8106

8/14/2019 8106

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/8106 1/215

An Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural Research System

December 1981

NTIS order #PB-82-170572

8/14/2019 8106


Libra ry o f Congress Ca ta log Card Number 81-600189

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

8/14/2019 8106


Foreword

This report examines the U.S. food and agricultural research system. The U.S.food and agricultural enterprise has been extremely successful, in part because of sustained public support of agricultural research and demonstration. As we face afuture of increased demands on our agricultural resources, it is essential to ensurethat the research system function as effectively as possible. Congressional con-

cern centers around the roles of the research part icipants , long-range researchpriority planning, funding for research, and the organizational structure of thefood and agricultural research organizations. The Senate Committees on Ap-propriations and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, requested OTA to addressthese issues. The House Agriculture Committee endorsed the request. OTA wasspecifically asked to focus its assessment on the structure of the research systemand thus complement previous studies which identified research priorities.

In early 1981 the draft report of this project was made available to the staffs of the requesting committees, USDA, and AID for review and comment. It is gratify-ing to note that USDA and AID have already begun to make changes within theirorganizations to deal with some of the problems identified in the report. Also, ma-terial in the report has been used in drafting current legislation that amends titleXIV of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977.

OTA was assisted by three work groups and an advisory panel of research ad-ministrators, scientists, farmers, processors, retailers, consumers, and those con-cerned with the relationship between food and agricultural sciences and society.The advisory panel was instrumental in helping us identify the issues for analysisand in reviewing the commissioned papers and drafts of the report. The workgroups provided guidance in identifying the topic, component parts, and authorsfor each of the commissioned papers, and in reviewing the papers and drafts of the report, Sixty reviewers from universities, government, and industry providedhelpful commentsthese individuals.

on report drafts . OTA expresses sincere appreciat ion to al l

. ///

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Work Group I :

James Albrecht

Management o f Food and Agr icu l t u ra l Research

Roy L. Lovvorn

Vice President for Business Developm entThe Nestle Co.

William P. FlattDeanCollege of Ag ricultureUniversity of Georgia

Hu go O. GraumannRetiredU.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert Jud dManaging DirectorNational Soybean Crop Improvement Cou ncil

RetiredNor th Carolina State University and U.S. Departm ent

of Agricultur e

Thomas S. RonningenDirector-at-LargeNor theast Regional Association of State Agricultural

Experiment Station DirectorsUniversity of Maryland

John StovallDepu ty DirectorJoint Planning and EvaluationScience and Education AdministrationU.S. Department of Agriculture

Work Group I I : Structure, Evaluat ion, and Funding

of Food and Agr icu l tura l Research

C. L. DuncanVice PresidentCamp bell Soup Co.

B. R. EddlemanDirectorNational and Regional Research Planning and

Analysis, SAESMississippi State University

Earl GloverRetiredU.S. Department of Agriculture

R. J. HildrethManaging DirectorFarm Found ation

Work Group

Thomas ArmyDeputy Adm inistratorAgricultural ResearchU.S. Departmen t of Agriculture

Char les E. FrenchCoordinator of International and Interagency

ProgramsDevelopment Support BureauAgency for International Development

James Kendrick Vice PresidentAgriculture and University Services

University of California, Berkeley

E. F. KniplingRetiredU.S. Department of Agriculture

Vernon RuttanProfessorDepartment of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota

Pr io r i t i es

Ronald D. KnutsonProfessorDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

Donald KueselVice President and Director of Qu ality Assur ance and

ResearchLarsen Co.

Keith Hu stonJohn P. Mahlstede

Director-at-Large Associate DeanNorth Central Regional Agricultural Experiment College of Agr icultur e

Station Directors Iowa State University

vi

8/14/2019 8106


Contents

Chapter Page

I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ,””””.ossosso”..Qo””o3

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

111. The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research. . . . . . . . . . . 29IV. Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research. . . . . . . . . . 53

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

VI

VII

VIII

IX

x

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

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

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

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

Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““”””” ‘.”..”” 1 7 9

Appendix A. — O p t i o n s f o r t h e E x e c u t i v e B r a n c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 5

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

Appendix C. —Commissioned Papers , Acknowledgments , and Food andRenewable Resources Program Advisory Committee . . . . . ....207

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

vii

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter I

Summary..

NOTE: This report was largely completed in early 1981 and refers to thefood and agricultural research system as of that date. Draft copies of thereport were made available at that time for congressional committee staff andexecutive agencies. Some of the report’s potential solutions to food andagricultural research problems have already been enacted. The text has notbeen revised to reflect all those changes, but the more important ones havebeen mentioned in footnotes. /

8/14/2019 8106


55567788999

10101111131414141515161717

Figure No. Page

1. USDA Agricultural Research System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62. State Agriculture Experiment Station System .*. .0** .*eo**. e**@ .o*. ***4 **e..** 7

8/14/2019 8106


Chapt er I

S u m m a r y

The food and agricultural industry in theUnited States is by far the largest of all our in-

dust r ies . In 1980 , fa rm asse ts to ta led over$900 billion. And one of every five civilian jobs was in the food and agricultural indus-try. Agricultural products rank first among allU.S. exports. Moreover, food costs to U.S.consumers , whi le r is ing , a r e a m o n g t h elowest of any country in the world.

Food and agricultural research has contrib-uted markedly in making the United States agiant of industria l enterprise . Research hasgiven us new and better ways to improve pro-duction, processing, and marketing. In addi-t ion , agr icu l tu ra l resea rch is so lv ing p rob-lems in environmental quality and human nu-trition. The aim of such research is to assurean ample, safe, and nutritious food supply atreasonable cost, while maintaining a sustain-able production system. The United States isgenerally recognized throughout the world asa leader in agricultural research.

Despite its notable achievements, the U.S.food and agricultural research establishmenttoday is facing new problems. These prob-lems are exerting severe strains on our abilityto meet current and projected challenges. Sci-

en t is ts a re concerned tha t new technologymay not be keeping pace with domestic andworld needs.

The tight world supply-demand balance isalso a growing problem. Unless major break-throughs occur in either expanded resourcesor new technology, the world food problem islikely to worsen. Changes are also occurringin the structure of agriculture. For example,large farms and businesses have more influ-ence than small farms on the direction publicr e s e a r c h p r o g r a m s t a k e . N e w t e c h n o l o g y

tends to be adopted more readily by largerand more mechanized firms than by smallerand less organized agricultural interests.

Recognizing this trend toward industria l-ization of agriculture, the Office of Manage-

ment and Budget (OMB) has taken the standthat funds for some forms of public agricul-tural research are no longer needed. The im-plication is that the private sector has enoughresources to conduct its own research. Thisargument has been used most specifically forpost-harvest technology research. In the fu-tu re , th e a rg u me n t mig h t b e e x p a n d e d toother forms of technology-rela ted food andagricultural research.

The 1970’s brought a host of new publicissues and concerns that will likely continue

in the 1980’s. These include food safety, envi-ronmental protection, nutri t ion, and increas-ing competition for water resources.

Today, there are additional pressing issues:sustainability of the present agricultural sys-tem, water shortages in the West, widespreaddroughts , excess ive so i l e rosion , inc reasedenergy costs, and continued environmentalconcerns.

Because Federal research funding has notsubstantia lly increased in recent years, newresearch problems must be funded at the ex-

pense of tradit ional research. Moreover, thecost o f conduc t ing resea rch has inc reased .Research today requires more sophisticatedand costly equipment and support staff than10 years ago. Thus, many research areas arereceiving relatively much lower real fundingtoday than earlier.

T h e U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e(USDA) and the State agricultural experimentstations (SAES) have always had a close work-ing relationship in food and agricultural re-search. As a general rule , USDA has been

concerned more with national and regionalproblems, and the SAES with local and Stateproblems. But over the years, the SAES re-

3

8/14/2019 8106


4 qAn Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

search programs have grown to include prob-lems of regional and national significance.

With the present structure of USDA, thereis some question as to whether USDA has anational research program or merely a seriesof local and regional activities. Consequently,USDA and SAES appear to be working onseemingly indistinguishable problems. Manypeople, including Congress, have voiced con-cern that little, if any, overall planning andcoordination of research exist, especially attop levels of administra tion. They questionwh e th e r n a t io n a l i s su e s a re r e c e iv in g a d e -quate a ttention. Further, there seems to bemuch duplication and vying for funds.

Now, the question arises: How should thesenew issues and concerns be handled? Overthe years, there have been many studies deal-ing with food and agricultural research. Moststudies, such as the World Food and Nutri-tion Study, have concentrated on agriculturalresearch priorit ies. These studies have iden-tif ied the research that requires highest pri-ority and the level of funds needed for the re-search. Few of these studies have looked intothe structure of the research system. Therehas been little, if any, attempt to identify rolesof research agencies or to seek solutions tothe problems they face. In addition, there hasbeen little, if any, attempt to classify researchfrom a management perspective.

Congress and others have raised questionsabout the a l loca t ion o f resea rch resourcesand the mechanisms used to develop researchpriorities. Other issues of concern include theadequacy of research funding, the distribu-tion of research benefits, and the quality of expertise and interest being brought to bearon identifying and conducting research.

These concerns led d i rec t ly to a requestfrom Congress for the Office of TechnologyAsse ssme n t (OT A) to u n d e r ta k e a n a sse ss -ment of the U.S. food and agricultural re-

search system. Congress stressed that the as-

sessment focus on the s t ruc tu re o f the re -search system and that it complement previ-ous studies which identified agricultural re-search priorities. The requests for an assess-me n t c a me f ro m th e S e n a te Co mmi t t e e o nAppropriations as well as the Senate Commit-tee on Agriculture , Nutri t ion, and Forestry ,

The House Agriculture Subcommittee on De-partment Operations, Research, and ForeignAgriculture also endorsed the requests,

The objectives of this assessment are to:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

60

evaluate the funding, benefits, and bur-dens of food and agricultural research;determine the basis, scientific or other-wise , fo r the c lass i f ica t ion o f resea rchfrom a management perspective;identify the roles of Federal, State, andprivate insti tutions in developing tech-no log ies fo r so lu t ions to in te rna t iona l ,

national, regional, a n d S t a t e o r l o c a lproblems;examine the management, structure, andpolicies of USDA in the conduct of foodand agricultural research;evaluate methods by which the exper-tise and interests of Federal, State, andp r iv a te r e se a rc h o rg a n iz a t io n s c a n b ebrought to bear cooperatively in identify-ing priority research areas; andprovide public policy options for Con-gress that will maximize our research po-tential.

The working groups and advisory commit-tee that prepared and reviewed the resourcemateria l for this assessment recognized theurgency for resolving the issues that charac-terize the present situation in the agriculturalresearch sector. They were motivated by adeep concern for maintaining a strong andgrowing food and agriculture industry. I t ishoped that the analysis of these issues andpublic policy options offered herein will pro-vide a good starting point for increased effec-tive use of the Nation’s scientific capabilities

and other research resources.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. l—Summary q 5

When it is working properly, the U.S. agri-cultural research system is t remendously ef-fect ive. The part icipants* —USDA, SAES,and p r iva t e i ndus t ry—concen t r a t e on mi s -sion-oriented research; that is, research di-

rected toward solving identif iable problems,a l t hough the p rog rams inc lude some bas i cresearch act ivi t ies . Most land-grant univer-si t ies and many nonland-grant universi t ieshave strong discipline-oriented research pro-grams in the basic sciences, such as physics,chemistry, and botany, that form the founda-tion of biological and physical sciences onwhich agricultural research is based.

USDA is the major Federal agency conduct-

ing agricultural research. I t is also the leadagency for the coordination of al l federal lyfunded agricultural research. Through early1981, the Science and Education Administra-tion (SEA) of USDA was responsible for: 1)broad agricultural research policies and coor-d ina t ion and 2 ) an ope ra t i ng o rgan iza t ionwhich had day- to-day management supervi -sion over a number of offices including Agri-cultural Research (AR), Cooperative Research(CR), and Human Nutrition (HN). **

AR is responsible for most of USDA’s in-house agricultural research. AR is account-able and responsive to Congress and the ex-ecutive branch for broad regional , nat ional ,and international concerns. It is headed by anadministrator located in Washington, D. C. ,

*A large nu mber of Federal agencies and pu blic and privateinstitutions are also invo lved in U .S. agricultural research.This assessment, however, is concerned primarily with thetrad itional agricultural research system, which includes theUSDA research agencies, SAES, and private industry. The1890 schools, nonland -grant u niversities, etc., are discussedwhere most relevant, but no in-depth study was made of them.Forestry research is not includ ed in this assessment,

* *In June 1981, USDA announced a reorganization that

eliminated the Science and Education Administration andestablished AR, CR, and Extension Service as separate operat-ing agencies. Most of HN was m erged into A R. USDA estab-lished an O ffice of Science and Edu cation, w hich is to estab-

lish broad agricultural research policies, planning, and coor-dination.

RESEARCH SYSTEM

and four regional deputy administrators, onelocated in each of the four SAES regions .Each region is subdivided into areas under aresearch area director (fig. 1). A national pro-g r a m s t a f f ( N P S ) p r e p a r e s a n i n t e g r a t e d

budget and assists in technical planning andcoordination. NPS has no direct line respon-sibility for program development, staff selec-tion, or resource allocation.

CR is responsible for administering Feder-al funds that go to States for agricultural re-search. This includes formula funds, specialg r a n t s , a n d c o m p e t i t i v e g r a n t s . F o r m u l afunds help to provide a stable and dependablebase, ensuring a strong experiment station ineach State. Grants provide an opportunity forr e sea rche r s i n non land -g ran t un ive r s i t i e s ,

SAES, and other institutions to work on prob-lems important to the agricultural industry.

Human nutrition research in USDA is car-ried out by six research centers. Research atall centers is directed to national concerns.

T h r o u g h e a r l y 1 9 8 1 t h e e c o n o m i c s r e -search program was conducted by the Eco-nomics and Statistics Service (ESS). In addi-tion to research, its primary objective is thecollection and analysis of economics data. *

State Agr icu l tu ra l Exper iment

Sta t ion Research

Over the years, the structure of SAES haschanged l i t t le . S ta t ions typica l ly inc lude acen t r a l s t a t i on and headqua r t e r s , wh ich i sgenerally located on the campus of the State’sl a n d - g r a n t u n i v e r s i t y , a n d a n u m b e r O f branch stat ions located throughout the State(fig. 2). Stations are organized by departmentsaccording to the various scientific disciplinesrepresented on their s taffs , such as depart-ments of animal science, entomology, plantpathology, etc. These departments usually are

the same as those of the academic unit and, in*In June 1981, USDA announced a reorganization that elim-

inated th e Economics and Statistics Service and establishedtwo separate agencies, Economic Research Service and Statis-tical Reporting Service.

8/14/2019 8106



E

Figure 1 .—USDA Agricultural Research System

TH

ERN

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

m ost cases, also in clu de exten sion . In m an y Be gin n in g i n t h e 1 96 0’s , i n c r e a s i n g

cases, USDA personnel are located in depart-ments and par t ic ipa te fu l ly in depar tmenta lactivities. The chief administrative officer of each department typically reports three ways—to the dean, to the director of SAES, and tothe director of cooperative extension service.

In the early 1900’s, the station director re-ported directly to the president of the univer-s i ty . Today, most s ta t ion d i rec tors repor tdirectly to the dean of the college of agricul-ture. This relat ionship of the SAES workingwith the land-grant universi t ies and USDA

provides a unique oppor tuni ty for graduatet ra in ing of fu ture sc ient i s t s for research ,teaching, and other State, Federal , and in-dustry needs. In fact, it is by far the principalsource of trained scientists.

amounts of non-State funding became avail-able from agencies other than USDA. USDAfund ing r ema ined s t ab l e o r dec l ined , andgrants to some SAES sc ient i s t s tended tod r a w t h e m a w a y f r o m t h e S t a t e p r o g r a mtoward the interests of individual scientists orthe granting institution.

SAES-USDA I n te rac t i on

In many areas of agriculture research, therehave long been closely knit cooperative rela-t ionships between SAES and USDA agricul-

tural research. This relationship has been oneof the strong points of the U.S. agriculturalresearch system. Generally, it has resulted inscientists from each group developing respectfor those from other groups. The major diffi-

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. l—Summary q 7

Figure 2.—State Agriculture Experiment Station System

qMa in e xp e r ime n t s ta t i o n


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

d i f f i cu l t i e s appea r s t o be cen t e r ed a roundcompetition for limited funds, which tends toc r e a t e p r o b l e m s i n t h e r o l e s o f t h e t w ogroups. At times, this problem seems to per-meate the entire system.

Pr ivate Sector Research

Part icipants in the private sector includefoundations, industry, and industrial associa-tions. Private industry research is conductedin those areas that are of major concern to thef i rm, p r imar i l y f rom a p ro f i t s t andpo in t .Whi le re l iab le da ta a re d i f f icu l t to obta in ,private industry’s investment in agriculturalresearch appears to be about three-fourths of that of the public funds spent by USDA andSAES combined. Industry research tends to

f avo r t he deve lopmen ta l a spec t s and con -tinues to draw heavily on basic research con-

ducted in the public sector.There are some 400 American philanthrop-

ic foundations that award grants of $5,000 ormore to performers of agricultural research.The na ture and purpose of the grants varywith the interest and purpose of the grantingfoundat ions . Compared wi th the amount of funds available to the performers of agricul-t u r a l r e s e a r c h f r o m p u b l i c s o u r c e s , t h eamounts provided by foundations are indeedmodest . The decision to make each grant isbased on policies established by the individ-ual foundation’s governing board.

At leas t 10 Federa l agencies o ther thanUSDA conduct or fund some kind of food and

8/14/2019 8106



agr icul tura l research . In most cases , suchresearch is complementary to that of USDA.It is conceived and operated to support thebas ic miss ion of the respect ive agency. Inorder to increase the effect iveness and pro-ductivity of Federal R&D agencies, Congressin 1977 mandated the establishment of the

C o m m i t t e e o n F o o d a n d R e n e w a b l e R e -sources.

In 1890 Congress passed an act that grantedcertain Negro colleges and universi t ies thesame privileges as those provided by the Mor-rill Act of 1862. They are called the 1890 land-g ran t i n s t i t u t i ons and Tuskegee In s t i t u t e .Under the 1977 Food and Agriculture Act,these institutions receive substantial amountsof formula-funded agriculture research fundsfrom Federal sources. Their role is to meetthe needs of those people whom the system

w a s d e s i g n e d t o s e r v e t h r o u g h t e a c h i n g ,research, and extension.

The nonland-grant universities include pri-vate institutions and public State universities.The major expert ise of the private nonland-grant universities lies in research in the basicsc iences . They genera l ly rece ive no d i rec tcon t inu ing S t a t e o r Fede ra l a s s i s t ance andsuppor t the i r research through governmentg r an t s, en d o w m e n t s, a n d c or p o r at e gr a n ts

and con t r ac t s . Compe t i t i ve g r an t f und ingopens up an opportunity for the universitiesto be more involved in agricultural research.L a r g e p u b l i c S t a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s w i t h o u tagricultural programs have, in many cases,t h e s a m e p r o b l e m s a n d i n t e r e s t s a s t h eprivate universities.

The public State universi t ies with agricul-tural programs perceive their role as provid-ing teaching, research, and public service totheir regions and States in accordance withmissions and charters set forth by State legis-l a tu r e s . Mos t o f t hem have evo lved f romteachers colleges and have a strong emphasison unde rg radua te t each ing . The i r r e sea rchtends to concentrate on local problems of am o r e a p p l i e d n a t u r e a n d o n p r o j e c t s f o rwhich corporate support is more available.

Mos t non land -g ran t un ive r s i t i e s have no

Federal or State charter for research. Financ-i n g , h e a v i l y d e p e n d e n t o n c o n t r a c t s a n dgrants, has lacked continuity and dependabil-i ty. Because of the concentrat ion on under-graduate teaching, funding generally has notprovided sophist icated faci l i t ies and equip-ment for graduate teaching and research, ex-cept for a few outstanding private researchinstitutions.

PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Food and Agr icu l tura l Goals

The lack of well-defined and agreed-uponnational goals for U.S. food and agriculture isa major deterrent in formulating broad foodand agricultural policy at the national level.

A goal is the end toward which effort andresources are directed. The end must be de-f inab le and ach ievab le a t l e a s t i n t heo ry .Other than general goals of self-sufficiency,the United States has not had well-articulated

national food and agricultural goals.

There are implici t goals , but they providelittle help in formulating policies and givingdirection to the research community. One im-

plied goal is to provide an ample supply of nutr i t ious food for the consumer at reason-able cost with a fair return to farmers withinan agricultural system that is sustainable inpe rpe tu i ty . However , t h i s “goa l ” i s open -ended and, therefore, not achievable. For ex-ample , what i s meant by “ample supply?”What is nutritious food? What is a reasonablecost to consumers? What is a fair return tofarmers? When is this return to be expected?How much so i l e ro s ion o r dependence on

fossil fuel can a sustainable system tolerate?

These and o the r ques t i ons mus t be an -swered for a goal to be useful in formulatingpo l i cy and fo r t he r e sea rch communi ty i n

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. l—Summary q9

planning a research agenda. With such ques-t ions unanswered, set t ing research pr ior i t iesis a difficult task at best.

Pol icy opt ions

Congress and/ or the executive branch couldset national goals for U.S. food and agricul-

ture. This could give a clear direction to ther e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y f o r d e v e l o p i n g a r e -search agenda. Publ ic funds would be a l lo-cated to research needed to meet goals estab-lished by society through its elected officials.Because society provides the funds for re-search, it can set broad long-term goals ande x p e c t t h e r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y t o r e s p o n da c c o r d i n g l y t h r o u g h p l a n n i n g , c o n d u c t i n g ,and evaluat ing achievements .

Not setting explicit goals could save timeand money at least in the short term. Goal set-

ting is a complex, time-consuming endeavor,and because o f the d ivers i ty o f cond i t ionsunder which food and fiber are produced, itcould be a complicated procedure. However,in the absence of goals established by society,the resea rch communi ty has to se t goa l s .Problems ar ise when there is lack of agree-ment on those goals and when there is nopract ical process for determining the viewsand priorities of those who are affected.

Research Pr ior i ty Determinat ion

There is no satisfactory long-term processfo r eva lua t ing resea rch ac t iv i t i e s , r e sea rchopportuni t ies , and development of researchprior i t ies . Decis ions are made on an ad hocbas i s wi th ve ry l i t t l e coord ina t ion amongUSDA, SAES, and other agencies conductingfood and agr icu l tu ra l r esea rch . Long- te rmresearch planning, updated every 4 years ormore, could be accomplished by an intensives t u d y i n v o l v i n g r e s e a r c h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,scientists, users, and consumers.

Congress established the Joint Council onFood and Agricultural Science (JC) and the

Nat iona l Agr icu l tu ra l Research and Ex ten-sion Users Advisory Board (UAB), which ismade up of c i t izens , to a id in coordinat ionand priority setting. These groups have strug-gled with their ass ignments . Concern exis ts

as to whether the functions assigned to the JCare attainable. The council has had a limitedimpact because of: an inability to define itsrole , a perceived dominance by USDA, andoverorganization. UAB’s functions are moreattainable than the JC’s; however, the board’si m p a c t o n r e s e a r c h p r i o r i t i e s i s u n c l e a r .

Neither of the units has the capacity to con-d u c t a l o n g - r a n g e s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y o f r e -search priorities that involves scientists, re-s e a r c h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , u s e r s , a n d o t h e r s ;neither was set up to do that.

Involvement of scient is ts and research ad-ministrators is needed for the obvious reasonthat they have the expertise and are the per-formers of the research. Research users areneeded because they have specif ic problemsthat need to be addressed by research. Like-wise , consumerstha t the resea rchdress .

Policy Options

have leg i t imate concernsc o m m u n i t y n e e d s t o a d -

O p t i o n A. P r e p a r e a n a t i o n a l r e s e a r c hagenda, updated at specif ic in tervals , us ingsc ien t i s t s , admin is t ra to r s , use r s , and con-sumers under the auspices of USDA. * Sucha s tudy could use methods l ike those pio-neered by the National Academy of SciencesWorld Food and Nutrition Study and the OTAstudies Nutr i t ion Research Alternat ives andEmerging Food Marketing Technologies for

pr ior i ty determinat ion.A planning system of th is type would in-

clude a cross section of scientists, researcha d m i n i s t r a t o r s , u s e r s , a n d c o n s u m e r s . Asmall staff would manage the study. The bulkof the work would be conduc ted th rough avariety of work groups. This ad hoc feature isviewed as being critical to success in long-range infusion of new ideas.

Short-range planning would be done regu-larly by each research entity in conjunctionwith budget preparation. This system would

not set priorities for SAES, since they are pri-marily responsible for State and local issues.

*The p resentlymand ates USDAstudy.

drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

to conduct a long-range research planning

8/14/2019 8106


10 qAn Assessment of the U. S. Food and Agricultural Research System

T h e J C a n d U A B w o u l d m o d i f y t h e i rr e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o p l a c e e m p h a s i s o n : 1 )supe rv i s ing the p l ann ing p roces s , 2 ) p ro -viding a forum for communication, and 3)p rov id ing in t e r im eva lua t ion o f p l ann inggoals. This modification would permit a mores imp l i f i ed s t ruc tu re t han i s cu r r en t ly an -

t ic ipa ted , especia l ly for the JC. Also , thenumber of meetings would be reduced.

Coordinating the study under USDA wouldbe in keeping with its responsibilities for foodand agricultural research established by Con-gress.

Option B. Prepare a national researchagenda, updated at specific intervals, usingscientists, administrators, users, and con-sumers under the auspices of the NationalAcademy of Sciences (NAS). This would bethe same concept as discussed in the previous

option except that i t would be coordinatedu n d e r t h e a u s p i c e s o f N A S r a t h e r t h a nUSDA.

Some part icipants in the research systemwould consider NAS a more objective partythan USDA. However, in the past NAS hasresisted the use of lesser known scientists ,nonscientists, users of research, and the pub-lic in conducting such studies. The success of this effort depends to a large extent on thepa r t i c ipa t ion o f t he se g roups . I n add i t i on ,NAS expertise is concentrated more in basicrather than mission-oriented research. Thiswould also weaken USDA’s leadership role inresearch, which is contrary to recent legisla-tion.

Funding

USDA resea rch expend i tu r e s a r e p ropor -tionately the smallest of any major Federal re-search agency. In 1978, USDA’s share of Fed-eral expenditures for research and develop-ment was 1.5 percent of total expenditurescompared with the Department of Defense—45 percent , Department of Energy—16 per-cent, and Department of Health and HumanServices—12 percent.

The purchasing power of total SAES andUSDA agricultural research expenditures in-creased 23 percent in constant dollars from1966 to 1979. The constant-dollar agriculturalresearch expenditures of USDA increased 1percent , whi le those of SAES increased 40percent from 1966 to 1979.

Total expenditures by private enterprise forf o o d a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h a r e a b o u tthree-quarters of the expenditures of Federaland State governments combined.

Justification of public funding of food andagricultural research is based on benefits wellin excess of costs.1 Issues of equity, becauseof the interstate flow of food and related com-modities and the spillover effect of researchfrom one geographic region to another , arealso cited. Producers benefit from expandingdemand and reduced costs . The distr ibution

of consuming population among States, how-ever, is related to the distribution of agricul-tural production only to a very l imited de-gree. Paradoxically, Federal research fund-ing, relative to State funding, has decreasedas the interstate flow of commodities has in-creased. Therefore, taxpayers in food-surplusStates are subsidizing consumers in food-defi-cit States and the degree of subsidization isincreasing steadily.

P o l i c y O p t i o n s

Option A. Maintain present Federal realfunding levels. From a management s tand-point, limited funding, up to a point, tends toincrease efficiency in the use of funds. It fo-cuses the use of funds on high-priority areasat the expense of less urgent areas. However,a certain level of funds is needed just to main-tain the research system. This does not allowresearch inst i tut ions to keep pace with in-creasing costs, nor does it allow research innew problem areas wi thout abandoning im-por t an t t r ad i t i ona l a r ea s . F rom an equ i ty

‘Fred White, B. R. Edd leman, and Joseph Purcell, Natu re andFlOW of Benefits From Agriculture-Food Research, OTA back-ground report, 1980.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. l—Summary q 1 1

s tandpoint , t h e r a t i o o f F e d e r a l r e s e a r c hfunding rela t ive to State funding would notimprove, causing taxpayers in food-surplusStates to cont inue subsidizing consumers infood-deficit States.

Option B. Significantly increase real Fed-

eral funding levels for food and agriculturalresearch. Increased Federal funding would:a) a l low research inst i tu t ions to keep pacewith the high cost of conduct ing research,b ) a l l o w t h e r e s e a r c h s y s t e m t o o p e n n e wareas of research while maintaining impor-tan t t r ad i t iona l r esea rch e f fo r t , and c ) in -crease Federal research funding rela t ive toState funding, thereby decreasing taxpayersubsidizat ion in food-surplus States to con-sumers in food-deficit States. From a manage-m e n t s t a n d p o i n t , h o w e v e r , a n i n c r e a s e i nfunding may tend to decrease eff ic iency in

the use of funds. Funds may not be focusedon the highest priority problem areas.

Roles o f Research Par t i c ipants

There is a role for a strong national USDAresearch program. This role has been carriedout in the past by AR, HN, ESS, and Federalfunding to SAES. The USDA role has beenassociated with broad regional, national, andinternational activities. The role of SAES, in-s o f a r a s F e d e r a l f u n d s a r e c o n c e r n e d , h a sbeen pr imari ly for local , State , and regional

problems. T h e r e h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r a b l eover lap ; some por t ions o f the Federa l andState roles are becoming indistinguishable.

USDA’s ro le i s to conduc t r esea rch on :a) agricultural problems important to the Na-t ion, problems that no one State or pr ivategroup has the resources, facilities, need or in-cent ive to solve, and b) those programs re-quired to fulfill stated objectives of Congress,the President , and the Secretary of Agricul-t u r e . U S D A c o u l d c a r r y o u t i t s r o l e b y :a) working as a partner with SAES to achieve

complementarily and b) cooperating with pri-vate univers i t ies and industry to coordinateits own contribution to achieve national goalswith minimum effor t .

Most of the 1890 land-grant institutions andTuskegee Institute research funds come fromFederal resources and if they are to meet theiro blig atio ns, p r e s si n g n e ed s m u s t b e a d -dressed. One important need is improved fa-cilities. But an even more important concernis the future role of these inst i tu t ions and

t h e i r a b i l i t y t o c o m p e t e f o r a n d m a i n t a i nfaculty and staff. While there is some cooper-a t ion wi th USDA and SAES, coord ina t ionwith the system is less than adequate.

In 1977 , Congress es tab l i shed the Com-mi t tee on Food and Renewable Resources(CFRR) to improve coord ina t ion o f the re -search activity of USDA and the 10 other Fed-eral agencies involved in food and agr icul-tural research. CFRR has not yet satisfactorilyfulfilled its role. As of early 1981, CFRR didno t have a c lass i f i ca t ion o f the food andagricultural research conducted or funded bythese agencies nor the amount of funds allo-cated for such research. Ident i fying def ini teobjectives for CFRR would be helpful. Fur-ther, CFRR lacks authority to carry out thefunct ions ass igned by Congress . USDA hasan opportunity to take an aggressive leader-ship role in this area, but to be effective it willrequire high-level attention and support.

Grant funds provide resources to fur therthe program of USDA. SAES, nonland-grantunivers i t ies , and other ins t i tu t ions competefor these funds on the basis of their interest

a n d a b i l i t y t o d o F e d e r a l r e s e a r c h . T h i sbroadens the base of resources for agr icul-tural research.

The private sector tends to view its roleprimarily from a profit potential. It conductsresearch in areas of interest to the companiesand in areas that may give them proprietarya d v a n ta g es . T h e r e a r e si g n i fi ca n t r e s ea r c hareas of in terest to the publ ic that are notreceiving nor are l ikely to receive adequateresearch attention if left to the private sector.

Policy Options

Option A. Maintain present roles withclarification. This option would imply con-

tinuation of most existing procedures.

8/14/2019 8106



USDA would continue in its role as lead agen-cy in the Federal Government in coordinat-ing al l agricultural research, extension, andteaching act ivi t ies conducted or f inanced byFederal funds.

This provides Congress and the executivebranch with one Federal agency, USDA, toho ld r e spons ib l e and accoun tab l e fo r t hec o o r d i n a t i o n o f a l l F e d e r a l a g r i c u l t u r a lresearch funds, and broad regional, nationaland international research programs. I t pro-v ides a mechanism whereby Federa l fundscan go directly (through formula funding) toSAES to have available resources of the in-stitutions for problems of national concern. Italso recognizes the public interest in supportof a decentralized system of food and agricul-tural research and provides a mechanism forhand l ing p rob lems o f l oca l and S t a t e con -cerns.

Th i s op t ion con t inues t o pe rpe tua t e t heconcern of SAES of too much direction andc o o r d i n a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d w i t hFederal funds. It also perpetuates the problemof lack of strict accountability to Congress orUSDA regarding what research problems for-mula funds are to be used.

Option B. Eliminate the in-house USDAresearch role. Provide increased funding toSAES to conduct most publicly supportedresearch. Funds to SAES would be increased

on the basis that regional and national agri-cultural research problems would be solvedby the cumulation of local and State solu-t i ons . Impor t an t na t iona l r e sea rch i s sues ,however, are not solved by a large number of researchers working “on” a problem, but by afew concentrat ing and coordinating their ef-forts on the more important aspects of theproblem. There would be no research agencyhaving direct responsibility and accountabil-ity for regional and national problems to theexecutive or legislat ive branches of Govern-ment. The research needs of act ion agencies

o f USDA wou ld have to be so lved by theSAES, or by adding a research function to theaction agencies.

Option C. Eliminate the in-house USDAresearch role. Use present in-house funds,special grants, and competitive grant fundsfor contract research to carry out important

USDA research programs. This would elim-inate many Federal posi t ions in USDA andwou ld ea se t he pe r sonne l ce i l i ng p rob lem

c o n s i d e r a b l y . C o o r d i n a t i o n m i g h t b e i m -proved where the SAES or State universitiesrece ive cont rac ts to car ry out USDA pro-grams. It might make the closing of some low-priority Federal facilities easier.

However , i t wou ld e l imina t e t he l a rges ta g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h eUni t ed S t a t e s unde r one managemen t sys -tem—AR. Since conduct of research on broadregional and national problems in agricultureis the principal purpose of the Federal pro-grams, this function would be mostly lost .This plan could be an expensive alternative.Overall, it would be very disruptive to presentresearch programs.

Option D. Reduce the role of the SAES inregional, national, and international re-

search by eliminating all formula funds,leaving grants as their source of Federalfunds. This would help to answer the cri t i -cism that formula funds are given to SAESwithout sufficient accountability and Federalmanagement . I t might he lp remove some of t he compe t i t i on be tween SAES and USDAover budgets. It would increase the probabil-

i t y t ha t Fede ra l f unds go ing to SAES andother institutions would go to those judged tobe most capable of performing good research,if done on a truly competitive basis. It wouldmake i t more ce r t a in t ha t t he funds werespent on high national priority problems.

