetting priorities, planning, resource al-location, evaluation, and coordination ofprograms?

How can multidisciplinary approaches toprograms be developed?

How should Extension programs be coor-dinated with other technology transferprograms in the public and private sectors?

What is the role of Extension in a pliedfresearch and commercialization o tech-

nologies? What structures are necessaryto facilitate involvement?

FUNDING

Much has been written about the inade-quate funding of the research and extensionsystem especially at the Federal level (11, 17,19, 20). Federal funding levels have beenrelatively stable for the past three decadesespecially to state agricultural experiment sta-tions. States, for the most part, have made upthe difference to the experiment stations.Federal appropriations are viewed as woefullyinadequate by those who work in the system.However, those who control the appropria-tions process, i.e., OMB and Congress, are notcompelled to increase Federal funding forAR&E. These groups point to agriculturalsurpluses, the budget deficit, and competingpriorities (drugs, human health and diseases,environmental problems and social issues) asfactors in their judgment against increasedAR&E funding. A critical factor, in theiropinion, is the system’s inadequate justifica-tion for research dollars (7, 13. Only smallincreases in funding have been made in a fewclearly defined areas such as groundwaterquality and human nutrition. This situation isreflective of the problems discussed earlierencompassing mission, planning, priority set-ting, and structure. Until these issues areresolved, determining the adequacy ofFederal funding is difficult.

An issue of growing importance is how toallocate funds in research and extension.Federal funds for research are distributedfour ways: for intramural research conductedby USDA staff; in formula funds to theSAES’S; as grants for special R&D initiatives;


and as competitive grants. Federal funds forextension are allocated in two ways: in for-mula funds to state cooperative extensionagencies at land-grant institutions; and asgrants for special initiatives designated by theCongress.

Intramural and formula funding havebeen the major mechanisms for allocatingfunds in research and extension since thesystem’s inception. Research and extensionactivities that require a continuous effort overmany years to obtain significant results areoften accomplished through base (formula)funding. Grants for special initiatives desig-nated by Congress have also been institution-alized.

Competitive grants are the newestmechanism for allocating resources in agricul-tural research. Grants are awarded on thebasis of quality and technical merit as judgedby experienced scientists serving on peerreview panels.

Competitive granting is flexible andresponsive to new and emerging high priorityresearch areas. In contrast to research, nocompetitive grants program exists for exten-sion. Some grants for special initiatives areawarded on a competitive basis but they are asmall proportion of extension’s Federalbudget. Major reliance on a formula systemgives cooperative extension the discretionover how funds will be used with or withoutreference to national priorities.

In recent years, the grant system has beenexpanded to place increased emphasis onbasic research and to fund excellencewherever it is found. Federal agricultural re-search grant-funding authorization for fiscal1989 is shown below (10).

($ million)Competitive grants 40Special grants, national programs 18Special problem grants 24

Total 82Percent of total CSRS Funds 24%

The average agricultural research grant isfor $40,000 over 2.5 years (11). A major ex-pansion of peer-reviewed competitive grants(which now account for a small proportion ofresearch funds) is advocated by some expertsas a way of improving allocative efficiency.Indeed, competitive grant funding currentlyseems to be the only politically acceptablesource of additional Federal research supportfor agriculture.

There is major disagreement over whethercompetitive grant or base (formula) fundingprovides the best use of limited Federal fundsfor agricultural research. The followingreview makes a strong if indirect case for com-bining these allocation strategies in privateand public funding (16).

Arguments for Base Funding

1. Base funding has been highly successfuland served the nation well. A large num-ber of studies, many of them by disinter-ested analysts at Yale University and theUniversity of Chicago, show typical rates ofreturn of 50 percent on public investment

r(2, 14). Huffman and Evenson (1989) es-timate the rate of return on public cropresearch investment to be 62 percent. FoxEvenson, and Ruttan (1987) show a rate ofreturn of 180 percent on specific crop re-search and disciplinary biological crop re-search for the 1944-83 period. While nosingle study can be taken as definitive be-cause of data shortcomings, overall theevidence is compelling. The payoff frompublic agricultural research and extensioncalls for increased investment.

2. Base funding of agricultural research bythe Federal Government is a well-estab-lished and accepted historic social con-tract. Public research at land grantinstitutions is viewed as an importantsource of unbiased information that speedsadoption of technology by producers.Breaking the contract alienates politicalsupport not only for agricultural grant re-search but for all agricultural research.

Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension •23

3.

4.

5.

Base funding avoids the massive overheadof the peer review system. A sizeable (es-timates run to 50 percent) portion of re-search resources is spent writing proposalsand reports and reviewing proposals.Much of this is done by peers who havehigh opportunity cost. Base funding alsoutilizes review and competition at the locallevel but reduces overhead by relying moreon administrators who know local cir-cumstances and problems. Peer review isindeed a useful part of grant and base fund-ing but, used excessively, it detracts fromuseful output of research. Bonnen (1986)notes that “Short-term project-by-projectgrant proposals do not add up to coherentlong-term research programs,” and pointsto wasted creativity of “senior scientistswho no longer have time for anything butdeveloping grant proposals and managinga laboratory.”

Grants do not provide the long-term fund-ing continuity essential for the mostproductive use of research resources, espe-cially in the case of basic research. Asnoted earlier, the average duration of com-petitive agricultural research grants is only2.5 years.

Peer reviewed grants are not necessarilyeffective in funding pathbreaking basic re-search. Holt (1989) notes that “... earlybasic research efforts in agriculturalbiotechnology and agricultural applica-tions of artificial intelligence were sup-ported by formula funds beforebiotechnology and artificial intelligencebecame buzz words in basic sciencecircle s.” Pathbreaking basic researchresulting in antibiotics and the transistorwere not recognized early on as importantby peers. These and other breakthroughsdid not arise from a peer reviewed grantproposal specifically addressing thosegoals. The peer review system is useful fordirecting substantial research resources toan area after the important basicbreakthroughs have been achieved by base

6.

7,

8.

9.

funding of private or public research. Themost successful research establishments,including some land grant and ivy leagueuniversities, as well as Bell and DuPontlaboratories, have huge endowments orother assured funding bases.

The large number of commodities, agro-ecosystems, and local social needs requiresresearch capabilities in many locations.Base funding provides for this, whereas thepeer review system might concentrate re-search funds on a few large centers. Theprofit motive might focus research on a fewmajor commodities. Those who reviewgrant funds may not be aware of localagroecosystems and their research needs.Research has been underway for someyears on integrated pest management andconservation systems at land-grant univer-sities. That research would have beendelayed by peer reviewed allocations; itwas called for by environmental and foodsafety lobbies along with some farmersrather than peer scientists.

The Federal Government has not dictatedprecisely how base funds should be spentby states. Some advocate a large Federalrole in funding along with dictation of howfunds are to be spent to best serve nationalpriorities.

The strong complementary relationshipbetween basic and applied research hascontributed to the favorable record ofagricultural research. Grant funding to in-stitutions outside the system withoutdepartments of agronomy and animalsciences would not foster or benefit fromthis symbiosis.

Basic research funded by competitivegrants tends to drive out applied researchfunded by base allocations because institu-tions direct resources to where additionalfunds can be obtained. Partly for thatreason Holt (1989) contends that “thepublicly-supported development and

24Ž Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

adaptive research and extension com-ponents of the AR&E system are weak andgetting weaker...”

Arguments for Competitive Grant Funding

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Base funding is the product of historicalpolitical considerations and is not neces-sarily an efficient use of scarce funds in thisperiod of budget stringency. It is especiallyinfluenced by commercial farming inter-ests at the state level. The political processcalls for applied research on immediateproblems. Essential long-term basic re-search has low priority and is underfundedby a base system.

Base funding has not recognized that a criti-cal mass of research resources is required forexcellence. It spreads scarce resources toothinly.

Market incentives are essential to produc-tivity as apparent from the worldwide suc-cess of market economies and failure ofplanned economies. Although basic re-search cannot be allocated by the market,the competitive grant is the best andclosest alternative.

The academic tenure system limits the ex-tent to which resources can be redirectedin base funded institutions. Peer reviewenhances funding flexibility.

The National Institutes of Health, Nation-al Science Foundation, and other majorsources of promising new biotechnology,provide mostly peer reviewed competitivegrant funding.

Competitive grants reward research excel-lence wherever it maybe found, inside oroutside the traditional agricultural re-search establishments. Fears of the

agricultural establishment that competi-tive grants would place USDA agriculturalresearch funds outside the USDA-landgrant-SAES system are not well founded.The agricultural establishment received 77percent of USDA competitive grants and78 percent of grant funds in FY88.

Performing Grantsorganization awarded Amount ($)

Land grant -1862 98 10,282,180SAESs 169 19,159,343USDA/S&E Lab. 1.831.000Subtotal 18 31,272,523

(77%) (78%)

Other public 32 3,208,200Univ./College 28 3,487,287Other 27 2,200,646Total 372 40,168,656

SOURCE: Data provided b Competitive ResearchGrants Programs Cooperative State ResearchService, U. S.Departrnent of Agriculture.

Funding Issues

To effectively address the concerns regard-ing funding for the AR&E system a number ofquestions need to be answered. They includethe following:

1. What is the appropriate balance betweenbase funds and competitive grants?

2. What is the appropriate balance betweenFederal and state funding for research andextension?

3. Should states have more responsibility tofund their infrastructure for conducting re-

Ch. 3–Problems and Issues Challenging Agricultural Research and Extension •25

search and extension focusing on local and 5. Has the redirection option for funding newstate priorities, and use Federal funds for priority research needs been adequatelyemerging national issues? considered and used? Are incentives

needed to encourage redirection?4. Is there a role for competitive grants in

cooperative extension? 6. How relevant is the current Federal for-mula for allocating resources?

Chapter 4

Alternative Policies forResearch and Technology Transfer

The main premise of this report is that abroadening of research problems and thebeginning of a new era in technology willpresent serious challenges to the AR&E sys-tem. The preceding discussion regarding mis-sion, planning, priority setting, structure, andfunding indicates that the system may not beable to effectively respond to these challen-ges.

Agricultural research and technologytransfer policy will once again be a major focusof debate in the 1990 Farm Bill as it has beenin the past two farm bills. The debate willlikely center on the level and type of Federalappropriations for, and the planning and con-trol of agricultural research and extension.

The lack of increased real funds foragricultural research has received much at-tention, most recently in the National Re-search Council report Investing in Research, tobe discussed later. However, until there is awell articulated and coordinated research andtechnology transfer policy, debate about al-locating new funds to the system is premature.

Effective planning to develop goals, deter-mine priorities, commit resources andmeasure progress within the AR&E system isalso crucial. Many within and outside the sys-tem complain that too much planning alreadyexists. Most planning efforts, however, arerelatively ineffective. Planning is not easy ina research system involving five Federal agen-cies, 57 state experiment stations, 50 exten-sion services, and about 3,000 countyextension offices.

Complicating the issue is the combinationof Federal and state funds for agriculturalresearch, and of Federal, state and county

funds for extension. Each sector claims adominant role in the system.

An effective system of Federal planningshould consider, above all, the views of thosewho ultimately use the products of researchand technology transfer services. The resultsof a user-oriented Federal planning systemshould be consistent with user-oriented stateand local planning efforts. They certainlyshould not be contrary to state and/or localinterests.