However, unlike research in other f ields,much of agricultural research is site-specific,simply because it is so closely related to prob-lems of a specific area. And biological re-search must be long-term and continuous tobe effective. Hence there must be facilities

and professional s taff available for such re-search, none of which can be created or dis-s i p a t e d o n s h o r t n o t i c e . S A E S a r e b e s t

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


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

and resea rch sc ien t is ts tha t have exper t iseand capabili t ies are supposed to be consid-ered equally as potentia l grantees. Havingone agency whose main function is so closelytied to one segment of the research communi-ty (and which receives a large share of thegrants) administer the grants gives reason for

concern.SEA has not accomplished the intent of the

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 with re-s p e c t t o h u m a n n u t r i t i o n r e s e a r c h . S E Ae s ta b l i sh e d h u ma n n u t r i t io n r e se a rc h a s amission, but it did not establish human nutri-tion as a separate budget item. HN consists of six research centers a t which human nutri-t ion resea rch is conduc ted . Func t ion ing o f the centers, however, has been hampered byi n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d i n g . T h e t h r e e n e w e s tcenters are particularly hard hit because they

had to be developed anew, and as of early1981, the total professional staff at the threecenters numbered only six.

As of early 1981, economics research re-mained combined with sta tist ical reportingactivities. Concern exists that this combina-tion has caused confusion for the public . Asmall part of the economics research budgetis allocated to research, and there is littlecooperative effort with AR.

Policy Options

SCIENCE AND EDUCATIONADMINISTRATION

Option A. Operate SEA as a policy andcoordination office. * SEA would no longerhave an operating function and could spendfull t ime on policy and coordination whichdoes not now receive adequate attention. Thea d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e a g e n c i e swould be responsible for the operating func-tions of their agencies. For example, budgetsand o ther management func t ions would beprepared within each of the agencies and co-

ordinated at the SEA level. This would im-prove management efficiency and reduce bu-reaucratic delays.

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

Option B. Establish an assistant secretaryfor research, extension, and higher educa-

tion with a deputy assistant secretary whowould coordinate agencies comprisingSEA. * The position of director of SEAwould not be retained. This would give re-search increased visibility in USDA and in

the eyes of OMB and Congress. The officewould have a larger role in forming overallUSDA research policy. Administrators of theagenc ies wi th in SEA would be responsib lefor the operating functions of their agencies.This has the potential for improving the effi-c iency and management o f these agenc iesand reducing bureaucratic delays.

AGRICULTURE RESEARCH

Option A. Within AR, transfer line au-thority, including the responsibility and ac-

countability for planning and coordinationof research, and resource allocation forregional and national research, from re-gional administrators to NPS. This wouldrestore to AR the capability to plan, execute,a n d b e r e sp o n s ib le fo r r e se a rc h p ro g ra mswith reg iona l , n a t io n a l , a n d in te rn a t io n a lc o n c e r n s . I t w o u l d r e d u c e m a n p o w e r r e -q u i r e m e n t s a n d s t r e n g t h e n t h e s c i e n t i f i ca s p e c t s o f A R ’ s p r o g r a m . I t w o u l d g i v egreater assurance to Congress that funds ap-propriated for regional and national concernswere being spent on those issues. Less atten-tion would be given to local and State issues.This change can best be handled by the ex-ecutive branch.

Option B. Same as above, but consider achange in the number and location of regions to provide more efficient manage-ment and eliminate the offices of area direc-

tors. The geographical area covered by eachregional deputy administrator was chosen tocoincide with the SAES regional areas andhas no significant correla tion with regional

research problems. Such problems do not fol-low State l ines, nor does any group of re-

*The presently drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 au -thorizes a USDA Assistant Secretary for Research, Extension,and H igher Edu cation.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. l—Summary q 1 5

gional problems fall within the same clusterof States. Consideration should be given towhether there is a need for four such regionaladministra tors and, if so , determining theirbest geographic locations, including the pos-sibility of locating them in the D.C. area.

Both options would eliminate the need forarea director positions. All technical plan-ning would be conducted by NPS and techni-cal staff . With the reduced workload, i t ap-p e a r s t h a t r e g i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c o u l dcarry out the administra tive functions with-out area directors. Locating regional adminis-trators in the D.C. area would facilitate focus-ing on broad regional and national issues.However, two advantages of locating them inthe field and having their duties correspondto SAES regions are: a) to facilitate communi-cation between regional administra tors and

SAES directors of the region and b) probablyto a id in c o o rd in a t io n a t th e ma n a g e me n tlevel. This change can best be handled by theexecutive branch.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

Option A. Strengthen CR’s authority inmanaging Federal funds allocated to theStates. CR would exercise more authority inapprova l and d isapprova l o f p roposed pro j-ects under formula funding and for review of such projects for continued, reduced, or dis-continued funding. CR could represent theSAES in a more meaningfu l way on suchitems as budgets, research priorities, formulaor grant funds, etc. Since the original HatchAct makes the directors of the SAES responsi-ble and accountable for the Hatch funds theyrece ive , leg is la t ion would p robab ly be re -quired if a major change were to be made.

Option B. Establish formula funds as

block grants and eliminate the CR office;establish a secretariat for handling blockgrants. Since SAES a l ready have respon-sibil i ty and accountabili ty for Hatch funds,

this would save t ime, funds, and personnelp o s i t io n s in a d min i s t e r in g th e se fu n d s . I tshould have little or no adverse effect on there se a rc h p ro g ra ms . T h i s o p t io n , h o we v e r ,

would inc rease the c r i t ic ism tha t fo rmulafunds receive little or no meaningful reviewby USDA (CR). Other services provided toSAES by CR would either be lost or picked upby another office.

Option C. For Options A and B above,

eliminate administration of all competitivegrants from CR or secretariat staff and es-

tablish an office for this function that wouldreport directly to the director or assistantse c r e t a r y . T h i s w o u l d p r o v i d e f o r a d -ministration of these grants by an office thathad no vested interest in who receives thegrants. This would improve the c limate formore objective administration of the competi-tive grants program.

HUMAN NUTRITION

Option A. Maintain present management

structure within USDA with clarification inbudget and staffing. This would clarify HN’sstatus within USDA. At present, administra-t iv e a n d b u d g e ta ry a u th o r i ty a re sp l i t . I twould obviate possible conflicts of interestbetween AR research interests and HN in-terests. It can be argued that HN is not largeenough to warrant a separate system, but itwould carry out the mandate of Congress.This change can best be handled by the ex-ecutive branch.

Option B. Remove HN from SEA and

place it under the Assistant Secretary forFood and Consumer Services. This optionwould place a ll nutri t ion activity of USDAw i t h i n t h e p u r v i e w o f a s i n g l e a s s i s t a n tse c re ta ry c o n c e rn e d w i th h u ma n n u t r i t io na n d wo u ld g iv e th e a d min i s t r a to r o f HNdirect access to the assistant secretary. How-ever, it would separate human nutrition fromall other research in USDA. Placement of HNwithin an action arm of USDA would causeresearch results to be less respected than if they were p roduced by an independen t re -search arm. It would tend to cause research

to be directed toward the needs of that armand thus hamper long-term research projects.I t could polit ic ize nutri t ion research so thatresearch directions would change with each

8/14/2019 8106


.


new administration. This change can best behandled by the executive branch.

Option C. Dispense with HN as an admin-istrative and planning entity and disperseHN research within AR. Place each of thecenters under the authority of the director

for the region in which it is situated. A n yp o s i t iv e a sp e c t s o f su c h a mo v e wo u ld b ep o l i t i c a l r a th e r th a n ma n a g e r ia l . I t wo u ldreasse r t tha t USDA p laces p roducers’ in -terests a t a higher priority than consumers’i n t e r e s t s . S e g m e n t a t i o n o f H N r e s e a r c hwould make it extremely difficult for USDAto develop a coordinated research effort inh u ma n n u t r i t io n . I t wo u ld a l so p la c e th ecenters in a position of competing for fundswith other research in a particular region,and research at the centers would lose its na-tional character and could become focused

on agricultural products of a region ra therth a n o n b a s ic h u ma n c o n d i t io n s a n d th e i rnutri t ional needs.

Option D. Dispense with HN as an ad-ministrative and planning entity, disperse

the clinical and laboratory componentswithin AR under the authority of the re-

gional directors, and place the survey and

statistical research and information serv-ices under the Assistant Secretary for Foodand Consumer Services. * Food and Nutri-t ion Serv ice , the major agency under the

Assistant Secretary would have closer coor-d in a t io n w i th th e d e v e lo p e r s o f n u t r i t io n -in fo rma t iv e a n d e d u c a t io n a l ma te r i a l a n dwith the researchers who survey and analyzef o o d - c o n s u m p t i o n p a t t e r n s i n t h e U n i t e dStates. All the disadvantages of options B andC apply, as well as a problem of separatingthe development of educational and informa-tional materia ls from the research on whichthey are based. Not only would the possibilityof misinterpreta tion arise , but i t would benecessary to hire additional staff to do the in-terpretive work, since the scientists who de-

veloped it would be in a different division of USDA.

Option E. For all options above, deter-mine if all regional human nutrition re-search centers are needed, and if not, whicho n e s b e s t s e r v e t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .Available funds for human nutrition wouldbe allocated to the needed centers. T h i swould assure that funds allocated to human

nutrition are used for high-priority needs andwould assist in funding centers at a level com-mensurate with national interest . However,even though the centers are not adequatelyfunded, there is continuing interest in thesecenters and a felt need for this research.

ECONOMICS RESEARCH

Option A. Re instate the Economics

Research Service (ERS) and the StatisticalReporting Service (SRS) to separate agency

status reporting to the Assistant Secretary

for Economics. * This option would aid ineliminating the confusion between the statis-tical unit’s information and the projectionsand forecasts of the economics research unit.It would, however, create two entities whereonly one existed previously. This change canbest be handled by the executive branch.

Option B. Reinstate ERS and SRS to sepa-

rate agency status with SRS reporting to theAssistant Secretary for Economics and ERSreporting to the Director of SEA. This wouldmean that ERS would join the other research

agencies in SEA. For the economic policyanalysis that needs to be conducted, an ana-l y t i c a n d p o l i c y s t a f f w o u l d b e a s s i g n e ddirectly to the Assistant Secretary for Eco-nomics.

With all the major research agencies report-ing to SEA, it would mean that coordinationamong research agencies is much easier. Itwould facilitate the integration of economicsresearch with biological and physical scienceresearch, and by working more c losely withthese d isc ip l ines , it may be easier fo re c o n o m i c s r e s e a r c h t o o b t a i n i n c r e a s e d

funding .

*USDA has pu t th is op tion in to effect. * USDA has pu t this option into effect.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. /—Summary q 1 7

It would, however, have some drawbacks.Only certain economics-research activities inERS lend themselves to integration with bio-logical and physical science research, and theeconomics unit might tend to be regarded as aserv ice uni t to b io logica l and phys ica l re -search. This change can best be handled by

the executive branch.

In ternat ional Agr icu l tura l Research

It is in the U.S. interest to help developingcountr ies solve their technical problems re-l a t ed t o food p roduc t ion and ava i l ab i l i t y .Strengthening agriculture in developing na-t ions: 1) enables them to increase their ownsupplies and reduces the need for expensivefood aid from the United States, 2) stimulatestheir general economic growth so that theybecome better customers for t rade with the

United States, and 3) helps them attain thes tabi l i ty needed to provide a wide range of commodities that are important to the UnitedStates. Finally, it is the humanitarian thing todo, even where the United States receives noimmediate benefi t .

The U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (AID) and USDA are involved in inter-national agricultural research and technicalassistance, but from the developing-countrystandpoint, AID is the prime Federal agency.

For AID to provide effect ive research and

technical assistance to developing countr ies,i t must have an in-house capabil i ty in thetechnica l d isc ip l ines . Moreover , organiza-t i ona l s t r uc tu re , respons ib i l i t ies , account -ab i l i t i e s , and p rocedures mus t r e f l ec t t h i sfac t . These condi t ions have not ex is ted inA I D . T e c h n i c a l s t a f f i s n o w s c a t t e r e dthroughout the agency and no regional bu-reau has enough scientis ts to cover the re-q u i re d d i sci p li n es fo r d e v el op i n g-c ou n t r yp rog rams . Advanced t r a in ing o f t echn ica lstaff is usually lacking. With 50 percent of theto t a l budge t i n food and ag r i cu l tu r a l ac -

t ivi t ies , technical personnel t rained in theseareas account for 5 percent of the total per-sonnel . Few, if any, are in decisionmakingpositions.

The United States has much to gain, as wellas give, in the international research network.The re a r e 10 in t e rna t iona l ag r i cu l tu r a l r e -search centers and 3 related programs spon-sored by the Consultative Group on Interna-tional Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Mostof these centers have modern faci l i t ies , ex-

cellent s taffs , and are highly productive. Inrecent years, many developing countries andmost developed countries have been expand-ing the i r ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch base muchfaster than the United States (where Federalf u n d s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h h a v e r e -mained fairly constant).

The United States has an opportunity tobene f i t f r om these new and expand ing r e -search efforts. At present, no Federal agencyhas the specif ic responsibil i ty for taking thel e a d i n c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d c o o p e r a t i o n o n

methods, procedures, and act ions necessaryto facilitate acquisition of technology whichmight benefit the United States.

Policy Options

Option A. Centralize technical staff in one

bureau in AID. * USDA would maintain its

present level of activity. The technical staff f r o m t h e r e g i o n a l b u r e a u s a n d m i s s i o n swould be combined with the central staff of the Development Support Bureau to form ano v e r a l l o p e r a t i n g t e c h n i c a l b u r e a u . T h etechnical bureau would have responsibil i tyfor country and central programs of technicalassistance, research, t raining, and inst i tut ionbuilding, and would be headed by outstand-ing professionals in their relevant fields. Thefunctions of the regional bureaus would be re-duced to t hose neces sa ry fo r l i a i son wi thState and collation of normal desk functions.P re s iden t i a l appo in t ees wou ld no t be r e -quired for these positions. This would permit,but not assure, improved use of U.S. technicalexpertise in assisting developing countries inresearch and technical efforts . This change

can best be handled by the executive branch.

*AID has m oved in the d irection of this option, bu t still re-tains the regional bureau structure.

8/14/2019 8106



Option B. Establish technical bureaus

around the major thrusts of AID programsas defined by legislation—i.e., food andnutrition, population and health, and natu-ral resources and energy. U S D A w o u l dmaintain its present level of activity.

Technical bureaus would have responsibil-ity for country and central programs of tech-nical assistance, research, training, and in-sti tution building, and would be headed byo u t s t a n d in g p ro fe ss io n a l s in th e i r r e l e v a n tfields. Regional bureaus would be eliminatedand regional office positions set up either inthe Program, Planning, and Coordination Of-fice or under an assistant administrator withlimited role and powers necessary for liaisonwith the Department of State and operation of normal desk functions. This would improveorganizational changes and enlarge the role

of techn ica l to non techn ica l pe rsonne l . I twould permit a much greater use and concen-tration of U.S. technical expertise in identify-ing and solving problems of interest to boththe developing country and the United States.

AID’s d i f f icu l t p rob lem of rec ru i t ing andma in ta in in g t e c h n ic a l p e r so n n e l wo u ld b egreatly re lieved. This option would requiresome major changes in AID, and additionals tu d y o n d e ta i l s wo u ld b e d e s i r a b le . T h i schange can best be handled by the executivebranch .

Option C. Increase USDA involvement inthe international agricultural research net-work with major emphasis on maximizingU.S. benefits. This applies to both options A

and B above. One Federa l agency , USDA,would take the lead in programs to facilitateacquisit ion and use of agricultural researchconducted in other countries and the interna-tional centers. Our ability would be increasedt o q u i c k l y o b t a i n k n o w l e d g e o f r e s e a r c hb r e a k t h r o u g h s i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l a r e a .There could be criticism from other countries

th a t th e Un i te d S ta te s h a s mix e d a ims inassisting developing countries, but this is trueo f t h e o v e r a l l a s s i s t a n c e p r o g r a m s . T h i schange can best be handled by the executivebranch.

8/14/2019 8106


Chapt er I I

In t roduc t ion

8/14/2019 8106


Page

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

Need for an Assessment .**. ... **e* ***. *o*6*e*o. .e . .o . . * . .,, . . . * . * . . *.*.*..*. 23Objectives of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Chapter II References ,,. ,,, . . * o . . ,****** * . . . . . . . . .o . o.o**o*o. .o . . . * 25

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter I I

I n t roduc t ion

The food and agricultural industry in theUnited States is by far the largest of all U.S.industries, In 1980, the value of farm assetswas $900 billion, and one of every five civil-ian jobs was in the food and agricultural in-dustry, which includes chemical companies,equ ipmen t manufac tu re r s , t r anspo r t a t i on ,etc. Agricultural products make up the largestsingle category of total U.S. exports. In timesof crop fai lure elsewhere in the world, thisability of American farmers to produce suchan abundance of food has meant the d i f fer -ence between survival and starvation for mil-lions of people throughout the world.

Our agricultural success is based largely on

adoption of technology developed through re-search. Indeed, the applicat ion of science toagriculture has significantly helped make theUnited States a giant of industrial enterprise.

Paradoxically, the United States has neverhad a well-articulated set of agricultural goals

Despi te i t s con t inued no tab l e ach i eve -ments, the food and agricultural research es-tablishment is facing new problems that areexerting severe strains on goal fulfillment. Of prime concern among scientis ts are indica-t i ons t ha t new t echno log ica l deve lopmen t smay not be keeping pace with our needs.

T w o e v e n t s i n t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 ’ s r a i s e ddoub t s a s t o t he ab i l i t y t o f eed an eve r -expanding world population. First, the South-ern corn leaf blight in 1970 reduced corn pro-duction in the United States by about 16 per-cent. Second, the combination of unfavorableweather and purchasing strategies of central-ly planned economies (such as Russia) led toan uncomfortably low grain stock and highprices from 1973 through 1975.

mandated by law. Yet throughout U.S. his-tory, there have always been presumed goalsthat government has a responsibility for de-ve lop ing an eve r - inc reas ing a r r ay o f newtechnologies that efficiently provide adequatefood supplies. Because of this national philos-ophy, set in perpetuity, the United States hasnever been a hungry Nation—nor is it likely tobe in the future.

To carry out the tasks of conducting foodand agricultural research, the United Statesrelies on Federal agencies, State agriculturalexperiment stations (SAES), universities, andprivate industry. Their research and develop-ment e f for t s and the resul tan t h igh produc-t i on o f Amer i can f a rms have a s su red con -sumers an ample supply of quality food at rea-sonable cost. The agricultural sector has beenable to do this mainly because technologicala d v a n c e s h a v e p r o d u c e d t h e m e t h o d s a n dtools to meet rising consumer demands.

PROBLEMS

This combination of events resulted in sev-eral assessments of the world food situation

and its ability to feed an ever-expanding pop-ulation (NAS, 1975 and 1977; USDA, 1974a n d 1 9 7 9 ; U . N . W o r l d F o o d C o n f e r e n c e ,1974). The consensus of these studies was:1) world supply-demand balance was tighterin the 1970’s than in the 1960’s, 2) periodicspot shortages of food could be expected inyears ahead and the potential for shortagescould become increasingly severe, 3) moret rade in agr icul tura l products would be re-quired to satisfy increasing demand for food,4 ) gove rnmen t po l i c i e s shou ld be o r i en t edtoward ob ta in ing inc reased p roduc t ionfood, and 5) need exists to give increasedt e n t i o n t o t h e q u a n t i t y a n d q u a l i t yresources available for food production,

of at -Of

in-

21

8/14/2019 8106



eluding the need for larger public and privateexpenditures for agricultural research.

There is a problem of an increasingly tightworld supp ly-demand ba lance . Withou t ma-

jo r b reak throughs based on e i the r an ex-panded resource base or technological devel-

opments, the world food problem is likely tobecome increasingly severe. Since develop-ment of a substantially expanded agriculturalr e s o u r c e b a s e i s u n c e r t a i n , t e c h n o l o g i c a lchange through research bears much of theburden for expanded food production.

Public support for food and agricultural re-search has been based on the public interestin an adequate and stable supply of food atreasonable prices. The concept embodies themaintenance of a sustainable resource base toassure a continuing supply for future genera-

t ions . Rea l iza t ion has t rad i t iona l ly ex is tedthat farmers, as individuals or groups, havene i the r su ff ic ien t economic incen t ive norscale of operation to conduct their own re-search programs. In addition, it was believedthat the existence of a competitive agricul-tural structure would result in rapid adoptionof new technology by farmers.

This jus t i f ica t ion fo r pub l ic suppor t fo ra g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h i s s t i l l p r o m i n e n t l yused. While it still has merit, many changeshave occurred in the structure of agriculturethat can change significantly the distributionof benefits among input suppliers, farmers,ma rk et in g f i rms , re t a i le r s , a n d c on su m e rs .Rea l i ty suggests tha t : 1 ) la rge fa rms havemore influence than small farms on public re-search programs, and 2) some food and agri-cultural research is not neutral with respectto s t ruc tu re—e.g . , t e c h n o l o g y h a s b e e na d o p te d mo re r e a d i ly b y l a rg e r a n d mo reme c h a n iz e d fa rms th a n b y sma l l a n d l e s sorganized farming interests. The magnitudeand effects of these changes have not beenadequately evaluated.

Realiz ing this trend toward industria liza-tion of agriculture, some members of the ex-ecutive branch, including the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), have in the

past taken the posit ion that i t is no longernecessary to increase investment in certainforms of research. The implication is that pro-pr ie ta ry f i rms have suff ic ien t resources toconduct their own research. This argumenthas been used with respect to post-harvesttechnology research, In the future, the argu-

ment might be used for nearly all technology-related agricultural research.

In addition to food shortages and the con-t in u in g p r oce ss of i nd u st ria liza tion , the1970’s brought a host of new issues and con-cerns that will continue in the 1980’s. De-mand developed for more generous food pro-g ra ms , o rg a n iz a t io n r ig h t s fo r f a rm la b o r ,lower food prices, increased food safety, in-c re a se d e n v i ro n me n ta l p ro te c t io n , sh a r in gwater rights, and improved nutrition.

T o d a y , t h e r e a r e p r e s s i n g i s s u e s t h a t

should receive increased research attention.The sustainability of our agricultural systemis be ing severe ly quest ioned . The Uni tedStates is running out of water in parts of theWest, droughts persist in much of the coun-try, excessive rates of erosion on some of themost productive lands may prohibit mainte-nance of a sustainable system, increased costsof energy (fuel and fertilizer) threaten to priceour products out of reach, and environmentalconcerns continue.

Concern exists within the food and agricul-

tu ra l r e se a rc h e s t a b l i sh me n t th a t b e c a u sethere have been no substantia l increases inresearch funding, this new agenda of issueshas transferred and is transferring resourcesfrom traditional research interests associatedwith inc reasing p roduc t ion and e ff ic iency .This is a legitimate concern, considering thatFederal funds have remained relatively con-s ta n t in t e rms o f r e a l d o l l a r e x p e n d i tu re swhile the research base has broadened, In ad-dition, the costs of conducting research haveincreased in real terms. Research today re-q u i r e s m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n d e x p e n s i v e

equipment and support staff than 10 yearsago. Thus, with the expanded research base,a c c o mp a n ie d b y h ig h e r c o s t s a n d c o n s ta n tfunding levels, many research areas are re-ceiving less funding today than earlier.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. II—Introduction q 2 3

Historically, USDA and the SAES have hada close working relationship in U.S. agricul-tural research. USDA as a general rule hasbeen more concerned with problems of na-tional and regional importance, and the SAESwith problems of a local and State nature. Theland-grant colleges have grown into univer-

sit ies and generally have become large re-search institutions. Their research activitiesn a tu ra l ly h a v e g ro wn n o t o n ly to in c lu d eState and local problems but also to have sig-n i f icance on bo th a reg iona l and na t iona lbasis. Congress has provided SAES funds forregional research. However, as a result of the1972 reorganization of the Agricultural Re-search Service in USDA, there is a question of whether USDA has a national research pro-gram or merely a series of local and regionala c t i v i t i e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , U S D A a n d t h eSAES appear to be working on seemingly in-

distinguishable problems.This in itself is not necessarily bad if plan-

n i n g a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n a r e a p p r o p r i a t e l yused. But many people , including Congress,

have come to believe that little, if any, overallplanning and coordination of research exist ,especially at top levels of administration, andquestion whether national issues are receiv-in g a d e q u a te a t t e n t io n . T h e re se e ms to b emuch duplication and vying for funds.

By 1977, it became apparent to congres-

sional leaders that new steps were needed toupgrade agricultural research and coordina-tion. As a result , the Food and AgricultureAct of 1977 directed the Secretary of Agricul-ture to establish: a) a committee known as theJoint Council on Food and Agricultural Sci-ences (JC) and b) a National Agricultural Re-search and Extension Users Advisory Board(UAB). Primary responsibility of the JC is tofoster coordination of agricultural research,extension, and teaching activities of the Fed-e ra l Government , the S ta tes , co l leges and

universities, and other public and private in-sti tutions involved in the food and agricul-tural sciences. UAB is responsible for prepar-in g in d e p e n d e n t a d v i so ry o p in io n s o n th efood and agricultural sciences.

NEED FOR AN

There have been many studies that haved e a l t w i th fo o d a n d a g r i c u l tu ra l r e se a rc h .T h e y i n c l u d e r e p o r t s b y t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ sScience Advisory Committee (1962), the Com-mittee on Research Advisory to the USDA(1972), the Agricultural Production EfficiencyStudy (1975), the World Food and NutritionStudy (1977), and USDA’s Study of Agricul-tural and Food Research Issues and Priorities(1978). This latter study reviewed 50 reportsand studies dealing with priorit ies for foodand agricultural research. Thirty-two of thereports addressed the inadequacy of fundingof agr icu l tu ra l resea rch and ca l led fo r i t sstrengthening. Few of these studies have ad-dressed the structure of the research system.

No attempt has been made to define local,regional, and national problems on a scien-tific basis in order to assign research respon-sibilities. Nor has there been any attempt toidentify roles of those agencies and insti tu-

tions partic ipating in domestic and interna-t iona l resea rch o r to seek so lu t ions to theproblems they face. The question still arisesas to the adequacy of the funding level for re-search, the distribution of the benefits of re-search, and the quality of research. In addi-tion, there is the question as to whether pres-ent methods are satisfactory by which exper-tise and interest of Federal, State, and privateorganizations are brought to bear on identify-ing and conducting research.

Hence many, including Congress, have be-come concerned over the a l loca t ion o f re -sources to various domestic and internationalresearch activit ies and the mechanisms used

fo r d e v el op m e nt o f re se a r ch p r i o r it i es .With in the U.S . food and agr icu l tu ra l re -search system, there appears to be a dichot-omy of professed procedures for priority set-ting and actual practices. Need for a sound,

8/14/2019 8106



workable process seems apparent in order tomaintain continuity in planning and to keepthe research system viable. These concernsled directly to a request from Congress forOTA to make an in-depth assessment of theU.S. food and agricultural research system.Congress stressed that the assessment focus

on the structure of the system and that it com-p le me n t p re v io u s s tu d ie s wh ic h id e n t i f i e dagricultural research priorit ies.

In conducting this study, OTA recognizedcertain emerging factors that are markedly af-fecting the conduct and decisionmaking with-i n r e s e a r c h a g e n c i e s a n d t h e i r f u n d i n gsources. One of the more important of thesefac to rs i s the h igh cost o f pe rfo rming re -search today—not only from the standpoint of

spiraling costs for personal services but alsobecause of the need for more sophisticated,expensive research equipment. In addition,the research base has broadened to includenew issues such as environmental protection,improved nutrition, and social concerns. Re-stric ted budgets and l imited personnel ceil-

ings have also left their mark on the planningof research programs,

Specifically, the request for an assessmentcame from the Senate Committee on Appro-priations and the Senate Committee on Agri-culture, Nutrition, and Forestry, In addition,the House Agriculture Subcommittee on De-partment Investigations, Oversight, and Re-search has endorsed this request.

The objectives of this assessment are to:

q

q

q

q

q

evaluate the funding, benefits, and bur-dens of food and agricultural research;determine the basis, scientific or other-wise , fo r the c lass i f ica t ion o f resea rchfrom a management perspective;identify the roles of Federal, State, andprivate insti tutions in developing tech-no log ies fo r so lu t ions to in te rna t iona l ,national, regional, a n d S t a t e o r l o c a l

problems;examine the management, structure, andpolicies of USDA in the conduct of foodand agricultural research;evaluate methods by which the expertiseand interests of Federal , State , and pri-v a t e r e s e a r c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s c a n b ebrought to bear cooperatively in identify-ing priority research areas; and

q

ASSESSMENT

provide public policy options for Con-gress that will maximize our research po-tential,

The working groups and advisory commit-tee that prepared and reviewed the resourcemateria l for this assessment recognized theurgency for resolving the issues that charac-t e r i z e th e s i tu a t io n in th e a g r i c u l tu ra l r e -search sector. They were motivated by a deepconcern for maintaining a strong and grow-

ing food and agricultural industry, It is hopedthat the analysis of these issues and publicpolicy options offered herein will provide agood starting point for increased effective useof the Nat ion’s sc ien t i f ic capab i l i t ie s andother research resources,

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. II—/ntroduct/on . 25

CHAPTER I I REFERENCES

National Academy of Sciences, Agricultural Pro-duction Efficiency, Washington, D. C., 1975.

National Acad emy of Sciences, Report of the Com -mittee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1972,

National Academy of Sciences, World Food and

Nu trition Study, Washington, D. C., 1977.President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC)

Life Sciences Panel, Agriculture Panel Reporton Science and Agriculture, Washington, D. C.,1962.

United Nations World Food Conference, The

World Food Prob lem—ProposaJs for Nationalan d International Actions, Rome, Italy, 1974.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture andFood Research Issues and Priorities: A Reviewand Assessment, December 1978.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report AssessingGlobal Food Production and Needs of Apr i l 1.5,

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture, The World FoodSituation and Prospects to 1985, Foreign Agri-cultural Economics Report 98, ERS, Washing-ton, D. C., 1974.

. .- 4 - .] 1 - ,

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter I I I

The Role and Developm ent

of Publ ic Agr icu l tu ra l

Research

8/14/2019 8106


PageThe Role of Agricultural Research. ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Early Institutional Developments, 1862 to 1887. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

. . . . . . .

The U.S. Department of Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31The States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

The Turning Point: The Hatch Act of 1887. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Growth and Interaction, 1888 to 1953. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

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

1888 to 1897.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35The Wilson Era, 1897 to 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Early Coordinated Research Programs. ...,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371913 to 1953. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

State Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391888 to 1906... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Adams Act of 1906. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

. . . . .

1907 to 1953.... . . * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*.. 40Federal-State Financial Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

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

Funding Aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,, . 41Reorganization and Decentralization, 1953 to the Present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Reorganization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?*..... . . . . . . . . .,,.. 43Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

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

. . . . . . . . . . .

45The 1890 Land-Grant Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Principal Findings. ...,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 0 . . . , , . . .. . . . . . . .,*..,.. . 47

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

List of Figures

Figure No. Page3. U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth During the Past 200 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304. Role of Research in USDA Budget Allocations, 1915-55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415. Appropriations for Research in USDA Budget, 1915-54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426. Proportion of USDA Research Funds Used for Federal Research, 1915-73. .....,.. 427. USDA Funds as Proportion of Expenditures by State Agricultural Experiment

Stations, 1889-1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter I I I

The Role and Development o f

Pub l i c Agr icu l tu ra l Research

For cen tu r ie s, f armer s have t r ied t o f ind ficu lt p rocess and requ ir ed new t echn iques of ways o f i ncr eas ing p roduc tion on thei r own product ion beyond those wh ich cou ld be gen -l a n d — t o m a k e t w o b l a d e s o f g r a s s g r o w erated at the farm level.where one grew before. But as long as landwas plentiful, output could be rather easily in- The result was a gradual realization of thecreased just by enlarging the area grown. As need to find a way to expand the broad-scaleland became more scarce, however, there was development of agr icul tura l knowledge andan increasing need to expand the productivi- technology. This inevitably led to calls on thety of exis ting land . This often was a more d if- government

THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURAL

A g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h i s t h e s y s t e m a t i csearch for new ways of improving agricultur-al production and marketing. In most cases,production research is oriented to maintain-ing o r i nc r eas ing the p roduc t iv i t y o f ou ragricultural resources. Marketing research islargely devoted to maintaining quantity andqua l i t y o f p roduc t s a s t hey move to andthrough the market. The result of both typesof research is an expanded supply of agricul-t u r a l p roduc t s a t a l ower cos t pe r un i t o f product than otherwise would have been the

case . Th i s ou t come usua l ly bene f i t s manyproducers and all consumers of that product,Some research is increasingly devoted to re-l a t e d q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g , f o r e x a m p l e ,envi ronmenta l qual i ty and human nut r i t ionw h e r e t h e m e a s u r e m a y b e s o m e w h a t d i f -ferent . But general ly the f inal measure is amore ample food supply at reasonable cost ,while maintaining a sustainable productionsystem and reducing the uncertainty of pro-duction.

The United States is general ly recognizedas having developed a product ive and ef f i -cient food system. Many factors contribute tosuch a situation, but research is of vital andcen t r a l impor t ance . Research relates to allthree major factors of production: land, labor,

and capital,the closingother hand,

for assistance,

RESEARCH

Land became less abundant withof the frontier in 1890. On theproduct ion inputs tha t could be

purchased with capital—particularly machin-ery and chemicals—have grown in supply.

Viewing the deve lopmen t o f p roduc t iv -i ty—measured by output per uni t of inputs—in American agriculture from 1775 to 1975,one might separate the 200 years into fourper iods . The f i r s t , f rom 1775 through theCivil War, largely relied on hand power, sup-p l e m e n t e d n e a r t h e e n d o f t h e p e r i o d b y

the introduction of labor-saving equipment.From the Civil War to World War I , horse-d rawn equ ipmen t was i nc reas ing ly subs t i -tuted for human labor. From World War I toWorld War II, mechanical power increasinglysubs t i t u t ed fo r an ima l power . The fou r thperiod, which star ted in the 1930’s and ex-tends from World War II to the present, mightbe considered the era of “science power” (Luet al., pp. 8-10). *

Overa l l p roduc t iv i t y changes were qu i t emodest through the mid-1930’s (fig. 3), Much

*It should b e recognized th at these are relative terms andthat th ere is considerable overlap betw een periods. Somescience was involved th rough out, but its role grew m aterialityover time.

29

8/14/2019 8106



Figure 3.–U.S. Agricultural Productivity GrowthDuring the Past 200 Years

1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975

Year

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

of the effect of new technology was to in-crease labor productivity; considerably less

was accomplished in increasing land produc-tivity. But starting in the late 1930’s there wasa sharp growth in the ra te of productivity ,particularly in yields per unit of land (Coch-rane, pp. 127-128, 202, 245). This was causedby the introduction of science power, whichin turn was largely the result of research.

The research undergirding science powerwas carried out in the private and public sec-to rs . Ac tua l ly the p r iva te sec to r had longtaken the lead in developing new forms of h o r s e - d r a w n e q u i p m e n t a n d m e c h a n i c a l

power for agriculture; the public sector con-tributed relatively little in this area. The pri-

vate sector also played an important role inthe development of chemical fertilizer, a vitalcomponent of increases in agricultural pro-ductivity . All of these products are proprie-tary goods where the manufacturer can retainat least some of the profit of innovation, inpart through patents.

The pub l ic sec to r–composed of U.S . De-par tment o f Agricu l tu re (USDA) resea rcha g e n c ie s a n d S ta te a g r i c u l tu ra l e x p e r ime n ts t a t io n s—a rr iv e d o n th e sc e n e in a me a n -ingful way only in the late 1800’s and did notbecome a significant source of new technol-ogies until the early 1900’s. The public sectordevoted most of its resources to biologicallyoriented research. This kind of research isconsiderably less likely to produce a proprie-tary or patentable product. The public sectordid not move far into the area handled by

private industry, but rather moved on from it.I t s wo rk in b re e d in g n e w h ig h e r y ie ld in gvarieties of crops, for instance, greatly en-hanced the potentia l value of chemical fer-t i l izers. The result was a highly productivesymbiosis of public and private research anddevelopment activities.