Planning must identify an appropriatebalance of formula funds and competitivegrants for agricultural research and extension.Large competitive research grants may createa serious imbalance between research and ex-tension. Interestingly, proposals for substan-tial increases in competitive grants fundingrelate almost entirely to research. In reality,there may be an equally pressing need forcompetitive grants to develop educationprograms and extension expertise in a time ofrapidly changing technology (8).

OTA proposes three alternatives for a na-tional agricultural research and technologytransfer policy:

Continuation of the current policy asimplemented under the 1985 Farm Bill,referred to hereinafter as the “statusquo.”

Development of a larger Federal role inplanning to align more closely researchand end-user needs, without necessarilyengendering large increases inaggregate funding levels, referred tohereinafter as the “national research andextension policy alternative.”

27

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

. Substantially increase the level ofcompetitive grants research whilecontinuing current levels of formulafunding and/or appropriated funding forresearch and extension, referred tohereinafter as the “competitive grantsalternative.”

STATUS QUO ALTERNATIVE

A simplified schematic drawing of the cur-rent organizational structure of agriculturalresearch and extension is shown in figure 4-1.While by statute the Users Advisory Board(UAB) reports to the White House, in prac-tice it reports to USDA as does the JointCouncil. It is difficult to depict accurately thecomplexities of the agricultural research and

extension system in a single chart. Underlyingvirtually each component of the system is aseries of national, regional, state, and local(extension) planning groups. For example,the Experiment Station Committee on Policy(ESCOP) reviews and establishes priorities asinput into the Cooperative State ResearchService (CSRS) budget process. Likewise,the Extension Committee on Policy (ECOP)reviews and establishes priorities as input tothe Cooperative Extension Service budgetprocess. An extensive six year planning func-tion also occurs in the Agricultural ResearchService (ARS) (8).

Based on the findings in this report and inprevious OTA reports dealing with theAR&E system, maintaining the status quo willhave the following consequences:

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

Secretaryof

Agriculture Agriculture

I

Assistant Secretaryfor Science and

Education

CompetitiveResearch

Grants Office

Scientific Peer SpecialAdvisory Review Blue

Panel Panels Panels

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Ch. 4-AlternativePolicies for Research and Technology Transfer. 29

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The new era of biotechnology and infor-mation technology will likely bypass thetraditional AR&E system. Advances inthese areas combined with changes inpublic policy regarding patent rights, haveshifted the balance of agricultural researchexpertise in the direction of private sectorfirms and non-land-grant universities. Aminority of the land-grant universities willremain competitive in this new era.

The lack of a clearly enunciated mission-oriented policy for the AR&E systemmeans the system will continue to lackdirection and focus.

Planning and priority setting within the sys-tem will continue to be ineffective. Nomechanism exists to assure follow-throughon initiatives or on recommendations ofthe Joint Council and/or Users AdvisoryBoard. There is much planning but littleresulting action.

The AR&E system will continue to bestructured in a way that does not allow it tochange easily.

Increased emphasis by land-grant univer-sities and USDA on basic research, com-bined with accelerated technical changeand continued neglect of applied researchneeds, will continue to expand theknowledge gap between research and ex-tension. Extension has made an effort toimprove its responsiveness to contem-porary concerns through its national initia-tives efforts. However, withoutcommensurate shifts in the allocation ofFederal funds to these specific initiatives,national impacts are difficult to detect andquantify. Extension continues to be “allthings to all people” without specificallynarrowing its priorities and allocating itsresources to those priorities.

NATIONAL RESEARCH ANDEXTENSION POLICY ALTERNATIVE

The National Research and ExtensionPolicy Alternative is the product of OTAdeliberations based on its analysis of the statusquo. It is a mission-oriented approachdesigned to increase the responsiveness of theAR&E system to the needs of the food andagriculture system.

One principle problem with the currentAR&E system is the lack of effective planningand its inability to respond to change. Whilethe Congress has attempted to make the sys-tem more responsive through the formationof the Joint Council and UAB, the overallsystem resists change. The National Researchand Extension Policy Alternative is designedto create a more responsive and better-coor-dinated AR&E system. The major com-ponents of this system include:

A clearly enunciated mission-orientedAR&E policy.

A restructured integrated and coordinatedAR&E planning system.

A combination of formula andcompetitive grant funding consistentwith planning and political realities.

AR&E Policy

The first, and perhaps the most importantcomponent of the National Research and Ex-tension Policy Alternative is a statement ofclearly enunciated policy supported by theSecretary of Agriculture. While it can be ar-gued that all secretaries of agriculture havesupported the agricultural research and ex-tension system – the original purpose forwhich the USDA was established – a policystatement of the type contemplated by this


alternative has never been made. Such astatement could articulate the following prin-

to be implemented by all USDA- agen-ciplescies:

●

●

●

●

Research and extension will be integralto carrying out agricultural, food, tradeand rural policy in all dimensions. Thus,every USDA action agency will berequired to consider seriously its researchneeds when deve loping andimplementing its programs. Likewise,USDA research and extension must beresponsive to the research andtechnology transfer needs of the actionagencies.

The research and extension functions ofUSDA will be operated according to aplan. The broad outlines of this planinitially will be developed by anAgricultural Science and EducationPolicy Board (ASEPB) (discussedlater). The plan will emphasize theFederal role in the agricultural researchand extension system but leave room forstate and local planning. More detailedplanning will be expected withinindividual USDA research andextension agencies and at the state andlocal levels.

The research and extension system willbe mission-oriented with significantuser influence on the planning processand on resulting research and educationprograms. (USDA and the land-grantsystem were created with a clear focuson mission-oriented problem solving.)

Research and technology transferfunctions will be carried out by thescientists/institutions most competent toefficiently achieve mission-orientedobjectives. This implies nopredetermined mix of competitivegrants and formula funds. The optimummix would be expected to change over

time and be tuned to the specific natureof the problem. Action agencies maybest be served by ARS or ERS funding,while certain types of mission-orientedbasic research or the development ofextension education materials may bestbe supported by competitive grants.This means relatively more emphasis oncompetitive grants for research andextension and less on predeterminedformula funding.

Research and Extension Policy PlanningSystem

The proposed policy statement implies auser-oriented research and extension systemthat places increased emphasis on competi-tive grants in research and extensionprograms. The structure of the system is il-lustrated in figure4-2. The key planning com-ponents include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Users Advisory Council (UAC)

Agricultural Science and EducationPolicy Board (ASEPB)

Technical Panels

Existing research and extension agencies

Secretary of Agriculture

Assistant Secretary for Science andEducation (as ASEPB chair)

Federal research and extension planningactivities would be operationally centered inASEPB. However, the planning process itselfbegins in UAC, reflecting the user- and mis-sion-oriented basis of the system. Planningfunctions are also included in research andextension agencies at the Federal, state andlocal levels.

Users Advisory Council. UAC inputwould be considerably expanded beyond that

Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer ● 31

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

I C O N G R E S S

I d e n t i f yProblems r

Coord ina teI n d u s t r y

S u p p o r t

E v a l u a t eR e s u l t s I

1

C O U N C I L

FarmerOrganizations

Agribusinessorganizations

P u b l i cI n t e r e s t

\ I

Assistant Secretaryfor

Science and EducationI


of the current Users Advisory Board (UAB).

Development of recommendations on

Coordination of industry support foragricultural research and extension at

Develop OverallResearch andT e c h n o l o g y

Transfer Plan

Develop Mission- Evaluate ResultsOriented Plan

M a k eR e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

The results of the UAC’S efforts would bereported regularly to ASEPB and annually tothe Congress. UAC would be a quasi-public,quasi-private entity in that most of its activeparticipants would be private organizationsand foundations whose mission would behelping to plan public research. USDA actionagencies or other interested public agencieswould be involved in its deliberations.

UAC would be composed of board mem-bers representing:

. Farmers and farm organizations

32Ž Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

. Agribusiness firms and associations

. Public interest groups

. Foundations

. USDA action agencies

In contrast to the UAB which is appointedby the Secretary, UAC board members wouldbe elected to represent and would serve at thepleasure of the above groups.

Each group could include specialized seg-ments. For example, agribusiness might in-clude a representative from input supplies,food processors, and exporters. Farm groupsmight include commodity groups, generalfarm organizations, and cooperatives. It issuggested that the total membership on UACnot exceed 25.

Membership on UAC could be a part-timeto full-time job. Members would be soughtwho have considerable scientific expertiseand contact with clientele. UAC could beentirely a privately financed operation or itcould be a joint public/private undertaking. Itcould operate much like producer checkoffprograms with public accountability for itsoperations.

To participate in UAC on an active basis,some agricultural associations/action agen-cies would have to improve substantially theirunderstanding of their research and technol-ogy transfer responsibilities. Each groupwould have to establish methods for decidingresearch and technology transfer priorities.The best organized member group wouldlikely have the greatest influence on UACdecisions.

UAC would produce a set of recommen-dations regarding research goals and fundinglevels. In certain instances, jointpublic/private research undertakings may be

recommended, and a commitment made forprivate funding support to tackle particularlycomplex problems. In addition to annualrecommendations, UAC would produce in-terim reports as appropriate. UAC would in-teract with ASEPB on a continual basis.

Agricultural Science and EducationPolicy Board. ASEPB would be the researchand technology transfer planning center forUSDA. In contrast to the current Joint Coun-cil, it would have a single chair, the AssistantSecretary for Science and Education. Itwould include the following members whowould be appointed by the Secretary ofAgriculture, or other relevant agency head inthe case of NIH and NSF:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Assistant Secretary for Economics

Administrator of each USDA researchand technology transfer agency (ARS,ERS, CSRS, FS, ES, NAL)

ESCOP chairman or designated representative(experiment station representative)

ECOP chairman. representative

(extension representative

RICOP Chairman or designated representative(resident instruction representative)

One 1890 university dean or designatedrepresentative

AASCARR chairman or designatedrepresentative (non-land-grant-representative)

NIH administrator or designatedrepresentative

NSF administrator or designatedrepresentative

Experiment stations and extension ser-vices would be equally represented on

Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer •33

ASEPB. However, total scientific repre-sentation would be weighted toward research.NIH, NSF, and AASCARR representation isdesigned to secure increased coordinationamong the basic and applied research com-ponents as well as between the land-grant andnon-land-grant components of the system.

Those ASEPB members who are not ad-ministrators of Federal agencies would servefor appointed or elected terms of no morethan four years. All costs associated withASEPB would be borne by USDA.

ASEPB Functions. ASEPB wouldmanage the Federal research and extensionmission-oriented planning process and over-see the allocation of competitive grants forresearch and technology transfer. In terms ofspecific functions, ASEPB would:

Produce a Rolling Five Year AgriculturalResearch and Extension Plan. This plan wouldset forth major goals, priorities, and means forachievement, and be transmitted to theSecretary of Agriculture annually for endor-sement and to the Congress.

. Establish Goals. The plan, with inputprovided by UAC, would set forthspecific, measurable goals for thesystem. For example, instead of merelyidentifying water quality as a problem, itwould consider how to reduce nitrates inwell water by 25 percent by 1993.

● Establish Priorities. The key to aneffective planning system is theestablishment of priorities within theoverall budget constraints prescribed bythe Administration and the Congress.UAC input would be an importantcomponent of the priority-settingprocess. The established prioritieswould have major impacts on fundingallocations and competitive grantdecisions.