Research and its associated science powerhave been the major factors in bringing aboutthe sharp increase in tota l agricultural pro-ductivity . But recent dropoffs in the ra te of productivity growth have increased concern

a b o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y o f agricultural research in the United States.

EARLY INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1862 TO 1887

The early agricultural societies st irred up to the agricultural societies and other suchconsiderable interest in agricultural experi- groups. But little resulted in formal terms ex-mentation in the first half of the 1800’s. Quite cept for some institutionalization of fertilizerindependently, and nearer the middle of the analyses.cen tury , a number o f American sc ien t is ts

T wo ma jo r s t e p s to wa rd th e c re a t io n o f r e c e iv e d g ra d u a te t r a in in g in E u ro p e a n dbrought back the idea of agricultural experi- agricultural research systems were taken in

1862 with: 1) Presidential signature on a billment s ta t ions . 1 This concept was in turn fedon May 15 establishing USDA, and 2) the pas-

IAgr icu l tu r a l experiment—

stations were established in Atw ater; Knoblauch, et al., pp .5-18; Rossiter, 1975;True andEurope at an earlier date than in the United States and had Crosby; Congressional Globe; and Agricultur al Experim entconsiderable influence on American thinking. For details, see: Stations.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q 31

sage of the Merrill Act on July 2, which pro-vided the basis for the land-grant colleges of agriculture. Neither bill said very much aboutresearch, which was to be a source of somediff iculty, but they did create the basic in-stitutions that could in turn foster research.

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

same year , the Federal Department of Agri-culture and the land-grant colleges grew uptogether. Confronted by a mutuality of prob-lems, the colleges and the Department ma-tured into a nationwide system of agriculturalresearch and education” (p. 111). The inter-action of USDA and the colleges provides amain theme in the subsequent development of agricultural research in the United States.

The U.S. Depar tm ent o f Agr ic u l t u re

Al though the ac t t ha t e s t ab l i shed USDA

said little about research, the House Commit-t ee on Agr i cu l tu r e c l ea r ly had r e sea rch inmind. In its report on the bill, the committeenoted the establishment of agricultural ex-pe r imen t s t a t i ons i n Eng land and F rance ,c i t ing in par t icu lar the ro le of the FrenchGovernmen t i n p romot ing ag r i cu l tu r a l s c i -ence . The commit tee s ta ted tha t accura teknowledge of the processes of nature “can beobtained only by experiment, and by suchand so l ong con t inued expe r imen t s a s t oplace it beyond the power of individuals oro r d i n a r y v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s t o m a k e

them” (Congressional] Globe, p. 856).In any case, USDA was hardly in a position

to do much research when it was establishedin 1862. Such resources as i t had in i t ia l lywere inherited from the Patent Office: a fewemployees, a few rooms in the basement of the Patent Office, and a small 6-acre propa-gating garden and house on the Mall in frontof what is now the site of the National Galleryof Art.

In April 1863, USDA was given authority touse roughly 40 acres of land at the west end of

the Mall (the square between 12th and 14thStreets and Independence and Consti tut ionAvenues) for use as an experimental farm.The site was then occupied as a holding yard

for livestock for the Union Army and did notbecome available to USDA until the spring of 1865. During the next two seasons, a widevariety of imported seeds and plants wereplanted and evalua ted; the resul t s were re-ported in considerable detail in the annual re-por ts of the Commiss ioner of Agr icul ture .

The limitations of the site, however, were be-coming apparent. Also, space was needed fora new USDA building.

In May 1868, the Commissioner of Agricul-ture, Horace Capron, repor ted tha t he hadabolished the experimental farm and recom-mended that ". . . not less than 200 acres of l and shou ld be ob t a ined in a consp icuouslocality, upon one of the great thoroughfares,within easy access from the city; a portion tobe appropr ia ted to the propagat ing garden ,and the r ema inde r t o cons t i t u t e t he f a rmproper.” (Report, 1867, p. 19). The new ad-

ministrat ion building, with some laboratoryspace, was erected on the southern side of theexperimental farm site, and much of the re-maining land was gradually converted into apublic arboretum. Sti l l , some land remainedfo r ou tdoor p lo t s , and a f ew g reenhouseswere erected.

Desp i t e Capron ’ s r eques t f o r more l and ,none was forthcoming through 1887 and, infact, not in any significant quantity until theearly 1900’s. In 1879, Commissioner Le Duccited as one of the USDA’s “immediate neces-

s it ie s” t h e a cq u i s it i on o f a n e x p e r im e n t a lfarm of 1,000 acres in the Washington area(Wiser and Rasmussen, p. 288). In 1880, hesuggested making use of land that was part of Arlington National Cemetery (Report, p. 18).No th ing immed ia t e ly came o f e i t he r i dea .Some land, however, was rented for researchon animal diseases in 1883. The very limitedfacilities on the Mall continued to be criticalrestraints on any extensive experimentat ion.

Moreover, the early commissioners of agri-culture were not part icularly committed to

the experimental work. As Knoblauch, et al.,stated, they were:

. . . unfamiliar with the intricacies of scien-tific research. There was a tendency in those

8/14/2019 8106



early years to become preoccupied with otherresponsibilities outlined in the Act, Manyproblems combined in delaying until the late1880s crystallization of any clear departmen-tal research policy based on "long continuedexperiments” (p. 27).

T h u s l a c k o f d i r e c t i o n b y t h e c o m m i s -

sioners and a lack of facilities meant that forits first 25 years USDA did relatively little inagricultural research. Nor did it provide anyparticular leadership to others except in rela-tion to the Hatch Act.

The States 2

It has been suggested by Knoblauch, et al.,t h a t th e s lo w p ro g re ss in d e v e lo p in g th eUSDA as a national agricultural experimentstation served “ . . , as an incent ive in t heStates to go ahead with State stations” (p. 27).

This was not much of an incentive, however,and early State progress was hardly striking.Part of the problem was that Senator Merrill“had not clearly indicated his ambitions con-cerning the nature and extent of research ac-tivity in the land grant colleges” (p. 32). Thebill itself made only two references to the re-search function: it provided that: 1) up to 10percent of the init ia l endowment could beu s e d t o p u r c h a s e l a n d s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a lfarms, and 2) that the annual report shouldrecord any experiments made with their costand results.

As a consequence Knoblauch, et al., statethat:

Collegiate experimentation in agricultureappeared very early in the agricultural col-leges founded in the mid-19th century. Thefirst States to institute the new schools ex-plicitly directed, either by charter provisionor by separate enactment, that the collegiategoverning bodies initiate and maintain a pro-gram of experiments. These directives didnot authorize, however, or imply the estab-lishment of experiment stations (p. 29), Theindistinct nature of the research authority. . . promp ted the first generation of college

2This section is based, except w here otherw ise noted, onTrue, pp. 82-118, and True and Clark, pp . 29-34, 146-147,

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

administrators to doubt that the Act of 1862required the colleges to experiment, exceptas an aid in the instruction of students (p. 32).

The first significant State development oc-curred in Connecticut as the result of work byseveral members of the Sheffield ScientificS c h o o l a t Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y . D u r i n g t h e

mid-1800’s, Sheffield (and its Analytical Lab-oratory) was widely known for its teaching of agr icu l tu ra l sc ience . O n e s t a f f m e m b e r ,Samuel W. Johnson, had studied in Europewhere he had become acqua in ted wi th theexper iment-s ta t ion concep t . In 1863 , Con-necticut’s Merrill Act funds were given toSheffield, which in turn employed William H.Brewer as professor of agriculture , Amongth o se s tu d y in g u n d e r Jo h n so n a n d Bre we rwas W.O. Atwater, who also later studied inEurope and became familiar with the agricul-tural experiment sta tion concept.

Jo h n so n e n c o u ra g e d th e fo rma t io n o f aState Board of Agriculture in 1866 and se-cured an appointment as its official chemist.He, Brewer, and Atwater then pressed for theidea of an agricultural experiment station. In1875, some State and private funds were pro-v id e d fo r a 2 -y e a r e x p e r ime n t - s t a t io n p ro -gram at Wesleyan University; Atwater wasnamed director. The initial work, principallyfertilizer analysis, was considered promising,and in January 1877, the State Board pro-posed renewal of the station.

On March 21, 1877, the proposal establish-ing the Connec t icu t S ta te Agricu l tu ra l Ex-p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n b e c a m e l a w . A $ 5 , 0 0 0a p p r o p r i a t i o n w a s p r o v i d e d . T h e c h a r t e rsevered organic connection with a university:the Wesleyan operation was c losed and thestation leased space at Sheffield. Johnson wasnamed director, while maintaining his posi-tion at Yale. The station continued at Shef-field until 1882, when the State legislatureprovided funds to purchase the former EliWhitney estate in suburban New Haven. Al-

though the Connecticut station was thus thefirst public station in the U.S. in a formalsense, much of the early work related to fer-t i l izer analysis and “ . . . Johnson found itp r a c t i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o i n c o r p o r a t e r e -

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q33

search into the station program before 1890”(Rossiter, 1975, p. 170).

A quite different pat tern was fol lowed inCalifornia. In early 1875, E. W. Hilgard joinedthe College of Agriculture at the University of California in Berkeley. The university regents

gave him a laboratory and $250 a year for 2years for experimental work. In that year, hebegan a field experiment on deep and shallowplowing for wheat grown for hay; he soonadded an experiment on the fert i l izat ion of wheat. In 1877, the first legislative appropria-tion was made specifically for experiment sta-t ion work: $5 ,000 a year for 2 years . Theamount was raised to $10,000 a year in 1879.Hilgard does not seem to have been tied downwith fert i l izer analysis , as was the Connec-ticut station, and hence was able to more fullyengage in the type of work now done by ex-

periment s tat ions.

Dur ing the nex t decade , t he Connec t i cu tand California models of organization werefollowed, al though slowly, in several otherStates. Independent stations were establishedin North Carolina [1877), New Jersey (1880),New York (1880-81), Ohio and Massachusetts(1882), and Louisiana (1884, 1886). In severalcases , however , the s ta t ions were loca ted

near the land-grant college. Experiment s ta-tions connected with land-grant colleges wereestablished in New York (at Cornell, 1879-81),Tennessee (1882) , Alabama and Wiscons in(1883), Kentucky and Maine (1885), and Ver-mont (1886). Establishment of several of thestations in the mid-1880’s was no doubt en-

couraged by ongoing congressional discus-s ions of predecessors of the Hatch Act of 1887. In addi t ion , more or less sys temat icagr icul tura l work was be ing done a t land-grant colleges in 13 other States.

Thus the first 25 years after the passage of the Merrill Act scarcely brought about a greatincrease in experiment stations at colleges of agriculture. There were about as many sta-tions established independently of colleges aswere established in associat ion with them.Knob lauch , e t a l . , no t e t ha t t he gove rn ing

boards of the land-grant colleges were hesi-tant to organize experiment stations and that“customarily unti l the mid-eighties they ac-cepted as satisfactory the State legislative ac-tions which founded and subsidized stationsoperat ing independently of college control”(p, 29), “Thus in the early eighties the outlookfo r e s t ab l i sh ing pe rmanen t s t a t i ons unde rcollege direction appeared, if not bleak, dis-tant and uncertain” (p. 38).

THE TURNING POINT: THE HATCH ACT OF 1887

The Hatch Act of 1887 was undoubtedly themost important legislat ive step taken in thedevelopment of agricultural research in theUnited States. In one stroke it brought aboutthe establishment of the modern network of State agricultural experiment stations, and itbound the USDA and the States together inthe process.

The Ha tch Ac t was no t deve loped ove r -night; it had a long and complex history. Theprecursors might be said to go back to 1871,

when representatives from 12 land-grant col-leges met to discuss how to accelerate agricul-tural research, and to 1872, when Commis-sioner of Agriculture Watts called a national

agricultural convention (involving colleges of agriculture) at which a committee on experi-ment s tat ions was appointed. The campaignfor Federal support, however, did not pick upmuch speed until the early 1880’s. In 1880, agroup of research-oriented professors fromMidwestern colleges met at the University of I l l inois and formed a group known as theTeachers of Agriculture to promote college-aff i l iated stat ions. They met again in 1881and developed a more de ta i led proposa l . I tcalled for State support—justified in part by

the fact that ". . . imp roved agricu ltur al pro-duction benefi ts the entire populat ion, notso l e ly t he p roduce r s on the f a rms” (Kno-blauch, et al., p. 39). The role of experiment

8/14/2019 8106



stations was also discussed at two meetings of land-grant colleges called by CommissionerLoring in Washington in January 1882.

T h e f i r s t p r o p o s a l f o r F e d e r a l f u n d i n gseems to have been advanced in an article byE. W. Hilgard of California in The Atlantic

Monthly in May 1882. He noted the meagerfunds available a t the State level and crit i-cized the commissioners of USDA for theirneglect of Federal research. He encouragedthe use of Federal funds in cooperation withthe land-grant colleges for the operation of astation in each State.

A bil l toward this end was introduced inCongress in May 1882 by Representative Car-penter of Iowa. The bill was based on a pro-posa l by Seaman Knapp of Iowa S ta te . I tcalled for “national experiment sta tions” a teach college. Carpenter contended that theAmerican farmer, confronted with the needfor developing intensive cult ivation, neededas never before the aid of scientific research.The bill called for an annual Federal alloca-tion of $15,000 for each station. Managementof the station was basically to be under Statecon tro l . As f ina l ly repor ted ou t f rom theHouse committee in July 1884, the bill wassomewhat different and became known as theCullen bill.

In Ju ly 1885 , the new Commissioner o f Agriculture, Norman Colman, called a special

convention of college delegates in Washing-ton. The experiment-station proposal was onthe agenda and was favored by Colman. I twas decided to push the proposal on the basisof two points: the duty of the Federal Govern-ment to aid agriculture, and the duty of theland-grant colleges to aid the farmer. Havingsubsidized the colleges for teaching students,Congress should now subsidize the sta tionsfor assisting farmers,

T h e re p o r t o n th e b i l l p re p a re d b y th eHo u se Ag r ic u l tu re Co mmi t t e e ( c h a i re d b y

Congressman Hatch), dated March 3, 1886,contained the following statements:

The object should be to increase produc-tion at a decreased cost and at the same timeto preserve the fertility of our soils (p. 2).

Combining as they do the precision of sci-entific methods with an intelligent regard tothe requirements of practical operations, it isnot surprising that they (the experiment sta-tions) have come to be looked upon, whereverestablished, as the most important aids tosuccessful farming as well as the foremost

agency for the advancement of agriculturalscience (p. 3).

The bill was the subject of a fiery debate inthe Senate in January 1887. There was wide-spread sympathy for the new idea of Federalsubsid ies fo r conduc t ing resea rch on S ta testations. But there was also, even then, con-cern that Federal dic ta tion would automati-cally follow the flow of Federal funds. Revi-sions made on the floor allowed funds to go toindependent (noncollege) sta tions (a grand-father clause) and removed all statements that

the Commissioner of Agriculture had powersbeyond aiding and assisting the stations. Thebill was passed by the Senate on January 22(without a record vote) and by the House onFebruary 25 (152 to 12). It was signed into lawby President Cleveland on March 2, 1887. Itwas reportedly the first direct cash grant-in-a id to ind iv idua l S ta tes (Rosenberg , 1964 ,p. 3).

The Hatch Act provided, as did the previ-ously p roposed Carpen te r b i l l , $15 ,000 fo ra g r i c u l t u r a l e x p e r i m e n t s t a t i o n s i n e a c hState. The first appropriation for the stationswas provided in a special act of February 1,1888. On July 18, the Hatch Act funds werecarried in the annual appropria tion act forUSDA. The appropria tion provided $10,000for administration of the act; the Office of Ex-per iment S ta t ions was es tab l ished fo r th ispurpose on October 1, 1888.

In commenting on the Hatch Act, True saidthat it “established a new policy of relation-ship between the Federal Government and

the States by granting money to the States foragricultural experiment sta tions, which werethus to be distinctly State insti tutions” (p .130). As such, they were to focus on State andlocal problems.

8/14/2019 8106



GROWTH AND INTERACTION, 1888 TO 1953

The Hatch Act set the stage for the Federal-State agricultural system as we know it today.It led to the establishment of an experimentstation in each State and provided the basisfor continuing Federal support . The Hatch

Act, however, had a less immediate impact onthe role of research within USDA itself.

Federal Research

The course of Federa l research changedr e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e f r o m 1 8 8 7 t h r o u g h 1 8 9 7 .Thereafter the situation changed sharply.

1888 to 1897

In February 1889, USDA was given Cabinetstatus, but only modest increases were madein Fede ra l ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch unde r t hefirst two Secretaries of Agriculture (exclud-ing N. J. Colman who served only 3 weeks).Under Secretary J. M. Rusk (1889 to 1893),“the aggregate funds used for experimentalwork did not material ly increase, ” though“more s c i en t i f i c work was pe r fo rmed in afew lines, especially vegetable pathology andbiology” (True, p. 178). Under Secretary J.S.Morton (1893 to 1897), there was no increasein overal l appropriat ions for USDA, but theproportion of funding for scientific work in-c r e a s e d s o m e w h a t .3 T h i s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l ytrue with soils, grass and forage plants, andforestry (True, p. 183).

USDA research fac i l i t ies remained veryl imi ted dur ing th is per iod . In 1887, then-Commissioner N. J. Colman suggested the es-tablishment of a central experiment s tat ion(Report, p. 12). The following year, he elab-orated on the concept which was:

To relieve the State stations of much costlyand laborious scientific work and enablethem to devote their energy the more com-

oAccording to one calculation, the following pro portionswere spent on “scientific wor k:” Fiscal Year 1892, 46.2 per -

cent; 1893, 45.6 percent; and 1894, 51.8 percent (Dahne\ ’, p.66). The definition of scientific work may have been muchbroader than the clefinition of research used in later years (seeMoore, p. 3),

pletely to the things that are of practical in-terest to the farmer, and to enable the Depart-ment to give the ad vice and assistance whichCongress calls for and the stations need . . .This wou ld in no w ay take the place or d o thework of the stations throughout the countrybut w ould, on the other hand , be a most help-ful, economical, and I am inclined to add,essential part of the whole organization (Re-port, 1888, pp. 12-13].

Not everyone felt this way. Edwin Willets,the first Assistant Secretary of Agriculture(and former president of Michigan Agricul-tural College), who was placed in charge of scientific work, said in an 1889 speech thatwhile the previous Commissioners of the De-par tment “without exception . . . wanted anexperiment farm” for their own research, he

hoped to “head off any such proposition. . . .“Yet late in that same year Secretary Rusk for-mally requested transfer of the Arlington landto USDA [Wiser and Rasmussen , pp . 288,289).

M e a n w h i l e , t h e f a c i l i t i e s o n t h e M a l lproved increasingly inadequate. In 1894, Sec-retary J. S. Morton commented that: “There ishardly a university or agricultural college inthe United States which has not bet ter con-structed, bet ter l ighted, or bet ter venti latedlaboratories than those used by the Depart-ment of Agriculture” (Yearbook of Agricul-

ture, 1894, p. 64).

Thus, from 1888 through 1897 agriculturalresearch in USDA continued at a relat ivelymodest level and was severely handicappedby limited facilities.

The Wilson Era, 1897 t o 1913

The research si tuat ion, however, began tochange sha rp ly wi th t he a r r i va l o f J amesWilson as Secretary of Agriculture in March1897 . The fo l l owing Sep tember , he t ookc h a r g e o f s c i e n t i f i c a n d r e g u l a t o r y w o r k(previously under an Assistant Secretary). Hecontinued in this position for an unparalleledterm of 16 years.

8/14/2019 8106


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

Wilson did not necessarily arrive with theupgrading of Federal research prominently inmind. He described his metamorphosis to theSta te exper iment s ta t ion d i rec to rs in thesewords in November 1905:

when I came down here—with a gooddeal of reluctance–to do something in theDepartment of Agriculture, my prevailingthought was that I would try to make that in-stitution subservient to the stations of thecountry, and to help build them up. I foundthat it was necessary to first build the Depart-ment u p; that it was not as strong in educatedscientists as it should be . . . and so I wascompelled to turn my attention to that onething and push it in all possible directions, toselect strong men, and interview Congressoccasionally for increased appropriations.We have been doing what we can (Wilson,p. 15).’

In congressional hearings earlier that year, heacknowledged that his already-achieved goalhad been to build a corps of full-time special-ists, “the greatest scientists in their respectivelines today that the world knows of” (Kno-blauch, et al., p. 105).

During Wilson’s regime, seven new scien-tific bureaus were established (only one, theBureau of Animal Industry, existed before hisarrival). Four were established in 1901 alone:Plant Industry, Forestry (which became theForest Service in 1905), Soils, and Chemistry.

Three were established in subsequent years:Statistics (1903), Entomology (1904), and Bio-logical Survey (1905 ).’ The bureaus were builton previous organizations but represented anelevation in status and eventually an enlarge-ment in size. The latter point is illustrated indata on the growth in number of employeesbetween 1897 and 1912:

4Rosenberg notes that “though the stations had hoped that

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

might be a bulwark of State interests in Washington, he hadbeen a disappointment” (Rosenberg, 1964, p. 5), Wilson hadalso served previou sly for three term s in the Hou se of Rep-resentatives.

5For further d etails on the bur eaus, see: Baker, et al., pp .

42-56; Dup ree, p p. 158-169, 176-181; and Rossiter, 1979, pp .220-239,

Number of employeesBureau 1897 1912Animal Industry. . . . . . . . . . 777 3,311Plant Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . 127 2,128Soils . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 159Chemistry , , , . . . . . . . ., . . . . 29 546Entomology ., . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 339Biological Survey. . . . . . . . . . 23 97

Total . . . . . . . . ... , ., ., .1,016 6,580S()[; R(; E: “1’rue, I] 19(1

Staff increased more than sixfold. Not all of the work of the bureaus, however, was de-vo ted to sc ien t i f ic work ; regu la to ry workplayed a large role in some cases.

T h e g ro wth in r e se a rc h ma y a l so b e r e -flected in other terms. It has been estimatedt h a t e x p e n d i t u r e s o n U S D A r e s e a r c h i n -creased from $800,000 in 1900 to $4 million in1910 (Hayami and Ruttan, p. 144), Between

1887 and 1904, the Federal Government quad-rupled the portion of the Department budget(excluding the Hatch appropriation) spent forresearch. The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI),for example, in 1904 reportedly operated on abudget larger than the total Hatch appropria-tion to all of the States. Similarly, the depart-mental scientific staff had grown steadily un-ti l in 1904 it substantia lly outnumbered thena t ionwide to ta l o f s ta t ion workers (Kno-blauch, et al., p. 103).

In terms of management philosophy, the

emphasis:. . . was on lines of work d irected by promi-nent individuals rather than on administra-tive units. In general, subordinate units wereorganized on an informal basis , , , Informal-ity was fostered by Secretary Wilson, whomade a point of knowing who the scientistswere and what they were doing. He frequent-ly visited the laboratories in the buildingsthat were clustered in the vicinity of the mainbuilding of the Department (Baker, et al.,p. 42).

During Wilson’s ea r ly years , USDA had

been stuck with the same limited facilities inWashington that had existed previously. Butin 1900, he was able to secure the use of 400acres of the Arlington National Cemetery, al-though it took about 3 years to get the site

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q 3 7

ready for use. In 1907, two laboratory build-ings were completed on the Mall site (the cur-rent east and west wings of the present ad-minis t ra t ion bui ld ing) . In 1910, a 475-acrefarm was purchased near Beltsville for workin dairying and animal husbandry.

Expansion was not confined to the Wash-ington area. After i ts establishment, a largeand increasing amount of the work of BPIwas conducted a t USDA f ie ld s ta t ions . By1913, BPI opera ted 18 f ie ld s ta t ions in 9Sta tes , 8 in coopera t ion wi th Sta te exper i -ment stations. In the same year, the Bureau of Entomology had 35 field laboratories in dif-ferent parts of the United States (True, pp.197-198, 203),

The Office of Experiment Stations, estab-lished to administer the Hatch funds, also be-came involved in the conduct of research in

cooperation with State stations. Nutrition in-ves t iga t ions began in 1894, i r r iga t ion in-vestigations in 1898, and drainage investiga-tions in 1902. In 1898, the Alaska ExperimentStation was put under this office; the Hawaiiand Puerto Rico stations were added in 1901(True, p. 133).

USDA’s growth in research staff and geo-graphic scope was not looked upon entirelyfavorably by the Sta tes . Some of th is wasprobably jealousy, for the State stations werenot having an easy time with their own legis-latures. Some was a result of dislike of certainBureau chiefs. And some was a result of con-cern that USDA activi ty in the States mightlessen financial support for State agriculturalexperiment s tat ions.

W. H. Jordan , d i rec tor of the New YorkSAES at Geneva, expressed the concerns of many of his State colleagues, when he statedin January 1905:

As a natural and inevitable result the De-partment with its overwhelming equipmentof men and means, is not now, as formerly,confining its research work largely to that

which can be done in the laboratories atWashington, but is, of very necessity, as ameans of securing opportunities, reachingout into the several States and . , , is now tra-versing, to a large extent, the field that had

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

USDA admin i s t r a to r s undoub ted ly wou ldhave put the matter differently.

The Adams Act of 1906 doubled Federalfunding to the States, which thus became less

vocal, although still irritated, on the matter of Federal research. By any measures, however,Wilson put USDA solidly on its feet in agri-cultural research.

Early Coordinated Research Programs

Research conducted by USDA and the Stateexperiment s tat ions before 1900 was largelyby individual investigators, with cooperationbased primarily on personal contacts. One of the f irs t efforts to conduct coordinated re-search programs involving Federal and State

scientis ts and cooperat ing farmers was thework on d ry l and ag r i cu l tu r e i n t he Grea tPlains area (Quisenberry, pp. 218-228; Mose-man, et al., 1981).

When the Hatch Act was passed by Con-gress in 1887, only a few States had agricul-tural experiment s tat ions and none were inthe Great P la ins . However , sys temat ic ex-periments were in progress in Colorado, Kan-sa s , and Nebraska . Dry l and r e sea rch wasstarted by E. C. Chilcott at Brookings, S. Dak.,in 1897. The need for such work was subse-quen t ly r ecogn ized by M. A . Ca r l e ton o f USDA. In 1905, Car le ton h i red Chi lcot t totake charge of dryland research. In 1906, theOffice of Dry Land Agriculture (DLA) was es-tablished with Chilcott in charge.

One of Chilcott’s first moves was to call ameeting in Washington, D. C., to plan cooper-a t ive research , wi th representa t ives f romvarious units of BPI and from the agriculturale x p e r i m e n t s t a t i o n s o f N o r t h a n d S o u t hDako ta , Kansas , Nebraska , and Ok lahoma .The stated purpose of the meeting was “to en-courage a n d f a c i l i t a t e t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n ,

s ys te miz at io n, a n d u n i f ic a ti o n o f a l l t h ecooperative experimental work to be engagedin by BPI and the experiment s tat ions andsub-stations of the several states included inwhole or in part in the Great Plains area. ”

8/14/2019 8106



Later it was agreed that Texas and Coloradoshould be included in the cooperative pro-gram,

The first meeting of the new Great PlainsCooperative Association was held in Lincoln,Nebr., in June 1906, and such meetings werecontinued until World War I . This was thestart of State-Federal cooperation in agricul-tural research and set the pattern for similarcooperation on other regional and nationalp ro b le ms c o n f ro n t in g a g r i c u l tu re in l a t e ryears,

The association conducted research at thestations then in existence and also establishednew stations—by the States, the Federal Gov-ernment, or cooperatively—with the experi-mental work done jointly by the State andFederal workers. Stations were established atHays, Kans., in 1901; Nephi, Utah, in 1903;

Amaril lo , Tex. , in 1904; and North P la t te ,Nebr,, in 1906. By 1910, there were 20 sta-tions in operation and by 1916 there were 29.Eventua l ly 30 s ta t ions were invo lved . ThePendleton, Oreg., station was started in 1928and was the only DLA station outside of theGreat Plains.

1913 to 1953

The patterns of operation established dur-ing the Wilson period generally continued un-ti l 1953. Although an increased amount of

research was done in the Washington, D. C.,area, a substantial amount was carried out invarious field locations. A. C. True reports thatin the case of BPI from 1922 to 1925, "fully 60percent of the research was carried on at fieldstations, and much of it was done in coopera-tion with the State experiment sta tions” (p .255). By 1931, USDA reportedly maintained51 field stations in 24 States (Waggoner, p.242). The field operations in some cases con-tinued to be a source of friction with State ex-periment station officials.

Me a n wh i le , th e Ar l in g to n fa rm wa s e n -l a r g e d s l i g h t l y i n 1 9 1 5 , a n d g r a d u a l b u tsubstantial additions were made to the landarea a t Beltsvil le . The Beltsvil le ResearchCenter was formally established in 1934. In1940-41, the Arlington farm and the green-

houses on the Mall were closed down and ac-tivities shifted to Beltsville.

Regional research activities were given asubstantia l boost by two congressional actsduring the mid to late 1930’s. In 1935, theBankhead-Jones Act authorized the establish-

ment of laboratories in different regions of the country to work on priority problems of the region. Nine were established by 1939:Plant, Soil, and Nutrition (Ithaca, N.Y.); Pas-ture Research (State College, Pa.); VegetableBreeding (Charleston, S.C.); Poultry Research(East Lansing, Mich.); Soybean Research (Ur-bana, I l l . ) ; Sheep Research (Boise , Idaho);Sa l in i ty (Rivers ide , Ca l i f . ) ; P lan t-Growth-Regulating Substances, and Photo-Period andPlant Development (Beltsville). These facil-i t ies tended to be regarded as Federal f ie ldlaboratories (Moseman, et al., 1981; Purcell,

pp. 235-236).

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938authorized USDA to establish four regionaluti l ization-research laboratories that were toconcentrate on developing new uses and out-le ts fo r su rp lus commodit ies . The labora -t o r i e s w e r e l o c a t e d a t P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . ;Peoria, Ill.; New Orleans, La,; and Albany,C a l i f . T h e l a b o r a t o r i e s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e daround 1940 and cost $1 million each; the an-nua l budge ts were approx imate ly the same(Moseman, et al., 1981; Purcell, pp. 238-239).

As with the fie ld sta tions, these regionallaboratories were a source of concern to someSta te agr icu l tu ra l exper iment s ta t ions be -cause they found it difficult to cooperate withthem. They were a lso considered interlopersby some of the old-time USDA bureaus. Partlyto help correct these problems, an Agricul-tural Research Administration was created inthe early 1940’s as an administrative layer be-tween the bureaus and the Secretary (Irving,et al., 1981; Purcell, pp. 237-240),

Of greater importance was the passage of the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. Itwas init ia lly designed to increase marketingresearch in USDA, but by the t ime it waspassed involved substantial sums for researchon u t i l iza t ion , q u a l i ty imp ro v e me n t , a n d

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q3 9

other areas of agricultural research (Mose-man, et al., 1981).

As a result of these changes, agricultural re-search in USDA appears to have been in rela-tively good condition in the early 1950’s.

State Research

The State agricultural experiment stations( S A E S ) u n d e r w e n t a r e m a r k a b l e p e r i o d o f growth following passage of the Hatch Act. ”This growth was then stimulated in surges bythe passage of additional legislation, the firstof which was the Adams Act in 1906.

1 8 8 8 t o 1 9 0 66

Passage of the Hatch Act in 1887 provided agreat and immediate impetus to the establish-ment o f S ta te agr icu l tu ra l exper iment s ta -tions. As noted previously, an Office of Ex-

periment Stations was established in 1888,with W. O. Atwater as its first director, to ad-minister the Hatch funds.

Jus t be fo re the passage o f the ac t , the rewere only 15 State stations, By the end of 1888, there were 46 such stations. The num-ber grew to 55 in 1893, 56 in 1894, and 60 in1906—quadrupling in number in less than 20years.

Within the overall numbers, a few stationscontinued to be wholly State-sponsored (twoby 1906), and three of the territorial stations

(Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) were spon-sored by USDA. Virtually all of the remaining55 stations were tied to land-grant colleges.

All of this was accomplished with a ratherm o d e s t e x p e n d i t u r e o f F e d e r a l f u n d s . T h etotal annual Hatch funding was: 1888 to 1893,from $585,000 to $708,000; 1894 to 1906,$720,000. There was no allowance for growthor inflation. On the other hand, the $15,000provided to each station was large comparedto funding available in Europe.

*The SAES as discussed in th is section d o not includ e the

1890 colleges of agriculture for which no Federal researchfunds were regularly provided from 1888 to 1953. Details onsubsequent Federal support are provid ed on p . 46.

eThe statistics reported in this section were derived fromTrue, pp. 130-131, 138, 166, 212, 237-238, 274.

Yet modest as they were, the Federal fundswere of vital importance because of the lim-i ted or nonexis tent State funding avai lable .True notes that in fiscal year 1902, of the 52stations receiving Hatch funds, 27 (52 per-cent) did not receive any State aid, while only25 (48 percent) were also supported by Statefunds. In the latter case, only eight States

equaled or exceeded the Hatch appropriation($15,000); s ix did not exceed $1,000; andseveral provided support only for substations(for which Hatch funds could not be used). 7

The role of Federal funds, while massive atf i rs t , gradual ly decl ined as the Federal con-tr ibut ion held s teady and as State contr ibu-tions gradually increased. In 1888, the Hatchfunds accounted for 82.4 percent of the fundsavailable to the State stations; by 1906, thisproportion had been reduced to 47.6 percent.

One of the problems in adminis ter ing the

Hatch Act was to limit i ts use to scientificr e s e a r c h , p a r t i c u l a r l y o r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h .Then, as now, there were many competingdemands for overhead, applied research, andex tens ion . The resu l t was a “snai l ’s pacetoward significant research” (Knoblauch, etal., p. 87).

The question of applied v. original researchbecame a major topic at the annual meetingsof the American Association of AgriculturalCol leges and Exper iment S ta t ions a round1900. 8 Few States were inclined to make sub-stantial grants for original research, and eventhen they were commonly earmarked for spe-cific topics.

Adams Act o f 1906

The answer to these problems appeared tobe to obtain additional Federal funds. Cong.H. C. Adams of Wisconsin was contacted inlate 1903, and he in turn requested A. C. Trueof USDA to draw up a proposed bill. True’s

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

1894 there w ere 40 such stations. How ever, in 1896 the Officeof Experiment Stations ruled against their use for this purpose,

an d bj’ 1897 their num ber was red uced to 11, ‘I’he use of Statefunds raised their number to 16 in 1899 and 28 in 1904 (True,p . 131).

‘This matter is discussed in more gen eral terms in Rosen-berg, 1977, pp. 403-412.

8/14/2019 8106



proposal followed the Hatch Act in its fund-ing level ($15,000 per year per State), butl imi ted expendi tu res so le ly to o r ig ina l re -search.

In mobiliz ing support for the bil l , muchcomment was made about the sharp expan-sion in Federal research and the comparative

poverty of the States. The State group sought“some measure of equity in the appropria-tions made for this purpose from the NationalTreasury” (Knoblauch, et al., p. 100).

T h e b i l l wa s p a sse d b y th e Ho u se a n dSenate early in 1906 and was signed by Presi-den t Rooseve l t on March 16 . Accord ing toKnoblauch, et al., the act “firmly establishedthe principle in American governmental pol-icy that Federal aid shall join with State aidfor the purpose of subsidizing scientific re-search in the State stations” (p, 107). Rosen-

berg viewed the matter less grandly: “. , . as astrategic victory for the stations in a continu-ing conflict with the Department of Agricul-ture” (1964, p. 5),

It is not commonly noted that the act statesthat its funds are to be used for “. . . payingthe necessary expenses of conducting origi-nal researches or experiments bearing direct-ly on the agricultural industry of the UnitedStates, having due regard to the varying con-ditions and needs of the respective States orTerritories” (Knoblauch, et al., p. 221).