Ž Maintain Intelligence System. To operateeffectively, ASEPB would need toidentify the major centers of researchand technology transfer expertise. Itwould probably need to maintain ascientific talent data bank, which couldbe located in the National AgricultureLibrary.

. Create Technical Panels. The technicalpanels would develop general plans,approaches, and recommendations fortackling particular priority problems(see below).

. Determine Responsibility. ASEPB wouldneed to determine which agency holdsresponsibility for tackling specificpriority problems. Responsibilities maybe delegated to particular agencies orcombinations of agencies that wouldthereafter be accountable for fundingand maintaining progress. The ultimateauthority for designating responsibilitywould lie with the Assistant Secretaryfor Science and Education.

● Evaluate Results. Performance of theresearch and extension system inpursuing the goals set forth by theplanning process would be assessed byASEPB as a basis for future planningand funding.

To perform these functions effectively,ASEPB would require a staff to assist in plan-ning and evaluation. Each agency might beasked initially to contribute staff withqualifications specified by ASEPB, althoughin the long run a combination of permanentand assigned staff may provide a desired mixof expertise.

In the ASEPB framework, the USDA re-search and extension agencies would continueto operate with the same general respon-sibilities they now have. However, theirprograms would be affected by decisionsmade in ASEPB. Through representation in

34• Agricultural Research and Technology TransferPolicies for the 1990s

ASEPB, USDA would participate in makingthese decisions.

Technical Panels. Technical panelswould be established by ASEPB for eachmajor research and technology-transferpriority. These panels would contributescientific input and expertise to the process ofplanning to complete missions and solveproblems relevant to the priority.

Panels would be temporary although theymight be reconvened to monitor progress ona particular priority and to develop additionalrecommendations. Panels would be of theminimum size required to include expertiseon all dimensions of the mission, including itsbasic science, applied research, education, so-cial and economic dimensions. Research andextension, as well as the private sector, wouldbe represented.

Each technical panel would have fourprimary responsibilities:

● Define the dimensions of research andtechnology transfer encompassed by itsmission.

● Delineate the al ternatives andrecommended research and technologytransfer approaches for dealing with itsmission.

● Describe the centers of expertise (public andprivate, land-grant and non-land-grant)relevant to its mission.

● Make recommendations regarding theappropriate overall level and mix ofavailable funding. The technical panelwould not make finding decisions norwould it be a substitute for peer review offunding proposals. Those responsibilitieswould continue to lie with the relevantagencies (ARS, ERS, CSRS, FS, ES).

However, members of the panel mightlogically also serve on peer reviewpanels.

Reports of technical panels would betransmitted directly to ASEPB to help guideits decisions regarding the research and exten-sion plan.

Secretary of Agriculture. The role of theSecretary of Agriculture is to provide leader-ship and to convince the Administration of theimportance of agricultural research and ex-tension functions. The Secretary needs tosupport the planning process, the overallthrust of the plan, and its major priorities inpleading the case for funding within the Ad-ministration. And, the Secretary needs to es-tablish policy regarding the cooperation of allaffected Assistant Secretaries. Likewise,ASEPB and the related agencies need to beresponsive to the priorities established by theoverall political process within which policyand funding decisions are made.

AR&E Funding

Under the policy of the National Researchand Extension Alternative, funding initiativescome directly from ASEPB and from UAC.The Secretary, having overtly adopted theASEPB policy, would likely support ASEPBrecommendations in negotiations with OMB.

UAC would be much more active in press-ing the case for appropriations with the Ad-ministration and the Congress than thecurrent UAB. Its effectiveness would be en-hanced by the direct involvement of all majorinterest groups in research and extensiondecision processes.

This alternative would probably increasethe relative importance of competitive-grantfunding. More discretionary funds seem to beinherent to a system driven by effective user-

Ch. 4–Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer. 35

oriented planning and by the goal of engagingthe best scientists in research and technologytransfer activities. Increased competitive--grant funds for research and extension, how-ever, would not come at the expense offormula funds in this alternative. The ap-propriate mix of formula funds and competi-tive grants would nonetheless be determinedby the deliberations of the technical panels,UAC, ASEPB, the Secretary, OMB and theCongress.

One of the most agonizing issues would bewhether to continue Federal support forAR&E activities in every state. There is noeasy answer to this and considerably greaterstudy of this issue is required. A tradeoffbetween efficiency and the survival of specificstate/local institutions could be involved.However, if serious attention is given to themissions, policies, and priorities on a nationalbasis, each state would have an opportunity toestablish its own role in the system.

Likely Consequences of National Researchand Extension Policy Alternative

While all USDA research and extensionagencies would remain intact, this alternativewould change considerably the structure ofresearch and extension, with attendant dis-ruptive effects. These effects may be viewedpositively or negatively, depending on one’sperspective. However, if the current planningsystem is acknowledged to be flawed in lightof changing conditions and if most of the fol-lowing predicted consequences occur, thenadoption of this policy alternative should havea positive impact overall.

Likely consequences are:

. The role of Federal planningintheAR&Esystem would increase. Increasedemphasis on Federal planning wouldreduce the dominant role of state-orientedplanning, and some responsiveness tolocal grassroots-expressed needs coulddecline. However, if the UAC and

ASEPB are working properly, increasedgrassroots responsiveness could beanticipated at the Federal level.

The USDA would have an internallyconsistent AR&E policy. The Secretaryof Agriculture would be directlyinvolved in establishing, monitoring,and endorsing AR&E policy. Thus,AR&E would have greater visibilitywithin USDA than it now does.

A basis would exist for effective,mission-oriented AR&E planning.Research funding would be allocatedtowards programs not agencies. Theargument that too much planningalready exists results largely from theineffectiveness of current planning andfollow-through.

Multidisciplinary research would increase.Increased integrationof biological(CSRS, FSand ARS) and economic (ERS) researchwould occur through ASEPB, UAC and thetechnical panels. Extension considerationswould also bean integral part of the planningprocess

The use of formula funds and competitivegrants would be more balanced.

Certain research and extension functionscould become more concentrated in thehands of agencies and/or institutionsthat have the greatest expertise. Thisprocess is gradually occurring under thestatus quo policies, but would likelyaccelerate. Some agricultural researchand/or extension components may notbe viable at some land-grant universities.Choices would need to be made as towhere efforts (expertise) and resourcesare to be concentrated to secure Federalsupport that can be matched with stateresources. Some institutions maydecide not to seek Federal competitivegrants for any of their programs. Somemay discontinue certain agricultural


●

●

research and/or extension functionsand/or contract for them with otherstates. Some functions could beperformed on a regional basis by mutualconsent of those institutions involved.

A mechanism would exist through theUAC for more effective user input intoAR&E decisions. This may lead to amore effective lobby on behalf ofAR&E before the Congress and withinthe Administration. The technicalpanels and peer review of competitivegrants would buffer this increasedpolitical clout and satisfy the need forobjectivity in science.

Potential would exist for increasedfinancial support for the AR&E systemwith improved planning, priority setting,and integration of research andextension.

COMPETITIVE GRANTSALTERNATIVE

The Competitive Grants Alternative wasdeveloped by the Board on Agriculture of theNational Research Council, NationalAcademy of Sciences in the report lnvesting inResearch. This proposal recommends:

. Establishing a $500 million agriculture,food, and environment competitiveresearch grants program within USDAto support national research initiativesin public and private universities andcolleges, not-for-profit institutions, andresearch agencies of the state andFederal Government. The CompetitiveGrants Alternative would encompass allscience and technology relevant toresearch needs for agriculture, food, andenvironment ranging from basic biologyto the social sciences and public policy.

Placing major emphasis on fundamentaland mission-linked multidisciplinaryresearch. Mission-linked multidisciplinarygrants would be designed to facilitateapplication of knowledge and the transferof technology to the user through jointresearch-extension studies.

Providing research strengthening grants toinstitutions and individual.

Increasing the duration and size of grants.

Maintaining current levels of formula fundsand USDA agency support for research orextension.

No change in the Joint Council and UABstructure nor in the overall planning process.

Competitive Grants AdministrativeStructure

The Competitive Grants Alternativerecommends elevating the Competitive Re-search Grants Office from its current positionin CSRS to agency status within USDA’s Of-fice of Science and Education. As such, itwould have equal status with ARS, CSRS,ERS, FS, NAL and ES. Otherwise, the struc-ture of USDA’s science and education pro-gram would remain basically intact (figure4-3).

Differences From National Research andExtension Policy Alternative

The Competitive Grants Alternative wouldnot place as much emphasis on planning as theNational Research and Extension Policy Alter-native, which makes planning the driving forceof the system. The driving force in the Competi-tive Grants Alternative is more money for re-search. Under the Competitive GrantsAlternative, it is assumed that the major prob-lem with the AR&E system is a lack of adequate

Ch. 4-Alternative Policies for Research and Technology Transfer. 37

Figure 4-3-Organizational Structure for Competitive Grants Alternative

Executive Officeof thePresident

Users+ Advisory

Board


research funding, not structural problems inimplementing a mission-oriented researchand extension program as is assumed underthe National Research and Extension PolicyAlternative.

The Competitive Grants Alternativeplaces virtually all of its emphasis upon re-search. One of its recommendations men-tions technology and extension but only interms of establishing a continuum from re-search to applications, not in terms of the

programs. It maybe concluded that the Com-petitive Grants Alternative is a researchproposal while the National Research and Ex-

tension Policy Alternative is a research andextension proposal.

Likely Consequences of the CompetitiveGrants Alternative

● Increased research funds would beavailable to all public and privateuniversities (land-grant and non-land-grant)and government research agencies able tocompete on a scientific basis. Whileformula fund support would not change,the role of competitive grants fundingwould be more comparable with what itis in NIH and NSE


● The rate of discovery and technologicalchange in agricultural research wouldaccelerate.

● Greater potential would exist for dealing with ●

complex multidisciplinary problems.

● While funds would be available forstrengthening grants, this proposal wouldinevitably lead to increased concentration ofresearch talent However, this result may notbe unique to this altemative. It has happened ●

under the status quo and wouldprobably alsohappen under the research and extensionpolicy alternative.

. The gap between basic and appliedresearch could be reduced. However,neglect of extension education as a

funding target would inevitably lead to aserious gap between research andextension.

Nothing is done to improve the planningsystem and the linkage betweenplanning and execution. There isnothing to assure that funds areallocated to UAB and Joint Councildetermined priorities.

The drain of the best scientific talentaway from extension would accelerate asmore funds become available forresearch. And salaries would likely risein research relative to extension. Thebest extension scientists would havestrong incentives to seek experimentstation appointments.