1 9 0 7 t o 1 9 5 39

The Adams Act doubled the Federal contri-bution to each State—although the increasedfunding was phased in over a 5-year period.Thus the Federal contribution of $720,000 in1906 was raised to $1,44 million by 1911. It re-mained at that level through 1925,

During this period the level of non-Federalfunds available to the sta tions increased sothat the proportion of Federal funds providedthrough USDA cont inued to dec l ine—from

47.6 percent in 1906 to an all-time low of 14.9percent in 1925. Still, a substantial number of

“The stat ist ic s reported i n th is section we r e d er i~’ed fromAgricultural / \ ~~~jro~)ric]t i(~]ls for 1957. ‘]’he~ ma} differ slightlyfrom those reported in app. B. The percentages are presentedin fig. 7 on p . 43.

stations received only limited State funds. Infiscal year 1921, for example, 22 stations re-ceived less than $50,000 of State funds, in-cluding 6 which received none (True, p. 238).

S e v e ra l o th e r d e v e lo p me n ts we re a l so o f significance. The number of substations con-tinued to grow, from about 70 in 1913-14 to

130 in 1920 (True, pp. 210,238). Passage of theS m i t h - L e v e r A c t i n 1 9 1 4 f o r m a l i z e d a n dfunded the extension function, sharply reduc-ing pressures on the experiment stations,

T h e F e d e ra l r e se a rc h fu n d in g p ro v id e dthrough USDA was subsequently raised withthe passage of the Purnell Act in 1925, whichalso enlarged the scope of research at the sta-tions by stressing studies of economic ands o c i a l p r o b l e m s o f a g r i c u l t u r e , i n c l u d i n gm a r k e t i n g a n d p r i c e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e$30,000 of Hatch and Adams funds, the States

were to initially receive an additional $20,000a year; the amount was to be ultimately in-creased to an additional $60,000 a year byfiscal year 1930. Thus total Federal fundingin c re a se d f ro m $ 1 ,4 4 mi l l io n in 1 9 2 5 to$4.335 million in 1930, a figure which thenheld through 1935. The proportion of stationfunds provided by the Federal Governmentincreased from 14.9 percent in 1925 to 32.5percent in 1935 as State appropriations with-ered during the depression (Porter, p. 99),

In 1935, the Bankhead-Jones Act provided

additional funds to the States and for regionalFederal research. Funds were allocated on aformula basis rather than as an equal sum toeach State, as had previously been the case,States were also required to match the Feder-al funds dollar for dollar, Federal funds to theStates gradually increased through the end of World War II–from $5 million in 1936 to $7million in 1946. The Federal portion of fund-ing dropped gradually—from 33.9 percent in1936 to 25.7 percent in 1946.

In 1946 , substan t ia l changes were in t ro -duced by the Research and Marketing Act. Itincreased Federal funds for the States on aformula basis and made provision for supportof regional research by the State stations, Fed-eral funds increased from $7.197 million in1947 to $12.265 million in 1953; still, the Fed-

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. III—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q4 1

era l propor t ion of s ta t ion funding droppedfrom 20.6 percent to 16.5 percent in the sameyears.

Federa l -S ta te F inancia l In teract ion

As a result of these congressional act ions,Federal and State Governments were unique-ly bound together in the sponsorship of agri-cultural research during the period of growthand interaction from 1888 to 1953. This part-ne r sh ip ex t ended f rom s t r a igh t f und ing tocoordinated national and regional researchprograms,

Policy Aspects

T h e F e d e r a l - S t a t e f u n d i n g a r r a n g e m e n tthat developed after 1888, while highly pro-ductive, had the seeds of conflict built into it.USDA no t on ly sponso r s i t s own r e sea rch

program but also passes Federal funds on tothe States; this was bound to lead to somecontention about the relat ive proport ion of funds used for each purpose.

The coun te rva i l i ng fo r ces and the i r a t t i -tudes were summar ized in an exchange be-tween a congressman and Whi tman Jordan,representing the State stat ions, at a hearingon the Adams bill in January 1905:

Congressman: Don’t you think a fair in-ference from these figures is that we shouldgive you all the money we have got?

Jordan: No; you have a great big Depart-ment in Washington that needs all the moneyyou can give it. But on reflection, I would saythat we will take all the money we can get,and we can use it well. (Knoblauch, et al.,p, 104)

Pas sage o f t he Adams Ac t was a ma jo rboost for the States ". . . but it mad e long andrigorous competition with the Department in-editable. ” Other c r i ses in the re la t ionshiparose in 1930-32 and in 1953-58 (Knoblauch,et al., p. 121).

In analyzing Federal / State relat ions sincethe passage of the Hatch Act, Knoblauch, etal., made the following observation in 1963:

A theme of continuity runs through 20thcentury developments . . . . The thread is oneof undulating competition between the ex-periment stations and Federal research ac-tivities within the States. Which of the twotypes of agencies should have priority?(p. 120)

While the Federal/ State relationship is com-monly referred to as one of cooperat ion, inreality it is the product of “collision and com-promise . . . the n ever-ending search for ad-

justments between the stat ions and the De-partment as to the division of responsibilityfor research in the States” (Knoblauch, et al.,p. 121).10

Funding Aspects

Shor t ly a f te r the conclus ion of Secre taryWilson’s te rm in 1915, research made upabout 25 percent of the total USDA budget.

The research proportion then dropped sharp-ly unti l 1920, when i t accounted for only 6percent (fig. 4). The proportion rose through

IOThe job of the Office of Experim ent Stations in such a situ a-tion mu st have been a m ost uncomfortable one at times. A. C.True, one of the early an d lon g-time directors of this office,wa s, how ever, remarkab ly successful. Rosenberg attributesthis in part to “. . . his ability to assuage the suspicions of sta-tion leaders and to convince them that his ultimate loyalties laynot w ith the Departmen t of Agriculture, but w ith the State sta-tions” (Rosenberg, 1964, p. 4~fn. 3)

Figure 4.— Role of Research in USDA Budget

Allocations, 1915-55

Percent

A25

}Research as percent

20 of USDA total

/-

15

/-

10

)-

5

1 I I4 / / / / / /

1916 1922 1928 1934 1940 1946 1952

Year

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

,— I l _l

8/14/2019 8106



t h e mid -1 9 2 0 ’s , a n d d ro p p e d th ro u g h th emid-1930’s. It remained at roughly the 2.5percent level until the 1950’s, when it rose to4 percent.

The dec l in ing re la t ive importance o f re -search was a result more of an expansion inthe USDA budget for other activities than of

any particular drop in the research budget. Infact, USDA’s research budget rose through1931, dropped during the depression of the1930’s, rose through 1940, remained constantthrough 1945, rose sharply through 1950, andthen leveled off through 1954 (fig. 5). Allow-

Figure 5.–Appropriations for Research in USDABudget, 1915-54 (in millions of dollars)

1915 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1948 1954

Year

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

ance for infla tion would have reduced therate of increase.

Within the USDA budget, the actual dollaramount devoted to Federal research mirroredthe above trends, while the amount passed onto the States was more stable—rising in re-sponse to each of the special funding acts and

then leveling off (fig. 5).Despite these variations, the actual propor-

tion of the USDA research budget going forFederal research was remarkably steady overthe 56-year period (fig. 6). The same is true of th e S ta te p ro p o r t io n . Ov e r th e p e r io d , a naverage of 78.8 percent was devoted to Feder-al research and 21.2 percent to State research.The highest Federal proportion, 86.6 percent,was reached in 1925; the lowest portion, 71.9percent, in 1934. Over the 5-year period from1950 to 1954, the Federal portion was down

slightly to 77.6 percent.The p ropor t ion o f the budge ts o f SAES

coming from USDA funds is summarized infigure 7. Clearly, the USDA portion was veryh ig h a t f i r s t a n d d ro p p e d ra th e r s t e a d i lythrough 1925; and then, with the enactmentof the Purnell and other acts, rose to anotherpeak per iod in the la te 1930’s and ea r ly1940’s. It dropped again after 1944 to anotherlow point in 1954. Non-Federal funds werelargely composed of State appropriations, but

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

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

SOURCE: App. B, table B-2 (coI. 4). Year

8/14/2019 8106



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

Stations, 1889-1975dustry, fees, sales, and miscellaneous.

O n b a l a n c e , i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e

1889 1910 1930 1950 1970 1975

Year

SOURCE: Calculated from data in Agr/cu/tura/Appropriations for 1957, SenateHearings, 1956, insert opposite p. 136; and Furrds for Research at State AgrmJtura/ Experirnenf Stations, USDA/CSRS, annual.

REORGANIZATION AND1953 To THE

With the arrival of a new Secretary of Agri-cul ture in 1953, the s t ruc ture of researchorganization and administration of funds forS t a t e r e s e a r c h u n d e r w e n t t h e f i r s t o f anumber of reorganizations that continued onthrough the la te 1970’s . These reorganiza-t ions wil l be only brief ly introduced here;they will be discussed in greater detail in sub-sequent chapters. (Further organizational de-tai ls and comments may be found in Mose-man, et al., 1981.)

Reorgan i za t i on

The reorganization of 1953 abolished boththe long-standing scientif ic bureaus and theOff ice of Exper iment Sta t ions . Adminis t ra-

Federa l / Sta te par tnersh ip through the ear ly1950’s resul ted in a remarkable degree of stability in terms of the division of USDAfunds between Federal and State research.

One hesitates to think, however, of how muchtension and t ime were involved in reachingthis state of relative equilibrium.

DECENTRALIZATION,

PRESENT

tive authority for both functions wasized with the Agricultural Research(ARS) , which might be cons ideredgrowth of the Agricultural Researchistration.

central-Service

an out -Admin-

Although the reorganization may have ledt o s o m e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i m p r o v e m e n t s , i tevidently had a very destabil izing effect onFederal research and cooperat ive programs.On the Federal end, much of the financial anddec i s ionmak ing au tho r i t y was cen t r a l i zedand moved up a level. The division of the Of-f ice of Exper iment Sta t ions in to two uni t sand its placement under the control of the Ad-

ministration of ARS was not well received bythe States. (In 1962, a separate CooperativeState Research Service was established.)

8/14/2019 8106



Aside from the immediate problems it cre-ated, the reorganization “had the effect of s u b j e c t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h s t r u c t u r e o f t h eDepartment—which had substantia l stabil i tyand immunity from political interference for40 years . . . —to a succession of p ressures forf u r t h e r d r a s t i c r e o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h t h e

changes in political administration in futureyears” (Moseman, et al., 1981).

In the early 1960’s the Life Sciences Panelof the president’s Science Advisory Commit-tee (PSAC) prepared a report entitled Scienceand Agriculture, which focused primarily onUSDA. It included several recommendationsrelating to research organization. A Commit-tee on Agricultural Science was appointed bySecretary Freeman in April 1962, and severalchanges were made in research organizationin the first 6 months of 1963 (Moseman, et al.,

1981). In the process, some of the PSAC rec-o m m e n d a t i o n s w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d . T h e s ewere more in the nature of continuing adjust-ments, ra ther than major disruptions or re-organizations.

In late 1969, a National Academy of Sci-ences Commit tee on Research Advisory toUSDA was established, la ter known as thePound Committee. It, too, presented a num-b e r o f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r i m p r o v i n gUSDA’s research program, many of which re-flected the academic composition and thrustof the committee, Some of the committee’scomments were quite critical of USDA andSAES, and these were given extensive cover-age in the press, In the process, many of thecommit tee ’s o ther comments , which wouldh a v e b e e n q u i t e u se fu l , we re o v e r lo o k e d(Moseman, et al., 1981).

Shortly after the Pound report was issued,but unrelated to it, USDA initiated the reorga-nization of 1972. Developed by a small groupof administrators, its main thrust was admin-i st r a ti ve d e ce n tr a li za t io n . L in e o p e r a t i n gresponsibility was delegated to four regions,

each under a regional deputy administrator.Each of the regions was further subdividedinto a series of research area centers. The na-tional program staff (NPS) was re ta ined in

Washington, but otherwise a ll sc ientists andfacilities, including Beltsville, were placedunder regional administra tors. The NPS, asit s n am e i m p lie s, h a d s t a ff a n d n o t li n eresponsibility.

Finally , the Food and Agriculture Act of

1977 further defined the role of USDA, theStates, and other institutions in planning andcoord ina t ion agr icu l tu ra l resea rch , ex ten-sion, and teaching. It called for the establish-ment of a Joint Council of Food and Agricul-tu ra l S c ie n c e s a n d a Na t io n a l Ag r ic u l tu ra lR e s e a r c h a n d E x t e n s i o n U s e r s A d v i s o r yBoard . The Sc ience and Educa t ion Admin-istration (SEA) was established in USDA witha u t h o r i t y o v e r r e s e a r c h , e x t e n s i o n , a n dteach ing ac t iv i t ie s . W h i l e c o o r d i n a t i o n o f these ac t iv i t ie s i s des i rab le , the re is somequestion whether a new layer of management

was necessary, desirable , or productive, Thecombination of the advisory groups and SEAhas required a great deal of staff time—muchof it contributed by the agencies involved. Itis uncerta in whether the cause of researchhas been materially advanced in the process.

Funding

Despite the many organizational changessince 1953, research funding continued to fol-low the same patterns that were establishednear the end of the previous period. *

Role of Research in USDA Budget, 1963 to1980 .—During th is pe r iod , resea rch fundscontinued to represent 3 to 4 percent of thetotal USDA budget, The average was 3.55 per-cent from 1963 to 1971, and 3.60 percent from1972 to 1980 (Agriculture , . . Appropriationsfor “1972, and Special Budget Tables, FY1981),

Division of USDA Funds Between Federaland State Use, 1955 to 1973 (fig. 6).—Overthe period from 1955 to 1973, an average of

* Unfortunately, it was not possible to compile statistics com-parable to previous data for the whole period since 1954. Onekey da ta series was d iscontinued in 1975; hence, only portionsof the period are covered. The data are also not fully compar-able with those rep orted in ch. IV.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. III— The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q 4 5

77.4 percent of the USDA funds continued togo to the Federal research program, and 22.6percent to the States.11 The Federal figure wasdown s l i gh t ly ( f rom 78 .8 pe rcen t ) and theState f igure up sl ightly (from 21.2 percent)compared to the previous 40-year period. TheF e d e r a l p r o p o r t i o n d r o p p e d a n d t h e S t a t e

proport ion increased somewhat in 1972 and1973; data from other statistical series suggestthat this trend continued through 1981. 12

Role of USDA Funds at the State Level,

1955 to 1975 (fig. 7).*—uSDA funds contin-ued to represent over 20 percent of the ex-penditures of the SAES. The average was 21percent from 1955 to 1975, and rose to over23 percent in the mid-1970’s.

Although most of the research conductedby USDA is carried out under SEA, researchi s a l so conduc ted by s eve ra l o the r USDA

agencies, most notably the Forest Service (FS)and what was the Economics, Statistics, andCooperatives Service (ESCS). Over the 1972to 1980 period, 76.6 percent of the researchwas ca r r i ed ou t unde r SEA, 16 .1 pe rcen t

I lot her data series p rod(lce somewhat d i fferen t d i ~r i sions be-tween Federal and State funds. One table pro~ided by SEA forth e 1960-81period [“App rop riations . . . “ SEA) ind icates thatth e Federal US(? portion of SEA research a~craged 70.7 per-cent, while the State portion w as 29,4 percent. (As noted laterin the text, the SEA totals accounted for about 76.6 percent of total USDA expend itures for research from 1972 to 1980; in-clusion of the other USDA research activities would h a~ r eraised th e Federal portion and reduced the State portion. )

IZThe SEA dat a cited abok’e indicate that the proportion of

SEA fund s spent for Federal research d eclined from a n aver-age of 72.5 percent for 1970 and 1971 to 67 percent for 1980and 1981 [“Appropriate ions . . .,” SEA). And while there was anincrease in the proportion of funds going to the States, therewas also a change in the composition of fund s, More specif-ically, there w as a d ecline in the relative role of H atch fund s(from 27.7 percent o f total SEA research fu nd s in 1960 to 20percent in 1981) and a relative increase in the n on-Hatch por-tion of the State funds (from 1.1 percent of total SEA researchfund s in 1960 to 11.8 percent in 1980). This trend is a matter of great concern to the State directors and is a m otivating forcebehind som e recent legislati~’e endeavors.

*The data cited in this section do not include Federal fundsfrom agencies other than U SDA and hence un derstate both thetotal Federal and other fund s available to the stations.

under FS, 5.5 percent under ESCS, and 1.8percent under other agencies (Special BudgetTables, FY 1981, table 10).

Faci l i t ies

As of 1980, the Federal SEA research pro-

gram was quite decentralized, both in admin-i s t r a t i on and dep loymen t o f f ac i l i t i e s andstaff. Research was carried out at 148 loca-tions, ranging from the massive 450-scientistfacility of the Beltsville Agricultural ResearchCenter down to one-scientis t s tat ions (Mis-sion of SEA/ AR, p. 12). A comm on arran ge-ment is to place scientists at State agriculturalstations. It is estimated that more than one-t h i r d o f t h e 2 , 70 0 SE A / A R s c ie n t i s t s a r ehoused in such facilities (Ronningen, 1981).About one-half of the USDA research faci l-ities were built through the initiatives of Con-

gress between 1958 and 1977 (Flatt, et al. ,1980). 13

T h e h i g h l y d e c e n t r a l i z e d n a t u r e o f t h eUSDA research system, a source of frictionthrough much of the 20th century, now seemsto be accepted and even favored by the States.Some observers have suggested that this is acase o f d iv ide and conque r : a h igh ly d i s -persed program is easier for the States to in-fluence and mold to their own purposes thanwould be the case with a highly centralizedinstitution. This dispersion, in fact, has led tocri t icism that many USDA employees essen-t ial ly function as State employees and thatthis in turn has led to a loss of focus on na-tional issues.

la Hadw iger, in a forthcoming book, notes that 44 percent of all USDA research facility constr uction betw een 1958 and1977 was in States represented by m embers of the Subcommit-tee on Agriculture of the Senate App ropriations Comm ittee.He states that this practice has forced “the federal Ag riculturalResearch Service to op erate a ‘traveling circus, ’ open ing u pnew locations in current Senate constituencies, while closingsome locations in States whose Senators are no longer mem-bers of the su bcommittee. ”

8/14/2019 8106



The role and development of agriculturalresearch at the 1890 land-grant colleges havefollowed a somewhat different pattern thanwas true of the 1862 institutions. In August1 8 9 0 , C o n g r e s s p a s s e d w h a t h a s b e c o m e

known as the Second Merrill Act. Basically, ita u t h o r i z e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f s e p a r a t eland-grant colleges for Negroes. SeventeenSouthern and border States established suchcolleges; 16 remain today, plus Tuskegee In-stitute.

Like the original Merrill Act, the 1890 actwas vague about the role of research. And asit turned out, by far the main emphasis of theinstitutions established under it was on teach-ing , pa r t icu la r ly the t ra in ing o f teachers .No n e o f th e Ha tc h Ac t o r Ad a ms Ac t r e -

se a rc h fu n d s ma d e a v a i l a b le to th e S ta te swere in turn directed to the 1890 schools. Norwere State funds provided for research. Onlyoccasional funding was sometimes arrangedfor special projects. Consequently, no signifi-cant agricultural research programs were ini-tially established at the 1890 schools.

T h e o n e e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s p a t t e r n w a sTuskegee Institute, which was not technicallyan 1890 institution, * The Alabama State Leg-islature established the Tuskegee State Expe-r iment S ta t ion in 1897 . I t was headed byGeorge Washington Carver from its inceptionuntil his death in 1943. Subsequently, the ex-p e r ime n t s t a t io n a c t iv i t i e s we re d e e mp h a -sized.

Agricultural research remained in limbo atthe 1890 ins t i tu t ions un t i l the mid-1960’s ,when the situation began to change sharply.

IAThiS Section IS based on information provided in May-berry, Payne, and Schor, and by M ayes.

*H owev er, a special act of Congress in Februar y 1899 au-thorized the Gover nor of Alabam a to select 25,000 acres of land from the public domain to endow Tuskegee Institute. Ala-bama Agricultural and Mechanical University was designatedas the 1890 institution after a spirited comp etition w ithTuskegee.

Public Law 89-106, passed in 1965, made itpossible to provide Federal research funds tothe 1890 schools. The first appropriation forthis purpose was provided in fiscal year 1967,when $283,000 was allocated for the 16 1890

schools (Tuskegee was at first excluded). Thismodest level of funding was carried throughto 1971. In fiscal year 1972, however, a sharpincrease—to near ly $8 .9 mil l ion—was pro-vided, and provision was made for inclusionof Tuskegee.

Un d e r th e F o o d a n d Ag r ic u l tu re Ac t o f 1977, these institutions acquired a more com-p le te fu n d in g a u th o r i ty a n d re sp o n s ib i l i tythan they had previously (Public Law 95-113,sec. 1445), The funding level was set at 15 per-cent of the funding provided the SAES (Hatch

funds), Funding under this authority was firstprovided in fiscal year 1979. The appropria-tion in fiscal year 1981 was nearly $19.3 mil-lion. In addition, a bill is before Congress thatwould provide $50 million over a 5-year peri-od for capital construction.

So far, essentially all (about 99 percent) of the agricultural research funds for the 1890schools are from Federal sources. State fund-ing is limited to small amounts at a few in-sti tutions. Whether State funding will growsignificantly remains to be seen. The 1890schools must join with the experiment sta-tions in their State and submit joint-fundingrequests to USDA, but thereafter, the Federalfunds are a llocated directly to them. Fundsa re a d min i s t e re d b y th e Co o p e ra t iv e S ta teResearch Service. They might be viewed asadditional funding for the States that receivethem,

T h u s , a f t e r a l o n g p e r i o d o f f i n a n c i a lneglect, it seems that agricultural research atthe predominantly black 1890 schools is be-coming a significant factor in publicly sup-p o r te d a g r i c u l tu ra l r e se a rc h in th e Un i te d

States.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research “ 47

q As popula t ion expands and quant i ty of land decreases, there is a growing need to in-crease agricultural yields per unit of land, Re-search is a major source of yield-increasingtechnology, Science has played a vital role in

increasing U.S. agricultural productivity. Re-search is also needed to improve the market-ing of this expanded production and to serveother needs of society.

q A g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h i s c o n d u c t e d b ypub l i c and p r iva t e agenc i e s i n t he Un i t edStates. Each tends to generate different typesof technologies: the public sector largely pro-duces biological technology, and the privates e c t o r l a r g e l y p r o d u c e s m e c h a n i c a l a n dchemical technology. The public sector pro-duces public knowledge; the private sector

tends to use it to produce proprietary goods.Ye t , bo th a r e g r ea t ly needed , complemen teach other , and overlap. The public is wellserved by the combination.

q Since the turn of the century, both Stateand Federal agencies have been active part-ners and competitors in research. At first, theS ta t e r e sea rch p rog rams were heav i ly de -pendent on Federa l funds , but th is depend-ence lessened through 1920 as State supportincreased, Aside from the late 1930’s and ear-ly 1940’s, USDA provided about 20 percent of the funding of State s tat ions through 1975.These funds have in turn represented from 20to 25 percent of the research funding receivedby USDA.

I

Atwater , W, O., “Agricultural Experiment Sta-tions in Europe, ” Repor t of the Commissionerof Agriculture for the Year 1875 (1876), pp.517-524.

Baker, Gladys L., et al., Century of Service: TheFirst 100 Years o -f th e United States Departmentof Agr icuhur e , U.S. Department of Agriculture,1963,

. The substantial involvement of USDA inresearch brought about by Secretary Wilsonearly in the century has continued. Over time,from 75 to 80 percent of the research fundingreceived by USDA has been used for its own

in-house research program.q Decentral izat ion of USDA research was

at first opposed by the State scientists. Stateadministrators now favor a decentralized pat-t e r n , i n p a r t b e c a u s e t h e y s e e m t o h a v eadapted i t to their needs. This in turn hasraised quest ions about whether the Federalsystem has sufficient national focus.

q The two-valved nature of USDA researchfunding—divided between State and Federalresearch units—has long been a source of fric-t i o n . S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s e a c h

would like a larger share of the pie. The ac-tual division of USDA funds has been remark-ably stable over t ime ( though i t may haveswung in favor of the States in recent years),probably as a result of this dynamic tension.B u t m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e b a l a n c e h a s u n -doubtedly consumed an enormous amount of time and effort.

q While the Sta te research s t ruc ture hasbeen relat ively stable, as was the USDA re-search structure for many years, the USDAresearch structure” has been the subject of an u m b e r o f r e o r g a n i z a t i o n s s i n c e 1 9 5 3 . Acommon charac ter i s t ic of each reorganiza-tion is the continuous addition of administra-tive layers and functions and a certain loss of national focus,

REFERENCES

Cochrane, Willard W., The Development of Amer -ican Agriculture; An Historical Analysis (Min-neapolis, Minn.: Universi ty of MinnesotaPress, 1979).

Conover, Milton, The O~~ice of Experiment Sta-tions: It s History, Activities, and Organization,(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1924) (in-stitute for Government Research , Serv ice

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Ill—The Role and Development of Public Agricultural Research q 4 9

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp.211-248,

Schor, Joel, “Agriculture in the Black Land-GrantSystem to 1930,” USDA, Economic ResearchService, Agricultural History Branch, unpub-lished manuscript, 1981.

True, Alfred Charles, A History o_f Agricultural Ex-

perimentation and Research in the UnitedStates, 1607-1925, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 251, June1937.

True, A. C., and V. A. Clark, The Agricultural Ex-periment Stations in th e United States, U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Office of ExperimentStations, Bulletin No. 80, 1900 (Prepared to ac-

True, A. C. and D. J. Crosby, Agricultural Experi-ment Stations in Foreign Countries, U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Office of ExperimentStations Bulletin 112, 1902, 230 p p .

Waggoner, Paul E., “Research and Education inAmerican Agriculture, ” Agr icul tura l History,vol. 50, No. 1, January 1976, pp. 230-247.

Wilson, James, “Address,” Proceedings Of the As-

sociation o-j’ American Agricultural Colleges an dExperiment Stations, No v e mb e r 14-16, 1905,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Ex-periment Stations, Bulletin No. 164, 1906, p.15.

Wiser, Vivian, and Wayne D. Rasmussen, “Back-ground for Plenty: A National Center for Agri-cultural Research, ” Marvland Histor ica l

company the Experiment Statio~ E~hibit at the Magazine,Paris Exposition). 283-304.

Anonymous /Of f i c ia l

( in chronological order )

vol. 61, No. 4, D~cembe r 1966, pp.

“U.S. Department of Agriculture, ” The Congres-sional GJobe, vol. 33, Feb. 17, 1862, p p . 855-856.

Agricultural Experiment Stations, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture,49th Cong. , 1s t sess., report N o, 848, to accom-pany H,R. 2933, Mar, 3, 1886.

Report of the Commissioner o -f Agriculture: 1867(1868); 1880 (1881); 1887 (1888); 1888 (1889).

Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA, 1894, p. 64.

Agricultural Appropriations j’or 1957, hearingsbefore the Subcommittee of the Committee onAppropriations, U.S. Senate, 84th Cong., 2ndsess., on H.R. 11177, chart and table oppositep , 138,

Agriculture-En v i r onmen ta ] and Consumer Protec-

tion Appropriations for 1972, hearings, U.S.House of Representatives, Committee on Ap-propriations, pp. 257-258.

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter I V

Measur ing Cost s,

Benef i t s , Burdens, and

Qual i t y of Researc h

8/14/2019 8106


PageTrends in Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

R&D Expenditures by Federal Agencies. . . . 53R&D Expenditures for U.S. AgriculturalResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Scientific Manpower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56USDA Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57SAES Expenditures. . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . 57

Private Industry Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . 58Benefits and Burdens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Nature of Benefits q . * . . , . q . , .** , . . .0.,, , 6 0

Primary Benefits. .,...... . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Secondary Benefits. ......,. . . . . . . . . . . 62Uncertain Benefits and Burdens, . . . . . . . . 64Burdens q ***.** .*.***.. ..0...., ,.,... 65

Distribution of Benefits and Burdens. . . . . . 65Farm Producers. .,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Consumers and the General Economy.... 66Effect on Social and Economic

Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Researchers and Research Institutions. . . 69

Benefits and Funding Sources, . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Private-Sector Funding Related toFlow of Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Director Checkoff Funds. ..,,..... . . . . 72Measuring Returns to Research

Investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Qualitative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,., 75

Pound Report q ** ,$ . . q , ,** . . . ..0,,,.. .* * 75Other Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Shaw Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Evenson and Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Principal Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Chapter IV References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

List of Tables

Table No. Pagel. Exports, Imports, and International

Trade Balance in Agricultural andOther Commodities in the United States, ,. 63

2. Relationship Between Agricultural FoodResearch Benefits and Family Income . . . . . 67

3. Relationship of Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Research to Family Income.. . 68

4. Estimates of the Contribution of U.S.Agricultural Productivity Change to the1979 National Income Since 1940. . . . . . . . . 68

5. Regional Estimates of External-to-InternalRatios Related to Benefits and Funding of Production-Oriented Agricultural Researchand Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6. Empirical Rate of Return Estimates forAgricultural Research Investment . . . . . . . . 73

List of Figures

Figure No. Page8.

9.

10(

11 <

12.

Federal Obligations for R&D by

NASA, DOE, NSF, and Other SelectedAgencies–1966=78 (current dollars).. . . . . 54Federal Obligations for R&D byNASA, DOE, NSF, and Other SelectedAgencies–1966-78 (constant dollars). . . . . 54Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—1966-78 (current dollars). ......,. . . . . . 55Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—1966-78 (constant dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES andUSDA Total Research Expenditures—1966-79(current dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

13. SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES andUSDA Total Research Expenditures—1966-79 (constant dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

14. SAES, USDA, and Combined USDA andSAES Scientist Years, 1966-1979. ...,.... 57

15. USDA Research Expenditures byARS, ESS--1966-79. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

16. USDA Research Expenditures byARS, ESS–1966-79. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

17, Formula, Cooperative Grants andCooperative Agreements, and OtherFederally Funded ResearchExpenditures of SAES--1966-79(current dollars).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

18. Formula, Cooperative Grants andCooperative Agreements, and OtherFederally Funded ResearchExpenditures at SAES--1966-79(constant dollars) ,..,,00 ..,,0,.. . . . . . . . 59

19. State Appropriations, Private Research,and Formula Funds at SAES--1966-79(current dollars) q . * . . . . ....,.,0 q . . . , , , , 59

20. State Appropriations, Private Research,and Formula Funds at SAES— 1966-79(constant dollars) ..,..0, . . . . . . . . .0...,. 59

21. Total Expenditures for Applied R&Dfor Agricultural-Related Products byPrivate Industry-1963-75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter IV

Measur ing Costs , Benef i ts , Burdens,

and Qual i ty o f Research

Achievements in agricultural research andtechnology have contributed markedly to theeconomic stature and social well-being of theUnited States and have enhanced our stand-ing among world powers in many ways. Suchach ievemen t s , howeve r , have no t been a t -tained without certain costs and burdens tosociety. In other words, the benefits accruingf rom research must be weighed agains t themagnitude of whatever dollar and manpowerinvestments are required, together with suchfactors as impact on environmental quali ty,labor displacement, or impairment of sensory

qua l i t y caused by mass food p roduc t ion ,Mos t eva lua t ions show, howeve r , t ha t t he

benefits far outweigh the costs and burdens.Actually, on a rate-of-return basis, consumersreap benefits well in excess of costs.

A m o n g scient i s t s themselves , a t temptshave been made at various times to measurethe quality of research performance but it isa l so impor tant to measure research produc-tivity and its ultimate impact on society as awhole, Although trends in funding U.S. foodand agr icul tura l research show only modes tincreases over t ime, the cumulative benefi tsto all segments of society would seem to more

than justify whatever investments have beenmade .

TRENDS IN FUN DING

F o o d a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h i n t h eUnited States is conducted chiefly by the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Stateagr icul tura l exper iment s ta t ions (SAES) inconjunction with land-grant universi t ies , in-cluding the 1890 Schools and Tuskegee Insti-tute; and private industry. USDA and SAES

resea rch cons t i t u t e pub l i c r e sea rch r ega rd -less of the source of supporting funds. USDAagricultural research is funded from Federalsources. SAES research is supported by Fed-eral funds, State appropriat ions and sales,and grants from private sources.

The scope and magnitude of food and agri-cultural research performed by private indus-try cannot be accurately reported because of the lack of rel iable data. Private f irms en-gaged in ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch a r e no t r e -quired to identify themselves, nor are they re-

quired to publicly disclose their investmentsin agricultural research. Thus, any analysis of agricultural research by private industry hasto be based on incomplete data. Those figures

that are available wil l be discussed later inthis chapter .

Accurate figures are available for total ex-penditures on food and agricultural researchby USDA and the SAES. In this segment of the repor t , pa t te rns and t rends in expendi -

tures focus on the period 1966 to 1979. Notethat figures are given for expenditures in cur-rent dollars and constant dollars—that is, dol-lar expenditures adjusted for inflat ion. Thedeflator factor used for this study is explainedby Havlicek and Otto in their OTA resourcepaper.

R&D Expendi tures by

Federal Agenc ies

Among the major Federal research agen-cies that conduct research and development

(R&D), USDA expenditures are the lowest interms of dollar expenditures. In 1978, totalFederal expenditures for R&D were $26.2 bil-lion. USDA’s expenditures were $381 million

53

8/14/2019 8106


—— —


or approximately 1.5 percent of the total. Thiscompared with Department of Defense (DOD)share of 45 percent; Department of Energy( D O E ) o f 1 6 p e r c e n t ; a n d D e p a r t m e n t o f Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) of 12percent. USDA’s status among Federal agen-cies represents a continuing decline in share

of the Federal budget for R&D from a high of 39 percent in 1940 to 1.5 percent in 1978.

Federal obligations for all R&D by the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA), the Nat iona l Sc ience Founda t ion(NSF), DOE, and a category of other selectedagencies for the 1966-78 period (the most re-cent available data) are presented in currentdollars in figure 8 and constant dollars infigure 9. The level of funding for NASA isl a r g e r e l a t i v e t o t h e o t h e r a g e n c i e s c o n -sidered. As may be observed from figures 8

and 9 , R&D funding fo r NASA decreasedfrom 1966 to 1974 and thereafter increased,a l th o u g h in c o n s ta n t d o l l a r s th e in c re a sefrom 1974 to 1978 was quite small. R&D fund-

Figure 8.–Federal Obligations for R&D by NASA,DOE, NSF, and Other Selected Agencies—1966.78

(in millions of current dollars)

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, ‘rHlstorlcal Analysls of Invest-

ment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981

ing for DOE increased in current dollars from1972 to 1978, but in constant dollars did notincrease until after 1974. In current and con-stant dollars, R&D funding for NSF increasedsteadily during the 13-year period. R&D fund-ing for “all o ther agencies” increased about2 7 0 p e rc e n t in c u r re n t d o l l a r s d u r in g th e

1966-78 period, but in constant dollars in-creased about 67 percent.