Appendixes

Appendix A.-Glossary of Acronyms

AASCARR

ARS

ASEPB

BOA

CSRS

ECOP

ERS

ES

ESCOP

FS

JC

NAL

NASULGC

NIH

NPS

NSF

OMB

RICOP

SAES

UAB

UAC

American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and RenewableResources

Agricultural Research Service

Agricultural Science and Education Policy Board

Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council

Cooperative State Research Service

Extension Committee on Policy

Economic Research Service

Extension Service

Experiment Station Committee on Policy

Forest Service

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences

National Agriculture Library

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

National Institutes of Health

National Program Staff of Agricultural Research Service

National Science Foundation

Office of Management and Budget

Resident Instruction Committee on Policy

State Agricultural Experiment Station

National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board

Users Advisory Council

40

Appendix B.-Agricultural Research and Extension Funding Tables

41

42 AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

o00

N - I ’ a - -.

cuN

0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0

New Mexico

New YorkNorth CarolinaNorth Dakota

OhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaPuerto Rico

Rhode IslandSouth Carolina

South Dakota

TennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest Virginia

WisconsinWyoming

1,309,0004,435,0005,289,0001,917,0004,649,000

2,480,000

2,255,0004,904,0003,518,0001,003,0002,790,0001,956,0003,845,0005,138,0001,424,0001,178,0003,387,0002,909,0002,171,0004,064,0001,262,000

0861,000756,00032,000

171,000139,000325,000266,000

0000

51,000281,000164,00017,0002,000

55,0000

1,034,0000

139,485,000 11,873,000

93,000748,000392,000218,000

332,000276,000792,000714,000568,00034,000

583,0000

226,000480,000146,000148,000119,000327,00046,000

871,0000

19,502,000

230,000143,000484,000118,000

304,000330,00047,000

354,00013,00067,00022,000181,000334,000532,000185,00016,000

432,000329,000272,000489,000148,000

1,632,0006,187,0006,921,0002,285,000

5,456,0003,226,0003,419,0006,239,0004,099,0001,104,000

3,394,0002,137,0004,456,000

6,431,0001,919,000

1,359,000

3,940,0003,620,0002,489,0006,457,0001,409,000

13,361,000 184,212,000

566,0001,175,0001,867,000

272,000

138,000163,000551,000447,000

0000

83,0002,176,000

452,00056,000

1,168,000713,000163,000720,000

0

2,198,0007,362,0008,788,0002,557,000

5,594,0003,389,0003,970,0006,686,0004,099,0001,104,000

3,394,0002,137,000

4,539,0008,607,0002,371,0001,415,000

5,108,0004,333,0002,652,0007,177,0001,409,000

30,829,000 215,041,000

187,00011,587,0007,043,000

402,000

36,000334,000

4,349,0002,049,000

0207,00034,000

0301,000

4,987,0001,745,000

186,000

3,368,0002,789,000

65,00011,736,000

502,000

2,385,00018,949,00015,831,0002,959,000

5,630,000

3,723,0008,319,000

8,735,000

4,099,0001,311,0003,428,0002,137,0004,840,00013,594,0004,116,0001,601,0008,476,0007,122,0002,717,00018,913,0001,911,000

7.861.144.513.6

0.69.0

52.323.500.015.81.0

00.06.2

36.742.411.639.739.22.4

62.126.3

aHatch includes Hatch Fundsand Regional Funds administered byCSRS.L‘COMPare Competitive Research Grants administered by the Competitive Research Grants Office ofCSRS.

cSPGT are Special Grants administeredby CSRS.

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

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

~otal CSRSisthesumofHATCH, COMP,SPGT,andotherCSRS.

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

gTotal USDA is thesum oftotal CSRSand CGCA.

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

‘Total federal isthe sumoftotal USDAand other federal.

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

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

110,799,000 325,840,000 34.0

44 Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s

m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. - . . . . . . . . .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

App . B

–Agricultural R

esearch and Extension F

unding Tables .45

.

.m.

..N

.NN

.Kii

ms

Table B-3—Top 10 State Agricultural Experiment Stations with Biotechnology Funds fromFederal Sources Other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture for FY 1986and FY 1988 (in dollars)

State 1986 1988

CaliforniaColoradoIndianaMichiganNew YorkNorth CarolinaTexasUtahWashingtonWisconsin

Total for 10 SAES

Total SAESa

3,339,550519,316

1,466,9031,580,8242,931,892

774,4601,534,105

268,955466,789

3.232.370

16,115,164

20,954,078

3,965,4191,387,6283,129,294

993,9442,337,6411,338,5781,466,1371,288,0301,090,4473.240,762

20,237,880

27,563,761

Proportion of 10 SAESTo total (Percentage) 77 73

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

SOURCE: Compiled from Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture: Issues and Policies,Progress Report VIII, Nov. 1989, NASULGC.

Appendix C.-Workshop Participants

Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policy for the 1990s Workshop

Norman BergSeverna Park, MD

Donald BillsAgriculture Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureBeltsville, MD

Patrick BorichDirectorCooperative Extension ServiceUniversity of Minnesota

Lucas CalpouzosSchool of AgricultureCalifornia State University

Mary CarterAssociate AdministratorAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, DC

Neville ClarkTexas Agricultural Experiment StationTexas A&M University

Arnold DentonSenior Vice-PresidentCampbell Soup CompanyCamden, NJ

Chester T. DickersonDirector Agricultural AffairsMonsanto CompanyWashington, DC

Catherine DonnellyAssociate DirectorAgriculture Experiment StationCollege of Agriculture& Life ScienceUniversity of VermontJeanne EdwardsWeston, MA

W.P. FlattDeanCollege of AgricultureUniversity of Georgia

Ray Frisbe1PM CoordinatorDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

Paul GenhoNational Cattlemen’s AssociationDeseret Ranches of FloridaSt. Cloud, FL

Robert HeilDirectorAgricultural Experiment StationColorado State University

Jim HildrethManaging DirectorFarm FoundationOak Brook, IL

Verner HurtDirectorAgricultural and Forestry ExperimentStationMississippi State University

Terry KinneyY o r k , S C

Ronald KnutsonProfessorDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

William MarshallPresidentMicrobial Genetics DivisionPioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Johnston, IA

Roger MitchellDirectorAgricultural Experiment StationUniversity of Missouri

Lucinda NobleDirectorCooperative ExtensionCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

47


Susan OffuttOffice of Management and BudgetWashington, DC

Dave PhillipsPresidentNational Association of County AgentsLewistown, MT

Jack PincusDirector of MarketingMichigan Biotechnology InstituteLansing, MI

Dan RagsdaleResearch DirectorNational Corn Growers AssociationSt. Louis, MO

Roy RauschkolbResident DirectorMaricopa Agricultural CenterMaricopa, AZ

Alden ReineDeanCooperative Agricultural Research CenterPrairie View A&M UniversityPrairie View, TX

Grace Ellen RiceAmerican Farm Bureau FederationWashington, DC

Robert RobinsonAssociate AdministratorEconomic Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, DC

Jerome SeibertEconomistDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of California-Berkeley

Keith SmithDirector of ResearchAmerican Soybean AssociationSt. Louis, MO

William StilesSubcommittee ConsultantSubcommittee on Department Operations,

Research, and Foreign AgricultureCommittee on AgricultureU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, DC

William TallentAssistant AdministratorAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, DC

Jim TavaresAssociate Executive DirectorBoard on AgricultureNational Research CouncilWashington, DC

Luther TweetenAnderson Chair for Agricultural TradeDepartment of Agricultural Economics andRural SociologyOhio State University

Walter WallaDirectorExtension ServiceUniversity of Kentucky

Tim WallaceExtension EconomistDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of California-Berkeley

Fred WoodsAgricultural ProgramsExtension ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWashington DC

John WoesteDirectorCooperative Extension ServiceUniversity of Florida

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Bonnen, James T, “A Century of Sciencein Agriculture: Lessons for SciencePolicy,” American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, December 1986, pp. 1065-1080.

Braha, Habtu and Luther Tweeten,Evaluating Past and Prospective FuturePayoffs from Public Investments to IncreaseAgricultural Productivity Technical Bul-letin T-163 (Stillwater, OK: AgriculturalExperiment Station, Oklahoma StateUniversity, 1986).

Fox, Glenn, Robert Evenson, and VernonRuttan, “Balancing Basic and AppliedScience: The Case of Agricultural Re-search,” Bioscience 37:507-509, 1987.

Hildreth, R. S., “Legitimacy and Supportfor Extension: A Policy Issue” (New Or-leans, LA: National Public Policy Educa-tion Conference, September 20, 1989).

Holt, Don, “Mechanisms for FederalFunding of Agricultural Research andDevelopment” (Champaign-Urbana, IL:Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station,University of Illinois, 1989).

Huffman, Wallace E. and Robert E. Even-son, “Supply and Demand Functions forMultiproduct U.S. Cash Grain Farms:Biases Caused by Research and OtherPolicies, ’’American Journal ofAgriculturalEconomics, August 1989, pp. 761-73.

Kinney, Terry, “Agricultural Research Is-sues for the 1990s,” a background paperprepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment Workshop on Agricultural Re-search and Technology Transfer Policy forthe 1990s, September 1989.

Knutson, Ronald D., “Alternative Nation-al Agricultural Research and TechnologyTransfer Policies,” a background paperprepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment Workshop on Agricultural Re-

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

search and Technology Transfer Policy forthe 1990s, September 1989.

Marshall, William, “The Changing Tech-nology Environment,” a background paperprepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment Workshop on Agricultural Re-search and Technology Transfer Policy forthe 1990s, September 1989.

NASULGC, Strategic Investments forAgricultural Research, Extension, andHigher Education (Washington, DC: Na-tional Association for State Universitiesand Land Grant Colleges, 1989).

National Research Council, Investing inResearch (Washington, DC: Board onAgriculture, National Academy of Scien-ces, 1989).

National Research Council, Educating theNext Generation of Agricultural Scientists(Washington, DC: Board on Agriculture,National Academy of Sciences, 1988).

Offut, Susan, “The Changing Budget En-vironment for Agricultural Research andTechnology Transfer,’f a background paperprepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment Workshop on Agricultural Re-search and Technology Transfer Policy forthe 1990s, September 1989.

Ruttan, Vernon W., Agricultural ResearchPolicy (Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press, 1982).

Siebert, Jerry, “TechnologyTransfer Issuesfor the 1990s,” a background paperprepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment Workshop on Agricultural Re-search and Technology Transfer Policy forthe 1990s, September 1989.

Tweeten, Luther, ‘fThe Competitive En-vironment for Agricultural Research andTechnology Transfer," a background paperprepared for the Office of Technology As-

49


17.

18.

19.

sessment Workshop on Agricultural Re-search and Technology Transfer Policy forthe 1990s, September 1989.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Technology Public Policy andthe Changing Structure of AmericanAgriculture, OTA-F-285 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, March1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, A Review of U.S. Competitive-ness in Agricultural Trade, OTA-TM-TET29(Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing0ffice, October 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Agricultural Postharvest Tech-no logy and Marketing EconomicsResearch, OTA-TM-F-21 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,April 1983).

20.

21.

22.

23.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, An Assessment of the UnitedStates Food and Agricultural Research Sys-tem, OTA-F-155 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, December1981).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Exten-sion Service, “National Initiatives”(Washington, DC: USDA, February1987).

U.S. General Accounting Office, US.Department of Agriculture - Interim Reporton Ways to Enhance Management,GAO/RCED-90-19 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, Oc-tober 1989).

Wadsworth, H. A., “Opportunities forPublic Policy Education in the ExtensionInitiatives” (New Orleans, LA: NationalPublic Policy Education Conference),September 20, 1989.

NOTE: Copies of this Special Report “AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policies for the1990s: A Special Report of OTA’s Assessment onEmerging Agricultural Technology Issues for the 1990s”can be purchased from the Superintendent of Doc-uments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,DC 20402-9325, GPO stock No. 052-003-01182-4.

0

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