R&D expenditures for USDA, DOD, HEW,and the total for all Federal agencies for the1966-78 period are presented in current dol-lars in figure 10 and in constant dollars infigure 11. In current dollars, R&D expendi-tures by DOD increased 68 percent from 1966to ‘1978, but in constant dollars this repre-sented a decline of 26 percent; R&D fundingfor HEW increased steadily by 209 percentfrom 1966 to 1978, and in constant dollars the

expenditures increased 35 percent. In currentdollars, R&D funding for USDA, which in-

Figure 9.–Federal Obligations for R&D by NASA,DOE, NSF, and Other Selected Agencies—1966.78

(in millions of constant dollars)

— --0

1966 1970 1975 19~8Year

SOURCE Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysis of invest-

ment In Food and Agricultural Research [n the United States, ” OTA


8/14/2019 8106


Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research q55

Figure 10.— Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—1966-78


Figure 11.— Federal Obligations for R&D by USDA,DOD, HEW, and All Federal Agencies—1966-78


— U S D A #

/ “5,000

0 1

)

1965 19701975 1980

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havlicek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Invest-ment In Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA


eludes pass-through funds to the States, in-creased steadily by 149 percent from 1966 to1978, and in constant dollars by 10 percent.Finally, the current-dollar Federal obligationsfor all R&D for all Federal agencies increased72 percent from 1966 to 1978, but in constantdo l l a r s t h i s ended up be ing a 25 -pe rcen tdecrease. The pattern in the expenditures for

all R&D for all Federal agencies and the pat-t e rns i n R&D expend i tu r e s o f NASA andDOD, the two largest agencies in terms of R&D funding, are quite similar,

R&D Expendi t ures for U.S.

Agr icu l tura l Research

Current dollar expenditures on total agri-c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h f o r U S D A , S A E S , a n dUSDA and SAES combined for the 1966-79per iod are presented in f igure 12 , and thecons t an t -do l l a r expend i tu r e s a r e shown in

figure 13. The top line in each figure repre-sen t s t he expend i tu r e s o f USDA and theSAES combined—i.e. , the funding of publicagricultural research in the United States. In

1966 1970 1975 1978Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr, and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Invest.

ment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTAbackground paper, 1981

current dollars , the total funding for publicagricultural research increased 204 percentfor the 14-year period. Total research expend-itures in the SAES increased 245 percent dur-ing this period, while USDA expenditures in-creased only 149 percent.

But the funding picture shown in figure 13is quite different , For this f igure, expendi-tures were adjusted to 1967 constant dollars(de f l a t ed ) . The inc rease i n t he pu rchas ingpower of the total SAES and USDA agricul-tural research expenditures increased only 23percent from 1966 to 1979. Furthermore, theconstant-dollar agricultural research expendi-t u r e s o f U S D A f o r i n - h o u s e r e s e a r c h i n -creased only 1 percent during this period,w h i l e t h o s e i n t h e S A E S i n c r e a s e d 4 0p e r c e n t . 1 Clear ly , dur ing th is t ime and par -

ticularly during the latter part of the period,i n f l a t i o n s e v e r e l y e r o d e d t h e p u r c h a s i n g

IThe USDA figures exclude p ass-throu gh fun ds to th e States.For further inform ation see Hav licek and Otto, 1981.

8/14/2019 8106



Figure 12.–SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of invest-

ment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981,

power of agricultural research funds. More-o v e r , t h e c o n s t a n t - d o l l a r e x p e n d i t u r e s o f USDA remained at about the same level dur-ing the period, so that the modest increasethat occurred is attributable to SAES expendi-tures. During the 1966-79 period, SAES ex-p e n d i t u r e s a c c o u n t e d f o r a n i n c r e a s i n g l y

greater share of public agricultural researchfunds.

Scient i f ic Manpower

During the same 14-year period, USDA sci-entist-years devoted to agricultural researchremained nearly constant after a sl ight de-crease from 1967 to 1968 (fig. 14). In the SAESthere was a very gradual upward trend in thescientist-years in agricultural research, andthe total increase from 1966 to 1979 was ap-proximately 460 scientist-years. Increases in

e x p e n d i t u r e s o n a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h b yUSDA and SAES have basically been used tocover the salaries, supporting research equip-ment, and supplies for a nearly constant sci-entist manpower force. Yet during this same

Figure 13.—SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and‘USDA Total Research Expenditures—1966-79


I

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto,c’Historical Analysw. of invest-

ment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA

background paper, 1981.

period, the demands on agricultural researchhave been greater than ever.

This is an acute problem in the strong re-search demand areas such as genetic engi-

neering. The new demand for research man-power , e spec ia l ly f rom the p r iva te sec to r ,creates problems for Federal agencies and es-pec ia l ly un ivers i t ie s in keep ing s ta f f andmaintaining graduate programs in the field.

While USDA scientist numbers remain rela-tively constant, the average age is increasing.Between 1969 and 1976, the number of Sci-ence and Education Administra tion-Agricul-tural Research (SEA-AR) scientists 50 years of age and older increased from 28 to 39 percentof the work force; the number of those 30

years of age and under decreased from 9 toonly 2 percent in the same period. By way of co m p ar is on , a t t h e N a t i on a l In s t it u t e s of Hea l th (NIH) the number o f sc ien t is ts 50years of age and over (1976) was 15 percent,

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. IV—Measuring Costs f Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research q 5 7

Figure 14.— SAES, USDA, and Combined USDA andSAES Scientist Years–1966-79

f5,000

0 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

f /1966 1970 1975 19

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysis of invest-



and 30 years of age and under was 25 percent.The average age of SEA-AR scientists in 1976was 47 and of NIH, 35 (General AccountingOffice, 1976, 1977). Most research institutionsdesire a continuous influx of young scientists

in their organization.Both personne l ce i l ings and shor tage o f

funds are valid reasons given for these trends.S i n c e b o t h w i l l p r o b a b l y r e m a i n a s c o n -straints in varying degrees in the near future,especially personnel ceil ings, some manage-ment practices need to be established thatwill assure a ttraction and hiring of capableyoung scientists in SEA-AR.

USDA Expenditures

The agricultural research expenditures in

current dollars of the major agencies withinUSDA are presented in figure 15 and the cor-responding constant-dollar expenditures infigure 16. For the period 1966 to 1979, theAgricultural Research Service (ARS) was by

far the largest component in terms of expend-i tu re s o n a g r i c u l tu ra l r e se a rc h . In c u r re n tdollars, ARS expenditures on agricultural re-sea rch inc reased 139 percen t f rom 1966 to1979, but in constant dollars decreased about3 percent.

Excep t fo r s l igh t decreases f rom 1967 to1968 and 1969 to 1970, the current-dollar ex-p e n d i t u r e s o n a g r i c u l t u r a l e c o n o m i c s r e -search by the Economics and Statistics Serv-ice (ESS) increased rather steadily during the14-year period, and there was a 127-percentincrease from 1966 to 1979. However, this in-crease did not keep up with inflation, and inconstant dollars there was an 8-percent de-crease from 1966 to 1979.

SAES Expenditures

Levels of expenditures on agricultural re-search by the SAES for the 1966-79 period,accord ing to major components o f Federa lr e s e a r c h f u n d s , a r e p r e s e n t e d i n c u r r e n tdollars in figure 17 and in constant dollars infigure 18. The largest component from Fed-e ra l sources was the to ta l o f the fo rmulafunds, including Hatch and other appropria-t ions. In current dollars, these expendituressteadily increased from 1966 to 1979; the 1979level was nearly 200 percent greater than the1966 level. However, in constant dollars, thecurrent-dollar increase translates to a 20-per-

cent increase, or an average increase of about1.5 percent a year.

Cooperative grants and cooperative agree-ments were the smallest component of Fed-eral funding of agricultural research in theSAES. In current and constant dollars, thesefunds declined from 1968 to 1971, but sincethen have been increasing. Over the entire14-year period, the current-dollar expendi-tures increased 197 percent, while the con-stant-dollar expenditures increased only 20percent.

O th e r F e d e ra l fu n d s fo r a g r i c u l tu ra l r e -search at the SAES are one-half to one-thirdof the size of formula funds, but two to threetimes the size of expenditures from coopera-t i v e g r a n t s a n d c o o p e r a t i v e a g r e e m e n t s .

G ,, - <-, ( – L : - [

8/14/2019 8106



Figure 15.–USDA Research Expenditures by ARS,ESS—1966-79 (in millions of current dollars)

o /

1966 1970Year

1975 1979

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Invest-

ment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTAbackground paper, 1981.

These other Federal funds have been an im-portant source of funds to the SAES. Withsome varia tion, the current-dollar expendi-tures increased by 129 percent from 1966 to1979, but in constant dollars this was an over-all 7-percent decline.

The major source of agricultural researchfunding at SAES is State appropriations andsales. Expenditures from these sources, pri-vate sources, and formula funds from Federalsources are presented in current dollars infigure 19 and in constant dollars in figure 20.In current dollars, all three sources increasedduring the 1966-79 period. State appropria-t io n s a n d sa le s in c re a se d n e a r ly fo u r fo ld ,resulting in a constant-dollar increase of 57percent.

P r i v a t e r e s e a r c h f u n d s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a lresearch at SAES are small relative to Stateappropriations and sales and the Federal for-mula funds. Nonetheless, they have steadily

Figure 16.—USDA Research Expenditures by ARS.ESS—1966-79 (in millions of constant dollars)

o

1966 1970 1975Year

197

SOURCE: Joseph Havlicek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of Invest-ment in Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTAbackground paper, 1981

increased since 1966 and are becoming an im-portant source of agricultural research funds.During the 1966-79 period, private sources of agr icu l tu ra l resea rch funds go ing to SAESalso inc reased fourfo ld in curren t do l la rs ,

which resulted in a constant-dollar increaseof 63 percent.

Private Industry Expendi tures

Data on the expenditures for agriculturalresearch by private industry are considerablymore limited than those on SAES and USDA.Some data concerned with applied researcha n d d e v e l o p m e n t f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l - r e l a t e dproducts obtained from the Surveys of Sci-ence Resources Series of NSF are presented infigure 21. The time period covered is 1963 to1975. In current dollars, the 1963 total ex-penditure by private industry for agriculturalresea rch was about $220 mil l ion , and in -c re a se d to s l ig h t ly o v e r $ 6 0 0 mi l l io n in

I

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research “ 59

Figure 17.—Formula, Cooperative Grants andCooperative Agreements, and Other Federally

Funded Research Expenditures at SAES–1966-79(in millions of current dollars)

1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

SOURCE Joseph Havllcek, Jr,, and Dantel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysls of invest-ment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTA


Figure 19.—State Appropriations, Private Research,and Formula Funds at SAES—1966-79


500

/ -

400

/ –

300

/ –

200

/ –

100

1965 1970 1975 1980Year

SOURCE: Joseph Havllcek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Hlstorlcal Analysis of invest-



Figure 18.—Formula, Cooperative Grants andCooperative Agreements, and Other Federally

Funded Research Expenditures at SAES–1966-79(in millions of constant dollars)

q q

0

1966 1970 1975Year

.1979

SOURCE’ Joseph Havllcek, Jr , and Daniel Otto, “Hfstorlcal Analysis of Invest.ment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTAbackground paper, 1981.

Figure 20.—State Appropriations, Private Research,and Formula Funds at SAES—1966-79


A I

[

400

1966 1970 1975Year

1979

SOURCE: Joseph Havllcek, Jr., and Daniel Otto, “Historical Analysis of invest-

ment In Food and Agricultural Research in the United States, ” OTA


8/14/2019 8106


. .——


Figure 21 .—Total Expenditures for Applied R&D forAgricultural. Related Products by Private lndustry—

1963-75 (in millions of current and constant dollars)

0 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1f /

1963 1967Year

1972 1975

SOURCE. Joseph Havllcek, Jr,, and Danlei Otto, “Historical Analysls of invest-

ment In Food and Agricultural Research In the United States, ” OTAbackground paper, 1981,

1975—about a 170-percent increase. In con-stant 1967 dollars, this is a 39-percent over-all increase or a 3-percent average annualincrease.

A second, even less comprehensive sourceof data on private agricultural research, wasobtained from a separate survey of agribusi-ness firms conducted by the Agricultural Re-search Institute (ARI) for 1975. The estimatedresearch expenditures by agricultural f irmsfor 1975 from this survey were $575 million,

which is slightly less than the $602 million es-timated from the NSF survey for 1975. Thecategories from the ARI survey are not strict-ly compatible with those of the NSF survey,so that direct comparison of the two surveysis not possible. However, similarities of theest imated overa l l leve l o f p r iva te resea rchfrom these two sources help substantiate theNSF figures as reasonable estimates of thelevel of agricultural research being conductedby private firms.

To get some perspective about relative mag-

nitudes, in 1975 the total expenditure by pri-vate industry on applied R&D for agricul-tural-re la ted products was about 72 percentof the to ta l pub l ic expendi tu re (SAES andUSDA combined) on agr icu l tu ra l resea rch .This total expenditure by private industry in1975 was approximately 23 percent greaterthan theresearchUSDA’s.

SAES expenditure on agriculturaland about 75 percent greater than

BENEFITS AND BURDENS

Research benefits must be evaluated in rela-t ion to whatever costs society must pay forthem—whether in dollar investment, environ-mental impact, or whatever. In some casesthese benefits have varying effects on produc-ers and consumers. Researchers and their in-stitutions also may reap benefits in terms of increased support. Likewise, State researchmay generate spillover benefits that accrue to

residents of adjacent States or similar agrocli-matic regions. In many cases, the degree of return from the research investment may in-fluence decisionmakers as to the level of sup-

port that seems appropria te for future pro-grams.

People individually and collectively striveto improve their well-being, and research con-tributes to this societal goal. Benefits may bec l a s s i f i e d a s p r i m a r y ( a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f

research) and secondary (developed indirect-ly from the basic research activity). In addi-t ion, research produces certa in questionablebenefits or, in some cases, actual burdens to

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research q 6 1

society, the degree of which may vary fromslight to moderate, depending on individualevaluation.

Pr imary Benef i ts

Primary benefits include improved produc-t iv i ty , conservat ion , preservat ion , and rea-

sonable costs of food and fiber.

The g rea t e s t emphas i s i n p roduc t ion r e -search has been to improve crop varieties andbreeds of livestock and poultry. In addition,research on purchased inputs has developedfe r t i l i z e r s w i th improved nu t r i en t con ten t ,new and improved ag r i cu l tu r a l chemica l s ,and dramatic changes in farm machinery andequipment .

For the period 1945-79, technological inno-vations increased agricultural output 85 per-cent, but there was no change in the aggre-

gate level of agricultural inputs (USDA, 1980).Substantial evidence shows that the rate of return on food and agricultural research in-vestment is high relative to most other socialinvestments (Evenson, Waggoner, and Rut-tan, 1979). Therefore, the total volume of allgoods and services is greater as a result of re-search investment than i t would be if thesefunds had been invested in other alternatives.

Marke t ing r e sea rch has made more foodavailable through improved processing andfabricat ion, upgrading products , preventing

waste, and providing for the use of productspreviously not considered viable.

M a r k e t i n g r e s e a r c h d e s i g n e d t o r e d u c elosses in quantity and quality of food obvious-ly has an impact on the availability of foodand its cost to consumers. Prevention of foodwaste by appropriate preservation and proc-essing methods consti tutes a large potentialsource of food. Research on reducing losscaused by pests results in estimated savingsof $1.5 billion annually in the United States(National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 1977).R e d u c i n g t h e s t o r a g e a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o nlosses of fruits and vegetables could increasethe supply of these products from 15 to 30percent (NAS, 1977).

A reduction of the relative real costs of foodand fiber results from conducting research atall stages of production, processing, storage,and distribution. In the United States, this re-duction is quite substantial compared withthat in other countries. For example, in 1977only 16.5 percent of U.S. disposable income

w e n t f o r f o o d , t o b a c c o , a n d b e v e r a g e s(Mackie and Al len , 1980) . In Canada , thefigure was 21 percent . Elsewhere, spendingon food, beverages, and tobacco ranged from25 to 50 percent of total expenditures in high-income countries of Europe and Asia; around45 to 50 percent in central ly planned coun-tries; and between 40 and 65 percent in devel-oping countries (United Nations, 1978). Notetha t a l l h igh - income na t ions spend l e s s o f their income on food than poorer nations.

I m p r o v e d t e c h n o l o g y g e n e r a t e d b y r e -

search usually leads to relatively lower costsf or fa r m p r o d u c t s. T h is e ff ec t i s br o u g h tabout by supply and demand factors. On thesupply side, the technology expands output.On the demand s ide , the expanded supplygenerally leads to relatively lower prices.

In terms of production, there is usually lit-t le point in a farmer adopting a new tech-nology unless it reduces per-unit productioncost, meets a regulation, or is for some per-sonal reason such as reducing drudgery. Therate of adoption of new technology, in wholeor part, is usually influenced by profitability.

The price factor represents the other side of the equation. As total output expands becauseof the adoption of the new technology, pricesfall relatively. The rate and extent to whichthey fall depends on the price elasticity of de-mand. The domestic price elast ici ty of de-mand for most agricultural products is quitelow, which means that a given increase insupply will bring about a substantial decreasein price. This has little effect on the earlyadopter of the technology, because his indi-vidual production is too small to affect the

overall price level. But as the technology iswidely adopted by other farmers, prices willdrop relatively.

8/14/2019 8106


62 “ An Assessment 01 the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

The effect of this general relative price de-cline on the individual farmer will depend ont h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h h e h a s a d o p t e d t h ecos t - r educ ing t echno logy . Those who haveadopted it will be able to bear some reductioni n p r i c e , a l t h o u g h t h i s w i l l r e d u c e t h e i rearl ier profi ts . Those that have not adopted

the technology will be disadvantaged becausetheir costs have not been lowered. To the ex-tent that the price decline is greater than thereduction in costs, all farmers will be disad-vantaged. As prices go down, consumers willreceive the advantage.

In a report on agricultural production effi-ciency, NAS concluded that: “Between 1950and 1971, U.S. farm output increased 50 per-cent , while consumer prices remained rela-tively stable. If the same farming methods hadbeen used in 1971 as in 1950, an equivalentabundance of food and o ther products com-ing from the farm would have cost consumerstwo to three times more than they did” (1975,p. 188).

Changes in the marketing and distributionof food have been signif icant in the last 30years as evidenced by the expansion of super-markets, which have reduced by 15 to 25 per-cent the re ta i l cos t of food to consumers(Kramer, 1973). These cost savings were madepossible by labor reduction through self-serv-ice and large-volume operations in transpor-tation, storage, and distribution.

Secondary Benefi ts

From the pr imary objec t ives of researchflow secondary benefi ts , which include im-proved human nutrition, improved food qual-ity and safety, an international trade balance,expansionary impacts on other sectors of theeconomy, release of labor to other sectors of society, and increased leisure time.

Research on food quali ty and safety andhuman nutr i t ion results in: 1) bet ter under-standing of human nutr i t ion needs; 2) im-

proved d ie ts and nut r i t ion for indiv iduals ;3) safer methods of food processing, preser-va t ion , and p repa ra t i on ; 4 ) r educed cos t sthrough knowledge of nutr i t ional content of

food and through food preservat ion; and 5)improved unde r s t and ing o f food add i t i ve sand food contaminants .

Although malnutr i t ion was discovered inc e r t a i n d i s a d v a n t a g e d g r o u p s w i t h i n t h eUnited States during the 1960’s, the wide-

s p r e a d i n t r o d u c t i o n o f f e e d i n g p r o g r a m ssuch as Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),school breakfast and lunch, and food stampsseems to have done much to eliminate overtmalnutrition, especially in children. The prin-cipal group that is apparently suffering the ef-fects of poor nutrition because of low incomeis the elderly, who receive their benefits in anondirected form.

Income is posi t ively correlated with nutr i-t ional s tatus in the absence of food enti t le-ment programs; the low-income groups havethe least adequate diet and the greatest vul-nerabil i ty to malnutr i t ion. The prime causesof inadequate nutrition are lack of knowledgeon nu t r i t i ona l r equ i r emen t s and nu t r i t i vecontent of foods, the unavailabil i ty of food,and the f i nanc i a l i nab i l i t y t o pu rchase i t .Food choices also are influenced by socio-economic and cultural factors such as familylifestyle, health, and age of individuals andoutside influences, including mass media, ad-vert is ing, and food labeling. Research thatp rov ides be t t e r i n s igh t i n to t he impac t o f these factors on the nutr i t ion and health of v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n g r o u p s b e n e f i t s c o n -sumer s . Bo th ag r i cu l tu r a l p roduc t ion t ech -nology research and post-harvest food tech-nology research affect directly the nature anddistr ibution of these benefi ts among groupsof consumers.

A major benefit from food and agriculturalresearch is the positive contribution of agri-cul tura l commodi t ies to the U.S. in terna-tional trade balance. An increasing volume of food exports from the United States has par-tially offset the rising volume of imports of oiland manufactured goods. In essence, agricul-

tural commodities have provided much of theexchange necessary for the United States toimpor t o i l and manufac tured goods . An in-creasing output of agricultural exports—nec-

8/14/2019 8106



es sa ry t o sus t a in impor t s—is subsequen t lydependent on a cont inuous f low of produc-tion technology. Research and education un-dergird the advancement of production tech-no logy and sus t a in t he s t rong compe t i t i veposition of the United States in internationalfood and fiber commodities markets.

Tab le 1 p rov ides documen ta t i on fo r t heimportance of agricultural commodities in re-duc ing the magn i tude o f t he U .S . i n t e rna -tional trade balance. Agricultural exports in-creased from $7.2 billion in 1970 to $41.2 bil-lion in 1980. The trade balance in agriculturalcommodities increased from $1.5 billion in1970 to $23.8 billion in 1980. This contrastswi th a r i s ing in terna t ional t rade def ic i t inother commodities from a surplus of $1.2 bil-lion in 1970 to a deficit of $48,6 billion in1980. An international trade deficit places a

downward pressure on a na t ional cur rency,reduces gold reserves, provides exchange foralien ownership of physical assets, and con-tributes to national price inflation. These un-d e s i r a b l e e c o n o m i c c o n s e q u e n c e s l e a d i ntu rn t o a r educed s t anda rd o f l i v ing andchronic high levels of unemployment.

A favorable trade balance in agriculturalcommodities contributes directly to the well-being of American farmers and commodityprocessors, handlers, and transporters. It alsocont r ibutes to the wel l -be ing of Amer icanconsumer s by p rov id ing exchange fo r im-

Table 1 .—Exports, Imports, and International TradeBalance in Agricultural and Other Commodities

in the United States (in billions of dollars)

Exports Imports Balance

Agricul- Agricul- Agricul-Year tural Other tural Other tural Other

1950. . $ 2.9 $ 7.3 $ 4.0 $ 4.8 ($ - 1.1) $ 2.51955. , 3.2 12.2 4.0 7.4 ( - 0.8) 4.91960. . 4.8 15.5 3.8 10.8 1.0 4.71965. . 6.2 20.9 4.1 17.3 2.1 3.61970. . 7.2 35.3 5.8 34.2 1.5 1.21975. . 21.9 84.2 9.5 86.6 12.4 ( - 2.4)1979. . 34.7 143.8 16.9 189.4 17.9 ( - 45.6)1980. . 41.2 175.2 17.4 223.8 23.8 ( - 48.6)

SOURCE. Business Statistics, Biennial Edition. United States Department ofCommerce, Off Ice of Business Economics,1961 and 1977. Survey ofCurrent Business. United States Department of Commerce, Bureauof Economic Analysis, April 1980, vol. 60, no. 4. Agricultural Outlook,

U .S. Department of Agriculture, March 1981

ports; and it lends stability to the Americaneconomy.

Expansion of food and agricultural produc-t ion contr ibutes to economic growth in twoways, First, a change in agricultural produc-tion is directly related to changes in that sec-tor’s development. For example, technolog-ical innovations cause a direct change in farmearnings , ne t fa rm income, fa rm- labor re-qu i r emen t s , and hence f a rm ea rn ings . Sec -ond , t h i s change r ebounds t h roughou t t heeconomy to p roduce changes i n i ncome inother sec tors . Thus , food and agr icul tura lresearch that results in changes in output of the agricultural sector has expansionary im-pacts on other sectors of the economy and at-tendant changes in incomes.

Although farm production continued to in-crease dramatically during the 20th century,

the farm labor input reached a peak of 13.6million farmworkers in 1916 and subsequent-ly declined to less than 3.8 million in 1979(USDA, 1980). This release of farm labor pro-vided the labor necessary to implement andexpand other economic sectors.

However, a substantial part of the labor dis-placed by increased productivity on the farmwas needed for off-farm activities in the foodand agricultural sector. Under the advancingtechnology in farm production, progressivelylarger quanti t ies of farm inputs were pur-

chased from the industrial sector. Today, thefood and agr icul tura l sec tor accounts forabout 20 percent of total employment and 20percent of to ta l na t ional income comparedwith an est imated 35 to 40 percent of totalemployment and national income in 1940.

Much of the increasing labor productivi tyin the food and agricultural sector is reflectedin the small proport ion of consumer incomespent for food as noted earl ier . This meansthat the remaining income is freed to applytoward other human wants.

One of the less quantif iable and less doc-umented benefits of food and agricultural re-search is the reduction of drudgery and theincreasing leisure time of farm operators and

8/14/2019 8106



workers. Although these kinds of benefits donot carry monetary value, they are importantin the advancement of the welfare of society.Such bene f i t s have a l so been ex t ended toworkers in food-fiber processing, fabrication,storage, and distribution.

In some cases, output of farm products per

unit of farm-labor input has increased up to80 times what it was at the beginning of the20th century (Cochrane , 1979) . Increas inglabor productivity on the farm is reflected inboth the output per unit of labor input and areduction in the intensity of the labor input.The inc reas ing l abo r p roduc t iv i t y a l so hasprovided more leisure time for the individualworker.

Uncerta in Benef i ts and Burdens

One of the least documented effects of agri-cultural research has been its impact on envi-ronmental quality. Agriculture produced un-des i rable envi ronmenta l s ide ef fec ts longbefore the rapid advance in agricultural pro-duction techniques that characterized agri-culture in the second and third quarters of the20th century. Much of the early cotton andtobacco farming in the South resulted in soilerosion, widespread si l t ing of s treams, andchanges i n ecosys t ems . Fa rmwork an ima l sp roduced l a rge amoun t s o f was t e t ha t en -tailed health hazards to farm families becauseof inadequate methods for controll ing pestsat tracted to such waste. The dust s torms inthe Plains States resulted in major environ-men ta l t h r ea t s f rom a t t empt s t o cu l t i va t emarginal lands with inadequate soil and cropmanagement technology.

It is still an open question as to whether, onbalance, the modernization of agriculture hasgiven r ise to more environmental problemsthan it has solved. Ruttan (1971) and Schultz(1974) proposed tha t the technologica l ad-vances of agriculture have enlarged measur-ably the biological possibilities of the naturalenvironment, allowing us to eventually have

more agr icul tura l output and more envi ron-mental quality components. The developmentof agricultural technology and the resultant

g r o w t h i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y h a v eallowed substantial reductions in the acreageof major crops such as corn, wheat, and cot-ton. Much of the reduced acreage came frommarginal lands highly subject to soil erosion,and the return of much marginal cropland topas tu r e s and fo r e s t s r educed many o f t hekinds of environmental hazards arising fromagriculture in the past (White, Eddleman, andPurcell, 1980).

The cu r r en t env i ronmen ta l p rob lems a t -tr ibuted to agriculture largely involve pestcontrol practices, silt and water managementsystems, feed-lot waste disposal, and disposalof residue from food- and fiber-processing ac-t ivi t ies . Certainly these environmental prob-lems are more widespread than those of thepas t . Agr i cu l tu r a l t e chno logy has changedthe form and place of the threats, and perhaps

t h e n u m b e r o f p e o p l e e x p o s e d t o t h e s ethreats. The most controversial issue pertainsto the impact of chemical pesticides used forplant production and protect ion and of soilsedimentation on water quality.

Ruttan (1971) suggests that the failure todevelop agr icul tura l technology (e .g . , pes tcontrol and soil management systems) thatwould minimize agriculture’s impact on thenatural environment resulted from an under-valuation of environmental resource amen-ities. In other words, the capacity of the nat-

ural environment to absorb the residuals fromc r o p a n d l i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t i o n h a s b e e ntreated as a free service. Scientific and tech-nical innovations were overly biased towardthe development of land substi tutes (plantn u tr ien ts, c h e m i ca l p e s t i ci d e s , a n d c r o pvariet ies and management systems) that re-f lected undervaluation of the social cost of the disposal of residuals from agriculturalproduction processes. Recognit ion of under-valuation of the social value of environmentalservices, coupled with regulatory act ions byFederal and State governments, has led to re-

direction of agricultural research efforts inresponse to the rising economic value of envi-ronmental resource amenit ies ,

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. IV—Measuring Costs, Benefits, Burdens, and Quality of Research q 6 5 — — —

Examples of this redirection include: 1) in-tegrated pest management techniques; 2) re-duced tillage and no-till crop production sys-tems and other soil and water conservationmanagement systems; 3) waste-disposal sys-tems using deep lagoons; 4) recycling proc-e s sed an ima l was t e s t h rough the an ima l -

plant-soil system, as f e r t i l i z e r and an ima lfeeds for ruminants; 5) aquatic weed controltechniques; 6) methods for disposal of urban-produced sewage and digested sludge on agri-cultural and forest land; 7) organic farmingtechniques; and 8 ) a l t e rna t ives t o bu rn inggrasslands for seed production and croplandsfor excessive crop residue removal, The aimof these research efforts is to maintain agri-cultural productivi ty and profi tabil i ty whilesubs t an t i a l l y r educ ing de t e r io r a t i on o f t henatura l envi ronment caused by agr icul tura lproduction and processing act ivi t ies . Agri-

cultural producers and processors, as well asthe public, are beneficiaries of this research.

Burdens

Farmers who are nonadopters of technol-ogy may rightfully regard some research as aburden, As the prices of farm products de-cline when more farmers adopt a cost-reduc-ing technology and thereby increase supply,those who have not adopted the technologywi l l be d i s advan taged because t he i r cos t shave not been lowered,

With the adoption of mechanization, laborefficiency has advanced, thus releasing laborf rom the ag r i cu l tu r a l s ec to r t o p rov ide ana r r ay o f h ighe r o rde r goods and se rv i ce s .Labor displacement and individual hardshipshave occurred in the process. Migrat ion of unsk i l l ed pe r sons f rom f a rms to c i t i e s hascontr ibuted to urban ghettos that persist tothis date.

There have been few burdens from foodand agricultural research on the consumer.One of the perceived problems is a result of

t he r ap id changes t ha t such r e sea rch hasbrought to the growing, processing, and pack-aging of food. The use of inorganic chemicalsin these processes is looked on with disfavor

by cer ta in segments of Socie ty Others d is -avow highly processed food products in favorof more “natural” foods. Food at t i tudes aredeeply rooted even in a technological culturesuch as prevails in the United States.

Transportation and storage requirements of

our food distribution system have made nec-essary the develop men t of varieties resistantto bruising and with long s h e l f l i f e . S o m e s e n -sory qualities were relinqu ished in order toachieve this. However, most consumers arenot aware of this when they complain that theJanuary supermarket tomato does not corn-pare t o t he one g rown in t h e i r ba cky a r d i nJuly.

Dist r ibu t ion o f Benef i ts

and Burdens

Analysis of the flow of benefits from foodand agricultural research focuses primari lyon the distr ibution of benefi ts between do-mestic producers and consumers. The analyt-ical framework is the concept of “economicsurplus,” partitioned into that which accruesto buyers (consumer surplus) and that whichaccrues to sellers (producer surplus).2

Farm Producers

Benef i t s f rom agr icul tura l research havedifferent impacts on farms of different sizesand affect farmers according to how quickly

they adopt new technology. Effects are deter-mined by type of technology and often in-crease profits of some producers to the detri-m e n t o f o th e rs . T ec h n o lo g ic al a d v a n c e s i nfeed grain production, for example, wouldlower opera t ing cos ts for beef , hogs , da i ry ,and poultry production.

S tud ie s i nd i ca t e t ha t t e chno logy r educesp er -u n it p r od u ct io n c o st s m o r e o n l a r g efarms than on small farms, indicating impor-tant economies of size (Jensen, 1977).

Technology affects fa rmers accord ing to

the speed wi th which new innovations are

8/14/2019 8106



adopted. Cochrane (1958) grouped farmersinto three categories —early adopters, follow-ers, and laggards. Early adopters are able toincrease their income with new technologythat reduces cost of production. However, in-creased production resulting from new tech-nology in the aggregate depresses prices, and

followers gain less from it, Finally, laggardsare forced to use the new technology in orderto survive.

Effects are often determined by the type of technology. Certain mechanical innovationsfavor large-scale farms of the Corn Belt andSouthwest over smaller farms in the Southand East.

A technolog ica l change in the marke t ingsector, such as a reduction in waste or spoil-age, affects the cost structure for marketingservices. In such cases, retail and farm prices

may be affected by reduced marketing mar-gins. ” The farm price would be expected toincrease and the re ta il price would be ex-p e c te d to d e c l in e w i th r e d u c e d ma rk e t in gmargins.

Competition in the marketing sector resultsin lower cost o f marke t ing se rv ices be ingpassed on to consumers or producers. Themore competitive the industry, the less tend-ency there is for private research, because thebenefits accrue to consumers and farmers. Ina less competit ive industry, private research

is more profitable for the individual firm, andit may reduce the level of competition.

Technology that changes the re la tive pro-ductivity of resources shifts the distributionof income among resources (Heady , 1971) .These changes have reduced the proportionof total farm income attributed to labor andincreased the proportion attributed to capital.The impact of technological change on farm-land’s share o f fa rm income is no t eas i lyde te rmined .

*Both the derived supply at retail, dependent on farm supplyand the m arketing margin, and the d erived d emand at the farmlevel, dependent on retail demand and the m arketing margin,would shift in a comp etitive market as a result of a reductionin marketing costs.

The demand for land is affected also bytechnological advances in agriculture . Herdtand Cochrane (1966) postulated that techno-logical advance has benefited farmland own-ers, not necessarily farm operators. They saidthat farmers view technological change as re-ducing cost of production and hence are able

to bid up the price of farmland accordingly.Most improvements in agricultural produc-

tion technology increase the productivity of capital and land relative to labor. They there-fo re genera te incen t ives to subst i tu te landand capital for labor. The story of the vastlyincreased capital requirements for successfulfarming is well-known. The decline in the rel-ative importance of labor as a farm input alsoi s w e l l - k n o w n . S i n c e m a n y f a r m w o r k e r so wn e d o n ly th e i r l a b o r , th e v a lu e o f th e i rassets was decreased through innovations in

production, and they were forced to look foralternatives. T. W. Schultz puts the actual out-migration of labor from American farms be-tween 1930 and 1974 at 33 million people, thelargest migration of modern times.

Many of those who migrated to the c it ieswere able to make successful adjustments andobta in more p roduc t ive and reward ing em-p lo y me n t in n o n fa rm in d u s t r i e s . Ho we v e r ,for many the adjustments were painful andcostly. The expanded pool of workers in thenon farm sector depressed the nonfarm wagerate.

Many rural communities that served pop-ulous farming areas deteriorated as the num-ber of farmworkers declined. The tendencyfor people to leave rural areas has affected thev iab i l i ty o f many ru ra l commerc ia l en te r-prises, churches, community services, and insome cases entire communities.

Too li t t le research was done on the proc-esses of agricultural development as they af-fected rural America. Too often costs were ig-nored, especially if these costs were incurred

in the migration to urban centers.

Consumers and the General Economy

As noted earlier , consumers benefit fromfood and agricultural research in many ways.

8/14/2019 8106



Some of these benefits appear to be concen-t r a t ed among ce r t a in g roups o f Amer i canfamilies. Agricultural research that improvesthe safety of food products is likely to affectconsumers in all income categories, The ben-e f i t s o f s u c h r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e i m p r o v e dhealth and longer life.

The following analysis estimates the distri-bution of benefits from agricultural researchon the basis of food expenditures. Family sizeand income charac ter i s t ics for s ix incomecategories are shown in table 2. The six in-come c lasses ranged f rom under $5 ,000 toover $20,000, and the average-s ize fami lyranged from 2,93 persons in the lowest in-come class to 3.79 persons in the highest. Thepresent value of average benefits per familyfor the various income classes also is shown.These e s t ima te s may be i n t e rp re t ed a s t hebenefits accruing to each family as a result of food and agricultural research expendituresin that year. Comparison of consumer bene-fits indicated that average benefits per familyincreased with the level of family income andranged from $16.20 in the lowest income cate-gory to $30.74 in the highest.

The ratio of benefits to family income wasalmost four t imes higher for the lowest in-

come class than for the highest , indicat ingtha t f ood and ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch has agreater beneficial impact on low-income fam-ilies than on high-income families in relationto family income. This conclusion supportst h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c htends to modify the existing income distribu-

tion in favor of the lower income strata (Pin-strup-Andersen, 1977).

The cost of food and agricultural research,as measured by production-oriented researchexpenditures, i s r epo r t ed on a househo ldbas is ( tab le 3) . Tota l agr icul tura l researchcosts per household ranged from $1.31 for thelowest income class, under $5,000, to $25.60for the highest, over $20,000. While benefitsand costs increase with the level of income,tax incidence increases at a faster rate. There-fore, the benefit-cost ratio is highest in the

low-income category. The benefit-cost ratiodeclined from 12.37 for low-income familiesto 1.20 for high-income families. Both ben-efi ts and costs of agricultural research ex-penditures tend to redistr ibute income fromhigher to lower income families. However,even those f ami l i e s i n t he h ighes t i ncomeclass receive net benefi ts from research in-vestment on agricultural productivity.

Table 2.—Relationship Between Agricultural Food Research Benefitsand Family Income

D ist ri but ion of Av er ag e s ize A verage Average benefits

Income class p o p u l a t i o n f a m i l yb family income per familyc

(dollars) (percent) (persons) (dollars) (present dollar value)

Under $5,000 . . . . . 18.190/o 2.93 $3,981 $16.20

$5,000-$8,000 . . . . 14.14 3.15 7,922 19.06$8,000-$12,000 . . . 21.17 3.28 10,528 20.63$12,000-$15,000 . . 14.47 3.48 13,458 22.13$15,000-$20,000 . . 16.07 3.68 17,371 25.91Over $20,000 . . . . . 15.96 3.79 28,953 30.74

NOTE: These calculations represent an Investment in 1974 that wiII have its impact in 1987.

aAnthony E. Gallo and Wllllam T. Boehrn, “Food Expenditures by Income Group,” Nat/ona/ Food f?evjew, NFT-3, USDA,

ESCS, Washington, D. C., June 1978.bus, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popu/at/on ffeporfs, Series p-60, no. 101, “Money Income in

1974 of Families and Persons in the U.S ,“ US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976.cTotal consumer benefits are calculated according to the equation

TBC = 1/2 X MVPR X RE X D

where TBc is total consumer benefits from agricultural-food research; MVPR is marginal value product of research (Davis),

RE is production-oriented research expenditures in 1974 (Budget of the U.S. Government; USDA, Iflventory of Agriculturalt?esearclr; U.S. Department of the Treasury); and D is the discount factor over 13 years at 10°/0 (Lu, Cline, and Quance). Total

consumer benefits are allocated to income classes according to the level of food expenditures

“These calculations represent an Investment in 1974 that WIII have its Impact in 1987.

SOURCE: Fred C White, B. R Eddleman, and J. C. Purcell, “Nature and Flow of Benefits From Agriculture-Food Research, ”OTA background paper, 1980.

8/14/2019 8106


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

Table 3.—Relationship of Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Researchto Family Income

Federal State Totaltaxes for taxes for taxes for

Average Average agricultural agricultural agricultural Benefit-family benefits research research research cost

Income class income aper familyb per familyc

per familyd per familye ratio’

Under $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,981 $16.20 $ 0.43 $0.88

$5,000-$8,000 . . . . . . . . .

$ 1.31 $12.37

7,922 19.06 1.77 2.05 3.82$8,000-$ 12,000 . . . . . .

4.9910,528 20.63 3.19 2.85$12,000-$ 15,000 . . . . .

6.04 3.4213,458 22.13 5.29 3.97 9.26

$15,000 -$20,000 . . . . . . .2.39

17,371 25.91 8.40 5.59 13.99 1.85Over $20,000 . . . . . . . . . . 28,953 30.74 15.78 9.82 25.60 1.20

au,s, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Currerrt Population l?e~orts, series IWO, no. 101, “Money Income in1974 of Families and Persons in the U.S.,” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976,

bExpre

ssed In present Value. See table 2 for details of Calculation procedure.

cproduction.~riented research expenditures for A gr i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h s e w l c e , E c o n o mi c R e s e a r c h s e r v i c e and the Federal

Government’s Share of State Agricultural Experiment Stations are allocated among income groups according to thedistribution of Federal personal income taxes (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1974).dstate funded production.oriented agr icu l tura l research expenditures are allocated amOng lnCOme 9rouPs according to the

distribution of State personal Income and general sales taxes (U.S. Adwsory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,1974).esummatlon of Federal and State taxes for agriCLIhural research Per famllY.

f Average benefits from a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h expenditures per family divided by total taxes for agricultural research Per

family,

SOURCE: Fred C White, B R. Eddleman, and J C Purcell, ‘(Nature and Flow of Beneftts From Agriculture-Food Research, ”OTA background paper, 1980

Research investment in the food and agri-cultural sector has led to new products andtechnology that increased agricultural pro-ductivity and allowed labor to flow from thefarm to the nonfarm sectors. These adjust-ments in the labor force have raised nationali n c o m e b e c a u s e a v e r a g e n o n f a r m i n c o m ei s t y p i c a l l y a b o v e a v e r a g e f a r m i n c o m e .Tweeten and Hines (1965) approximated thec o n t r i b u t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t ychanges since 1910 accruing to the nationalincome in 1963. Estimates for the 1940-79period were calculated using a similar proce-dure (table 4). With only 3.5 percent of thepopulation living on farms in 1979, the actualnational income was $1,924,8 billion. Assum-ing that farm changes had not taken placesince 1940, and that in 1979 (as in 1940), 21.3percent of the population had l ived on thef a r m , n a t i o n a l i n c o m e w o u l d h a v e b e e n$111.8 billion (or 5.8 percent) lower.

Effect on Social and Economi cOrganizat ion

Technological changes have thus had far-reaching effects on the development of ruralAmerica. In retrospect, the food and agricul-tural research insti tutions have not been asalert as they should have been in anticipating

Table 4.—Estimates of the Contribution of U.S.Agricultural Productivity Change to the 1979

National income Since 1940(in billions of 1979 dollars)

Contribution toDecade or years 1979 national income

1940-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $44.61950 -60. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.61960-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 24.61970-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.91975-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1

Total 1940-79 . . . . . . . . $111.8

SOURCE Fred C. White, B R Eddleman, and J C Purcell, “Nature and Flow ofBenefits From Agriculture-Food Research, ” OTA background paper,1980.

these effects and in developing means of cop-ing with undesirable effects. As a minimum,the secondary effects of changes associatedwith the application of knowledge generatedthrough the food and agricultural researchprograms should be identified. This is diffi-cult to do because of the pervasiveness of theeffects.

On occasion, scientists have called atten-tion of the public to special social problems

tha t would occur as a resu l t o f sc ien t i f icbreakthroughs. An example of this is the de-ve lopment o f the co t tonp icker which sc i -entists knew would replace a large number of workers in the South (Johnson, 1952). This

8/14/2019 8106



was well-publicized prior to the ful l impactwhich released thousands of workers and re-sulted in migration to the cities for those whocould no longer find work on the farm.

It was erroneously assumed that develop-ment of technology to enhance the supply of p roduc t s wou ld au toma t i ca l l y enhance na -

t ional well-being and that a desirable eco-nomic and social structure would be workedout through the market forces. In many in-stances, this did not follow. Serious problemsof national consequence emerged that werelargely external to the specialized systems of research and decisionmaking, which led tothe development and introduction of the newtechnology.

The con t inu ing conce rn ove r u rban andrura l development , resource conservat ion ,environmental quali ty, s tructure of agricul-

ture, and the quality of life generally derivesfrom other than fear of inability to producesufficient food and agricultural products tomeet national needs. The food and agricul-tural institutions in this country have demon-strated beyond quest ion their eff iciency ingen era t in g a n d a p p l y in g k n o w le d g e toach ieve i nc reased p roduc t ion o f commod-ities.

The conce rns ove r na t iona l deve lopmen tderive largely from the social costs of techno-logical development that have been largely ig-nored in the pas t . They ref lec t cont inuing

ques t ions wi th r e spec t t o how peop le f a r eu n d e r c o n d i t i o n s o f n a t i o n a l e c o n o m i cgrowth.

Fundamen ta l ques t i ons conce rn ing thesesocial issues are important. Can the answersto these concerns be consistent with reason-ably efficient production of goods and serv-ices? If not , what kind of t radeoffs appearpossible and desired? Conflicts, real or imag-ined, must be recognized and studied, and ra-tional conclusions must be reached.

Public food and agricultural research insti-

tutions were not created to chart a course fornational development. Indeed, they are i l l -suited to do so. However, as centers of learn-

ing, dedicated to the discovery of truth, theydo have a responsibility to examine criticallythe functioning of American society, to ex-plore alternatives, and to interpret their find-ings to the people. This is a most importantresponsibility. Unless it is done well, the qual-ity of life is likely to be treated as secondary to

the problems of organization for the produc-tion of goods. Even when done well, it is ther e spons ib i l i t y o f t he peop le t h rough the i re lec ted of f ic ia l s to a r t icu la te the dec is ionsand programs desired.

Researchers and Research Ins t i tu t ions

Researchers and research inst i tut ions can,in a sense , benef i t f rom the resul t s of re -search. Sometimes research is perceived to bedirected for the benefit of the individual re-searcher or the inst i tut ion. When this is thecase, research tends to be self-serving.

Admin i s t r a to r s o f pub l i c ag r i cu l tu r a l r e -s ea rch agenc i e s a r e mo t iva t ed t o op t imizesome combination of continuing institutionalbudget support and discretionary funds fromSta t e sou rces o r f rom Fede ra l and p r iva t egrant sources. These discret ionary funds areoften used to support the more basic researchthat has a longer term payoff both in terms of t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h e a p p l i e d r e s e a r c h(Evenson, Waggoner, and Ruttan, 1979) andin the prestige of the research agency.

To the extent that the research efforts aresuccessful and appropriate, recognit ion ac-crues to the agency or scientis t conductingthe research, and further increases in supportin te rms of ins t i tu t ional and d iscre t ionaryfunding are assured. In this sense, both publicresearch agencies and the scientists conduct-ing the research are direct beneficiaries of theresults of the research. (For further discus-sion on this point see White, Eddleman, andPurcell, 1980).

Benef i ts and Funding Sources

In State government funding, food and agri-cultural research financed by one State may

8/14/2019 8106



benefit or harm the residents of other States. *For example, an improved crop variety devel-oped in one State may be adopted in neigh-boring States to increase yields and total pro-duction. However, in some cases an action bya Sta te may adverse ly af fec t res idents of another Sta te . Producers in regions o therthan where the improved crop variety was de-ve loped and where t ha t pa r t i cu l a r va r i e tywould be unsuitable for adoption might paylower prices as the result of increased aggre-gate production.

State boundaries do not coincide with ho-mogeneous agricultural production regions.Research projects in one State, which are ad-dressed to specific local problems, likely willp roduce r e su l t s app l i cab l e t o o the r S t a t e swithin the same homogeneous production re-gion. Furthermore, knowledge gained frompublic research is disseminated without re-

gard to geographic boundaries.Spillover benefits generated by State A that

accrue to the residents of State B generallyare not accounted for by State A policymak-ers. The earlier argument concerning neglectof these external benefits has been that StateA will provide a smaller level of research ex-penditures than would be efficient from soci-ety’s perspective. Given the possibility of ne-gotiation between States, State B may find itadvantageous to pay A to increase its level of research activities. Such a subsidy will re-

duce A’s research costs and lead to a higherlevel of research activities. The negotiationprocess likely will be complicated by the facttha t sp i l lovers f low in both d i rec t ions be-tween the two States. Furthermore, the out-come will depend on the relative bargainingstrength of the two States and will not leadnecessarily to an efficient solution to the ex-ternal benefi t problem (Musgrave and Mus-grave, 1973).

*Benefits from scientific or technical progress, originatingfrom a private firm or the public sector, that flow to other

firms or consum ers without compensation to the firm or pub-lic sector component originating the research are called exter-nalities. Obviously, these effects may have either positive ornegative impact.

If only a few States produce a given com-modity, one of the States might conduct theresearch for i t with the research effort sup-ported by the other States. However, attempt-ing to coordinate these activities involves de-cisionmaking costs that include the value of time, effort, and direct outlays related to thebargaining process. For those cases in whichexternal benefi ts from agricultural researcha f f e c t a l a r g e n u m b e r o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n gunits, total decisionmaking costs of effectivecoordinated action are likely to be quite large.When the impac t on consumer s i s cons id -ered, a large number of States would be con-cerned with almost all aspects of agriculturalresearch.

When a public benefi t equally affects theresidents of the Nation, funding for such re-sea rch can usua l ly be p rov ided more e f f i -ciently by the Federal Government.

Partial funding by the Federal Governmentaffords one solution to at taining the nation-ally desired level of regional research expend-i tures. An often-used technique to increaseState expenditures for government services isthe matching grant , in which the recipientState government is required to match Fed-eral funds with funds from i ts own sourcesaccording to some specified formula. Whilesome Federal grants to States for food andagricultural research require matching funds,most States invest more in food and agricul-

t u r a l r e s e a r c h t h a n j u s t t h a t r e q u i r e d t omatch grants .

The formula for matching funding shouldbe based on the relative importance of exter-nal and internal benefits. If these grant pro-g rams a r e p rope r ly des igned , t hey shou lddirect State expenditures toward levels con-sidered optimal from the viewpoint of soci-ety. An appropriate matching grant programobviously requires identifying and quantify-ing State benefits and spillovers from agricul-tural research expenditures. There have beensome r ecen t deve lopmen t s conce rn ing the

measurement of sp i l lovers . Evenson, e t a l .(1979), estimated that, on the average, 55 per-cent of the change in productivity attributed

8/14/2019 8106



to technology-or iented research was real izedwithin the State conducting the research. Theremaining 45 percent was real ized in otherStates. Interregional spillovers of the benefitsfrom food and agricultural research were esti-mated by White and Havlicek (1980) (table 5).These es t imates indicate that the aggregate

ratio of spillovers to regional benefits is 1.73.The Northeast and the Appalachian regionshave the lowest ratio of spillovers to regionalbenefits. Four regions (Lake States, Corn Belt,Delta, and Southern Plains) have spillover-to-regional benefit ratios higher than 2 to 1.

The rat io of Federal to State expendituresfor food and agricultural research and exten-sion can be compared with the ratio of spill-o v e r s t o r e g i o n a l b e n e f i t s t o d e t e r m i n ewhether the Federal Government actually fi-nanced the spillovers (table 5). * These resultsi n d i c a t e t h a t t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t f i -

nanced a l l o f the sp i l lovers in on ly th reeregions (Northern Plains , Appalachian, and

* Federal expenditures are not limited to those funds going tothe SAES and cooperative extension services un der form ulaand grant p rograms; they also includ e the funding of agricul-tural research in each region through the USDA agriculturalresearch agencies of SEA/ AR, USDA/ ESS, and U SDA/ SoilConservation Service.

Table 5.—Regional Estimates of External-to-InternalRatios Related to Benefits and Funding of

Production-Oriented Agricultural Research andExtension

Ratio ofspillovers Ratio of

to regional Federal-Sta teRegion benefits expenditures

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . .Lake States . . . . . . . . . .Corn Belt . . . . . . . . . . . .Northern Plains. . . . . . .Appalachian . . . . . . . . .Southeast . . . . . . . . . . .Delta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Southern Plains. . . . . . .Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . .Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aggregate . . . . . . . . .

1.312.732.041.401.191.402.482.801.601.891.73

0.971.101.251.631.601.371.802.102.350 .901.38

alncludes Federal funding of production-oriented agricultural research and ex-

tension in each region through SEA/CR, SEA/Aft, SEA/EXT, USDA/ESCS, andUSDA/SCS relative to State expenditures for agricultural research and exten-sion in each region.

SOURCE: Fred C. White and Joseph Havlicek, Jr., "lnterregional Spillover ofAgricultural Research Results and Intergovernmental Finance. ”Paper presented at Symposium on Methodology for Evaluation ofAgricultural Research, Minneapolis, Minn., May 12-13, 1980.

Mountain). In aggregate, the ratio of Federalto State expenditures is only 1.38 comparedto 1.73 for the ratio of spillovers to regionalbenef i t s . Thus , the Federa l Government ’ scontribution to production-oriented food andagricultural research and extension should beincreased 25 percent to aline regional fundingwith regional benef i ts , on the average. Sev-eral regions would require a greater increasein Federal expenditures to yield an equitabledistribution across all regions.

Private-Sector Funding Relatedto Flow of Benef i ts

One continuing issue is: Who captures thebenefits from public sector and private sectorresearch? Presumably, the issue relates to thequestion of whether a particular problem areashould be addressed through public researchif the gains from the research are embodied in

private firms’ products. In general, there arespillovers or indirect benefits from public-sector research to the private sector and fromprivate-sector research to society. If the bene-fits from research can be captured by the pri-vate sector, there is an incentive for privatefirms to invest in R&D activities.

The private sector may invest in R&D ac-tivities in which spillover or indirect benefitsacc rue to soc ie ty . No spec i f ic case s tud ieshave been made for the agricultural input orf o o d - p r o c e s s i n g i n d u s t r i e s . a S t u d i e s b yMansfield, et al. (1977), Terleckyj (1974), and

Griliches (1977) of the distribution of gainsfrom private R&D in manufacturing and non-m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h espillover effects are at least as large as thedirect benefits going to the firms conductingthe R&D. Thus, the social returns tend to beroughly double that of private returns to theinvestment . In this regard, substant ia l socialbenefits are derived from private industry in-vestments in R&D activities.

The USDA (1979) assessment of post-har-vest technology research ident i f ied four dis-

t ingu ish ing charac te r i s t i c s o f p r iva te - sec to rresearch in food processing, handl ing, and

%ome of the conceptual considerations, however, have beenoutlined in a note by Peterson, 1976,

8/14/2019 8106



marketing. These were: 1) most private-sectorresearch tends to be focused on short- termapplied problems for which there is expecta-tion of an acceptable return on the researchinvestment; 2) longer term basic inquiry intohow biological, economic, and social systemsfunction would not be picked up by the pri-vate research sector if it were dropped by the

pub l ic resea rch agenc ies ; 3 ) even thoughthere may be substantial social benefits fromprivate research act ivi t ies through spi l lovereffects, private industry generally is not con-cerned with the concepts of consumer sur-plus or net social benefits from their researchendeavors: and 4) most private firms arer e l u c t a n t t o r e v e a l k n o w l e d g e t h a t m i g h tcause existing technologies or processes tobecome obsolete prior to extracting the flowof economic returns from past investments inthese techniques. Thus, there is incentive todelay publ icat ion of knowledge possessing

th i s po ten t ia l impac t , even i f the resea rchmight have been carried out partially underthe auspices of public funding.

Pub l ic - sec to r suppor t fo r bas ic resea rchgenerally benefits both society and the privatesector. Since the results of basin research arediff icul t to in ternal ize to any par t icuiar pr i -vate f i rm without publ ic support , under in-v e s t m e n t i n b a s i c r e s e a r c h w o u l d r e s u l t .However, in the case of applied and develop-mental research, the appropriate mix of pub-lic and private research investments becomes

an important issue. The pr ivate sector wil ls tand to benef i t f rom public investments inthose research outputs that are embodied inpr ivate-sector products .

Public R&17 may be justified on at leastthree grounds: 1) as a result of the spillover ef-fects, substantial social benefits are derivedfrom the mixture of publ ic and pr ivate re-search; 2) in the absence of public-sector sup-port , the direct ion of the research might bebiased s t rongly toward proprie tary mechan-ica l and chemica l t echno log ies ; and 3 ) fo rthose situations where private research might

have a detrimental effect on the structure of the industry (making a competitive structurenoncompeti t ive , or a noncompeti t ive s t ruc-

ture still more imperfect). A mix of public andprivate research may preserve competition orreduce the amount 01 concentration. The im-portance of this last basis for public researchinvestments is that most competi t ive indus-tries provide a larger quantity of the productat a lower cost to consumers than would beexpected f rom monopolis t ic industry .

For many b io log ica l r esea rch ac t iv i t i e s ,because of the ease of imitation and the lackof patent enforceability, i t is l ikely that thep r i v a t e s e c t o r w o u l d s u b s t a n t i a l l y u n d e r -invest in R&D. Thus, much of the biologicalresearch is supported by the publ ic sector ,even in those areas where there are substan-tial inducements for product development bythe private sector. Few seed companies, forexample, carry out much research in plantpathology, plant physiology, genet ics , cropmanagement systems, or farm management .

But since output of the public-sector researchis a public good, it is available to large andsmall input suppliers alike. Because of the dif-f i c u l t y o f p a t e n t i n g h y b r i d s b y p u b l i c r e -sea rch ins t i tu t ions , smal l seed companieshave been able to exist along with large firms.Thus, it has been generally in the best interestof society to support publ ic investments inthese types of research activities, since thesocial benefits would outweigh the costs in-curred f rom increased concentrat ion in theindustry. A recent decision by the U.S. Su-preme Court re la ted to patentabi l i ty of bio-

logical research requires careful reexamina-tion of current policies of the public food andagricul tural research agencies .

Direct or Checkoff Funds

I n p r o d u c e r c h e c k o f f f u n d i n g , s e v e r a lpr ivate f i rms or commodity groups pursuetheir best interests by collectively supportingpubl ic resea rch ac t iv i t i e s . Con t r ibu to rs t .research probably have less control over thespecific projects to be funded than would oc-c u r w i t h a n i n d u s t r i a l f i r m . B u t t h e u s u a lprocess is for the recipient public research

agency to issue a portfolio of potential re-search projects for which the funds could beused. Then a governing board (often labeled

8/14/2019 8106



a speci f ic commodi ty research promot ionboard) selects from among the portfolio thoseprojects that best coincide with its constituen-c y ’ s i n t e r e s t w i t h i n a v a i l a b l e f u n d s . T h epublic research administrator then “awards”the funds to those projects and scientists pro-posing the specific R&D activities.

T h u s , t h e r e i s a t e n d e n c y t o f o c u s t h eresearch toward short-term, applied R&D ac-t ivi t ies that hold promise for benefi t ing theclientele providing the funds. Heavy relianceon th i s t ype o f f und ing sou rce fo r pub l i cresearch support would bias the direction of the research toward those techniques mostbeneficial to the group providing the funds.

Measur ing Returns to

Research Investment

Most evaluations of food and agriculturalresearch indicate a favorable internal rate of r e t u r n .4 This rate can be defined as that dis-count rate that equates the present value of the expected cash outf lows (costs) with thepresent value of the inflows (benefits).

The acceptance criterion for a research pro-posal is based on the relationship of the inter-nal rate of return to a required rate of return.For a private firm, the required rate might bethe cost of capital, while for the public sector,it might be some long-term interest or socialdiscount rate. If the internal rate of return is

higher than the required rate, the investmentshould be undertaken.

Several s tudies that have empirical ly est i-mated rates of return on agricultural researchinvestment are summarized in table 6. For ag-gregate inves tment , ra te-of- return est imatesare predominately in the range of 30 to 40 per-

4 Havlicek and O tto note that research concerned w ith meas-uring im pacts of agricultural research has focused o n eithertotal or prod uction-oriented r esearch and the impact thisresearch has on produ ctivity, outp ut, or value at the prod ucerlevel. However, effects of all agricultural research are notalways to increase prod uctivity, outp ut, or value, nor is the

output of all agricultural research measurable and perceived inthe mar ketplace. In add ition, these stud ies for the most pa rthave n ot taken into account such externalities as environmen-tal and social impacts. Alternative m easures are d iscussed inthe Havlicek and Otto background paper, 1980.

Table 6.—Empirical Rate of Return Estimates forAgricultural Research investment

Internal

rate of

Time return

Study Commodity per iod (percent)

index number approach Griliches (1956) . . . . . . . . . .Griliches (1958) . . . . . . . .Peterson (1967) . . . . . . . . .Schmitz and Seckler

(1970) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peterson and Fitzharris(1975) ... ... . .

Hybrid cornHybrid sorghumPoultry

Tomato harvester

Aggregate

Regression analysis approach Griliches (1964) . . . . . . . . AggregatePeterson (1966) . . . . . . PoultryEvenson (1968) . . . . . AggregateLu and Cline (1977) . . . . . . Aggregate

Knutson (1977) . . . . . . . . . . Aggregate

White, Havlicek andOtto (1978) . . . . . . . . . Aggregate

Davis (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aggregate

Bredahl and Peterson(1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cash grains

PoultryDairyLivestock

Norton (1980). . . . . . . . . . Cash grainsPoultryDairy

Livestock

1940-551940-571915-60

1958-67

1937-421947-571957-621967-72

1949-591915-601949-591938-481949-591959-691969-721939-481949-581959-681969-72

1929-411942-571958-77194919541959196419691974

1969196919691969197419741974

1974aEstlmates account for compensation of displaced workers.bThe estimates were reduced by one-third to correct for the omission of Private

researchcEstlmates are based on cross section using real output and deflated research

Estimates are high because extension is omitted and a small adjustment forprivate research IS used. If adjustments are made these rates would be around20 percent for 1964-79dThese estimates correspond to the mean lags used by Bredahl and Peterson

(1976).

SOURCE Fred C White, B R Eddleman, and J. C. Purcell, “Nature and Flow ofBenefits From Agriculture.Food Research, ” OTA background paper,1980.

cent . However, the lowest est imate for thisca tegory i s 23 .5 percent compared to thehighest estimate of 100 percent. Some of thereturns on individual commodit ies are out-

side this latter range. The most obvious con-clusion from these consistently high rates of return is that agricultural research is veryprofitable.

8/14/2019 8106



Four of the studies show that re turns toagricultural research were higher in the earlypart of the century and have recently declinedslightly. A likely explanation is that now therea re f e we r o p p o r tu n i t i e s to su b s t i tu te n e wtechnology for labor. However, the rates of re-turn in the most recent periods are still quite

high. Davis (1979) noted that since 1964 themarginal internal rate of return has remainedsurprisingly constant and may have stoppeddeclining.

The high rate of returns are evidence of aresource allocation problem. Economic effi-ciency calls for investment funds to be allo-c a te d in su c h a ma n n e r th a t th e ma rg in a lre turns in a ll categories are the same. Thehigh ra te of re turn on agricultural researchindicates underinvestment by the public sec-t o r . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a d d i t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s

should be allocated to agricultural research inorder to bring its rate of return in line withthe re turns from other public investments.Why has there been an apparent underinvest-ment in agricultural research?

A t t h e s y m p o s i u m o n M e t h o d o l o g y f o rEvaluation of Agricultural Research held inMinneapolis, Minn., in May 1980, a govern-ment official said, “It is clear that the role of the Federal Government is not to turn a prof-it . . .“ (Franz). While this statement may rep-resent the sentiments of many legislators andother government offic ia ls as re la ted to thehigh re turns on agricultural research invest-ment, it warrants further elaboration and in-terpreta tion. Economic growth tradit ionallyhas been fostered in this country as a meansto progress. Furthermore, economic efficien-cy is a means to achieve economic growth,and it would be improper to ignore the rate of return of estimates as an indicator of econom-ic efficiency. Complications arise, however,as society attempts to achieve a variety of goals.

The social optimum actually may involve a

t radeoff be tween goa ls . For example , thepublic sector might choose to limit expendi-tures in a particular category below the level

called for by economic efficiency if such ex-penditures would affect adversely the distri-bution of income. This particular relationshipis commonly referred to as the tradeoff be-tween efficiency and equity.

Agricultural research expenditures over the

last half century may have been l imited bypolicy makers’ perception of excess capacityin agriculture . Congress continually batt ledwith the problem of depressed farm pricescaused by excess production at prices consid-ered to be socially acceptable. Policy makerswere probably aware of the dilemma that if research investment increased supplies, costsof maintaining farm prices would increase.The problem facing policymakers in this arearevolves around what will happen to agricul-tural supplies and farm prices in the future. If excess capacity is projected to continue intothe nex t cen tury , po l icymakers wi l l l imi tagricultural research expenditures. However,if increased agricultural productivity will beneeded to furnish adequate supplies for do-mestic consumers and foreign trade, a greaterlevel of research investment would be war-ran ted .

Po l icymakers may l imi t agr icu l tu ra l re -search expenditures because of the uncertain-ties about future benefits from agriculturalresearch. The estimated ra tes of re turn are

based on historical relationships that may nothold in the future. Even though expected re-turns may be high, policy makers may per-ceive a wide standard deviation around theexpected returns, believing that they are notmeasured precisely . Although there is somecontroversy in this area, there appears to bewidespread support for the proposit ion thatthe public sector should invest on the basis of emphasis on expected returns rather than onrisk factors (White, Eddleman, Purcell, 1980).However, policymakers may contend that ex-pected re turns are not measured accurately

e n o u g h to g u id e d e c i s io n s o n th e o p t ima llevel of public investment in food and agricul-tural research.

8/14/2019 8106



QUALITATIVE

Quali ty is an important aspect of a l l re-search and is a well-accepted concept. Whiledifficult to measure from a quantitative stand-point, there are certain aspects of quality thatmost scient is ts would agree are essent ia l to

reach a minimum acceptable level. These in-c l u d e d e a l i n g w i t h a d e q u a t e n u m b e r s o f samples, reproducing data, recording data sotha t i t can be unders tood and eva lua ted byothers , organizing and conduct ing researchso that it is amenable to statistical analyses,e tc . D i f f icu l t i e s a r i se when an a t t empt i smade to evaluate the relative degree or levelo f qua l i ty among a g roup o f sc ien t i s t s o ramong a ser ies of researchers within or be-tween disciplines or areas of research. Dif-ficulty also arises in evaluating the relativecontribution a piece of research makes to the

advancement of the field of study.

Pound Report

Q u a l i t y i s a d d r e s s e d b e c a u s e i t b e c a m e ,p e r h a p s u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y , o n e o f t h e m a j o rmessages to come out of the so-called PoundReport of 1972 (“Report of the Committee onResearch Advisory to the U.S. Department of A gr icu l tu r e,” N A S) . T h is r e p o r t h a s be e nreferred to by the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) and others as an authoritativesource on the measurement of the quality of agricultural research and, thus, a rationale forn o n s u p p o r t o f a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h . T h ecommittee, which was composed primarily of bench scientists closely oriented more towardbasic aspects of agricultural research, took asits major guideline the question: “Is the qual-ity of science being used in solution of agri-cul tural problems consis tent with the publ icneeds and scientific possibilities?” (p. 10).

In i ts general summary about the qual i tyo f t h e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t , i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t" . . . m u c h o f a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h i s o u t -moded, pedestr ian, and ineff ic ient” (p . 11)

and that “. . . far too much of the research isof low scientific quality. . . .“ (p. 12). Underthe quest ion: “Does the research by agricul-

MEASURES

tural sc ient is ts ref lect the highest s tandardsof the community?” it concluded that:

Most of the specific disciplinary researchstudies made by the Comm ittee and its panelsreveal a shocking amount of low quality re-

search in agriculture. Admittedly, quality is a judgment factor but the regular i ty withwhich the Committee came up with judg-ments of low quality, including both SAESand USDA research, is significant and ap-palling (p. 70),

This criticism was emphasized in two arti-cles in Science magazine (Jan. 5, 1973; Apr.27, 1973). The articles were given wide pub-l ic i ty and used against agr icul tural researchby OMB and other groups.

The Pound report d id not give a precisedefinition of “agricultural science” or “qual-ity;” nevertheless judgments were made thatinvolved both. The group mainly asked cer-tain peer group panels to rate some specificr e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s u m m a r i e s c o n t a i n e d i nUSDA’s Current Research Information Sys-tem in certain areas of work, such as forest in-sect research, reproduct ive physiology, andmolecular biology, that had been written forgeneral descr ipt ive purposes (p . 70) . Addi-tionally, the reactions of some other scientiststo agr icu l tu ra l r esea rch qua l i ty were co l -lected in an informal manner. Therefore, theadequacy of this evaluation itself is in ques-tion.

Other Reports

Other assessments of publ ished output of scientists have been used to evaluate certainaspects of agricultural research, most notablyproductivity (e.g., Salisbury). The use of thistechnique or variations of it for determiningquality is a more recent innovation. Two ex-amples are cited.

Shaw Repor t

B. T. Shaw, former administrator of ARS,analyzed the use of publication as a criterion

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



evaluations are largely subjective. Peer re-view is review of a scientist’s research only byre sea rche r s w i th in t he s ame gene ra l a r ea ,d isc ip l ine or miss ion . For example , in thecontinuum of basic to applied research, peersof scientists working in basic research can ef-fectively review quality of scientists working

in similar basic areas of research. Scientistsworking in applied areas can evaluate qualityof other scientists working on similar appliedproblems. However, it is generally meaning-less for a group of scientists working in basicresearch to evaluate the quality of those work-ing in the applied area and vice versa.

PRINCIPAL

q USDA research expenditures are the low-est total Federal expenditures by a major Fed-e r a l r e s e a r c h a g e n c y f o r R & D . I n 1 9 7 8USDA’s share of Federa l expendi tures forR&D was 1.5 percent of total expenditurescompared to DOD—45 percent, DOE—16 per-cent, and HEW—12 percent,

q Inc rease i n pu rchas ing power o f t o t a lSAES and USDA agr icul tura l research ex-penditures increased only 23 percent in con-stant dollars from 1966 to 1979,

• Constant dollar agricultural research ex-penditures of USDA for in-house research in-creased only 1 percent be tween 1966 and1979, while those in the SAES increased 40percent .

q State appropriations are the major sourceof research funding at the SAES, and in con-stant dollars increased 57 percent from 1966to 1979. Federal Hatch funds account for 20percent of SAES funding , and in cons tantterms have increased on the average 1.5 per-cent a year from 1966 to 1979, or 20 percentfor this time period.

q Private research funds for agricultural re-search at SAES are small relative to State ap-p ro pr ia tion s a n d F ed e r a l f or m u l a fu n d s .They have steadily increased since 1966—63percent in constant dollars—and are becom-

While quality is important, it can be meas-ured only in a very narrow sense. To measurethe value of food and agricultural research tosociety, which is the measurement of outputto input, it should be cumulatively examinedacross the full spectrum of activity —i.e., dis-cipline to discipline, basic to applied. This is

best done by analyzing what has happened tothe industry. And by any measurement, U.S.agriculture has been extremely productive.

ing an important source of agricultural re-search funds.

q Private industry agricultural research is amajor cont r ibutor to to ta l agr icul tura l re -search in the United States. It is estimatedthat total expenditures by private enterpriseare about three-quarters of the expendituresof the State and Federal governments com-bined.

q T h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f p u b l i c f u n d i n g o f food and agricultural research is based onbenefits well in excess of costs. Issues of equi-ty, because of the interstate flow of food andrelated commodit ies and the spil lover effectof research from one geographic region toanother , a re a l so c i ted . Producers benef i tf rom expanding demand and f rom reducedcosts. The distribution of consuming popula-tion among States, however, is related to thedistribution of agricultural production only toa very limited degree, From the equity consid-eration of the geographic distribution of costsa s soc i a t ed wi th r e sea rch and the bene f i t sflow in g f ro m t h is r e s ea r ch , s u b s ta n t ia lFederal funding of food and agricultural re-search is considered the most equitable. Para-doxically, Federal funding relat ive to Statefunding of research has decreased as the in-terstate f low of commodit ies has increased.Therefore, taxpayers in food-surplus States

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Research, Walter L. Fishel (cd.) (Minneapolis,Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1971).

Tweeten, Luther G., and Fred K. Hines, “Contri-butions of Agricultural Productivity to Na-tional Economic Growth, Agr icuJ tu raJ ScienceReview, vol. III, No. 2, 1965, p p . 40-45.

U.S. Congress, Senate , Die tary Goals for theUnited States, Select Committee on Nutrition

and Human Needs (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1977).

United Nations, Yearbook of National AccountsStatistics, 1978, vols . I and 11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS, Changes inFarm Production and E~~iciency, 1978, statis-tical bulletin No. 628 (Washington, D. C.:USDA, January 1980).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS, Develop-men t s in Marketing Spreads for Food Produc-tion in 1979, AER No. 449, 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA, AR, “PostHarvest Technology Research Assessment, ”March 1979.

Wad e, N ich olas, “ Ag r icu lt u r e: N AS Pa n elCharges Inept Management, Poor Research, ”Science, vol. 179, Jan. 5, 1973; “Agriculture:Critics Find Basic Research Stunted and Wilt-ing,” Science, vol. 180, Apr. 27, 1973 (both arereproduced in Moseman, et al,, Annex I andII).

Weisberg, Samuel , K. M. Re es e, an d PeggyMcDonald, Nutrition and Productivity: TheirRelationship in Developing Countries (Wash-ington, D, C.: League for International Foodand Education, 1972),

White, Fred, B. R. Eddleman, and Joseph Purcell,Nature and Flow of Benefits From Agriculture-Food Research, OTA background report, 1980.

White, Fred C., and Bill R. Miller, “DeterminingMultiplier Effects of Agriculture on the Restof the Economy, ” Agricultural Finance Re-view, ESCS, USDA, vol. 40, April 1980, pp.19-25.

White, Fred C., and Joseph Havlicek, Jr., “Inter-regional Spillover of Agricultural ResearchResults and Intergovernmental Finance,”Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Univer-sity of Minnesota, Agricultural ExperimentStation, Miscellaneous Publication No. 8,April 1981, pp. 60-70.

Willig , Robert D, “Consumer’s Surplus WithoutApology,” American Economic Review, vol.

66, 1976, pp. 586-597.Young, Paula C., and Philip M. Ritz, Updated In -

put-Output Table of the U.S. Economy: 1972,Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, BEA Staff Paper No. 32BEA-SP 79-032, April 1979.

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter v

Roles of Researc h

Par t i c ipan ts

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Federal Government. As a result, a panel of PSAC conduc ted a r ev i ew o f s c i ence andagriculture that focused primari ly on USDA(Science and Agriculture, 1962).

The panel’s recommendations were gener-al ly constructive and posit ive; however, ther ev i ew was conduc ted wi th in an env i ron -

ment that was somewhat critical and hostiletoward USDA. One of the main reasons forth i s s i t ua t i on was t ha t no member o f t hepanel had any act ive experience in USDA/ State research programs that had major im-pacts in advancing agriculture in the previ-ous three decades.

A m o n g t h e f e w r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t h a twere adopted was the appointment by Secre-tary Freeman of a USDA committee on agri-cultural science. The makeup of this commit-tee, the membership of the PSAC agricultural

panel, and the attitude of the White House Of-fice of Science and Technology combined toreflect a low esteem of research in USDA.Also reflected was the viewpoint that univer-sity personnel should have a dominant role inplanning and directing USDA research.

Nevertheless, a number of significant stepswere taken under Secretary Freeman in 1963:a) greater emphasis was placed on upgradingand expanding USDA and State research fa-cilities; b) funds were increased for the studyof pes t ic ides ; c ) a concept developed tha tBeltsville should be increasingly concernedwith basic research; and d) administration of grants to State experiment stations and coor-dination of State/ Federal research w ere onceagain placed in the hands of a separate agen-cy—the Cooperative State Research Service—comparable to the old Office of ExperimentStations.

In 1969, Secretary of Agriculture CliffordHardin reques ted the Nat ional Academy of Sciences/ Nationa l Research Coun cil (NAS/ NRC) to appoint a committee to: a) evaluatethe quality of science in agricultural research,

b) ascertain gaps in agricultural research andmake appropr ia te recommendat ions , and c)ascertain the extent to which scientists in thebasic disciplines relate their research to agri-

culture and the extent to which they contrib-ute to the basic sciences. The committee wascha i r ed by Dr . G lenn S . Pound , dean anddirector of the College of Agricultural andLife Sciences, University of Wisconsin. Odd-ly, the committee was heavily dominated bype r sonne l f rom the l and -g ran t un ive r s i t i e s

(primari ly bench scientis ts) , despite the factt ha t i t was supposed to r ev i ew USDA re -search as well as that of State stations.

Although the committee said it found manyexcel len t programs, together w i t h w e l l -t ra ined sc ient i s t s and sens ib le research , i ta l so found r ea son to be l i eve t ha t much o f agr icul tura l research was outmoded, pedes-trian, and inefficient. A careful and unpreju-diced reading of the NAS committee’s reportdiscloses many constructively cri t ical anal-yses and recommendations that would serve

to strengthen the national agricultural sys-tem. (Further discussion of the Pound reportis given in ch. IV of this report.)

USDA research administrators , in a moveunrelated to the Pound report , in 1972 an-nounced a reorganization of research func-t i o n s i n U S D A . T h e m a j o r t h r u s t w a s t oassign l ine-operat ing authori ty to the f ieldunder four regional deputy adminis t ra tors .The national program staff , which formerlyhad responsibility for one, or a few, commod-i t i e s o r p rog ram a reas , was sudden ly ex -

pected to properly manage a broad scope of research programs. This led to an inability tomainta in an in-depth unders tanding of thework under way, since the national programstaff was isolated from l ine research func-tions and responsibilities,

Role Strengthened

In an effort to strengthen the role of USDAand more effectively coordinate its activities,the 95th Congress, in enacting the Food andAgriculture Act of 1977, designated USDA as

the principal agency of the Federal Govern-ment for agricultural research, and directedthe Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate allagricultural research, extension, and teaching

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants q 8 5

act ivi t ies conducted or f inanced by Federalfunds.

Specifically, the act describes the researchrole of USDA as including the following:

to fulf i l l the needs of farmers and con-sumers by focusing its resources on prob-lems of national interest and concern;to par t ic ipate with other sectors of theagricultural research system in planning,coordinating, and executing national andregional programs;t o c o n d u c t r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t(R&D) p rograms to mee t in te rna t iona lneeds as determined by U.S. Governmentpolicy and the increasingly global natureof product ion agr icul ture;to conduct basic and applied human nu-trition research necessary to assess andimprove the nutritional quality of humandiets; and

STATE AGRICULTURAL

The origin of the role of the SAES under theHatch Act of 1887 and subsequent legislationhas been documented in chapter 111 of thisreport .

As a par t of the land-grant univers i ty ineach S ta te , SAES resea rchers o f ten p lay avital role in the training of scientists. ManySAES resea rchers have jo in t appo in tmentswith the univers i ty . They may teach, whichallows students to learn the latest in agricul-turally important knowledge and skills direct-ly f rom scient is ts who are discover ing andperfecting this knowledge. And they may alsodirect graduate s tudent research. This c losearrangement between researcher and studentmakes it possible to obtain relatively inexpen-sive but capable s taff ass is tants and at thes a m e t i m e p r o v i d e t h e a d d e d f u n c t i o n o f t ra ining addi t ional scient is ts .

Although the SAES still retain their tradi-

tional focus in serving farmers and the agri-cultural sector of their States, their role hasbeen modified by a number of factors in the

q to develop human nutr i t ion informationand education programs and deliver thisinformation to the public.

The act of 1977 designates USDA as thelead agency of the Federal Government foragricultural research, extension, and teachingin the food and agricultural sciences. * It also

gives guidance on s t rengthening the coordi-nating activities of USDA, but little guidanceis given to the role of USDA v. the SAES.

The law also provided that the Secretary of Agr icu l tu re es tab l i sh wi th in USDA a Jo in tCounci l on Food and Agricul tural Sciencesand a National Agricultural Research and Ex-tension Users Advisory Board. The progressof these two advisory groups is discussed inchapter VII of this report.

*This exclud es the biomed ical aspects of hum an nu trition

concerned with d iagnosis or treatment of d isease.

EXPERIMENT STATIONS

past two decades. The Research and Market-ing Act of 1946 increased Federal funds to theStates on a formula basis and made provisionf o r r e g i o n a l r e s e a r c h b y t h e S A E S w i t hFederal funds. In 1965, the Special ResearchGrants Act authorized grants to the State sta-tions, other public institutions, and individu-als to perform research on problems of con-

cern to USDA. In some respects, this act in-t roduced chances for dupl icat ion of effor t ,but at the same time, it offered a vehicle forconcentrating special efforts on commodity-based problems or problems of special inter-est groups, thus largely avoiding earmarkingof formula funds to special interest concerns.

Title V of the 1972 Rural Development Actwas another attempt to emphasize an area of special concern —namely, the economic andsocial problems of rural people and commu-ni t ies . This program, however , has not re-ceived significant funding,

Title XIV of the 1977 Farm Bill also becamea vehicle for authorizing a variety of special-

8/14/2019 8106



interest programs. Most important of theseare:

q

q

q

institutionalizing research and extensionin the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tus-kegee Inst i tute, whose part icipation inUSDA funding really began in the early1970’s;

placing greater emphasis on food and nu-tr i t ion research and extension in USDAin cooperation with the States; andauthorizing competi t ive grant programsin research to al l colleges and univer-si t ies , Federal agencies, and private in-stitutions.

Two fac tors tha t a re modify ing ro les of State stations—changes in funding and man-agement—deserve special discussion in thisassessment.

Funding

One of the sources of funding for the SAESis Federal funding on a formula basis . Thisprovides funds to the States on the basis of,among other things, size of rural population,number of farms, etc. States with large ruralpopulat ions, therefore, tend to receive moreFederal grant money than those with lessernumbers of farmers. This formula uses thesame principle—populat ion size—that deter-mines the number of Representatives in Con-gress to which each State is entitled. It is a

principle deeply rooted in the founding of ourcountry and expresses one aspect of the phi-losophy of “government by the people.”

Over the years, as the purchasing power of both Hatch and State funds declined, scien-tists and administrators sought new fundingsources. To a certain degree, Congress fur-thered this trend by appropriating funds forspecial and competitive grants.

Gran t f unds p rov ide r e sou rces fo r h igh -priori ty research to further the programs of USDA. The Secretary may make grants up to

5 y e a r s f o r e i t h e r c o m p e t i t i v e o r s p e c i a lr e sea rch g ran t s . A l ] co ll eges , un ive r si t ie s ,Federal agencies, and private institutions are

e l i g i b l e f o r c o m p e t i t i v e r e s e a r c h g r a n t s .While the law provides for flexibility in thedetermination of the specific research effortsfor competi t ive grant funds, the intent wasthat the following types of research be givenpriori ty considerat ion:

1.

2.

3.

4.

basic research aimed at the discovery of

new scientif ic principles and techniquesthat may be applicable in agriculture andforestry;r e sea rch a imed a t t he deve lopmen t o f new and innovat ive products , methods ,and technologies re la t ing to b io logica ln i t rogen f ixa t ion , photosynthes is , ando the r f i e ld s t ha t w i l l improve and in -crease the productivity of agriculture andforestry resources;basic and applied research in the field of human nutrition; andr e s e a r c h t o d e v e l o p a n d d e m o n s t r a t e

new, promising crops, including guayuleand jojoba.

In the special research grants program thelaw authorizes the Secretary to make grantswithout regard to matching funds to:

1 . land-grant co l leges and univers i t ies ,SAES, and all colleges and universitieshaving a demonstrable capacity in agri-cultural research, as determined by theSecretary, to carry out research to facili-tate or expand promising breakthroughsin knowledge; and

Z . land-grant colleges and universities andSAES to facilitate or expand State-Feder-al research programs that promote: a) ex-cellence in research, b) development of regional research centers, or c) the re-search partnership between USDA andsuch colleges or SAES.

Proponen t s o f f o rmula fund ing saw thei n t r o d u c t i o n o f c o m p e t i t i v e g r a n t s a s a ne r o d i n g f o r c e o n t h e c l o u t o f l a n d - g r a n tuniversities and their agricultural experimentstations. Others reasoned that excellence in

food and ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch migh t ve rywell exist in institutions other than those inthe land-grant system.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. V—Roles of Research Participants q87

One mechanism provided by Congress thatlent further justification to seeking wide par-t ic ipat ion in the program was the provis ionfor a peer-review system of research propos-als to fur ther guarantee excel lence in per-forming the research. The World Food andNutrition Study under the aegis of NAS en-dorsed the competi t ive grant system, as did

t h e O T A r e p o r t O r g a n i z i n g a n d F i n a n c i n gBasic Research To Increase Food Production(1977).

M a n a g e m e n t

The shift to special and competitive grantsas a means of funding research has had sever-al effects when compared to formula funding.F i r s t , f o r m u l a f u n d s d o n o t p a y o v e r h e a dcosts; most grants do. For a given level of funding, this reduces the amount available toresearch scientists, It does, however, make

possible more direct ion of research to spe-cific needs. Second, the availability of speciala n d c o m p e t i t i v e g r a n t s e n c o u r a g e s f a c u l t y

members to seek such outside funds. The di-rector of the SAES frequently has little oppor-tunity to exert management or program guid-ance on these p rograms . Th is has pos i t iveand nega t ive conno ta t ions . Of ten , the re -search has little significance to local or Stateproblems. Third , the individuals who makedecisions on funding under the grant system

are not always accountable to legislative andagricultural interests.

Relationships between USDA and SAES atthe admin is t ra t ive l eve l a re unnecessa r i lycompet i t ive and in some cases des t ruc t ive(Moseman, et al., 1981; Knutson, et al., 1980).But of even greater significance is the effectof the dispersal of USDA research resourcesand authorities and the resultant substantialautonomy in regional and area off ices . Thiss i t u a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s a d e g e n e r a t i o n o f t h eoperat ional and coordinat ing funct ions that

traditionally have been carried out by USDAfor national and regional programs.

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

At leas t 10 Federa l agenc ies o the r thanUSDA fund or conduct some kind of food andagricul tural research. These include the De-par tments o f Commerce , Defense , Energy ,H e a l t h a n d H u m a n S e r v i c e s , I n t e r i o r , a n dState; Agency for International Development;Environmental Protect ion Agency; Nat ionalSc ience Founda t ion (NSF) ; and TennesseeValley Authority (TVA). No accurate figuresare available for the extent of dollar invest-m e n t i n f o o d a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h b ythese agencies. Some of the budgets are quitelarge; others are very small and are actuallyadvisory in nature.

In most instances, food and agricultural re-search conducted by these Federal agencies isconsidered complementary to that of USDA;o v e r l a p p i n g e f f o r t s a r e n o t t h o u g h t t o b e

grea t . Because the mechan ism fo r coord i -nation with USDA as the lead agency is notfunctioning well, however, the degree of over-lap and coordination cannot be determined at

this time. In some cases, the research pro-gram is the type that e i ther is inadequatelycovered by USDA or is more sui ted to themiss ion o f the o ther agency , The food re -search program of the Department of Defenseis a good example of the latter type, since itdeals with providing a wholesome and nutri-tious food supply to servicemen and service-women under f ie ld and mil i tary-base condi-t ions . TVA conduc ts resea rch on deve lop-ment of fertil izers because both USDA andmost of the private sector discontinued suchactivity nearly 20 years ago.

To improve coordinat ion of the researchact ivi ty of USDA and the other 10 Federalagencies involved in food and agr icul turalresearch, Congress mandated the es tabl ish-ment of the Committee on Food and Renew-

a b l e R e s o u r c e s ( C F R R ) . * T h e c o m m i t t e e ,*This was authorized under the National Agricultural Re-

search, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 and estab -lished under FCCSET.

8/14/2019 8106


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

which is chaired by USDA, “is to review Fed-eral research and development programs rele-vant to domestic and world food productionand distribution, promote planning and coor-d i n a t i o n o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i n t h e F e d e r a lGove rnmen t , and r ecommend po l i c i e s ando t h e r m e a s u r e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e f o o d a n d

agricultural sciences for the consideration of the Council. ”

The purpose of CFRR is to increase theo v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y o f Federa l R&D ef for t s in the areas of food,nutrition, and renewable resources. The com-mittee is charged with improving planning,coo rd in at ion , a n d co m m u n i ca t io n am o n gFederal agencies; developing and updatingplans for Federal research programs; collect-ing, compil ing, and disseminating informa-t i on on food and r enewab le r e sou rces r e -

search; and preparing reports describing ac-tivities, findings, and r ecommenda t ions o f the committee.

CFRR has not yet satisfactorily fulfilled itsrole (OTA letters of inquiry to Federal agen-cies, 1980). As of early 1981, CFRR did nothave a classification of the food and agricul-

tural research conducted or funded by theseagencies nor the amount of funds al locatedfor such research . I t does not ye t ac t ive lycoordinate interagency activities. One reasonis that the committee is a relatively new fea-ture within a well-entrenched bureaucracy.Furthermore, i t needs more specif ic, highlydefined objectives to be more effective, Andfinally, the committee does not have the au-thori ty of individual agencies that might beaddressing the same problems from more au-thori tat ive posi t ions.

THE 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

I n 1 8 9 0 , C o n g r e s s p a s s e d a n a c t t h a tgranted to certain Negro colleges and univer-sities the same privileges as those provided bythe Merr i l l Act of 1862. However , as d is -cussed in chapter III, equitable funding of the1890 ins t i tu t ions , inc luding Tuskegee In-stitute, has been a problem. It was not until1972 that they received signif icant fundingfor research and extension by congressional

act . Under the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, these inst i tut ions acquired expandedauthori ty and responsibil i ty. Although theyare funded a lmost whol ly by Federa l agen-cies, they are cooperating with the SAES oncertain regional projects.

The role and functions of the 1890 land-grant institutions include:

q meeting the needs of those people whomthe system was designed to serve;

q

q

q

q

focusing sharply on needs of people whohave been disadvantaged by systems andcircumstances over which they have nocontrol;

using unique methods to assist “hard-to-reach” clientele;

maintaining a well-structured education-a l sy s t em th rough t each ing , r e sea rch ,and extension; and

providing educational programs that pre-pare individuals to function intelligentlyin a democratic society.

According to the chairman of the Associa-t ion of Research Coordina tors of the 1890Schools, “the most pressing deficiency of the1890 Schools in fulfilling their obligation infood and fiber research is pauperized labora-tory facilities” (OTA letter of inquiry, 1980).

8/14/2019 8106



NONLAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES

For the purposes of th is report , the term“nonland-grant university” encompasses twokinds of institutions: a) private universitiessuch as Harvard and S tanford tha t conduc tr e s e a r c h w h i c h m a y h a v e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r

food and agr icul ture but whose main direc-tion is elsewhere, and b) public State univer-sities such as the California Polytechnic StateUnivers i t i e s o r Texas Tech Univers i ty tha thave clear ly ident i f ied food and agr icul tureprograms including research.

Historically, n o n l a n d - g r a n t u n i v e r s i t i e shave not been considered as part of the tradi-tional U.S. agricultural research system, norhave they had specific legislation or Federalfunds fo r ag r icu l tu ra l r esea rch . As la te as1977’, Congress reaffirmed the role of USDAas the lead agency in U.S. agr icul tural re-

search and charged it with coordination func-tions identifying specifically the traditionalagricultural research institutions. So, in gen-eral, the nonland-grant universities, from thecongressional standpoint, seem to be outsidethe traditional agricultural research system. *Congress has , however , recognized their ca-pab i l i ty as resea rch ins t i tu t ions , and theyhave been funded through such agencies asthe National Institutes of Health, NSF, etc.Further , Congress has a lso recognized theirpotential value to U.S. agricultural research.The special grants program makes provision

f o r t h o s e w i t h r e c o g n i z e d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e -s ea r ch c ap a b il it ie s, a n d t h e c om p e t it i v egrants program makes all of them eligible tocompete for such grants.

*This includ es pu blic State universities wh ich receive fund sfrom State legislatures for teaching and training of agricultur-alists, but n ot for agricultural r esearch.

Pr iva te Univers i t ies

Many of- the private institutions conduct in-depth research in the basic sciences of chem-istry, physics, mathematics, etc. , which formt h e b a s i s o f m o s t b i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h o nwhich agricultural research is founded. Manyhave strong departments in such sciences asplant physiology, entomology, animal physi-ology, e tc . (as do many land-grant univer-s i t i e s ) , bu t the i r r esea rch usua l ly i s morebasic and may have no immediate applicationto the solution of practical food and agricul-tural problems. Such research, however , f re-quently provides many of the breakthroughsso important to the cont inued advances of agricultural research. Their resources and ex-p e r t i s e s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a s v a l u a b l eresources to the U .S . ag r icu l tu ra l r esea rchsystem and used as funds and interest permit.

Private universities, unlike the public Stateuniversities which receive substantial Statesupport , receive no general Federal or Stateass i s tance and suppor t the i r sc ien t i f i c r e -s e a r c h a l m o s t e n t i r e l y f r o m g o v e r n m e n tgran ts, end ow men ts, a nd co rp o ra te c on -tracts. A relatively small group—about 36 in-stitutions—account for about 60 percent of total Federal research expenditures in univer-sities. The chief barrier to the performance of s izable amounts of agr icul tural research in

these universities is lack of resources and thefact that s ta tus and reward within sciencediscipl ines put s t rong pressure on perform-ing basic, rather than applied, research.

Because the pauc i ty o f ag r icu l tu ra l r e -search in private universities is largely a con-sequence of the s ta tus and reward s t ructurein scientists’ professions, it is not likely thatfunding alone can make significant changes.A frequent ly made charge, where the only

8/14/2019 8106


90 qAn Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural/ Research System

control is through grant funding, is that largeamounts of money for agricultural researchmade available to basic scientists will often bed i r e c t e d t o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f r e s e a r c h(Lewontin, 1980).

Nevertheless, there are a number of scien-tists in private universities who would carry

out relevant agriculturally related research if they had the funds to do so. For example,there are engineering, chemistry, and busi-ness schools at these universi t ies that couldconduct product development and manage-ment studies in agricultural ly related areas.An expanded competitive grants program inagriculture would be helpful in funding suchpro j ec t s and pe rhaps i n beg inn ing to g ivelegitimacy to agricultural research in privateuniversities. Such a program should be in thehands of a peer-review system so that thecriterion of excellence and relevance could be

enforced in spirit as well as in letter.

Publ ic S ta te Univers i t ies

This group includes about 180 institutionsin 19 States; 58 of them have agricultural pro-grams. These 58 inst i tut ions perceive theirro l e s a s p rov id ing teaching , research , and

public service to their regions and States inaccordance with guidelines set forth by Statelegislatures. Compared with SAES, these in-st i tut ions are small . Most of them have be-come involved in food and agricultural re-search during the last 30 years and their re-search is concentrated mainly on local prob-

lems. A 1979 survey showed that State ap-p rop r i a t i ons p rov ided 30 pe rcen t o f t he i rtotal research funds; associations and privategrants , about 39 percent ; Federa l sourcesother than USDA, 21 percent; and USDA andl a n d - g r a n t u n i v e r s i t i e s p r o v i d e d t h e r e s t(Smallwood, 1980).

Generally there has been little coordinationamong the l and -g ran t un ive r s i t i e s , USDA,and the nonland-grant State universities, Theprimary deterrent to cooperation has been alack of format for exchanging information orfor planning and communicating. This situa-

tion improved somewhat with the passage of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 and theestablishment of the Joint Council on Fooda n d A g r i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e s . F u r t h e r m o r e ,most of these nonland-grant universities haveno Federal or State charter for research, thusmaking f inancing diff icult except for com-petitive grant activities.

RESEARCH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Foundations award grants to performers of agr icul tura l research . There are some 400A m e r i c a n p h i l a n t h r o p i c f o u n d a t i o n s t h a taward grants of $5,000 or more (Hildreth andMacLean, 1981). The nature and purpose of the grants vary with the interest and purposeo f t he g r an t ing founda t ions . Th ree o f t helargest foundations are Ford, Rockefeller, andKellogg. Of these, only Rockefeller is sponsor-ing agricultural research related to U.S. agri-culture. Although the Ford Foundation hassupported agricultural research since 1950, ithas gone primarily to programs in the devel-oping countr ies, rather than to grant recipi-ents in the Uni ted Sta tes . In teres ts of the

W. K. Kellogg Foundation have been concen-t r a t ed i n ex t ens ion , ou t r each , and t r a in ingareas.

Compared with the quantity of funds avail-ab l e t o t he pe r fo rmer s o f ag r i cu l tu r a l r e -search from public sources, the amounts pro-vided by foundations are indeed modest. Thedecision to make each grant is based on pol-icies established by the individual founda-t i o n ’ s g o v e r n i n g b o a r d . E a c h f o u n d a t i o nseeks to be at the forefront of the areas chosenfor emphasis . As such, these grants , whilemodest, may well play a significant role in thecont inuing development and adjus tment of t he pe r fo rmer s o f ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch tomeet the emerging problems in food and agri-cultural science.

8/14/2019 8106



Pr iva te Enterpr i se

Food and agricultural industries contributesignificantly to the productivity and efficien-cy of American agriculture in a number of ways: a) invention, improvement, and manu-facture of farm machines; b) selection and im-

provement of crop plants and animals; c) de-velopment and production of a wide range of agricultural chemicals such as insecticides,fung ic ides , f e r t il iz e r s , an t ib io ti cs , e t c. ; d )processing, preservation, and production of animal feed and human food; and e) develop-ment and improvement of a wide variety of farm structures.

Accurate figures on the size and scope of industry’s input to agricultural research, asd i scus sed in chap te r IV , a r e unava i l ab l e ,although several attempts have been made inthe pas t t o de t e rmine th i s i n fo rma t ion . I n

1 9 6 6 , t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e(ARI) conducted an extensive survey of 825private companies that were known to haveagricultural research programs. Only 40 per-cent of the companies responded. The resultsindicated that the private sector was expend-ing about $460 million annually for agricul-t u r a l r e sea rch . Of t h i s amoun t , 9 pe rcen twent for basic research, 50 percent for ap-plied, and 41 percent for engineering and de-velopment. Major fields of interest in indus-try research at the t ime of the survey werechemicals , feed , pes t ic ides , fe r t i l izers , andmachinery (Moseman, et al., 1981). Food re-search was concentrated largely on productdevelopment and food processing.

In 1976, ARI attempted to update the 1966data, but the response to questionnaires againwas not wholly satisfactory. Of the 240 com-p a n ie s re p o rt in g , t o ta l R&D e x p e n d it u r eswere $575 million. ARI felt the survey returnswere insufficient to just ify extrapolat ion tothe entire industry, so the results were pre-sented on the basis of only those companiesrepor t ing . A new fac tor turn ing up in the

1976 survey was that many companies werespending sizable amounts for “defensive re-sear ch” —i.e., research required to m eet Gov-ernment regulations or undertaken in defenseof existing products (Moseman, et al., 1981).

Although different segments of the agricul-tural industry perceive their roles differently,most of them are generally motivated by eco-nomic reasons. If management can foresee aprofi t f rom their research efforts , funds areset aside for the research program. In manycases, industry research results in payoffs for

both the farm sector and consumers.In recent years, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has adopted a policy of de termining which research areas should beperformed primari ly by industry. OMB hasdone this with the concurrence of USDA andwi th l i t t l e o r no d i s cus s ion wi th i ndus t ryitself. The assumption by OMB of the authori-ty to determine unilaterally what work shouldbe done by indus t ry has r e su l t ed i n l e s scooperat ion from industry and in the omis-s ion of some necessary types of research .

OMB judgments have little effect on the typesof research industry undertakes. A result of this situation is that there are certain areas of research in which both agr icul ture and theconsuming pub l i c a r e no t be ing s e rved a sthey should. One of these areas is the post-harvest technology research program (Irving,et al., 1981).

A l though the re a r e mixed v i ews abou tUSDA conduc t ing pos t -ha rves t t e chno logyresearch, industr ies are general ly in agree-ment with each other that much of this typeof research should be performed by the publicsector (USDA, 1979). Some of the critical ele-ments in such research are reducing energyconsumption in food processing, extendingproduc t she l f l i f e , r educ ing t r anspo r t a t i onand storage costs, and minimizing processinglosses. I t is doubtful that the private sectori s capab le o f do ing the comple t e r e sea rchneeded in this area. Basic principles of post-harvest technology should be researched bythe public sector for the benefit of consumers.In turn , indus t ry should fo l low through onadaptive R&D as needed (Moseman et al . ,1981).

Another area in which agriculture is notbeing fully served is that of improving effi-ciencies on farms through mechanization re-search. This was most clearly stated by Secre-

8/14/2019 8106


—


tary of Agriculture Bergland who declaredt h a t n o F e d e r a l f u n d s ( e x c l u d i n g H a t c hfunds) should be used for this purpose if itdisplaced labor. Since the major part of agri-cultural mechanization has resulted from in-dustry efforts, it is likely that such a USDApolicy would adversely affect small industry

types that would have insuffic ient f inancialresources for developing more effective farmequipment fo r spec if ic c rops and spec if iclocalities.

The above policies are viewed by some asleading toward a concentration of R&D in thehands of larger industrial corporations. Thus,small companies and small farms—which aresupposed to be helped by USDA policy—areleft without the help they should have. Basic-ally, then, it is important to recognize that pri-v at e in d u st ry co n t r ib u t e s a s u b s ta n t ia l

amount to research and technology develop-ment in the United States.

Those that have their own research pro-grams tend to view their role in R&D primari-ly f ro m a b u s in e ss in v e s tme n t s t a n d p o in t .They conduct research in areas of interest to

the company and in areas which may give itproprietary advantages. Much of the researchconducted by agribusiness has general useand is of great value to the public, but agri-business cannot be depended on to conduct awide array of research in any given area. It isl ik e ly th a t in d u s t ry mig h t u n d e r in v e s t in

research if the public sector were conductingsimilar research, It is difficult for the publicsector (and probably for the industrial firmsthemselves) to anticipate the exact researcharea and the effort that will be expended onr e s e a r c h o f i m p o r t a n c e to agr ibusiness .Therefore, the public sector must maintain aresearch effort commensurate with public in-terest in such areas.

The greatest need seems to be a wider inter-change of ideas at the planning level amongU S D A , S A E S , a n d i n d u s t r y , T h e p r i m a r y

needs, therefore , appear to be communica-tion, mutual respect, and a recognition thatthe solution of food and agricultural prob-lems is of national importance andapproached on a cooperative basis.

must be

ROLE OF SAES AND USDA

During the early history of the develop-ment of the SAES there was concern about

the relationship of the research stations to theland-gran t co l leges , T h e r e w a s a n e v e ngreater concern about the acquisition of Fed-eral funding through USDA for support of SAES, free from excessive domination by theFedera l Commissioner o f Agricu l tu re . TheHatch Act of 1887 resolved many of thesei s su e s a n d p ro v id e d fo r a h ig h d e g re e o f autonomy by the individual States in design-ing and conducting research.

Ad d i t io n a l l e g i s l a t io n p ro v id in g su p p o r tfor the establishment and strengthening of

the SAES clearly recognizes the stations asdistinct entities in the land-grant colleges. Inthe ea r ly years , the SAES were concernedalmost totally with State and local researchproblems. However, as they grew and addi-

tional acts were passed by Congress provid-ing wider use of funds, their research broad-

ened to include regional, national, and inter-national activities,

Meanwhile , USDA has developed a widerange of research laboratories, stations, andac t iv i t ie s tha t no t on ly inc ludes na t iona l ,regional, and international activit ies but a ttimes involves strictly local problems.

This broad base for application of Federaland State resources to research problems hasled some, including Congress, to question thedegree of research planning and coordination

that exists, especially at the top levels of ad-ministration. There seems to be considerableduplication of effort and vying for funds. Thequestion of research priorities continues to bea subject of disagreement—basic v. applied,

8/14/2019 8106



commodity v. discipl ine, marketing V . pro-duction, etc.—and Congress and other inter-e s t ed g roups have inc reas ing ly been con -cerned.

Most agricultural research administrators—whether SAES, USDA, or other—recognizethere is not unanimity of thought in how best

to manage and carry out U.S. agricultural re-search and the appropriate roles of the vari-ous actors for an effective and efficient re-search system.

Organizat ion and Faci l i t i es

James Kendr ick , v ice pres ident for agr i -cultural and university services, University of California, recently suggested a plan to re-vitalize our agricultural research system andat the same t ime strengthen the partnershipbe tween Fede ra l and S t a t e educa t iona l i n -

stitutions. He said:

The core of this plan would be a USDA-developed National Research Institute forAgriculture and Food Sciences. Foundedwith the very best of facilities and scientificexpertise, the Institute should be establishedwith a goal of making it the world’s foremostcenter for basic research in agriculture andfood science. It should provide support andstimulation which no other organization oragency could duplicate. It should have thecapacity to attract the most competent scien-tists and specialists, not only for permanent

affiliation, but also for short-term projects.As an integral and indispensable part of thisplan, the Institute should establish a numberof prestigious resident professional fellow-ships in the agricultural and food sciences, tobe offered annually on a competitive basis tothe scientific community at large.

As important as such an Institute would beto our future basic research needs, it shouldnot be expected to satisfy the total require-ments for a comprehensive research pro-gram, The diversity in both commodities andgeography which characterizes U.S. agricul-ture makes the problem too complex for a

single-program approach. Regional USDAprograms and State agricultural research,teaching, and extension activities must also

be maintained and strengthened if we are tomove from theory to practice without unduedelay.

The PSAC panel of 1962 recognized the im-portance of having a strong and reputable na-t ional agricultural research center commen-surate with the stature of U.S. agricultural

research in in terna t ional agr icul ture . Thec o n t i n u e d r e l u c t a n c e o f U S D A i n r e c e n tyears to support research facilities or staffingat the Beltsville Research Center has renderedthe center less e f fec t ive in furn ish ing re-search leadership and scientific inputs. It hasalso reduced the efficiency of conducting re-search at this location because of inadequatetechnical and support staff (Science and Agri-culture, 1962).

The location of new laboratories and allo-cation of more resources to Beltsville, as con-t ras ted wi th a l te rna te loca t ions , requi res asense of conviction on the part of the leader-ship of SEA as well as a commitment to re-s e a r c h b y t h e S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e(Pound, 1980). The USDA library was erectedat Beltsville, Md., in the mid-1960’s when theSecre tary of Agr icul ture took the pos i t ionthat “the location of USDA research facilitieswould not be determined by the White Housestaff, OMB, or others, but by the Department”(Moseman, et al., 1981).

The justification for strengthening other na-t i ona l and r eg iona l r e sea rch s t a t i ons and

laboratories is that these facilities exist, theywere designed to serve national and regionalrequirements, and they should be put to gooduse in meeting the needs of USDA and theSAES in improving the Nation’s agriculture.

A major factor in the close cooperation of USDA and the SAES has been the associationof research staff working ei ther in Federallaboratories or in State-owned facilities at thecoopera t ing SAES. This has been bas ic inmaintaining strong cooperative relations andin sustaining mutual respect of the cooperat-

ing partners and should be given high priorityin future strengthening of the national agri-cultural system.

8/14/2019 8106



Partnersh ip Di f f i cu l t ies

Don Paa r lbe rg , a t t he 1980 Agr i cu l tu r a lOut look Conference , m a d e t h e f o l l o w i n gstatement:

The need for some degree of relatedness inthe various agricultural research undertak-ings is clear.

The Agricultural Experiment Stations areperhaps unique among the tax-supported re-search institutions. They were set up nearly acentury ago, when the prevailing mood wasmore individualistic than it has recently be-come. Modern macro concepts had not beeninvented. The States were more importantthen. Central direction was anathema. Volun-teerism and cooperation were in vogue. Theexperiment stations reflected their times.Traditionally, decision-making was sharedamong the clientele groups, the individualresearcher, his department head, his director

of research, his dean, the university presi-dent, the State legislature, and the Congress.With formula funding, the Department of Agriculture had limited input,

The recent surge of tax-supported researchin fields other than agriculture and in agen-cies other than the experiment stations is theproduct of different t imes: more centraldirection, more team activity, more macroand less micro, more concern about external-ities, less emphasis on the criterion long usedby the land grant colleges–efficiency.

There is now an effort, on the part of those

who provide the Federal funds, to bring theexperiment s tat ions and agricultural re-search generally into the modern setting,with more central direction, to have it con-form to the current mood. The experimentstations, with their proud history, under-standably resist this effort.

Some form of leadership is essential .Strong central direction and coercion are re-pugnant for a number of good reasons. Aloose voluntary cooperative type of guidanceis desirable. The accepted though muchscorned word for this is “coordination.” Itmust be exercised if the research community

is to appear to the appropriations committeesas something other than a group of bureau-cratic self-seekers. Who should supply thiscoordination? In my view, the Science and

Education Administration of the Departmentof Agriculture should exercise the coor-dinating role, with input from the directors of research at the experiment stations and otherinstitutions with research capability in agri-culture.

The Department of Agriculture is central,it is directly involved in the acquisition and

distribution of Federal funds, and it comescloser to perceiving the broad public interestthan does any other unit in the system. Theexercise of this role is extremely difficult. Anexperienced administrator will take on thisrole with some reluctance, as an exercise of responsibility, not assertively, as an expres-sion of power (Paarlberg, 1980).

Emery Castle, in an address to the NationalAssociat ion of State Universi t ies and Land-Grant Colleges in November 1980, said:

Federalism is undergoing constant evalua-tion on many fronts but the unique historicrelationship between the USDA and the land-grants has evolved into a set of institutionalrelations that are unrivaled in complexity.The question should be faced squarely as towhether the historic partnership between theUSDA and the land-grants remains viable.The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, thenumerous constituencies that must be servedby USDA, together with the multiple ties be-tween higher education and the Federal Gov-ernment, raise questions as to whether thepartners still are marching to the same drum-mer. What happens during the next fouryears probably will decide whether the pointof no return on the road to dissolution of thepartnership has been passed, or whether re-cent events will be viewed only as a series of family spats, not unlike a political party’s na-tional convention—a necessary p relude to bat-tle against a common enemy (Castle, 1980).

Funding and Roles

Many comment that the problem is a resultof the cont inuing t ight budget and tha t a l lproblems would be solved if only there wereenough money. While undoubtedly the prob-

lems are exacerbated by a continuing t ightbudget, this is only a superficial answer. Thefacts are that at the administrative level, thereis , in a general sense, no agreement on the

8/14/2019 8106



roles of the SAES and USDA, and until thereis some understanding and agreement of theroles of these two primary public actors inU.S. food and agricultural research, there canbe no effective agreement on overall coopera-t ion in the very impor tant aspects of U.S.agr icul tura l research . Ef fec t ive coopera t ion

between any two people, organizations, or na-t ions requires agreement on the subjects onwhich to cooperate and on the roles of each,and each must cooperate from a base of rela-tive strength. To an outsider of the system, itdoes not appear that this should be a difficulttask if the actors can realistically evaluatetheir roles, strengths, and responsibilities inan atmosphere free of bureaucrat ic consid-erations.

Fede ra l f o rmula funds a l l oca t ed t o t heStates are used primarily to supplement fund-ing of State programs designed to solve prob-

lems of State and local needs. The director of the SAES is accountable for all such funds go-ing to the State experiment s tat ion. Most of these programs contr ibute to solving prob-lems of regional and national importance, butFederal formula funds do not have regional ornational problem solution as their primaryobjective, nor is priority determined by suchneeds.

State legislatures appropriate funds to theirS A E S t o s o l v e S t a t e a n d l o c a l p r o b l e m s .Again, accountabil i ty for their expenditure

usually lies with the director of the SAES. Un-doubtedly, most State research has contr ib-uted to the solution of regional and nationalproblems, but such contr ibutions have beenadjuncts to solving State and local problems.It is also common for two or more States topool resources to work on regional problemsof common interest to them. But even in theseinstances, control and accountabil i ty are notcentralized in any one person or institution.

Hence i t appears tha t under the presentsystem, it would be difficult for one or severalSAES to plan and conduct a full effective pro-

gram responsible for the solution of regionalor national problems even though they maycont r ibute s igni f icant ly to the so lu t ion of such problems. Some SAES directors do not

agree with this statement, but they have yet todevise a plan that would give assurance to thecontrary.

Federal funds are allocated to AgricultureResearch (AR) primarily for problems of re-g iona l o r na t iona l impor t ance , whe re t henature or magnitude of the problem is such

tha t a s i ng l e S t a t e canno t p rov ide t he r e -sources for i ts solut ion and where there issome regional or na t ional concern for thep rob lem, o r f rom an indus t r i a l s t andpo in twhere the risk is too high or demanding forany one industrial component. AR programsinc lude those i nvo lv ing r e sou rces and ac -tivities that are jointly developed by AR andSAES. AR a lso has respons ib i l i ty for serv-icing the research needs of action agencieswithin USDA. AR is accountable to the ex-ecutive and legislat ive branches of Govern-ment for the administration and national co-

ordination of such programs.It appears that insofar as Federal formula

funds are concerned, the role of the SAESshould be primarily concerned with State andlocal problems and those problems of a re-gional , nat ional , or international nature thatare an extension of their State and local prob-lems. Insofar as special grant or other grantfunds are concerned, SAES should competeon their ability to perform the needed tasks ef-fectively.

A R s h o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e o n a g r i c u l t u r a l

problems important to the Nation that no oneState or private group has the resources, facil-ities, need, or incentive to solve and those re-sea rch p rog rams a s r equ i r ed t o fu l f i l l t hestated objectives of Congress, the President,and the Secretary of Agriculture. AR shouldcarry out its role by working as a partner withS A E S t o a c h i e v e c o m p l e m e n t a r i l y a n d ,through cooperation with private universitiesand industry, to coordinate its own contribu-tion to achieve national goals most effective-ly. This should be done with effort by bothUSDA and SAES to collaborate when appro-

priate in such a way to assist the research per-formance and respect the integrity, role, anddecisionmaking responsibilities of the institu-tions.

8/14/2019 8106



PRINCIPAL

q T h e r e i s a r o l e f o r a s t r o n g n a t i o n a lUSDA research program. This role has beencarried out in the past by USDA and Federalfunding to SAES. Historically, the USDA rolewas associated with broad regional, national,and international activities. The role of SAES,

insofar as Federal funds are concerned, hasbeen primari ly for local , State, and regionalproblems. These ro les a re becoming con-fused.

q Grant funds provide resources to furtherthe programs of USDA. SAES, nonland-grantun ive r s i t i e s , and o the r s compe te fo r t he sefunds on the basis of their interest in anda b i l i t y t o d o F e d e r a l r e s e a r c h . T h i s i s adesirable aspect of the total research effort.

q The Committee on Food and RenewableResources has not yet satisfactorily fulfilled

its role, This is because it is a relatively newfeature in a well-entrenched bureaucracy; i t

FINDINGS

needs more speci f ic , h ighly def ined objec-tives; and it does not have the authority of in-dividual agencies that might be addressingthe same problems from more authori tat ivepositions.

q Under t he 1977 Food and Agr i cu l tu r eAct, the 1890 land-grant inst i tut ions part ici-pate in research and receive most of theirfunds f rom Fede ra l r e sou rces . They havepressing needs; one of the more important isimproved facilities. Coord ina t ion wi th t herest of the system is less than adequate.

q The private sector tends to view i ts roleprimarily from a profit potential. It conductsresearch in areas of interest to the companiesand in areas that may give them proprietaryadvantages . There are s igni f icant researchareas of interest to the public that are not re-

ce iv ing and wi l l no t r ece ive adequa te r e -search attention if left to the private sector,

Castle, Emery N., “Agricultural Education andResearch: Academic Crown Jewels or CountryCousins, ” Kellogg Foundation Lecture, Na-tional Association of State Universities andLand-Grant Colleges, Nov. 18, 1980.

Hi ld r e th , R, J., and Jayne T. MacLean, “Founda-tion Grants to Performers of Domestic Agri-cultural Research, Teaching, and Extension, ”draft document, Jan. 15, 1981.

Kendr ick, James B., Jr., “Revitalize U.S. Agricul-tural Food Research, ” editorial, CaliforniaAgriculture, January 1981.

Lewontin, R, C., “Agricultural Research in Non-Land-Grant Institutions, ” OTA backgroundpaper, September 1980.

Moseman, A. H., J. S. Robins, and Harold Wilcke,“The Role of the Federal Government, StateAgricultural Experiment Stations, and the Pri-vate Sector in Research, ” OTA backgroundpaper, September 1981.

National Academy of Sciences, World Food andNutrition Study (Washington, D. C.: NAS,

1977).Paarlberg, Don, “Food and Agriculture Research

Agenda, ” Agriculture Outlook Conference,USDA, November 1980,

Pound, Glenn S., “The Development of the Agr i-

REFERENCES

cultural Research Structure in the UnitedStates,” Th e ~. C. WaJker Lecture in Plant Pa-thology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,Nov. 14, 1979.

Public Law 95-113, 95th Cong, , Sept. 29, 1977, Ti -tle XIV—National Agricultural Research, Ex-tension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977’,

Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. De-partment of Commerce, National TechnicalInformation Service, 1%-213-338, April 1972.

Responses to OTA letters of inquiry to Federalagencies, 1980.

Science and Agriculture, Life Science Panel of thePresident’s Science Advisory Committee, Jan-uary 1962.

Smallwood, Charles M., “Role of the Non l a nd -

Grant Universities With Colleges of Agricul-ture in Food and Agriculture Research, ” OTAbackground paper, December 1980.

U.S. Depa rtment of Agricultu re, SEA/ AR, “Post-

Harvest Technology Research Assessment, ”March 1979.

Wade, Nicholas, “ A g r i c u l t u r e : NAS Pane lCharges Inept Management, Poor Research, ”Science, vol. 179, Jan. 5, 197’3.

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter V I

Management , St ructure ,

and Pol ic y

.

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Chapter VI

Management , St ructure, and Pol icy

Of all the past assessments of the U.S. foodand agr icul tural research system, few havemade a serious attempt to evaluate the prob-

lems inheren t to management po l icy . Ye ttoday , a s resea rch miss ions become morevaried, as new priorities vie for attention, andas funding becomes more stringent, the needarises for finding ways to strengthen leader-ship standards and performance at all levelsof operation. Accomplishing such goals re-quires a thorough and honest analysis of man-a g e m e n t , s t r u c t u r e , a n d p o l i c y w i t h i n t h eFederal/ State agricultur al research system.

This study evaluates four research agencieswithin the U.S. Department of Agricul ture(USDA): the Science and Education Adminis-tration’s (SEA) Agricultural Research (AR),Cooperative Research (CR), Human Nutrition

(HN) , and the soc ia l sc ience resea rch p ro -grams conducted by the Economics and Sta-tistics Service (ESS). Included also is an over-

view of how the State agricultural experimentstations (SAES) are organized and managed.All of these agencies are experiencing chang-ing roles and may need to consider new pol-i c y o p t i o n s t h a t w o u l d m a x i m i z e t h e i r r e -search potent ia l .

In striving for effective research manage-ment , one important component to consideris a planned systematic classification of theresearch problems at hand. OTA’s study de-scribes the criteria for categorizing the vari-ous levels of fund allocation and for assessingthe responsibility and accountability of thosewho must make the ultimate decisions.

Classification of agricultural research prob-lems for management use is a complex proc-ess. Three broad areas or levels of activity arein the hands of different decisionmakers. Theclassification system for each area may vary,and, although there may be some overlapping

a m o n g a r e a s , the principal responsibilit iesare clear-cut. These three areas are: a) broadnat ional pol icy issues including agr icul ture ,b) issues solely within agricultural research,and c) issues within major research activities.

National Policy Issues, Issues at the nationallevel re la te pr imari ly to management prob-lems such as responsibility, accountability,a n d f u n d i n g . H e r e , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e -search and development (R&D) at the Federallevel is evaluated in relation to other federallyfunded activities and the relative level of im-portance of agricultural R&D v. R&D in other

sectors (such as defense or energy). For themost part, these major policy decisions aremade outs ide the realm of the agr icul tural

sector. They are primarily political decisionsmade by the President in his annual budget,with help from the Office of Management andBudget (OMB), the Off ice of Science andTechnology Policy (OSTP), and Congress.

As a general rule, decisions affecting this

b road a rea a re no t consc ious dec i s ions d i -rected specifically, for example, at the per-centage of the Federal budget for R&D or agri-cul tural R&D. They come about as par t of larger decis ions concerning percept ion re la t-ing to national issues or the well-being of thecoun t ry . Fur the rmore , these changes comeabout gradual ly . They are incremental . Cri-teria used at this level are primarily related tonational concerns of the various sectors of theeconomy and the relative importance of each.Other criteria have been involved at this levelin the past. For example, when Sputnik first

rose above the hor izon in the l a te 1950’s ,there was a clamor for more basic research—almost across the board.

99

8/14/2019 8106


.


Within Agricultural Research. Issues at thesecond level—within agricultural research—relate to programs, funding levels , manage-ment of Federal funds, accountabil i ty, anddecisions on who does what and the relation-ships to other research factors.

The Secre tary of Agr icul ture , h is senior

staff, SAES directors, OSTP, OMB, and Con-gress have varying degrees of input at thislevel,

Scientists may have some input at the sec-ond level, but by the time it reaches the finaldecision level in USDA, most of their inputcannot be identified. SAES have significantinput in the programs and budgets that go tothe Sec re t a ry fo r f o rmula and compe t i t i veg ran t f und ing . The SAES a l so have inpu tthrough lobbying at the congressional level.

USDA research adminis t ra tors , l ikewise ,

have significant input within the Departmentin those programs and budgets re la t ing totheir areas of activity. Although OMB usuallysets l imits on total funding for USDA, theSecretary has some discret ion in al locatinglevels of funding for activities in his Depart-ment. In other words, he can give researchhigh or low priori ty. Congress has the f inalword for broad pr ior i ty a reas and fundinglevels, Thus, a wide array of factors is in-volved, almost exclusively outside the work-ing scientist’s level.

Organized groups such as producers , con-sumers, and environmental is ts also have in-fluence at the second level. Budgets and pro-grams approved by Congress are usually spe-cific as to the general intent of their use. Themajor issues relate to criteria for priority set-ting—i.e., responsibility, accountability, andfurther emphasis on who does what.

Within Research Activities, At the third, orlowest, level of decisionmaking, research ad-ministrators and their scientif ic s taff makethe major decisions on programs and budgetallocations. Nearly always, it is the research

scientist who decides how to conduct such re-search . SAES di rec tors working wi th the i rdepartment heads have a fairly free hand inallocating formula funds and State funds.

Cri ter ia Used for

Class i fy ing Research

Four major criteria are used for classifyingagr icul tura l research ac t iv i ty : 1) the geo-graphical area involved in the research prob-lems, 2) the kind of research required to solvethe problems—e.g . , bas ic , appl ied , e tc . ; 3 )research problem area —e.g., appraisal of soilresources; and 4) program structure—i.e., re-lating research problems to agency goals andmissions, There are some addit ional minorcriteria often used in classifying research (seeFlatt, et al., 1980).

Geographical Area

A c o m m o n c r i t e r i o n f o r c l a s s i f y i n g r e -search is to consider the geographical area in-volved. Five such areas are recognized: local,State, regional, National, and international,

Any problem related to agriculture that oc-curs within a State or a portion of a State isclassified as a State or local problem. One ex-ample of this might be determination of cropand animal adaptabil i ty to various locationsand soil types within a State.

Any problem related to agriculture that ex-tends over a major port ion of two or moreStates—or affects the economy, environment,or social condit ions of the major port ion of two or more States—is classified as a regionalresearch problem, Region does not refer to

SAES or SEA/ AR regional areas, but to pro b-lem areas. One example of a regional researchproblem would be development of a soybeanvariety suitable for the Coastal Plains area of the Southeastern United States,

Any agricultural problem that extends overa c o n s i d e r a b l e p o r t i o n o f m o r e t h a n o n eregion or has a major impact on the economy,envi ronment , or soc ia l condi t ions of morethan one region is classified as a national re-search problem. Examples include a migra-tory pest or disease that affects major por-

t i ons o f two o r more r eg ions and humannutri t ion.

Problems that affect the agriculture of twoor more countries and can be solved by the

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy q101

cooperation of the countries affected are clas-sified as international research problems. Anexample is the control or eradicat ion of thes c r e w w o r m , a n e c t o p a r a s i t e o f l i v e s t o c k ,which overwinters in Mexico and, if not con-trolled, spreads into the United States. It isbeing attacked in Mexico by a joint effort of

g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s i n M e x i c o a n d t h eUnited States.

The advantage, for management purposes ,of differentiating research problems as inter-national, National, regional, State, or local isaccountability for funds. It may be used in ag e n e r a l w a y t o a r b i t r a r i l y d i s t i n g u i s h b e -tween the major roles to be assumed by Stater e s e a r c h a g e n c i e s a s c o m p a r e d t o F e d e r a lagencies such as SEA/ AR. State-app ropr iatedfunds are often intended to be used to supportresearch that would have a direct bearing onsolving local and State problems. Federal for-

mula funds (Hatch) appropriated to States areused primarily to solve problems of the Stateor region. But collectively, in coordinationwith SEA/ AR and other group s, they contrib-ute to the solut ion of problems of nat ionaland internat ional concern.

A n o t h e r a d v a n t a g e o f t h e St a t e / N a t i o n -al/ regional classification is that it tends to in-crease the desire of Federal and State scien-t i st s t o c oo p e r a t e . P r o fe s s io n a l r ec o g n it i o na n d p r o m o t i o n i n a c a d e m i c r a n k i n s o m eState universities are related to national and

international accomplishments; this classifi-cat ion can be of benef i t under such condi-tions.

A disadvantage of using this classificationat the State level is that most research is con-cerned with State problems, even though thatsame research may have regional, national, orinternational significance, So, within a State,additional classifications are needed.

From a Federal s tandpoint , the advantagefor management purposes of dif ferent ia t ingresearch problems as international, National,

regional, State, or local is to reach an under-standing as to who will accept the primary re-sponsibi l i ty for solving a research problem,SEA/ AR, for ins tance, has the pr imar y re-

sponsibility for conducting research that isnational or regional in scope. To do this it isnecessary to define as precisely as possiblewhat the geographical criteria are.

For example, assume that the bol l weevi lh a s s p r e a d a c r o s s t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n C o t t o nBelt and is ser iously damaging cot ton in 12

Sta tes . A lso assume tha t in a l l 12 S ta tesSEA/ AR and ESS have variou s research pro-grams related to the control of the boll weevil.While the cotton in each State is being af-fected, and thus to that State it is a Stateresea rch p rob lem, i t i s by def in i t ion a re -gional problem. Therefore, if a coordinatedregional research thrust is initiated, it wouldbe highly desirable for SEA/ AR to furn ish ascientist to coordinate the regional researcheffort, assuming that SEA/ AR had, or couldemploy, a competent scientist who was an ef-fective leader. The SEA/ AR scientist wou ld

normally have fewer problems traveling any-where in the region at any time needed to dothe coordinat ion.

Two d i sadvan tages fo r management pur -poses of using the geographical criterion forclassifying research problems are: 1) scienceknows no boundaries; therefore, it is difficultto limit scientific thought to one classificationsystem; and 2) some State scientists, especial-ly those using contractor grant funds, maybeworking on problems that are insignificant tothe State. They may or may not be interested

in cooperating on the solution to regional ornational problems.

Kind o f Research

Another common criterion for classifyingresearch is by the kind of approach or type of endeavor needed to solve the problem. Thethree classifications generally used are basic,applied, and developmental.

Basic research is directed toward increasedknowledge in science where the investigatoris concerned primarily with gaining a fuller

knowledge or unders tanding of the subjectunder s tudy.

Applied research is d irected toward prac-tical application of knowledge where the in-

8/14/2019 8106



vestigator is primari ly interested in a prac-tical use of the knowledge or understandingfor the purpose of meeting a recognized need.

Developmental research is the systematicuse of scientific knowledge and understand-ing gained from research directed toward theproduction of useful materials , devices, sys-tems, or methods, including design and devel-opment of prototypes and processes.

The major advantage of using these criteriato classify research is for funding by Federalagencies such as the National Science Foun-dation. USDA has become aware in recentyears of the need for more basic research, andsuch a classification system enables it to allo-cate funds in this manner across discipl inesand po l i t i ca l bounda r i e s . Mos t USDA re -search is mission oriented, which is definedas the aim of achieving a worthwhile goal—

e.g., controlling harmful insects or increasingthe per-acre yield of soybeans. In the processof achieving such a mission or goal, scientistsmay conduct research that embodies all threecomponents—basic , a p p l i e d , a n d d e v e l o p -mental. Today there are so many problems of agricultural production, harvest ing, conser-vation, processing, marketing, and transpor-tat ion that research classif ied as “applied”will continue to be stressed by State and Fed-eral leaders.

A disadvantage of using these cri ter ia is

one of semantics. What one person perceivesas being basic research is viewed by anotherequally qualified person as being applied. Re-s e a r c h i s a c o n t i n u u m r a t h e r t h a n b e i n gclearly defined. Attempts to draw a line of de-marca t ion be tween bas i c and app l i ed r e -search are illusory (Pino, 1980). Pasteur onceremarked that “there is no pure science or ap-plied science— only science and the applica-tion of science. ” More important is that theresearch, whatever its classification, can havean ultimate beneficial effect for mankind.

Research Problem Area

A third criterion used for classifying agri-cultural research is to group problems in anarea in which all of them have one or more

c o m m o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h i s c r i t e r i o n i sused by the Cur r en t Resea rch In fo rma t ionSystem (CRIS), which is a computerized stor-age and retrieval system developed by USDAand the SAES. An example o f a r e sea rchproblem area (RPA) used by CRIS is develop-ment of domestic markets for farm products.

Because CRIS recognizes 98 RPAs, they aregrouped together under nine goals to faci l-itate easier storage and retrieval, (For furtherelaboration, see Flatt, et al., 1980.)

Each CRIS project is also classified by ac-tivity, commodity, and field of science. Belowis an example of the use of the CRIS classifi-cation system for the research project “coat-ing cotton for open-end spinning. ”

Goal V: Improve Efficiency in the Market-ing System,

Research Problem Area (RPA) 501, Im -

provement of grades and standards—cropand animal products.Activity 5600, Chemical and physical prop-

erties of nonfood products.Commodity 2100, Cotton,Field of Science, 1525, Chemistry—inor-

ganic.

In preparing inventories for planning pur-poses, the CRIS report ing units are usuallyaggrega t ed i n to 48 r e sea rch p rog rams andthese i n t u rn a r e agg rega t ed i n to n ine r e -search program groups.

CRIS is used to report all current research

projects of USDA agencies, SAES, and partsof other agricultural research conducted bynon land -g ran t un ive r s i t i e s . I t i s u se fu l f o rState, National , and regional planning pur-poses.

Theore t ica l ly , CRIS provides informat ionon what research is being done by whom andw h e r e . I t a l s o p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n o nme thods and p rocedures , s cope o f t he r e -search , and progress to da te . CRIS can befaulted, however, for the fact that some of thedata it provides are usually 2 to 3 years out of

date. Nevertheless, CRIS is extremely usefulin identifying what is being or has been doneand by whom. Since most research is contin-uous, even though modified, information re-trieved from CRIS has current aspects.

8/14/2019 8106



Despite i ts drawbacks, CRIS gives mana-gers a tool to assist them in planning pro-grams and the ability, if the information is up-dated, to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Program Structure

The Agr icul tura l Research Service (ARS)

d e v e l o p e d t h e M a n a g e m e n t a n d P l a n n i n gSystem (MAPS) which descr ibed i t s com-ponent research programs for planning andevaluation. Essentially, MAPS is a programstructure d e v i c e f o r o r g a n i z i n g t h e s u b j e c tmatter of research so that it relates most effec-tively to the activities and plans of the agency.It provides the framework for the supportingsys t ems and in fo rma t ion needed fo r p l an -ning, report ing, evaluating, budgeting, andexecuting research.

MAPS is a logical continuation of the devel-

opmental program structure that extends tothe individual research project. It consists of miss ions , goals , programs, work- repor t ingunits, and research projects. It relies heavilyon reports from national research programcoord ina to r s wh ich a r e u sed to p rov ide asummary national report . This report , alongwith periodic site visits and national programreviews, facilitates tracking all research, as-sessing progress, keeping abreast of develop-ing technologies, and sensing the importanceof developing research problems.

Actually, MAPS is an adjunct to CRIS and

in some areas of activity uses the computer fa-cilities of CRIS. There is merit in a possiblecombinat ion of CRIS and MAPS in to oneclassif icat ion system. The CRIS system is

used as the basic input for State, Federal, andsome private agricultural research organiza-tions, but the method of aggregation for plan-ning a nd m a n ag em en t p u rp os es differsamong the major performers. A modified sys-tem of classification could be beneficial.

Principal Findings

q No one system of research classificationi s su f f i c i en t f o r a l l managemen t pu rposes .Some systems work better than others, andcertain combinations of systems can be effec-tive. Insofar as USDA is concerned, the local,State, regional , National , and internationalclassification systems along with MAPS, ap-pear to be an effect ive way to manage re-search . USDA also uses CRIS as a way of ma in t a in ing knowledge o f r e sea rch be ingdone by other inst i tut ions and the scientis ts

involved. This classification system is effec-t ive in a l loca t ing Federa l funds to Sta testhrough CR. There is little management of theformula funds, but contract and grant funds,with the help of MAPS, can also be managedin this manner.

q T h i s s y s t e m i s a l s o o f i m p o r t a n c e t oSAES, since most of their funds come fromState legislatures and are primarily for localand State problems. Federal formula fundsare also primarily for problems of local andState importance but can be used on prob-lems of regional , nat ional , or international

significance. But even here, such problemsalso have facets of local and State concern,and general ly i t is these aspects that are of major concern to the State scientists.

EVALUATION OF USDA MANAGEMENT

The diversity, complexity, and broad scope q

of problems in agricultural research were rec-ognized by Congress in 1977 when it definedthe food and agricultural sciences in title XIV

of Public Law 95-113. Title XIV states:Sciences related to food and agriculture in q

the broadest sense, include the social, eco-nomic, and political considerations of:

AND POLICY PROGRAMS

Agriculture, including soil and waterconservation and use, the use of or-ganic waste materials to improve soiltilth an d fertility, plant and animal pro-duction and protection, and plant andanimal health.The processing, distributing, market-ing, and utilization of foods and agri-cultural products.

8/14/2019 8106


104 q An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System —. ..— -.. . ———

q

q

q

q

Forestry, including range manage-ment, production of forest and rangeproducts, multiple use of forest andrange lands, and urban forestry.Aquiculture.Home economics, human nutrition,and family life.Rural and community development.

The situation is further complicated by thefact that research programs must take into ac-coun t t he a t t endan t p rob lems in expor t i ngfood and agr icul tura l products and some of the problems associated with U.S. aid to de-veloping countries. As stated in the NationalAcademy of Sciences (NAS) Committee Re-port of April 1972:

Agricultural research cannot be restrictedto empirical comparisons of methods to in-crease productivity. The agricultural indus-try requires research, policy, and programssufficient to challenge the best efforts andminds of America, On its success depends inlarge part the welfare of the people of theUnited States and of the world. It must begiven the attention, careful and imaginativeplanning, and best judgment of the govern-ment and of scientists,

O v e r t h e ye a r s, p o l ic y ch a n g e s w i t h inUSDA have affected the organizational struc-ture of USDA. Moreover, environmental andsocial issues have, at various times, had sharpimpac t s no t on ly on managemen t me thodsbut also on social perception of the Federalagricultural system. Many of these changesa n d t h e r e s u l t a n t i m p a c t s h a v e i n v o l v e dUSDA’s main research agency, the Scienceand Education Administrat ion,

Science and Educat ion

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

SEA was created in 1977 by USDA in an at-t empt t o improve coo rd ina t ion o f r e sea rchand extension at al l levels of Government.Through early 1981 SEA included what wasf o r m e r l y A R S , t h e C o o p e r a t i v e S t a t e R e -search Service (CSRS), the Extension Service(ES), and the National Agricultural Library,Addit ional responsibil i t ies in human nutr i-t ion , technica l informat ion sys tems, h igher

educat ion , and program management , p lan-ning, and evaluation were assigned to i t bythe Secretary, The functional research unitsof SEA include AR, CR, and HN. *

SEA management includes a program anal-ysis staff whose function is largely one of fos-tering coordination, and a program planning

staff whose major role is to help develop anintegrated budget for SEA,

In t e rna l SEA dec i s ions a r e made by thedirector and associate director in consulta-t ion with the management team. The teamcons is t s of the heads of AR, CR, ES, HN,Technica l Informat ion , Jo in t P lanning andEvaluation, Higher Education, Special Pro-grams, and Administrat ive Management. Inaddit ion, representat ives of subunits usuallyattend as nonvoting but often part icipatingmembers. In reality, therefore, more than theabove 11 a t t end . The managemen t t eam’sfunction is to provide coordination and estab-lish policy that affects the subunits. To date,one of its main activities has been related tobudget preparation. Three of the above agen-cies are of special concern to this study andaddressed in some detail, They are: SEA-AR,SEA-CR, and SEA-HN.

Agr icu l tu ra l Research

USDA, in the recent publication “The Mis-sion of the Science and Education Adminis-trat ion—Agricultural Research,” outl ines themission and goals, the role and special capa-bility of SEA/ AR, the organ ization and fun c-tions, and gives a description of a wide rangeof research programs. It also includes a com-pilation of the statutes relating to the agricul-tura l research activities of the SEA/ AR.

The fo r ego ing s t a t emen t s and documen tidentify the scope and complexity of the agri-cultural sector and the research required toserve i t . The publicat ion further describes:

* 1n June 1981, USDA announced a reorganization that elimi-nated SEA and reestablished ARS, CSRS, and ES. Most of HN~?as merged into ARS. USDA established an Office of SCienceand Education to establish broad agricultural research pol-icies, planning , and coordination. These chan ges are d is-cussed in ch. X and app . A.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch.VI—Management, Structure, and Policy q 10 5 ..—a) the SEA/ AR responsibi li t ies for the na-t ional program, b) the par tnership with theSAES, and c) the association with industry.The document provides a good frameworkfor the assessment of the nat ional researchsystem. The critical questions, however, arew h e t h e r t h e s y s t e m i s f u n c t i o n i n g a s t h epaper purports ; whether the responsibi l i t iesof USDA, SAES, and the private sector are asclearly defined as indicated; whether the rela-tionships are actually as stated; and whetherthe organizat ion, operat ions , and leadershipare of the nature and caliber to make the sys-tem work.

The USDA report furnishes the fol lowingg u i d a n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o n a t i o n a l a n d r e -gional programs:

1. As the USDA’s in-house agricultural re-search unit, SEA/ AR has major responsi-bi l i t ies for conduct ing and leading thenational agricultural research effort.

2 . The SAES, wi th main ly loca l and re -gional interests, work in cooperation onn a t i o n a l a n d b r o a d r e g i o n a l r e s e a r c hefforts.

The foregoing are the longstanding defini-tions of the respective USDA and SAES pri-mary responsibi l i t ies and areas of concern.However, because of the blurring of these na-t ional and regional general ized responsibi l -ities and problems relating to funding at theF e d e r a l l e v e l , t h e p a r t n e r s h i p h a s b e c o m e

somewhat confused and increasingly uncer-tain in the last decade.

It is necessary to adapt and adjust the na-tional research capabilities to meet continu-ally changing requirements of those served bya g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h . T h i s h a s b e e n p a r -ticularly critical in the past few decades asthe continuing needs of farmers for improvedtechnology were joined by the new and in-creasingly pers is tent demands of other sec-tors of society for answers to environmentand consumer interest problems.

Reorganizat ion of 1972

As discussed in chapter III, the reorganiza-tion of USDA’s ARS in 1972 called for two

major staff units at the headquarters to sup-port the administrator’s office. The first staff unit would be composed of the national pro-gram staff (NPS), four ass is tant adminis tra-tors and their staff specialists. It would beconcerned with policy and program develop-ment, evaluation, and coordination. The sec-ond major staff unit would be concerned withbus iness admin is t ra t ion , under a depu ty ad-minis tra tor for adminis tra t ive management .Smaller support staffs were to be responsiblefor nat ional phases of information, in terna-tional programs, and similar assignments.

The major thrust of the reorganization wasto assign the line operating authority to thef ie ld , with four regional deputy adminis tra-tors , and four associate deput ies , to be lo-cated within each of the four SAES regions.E a c h r e g i o n a l d e p u t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r w o u l dhave an administrative services staff, together

with a program planning, development, ande v a l u a t i o n s t a f f , a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a n d b i o -metrical service support.

Each of the four regions was fur ther sub-divided into a series of research area centers,under a research area director (fig. 22).

The effect of the reorganization was to re-assign the former national program investiga-tions leaders to NPS positions, removing theirline responsibility and authority with respectto program development , budget ing, selec-tion of staff, etc. The emphasis was placed on

t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l b o u n d a r i e s r a t h e r t h a nbroad research issues . The nat ional perspec-tive was diminished. By focusing on local andState problems, it became more difficult toemphasize basic research, because of pres-sure by local groups desiring that research beconcentrated on pract ical problems.

B e c a u s e t h e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f A R S h a sbeen in effect for nearly 8 years, it appearsthat sufficient time has clasped to justify anassessment of the current s t ructure with re-spect to the overall national research system.

The significant feature of USDA researchprior to 1972 was that investigation leaders of the ARS branches guided ARS’s regional andnational research efforts to solutions of re-

8/14/2019 8106



Figure 22.—USDA Agricultural Research System


gional and national problems in cooperation tivities, including the expertise of the USDAwith State and regional efforts. The investiga-t ion leaders were national leaders from the

ARS standpoint . Most enjoyed good cooper-ation and respect by researchers at SAES andindustry (Moseman, et al., 1981). This organi-zational structure provided an overlay of re-s e a r c h s u p p o r t t h a t i n c l u d e d s c i e n t i s t s ,equipment , and ope ra t i ng budge t s fo r r e -search that transcended State boundaries andwas of concern in the various farming areas.R e s e a r c h o n c o t t o n w a s c o n d u c t e d a n ds t r eng thened o r mod i f i ed where t ha t c ropw a s g r o w n . S u g a r c a n e g e r m p l a s m a n dbreeding research was concentrated at CanalPoint, Fla., and in Hawaii. Potato genetics

was centered at Sturgeon Bay, Wis. Nationalor regional invest igation leaders were spe-cial is ts in commodity or problem areas andhad in-depth knowledge of their research ac-

and SAES. They-also knew their subject andgeographical terr i tory.

Nearly all of the investigation leaders hada cce s s t o “ so ft ” m on ey , wi th wh ich theyc o u l d c o n t r a c t w i t h S A E S f o r s p e c i a l r e -search to round out specific aspects of the na-t ional program. Cooperat ion and part icipa-tion by State scientists was thus encouraged,but this aspect of the program has largely dis-appeared .

The present “regional” structure of USDAresearch i s super f ic ia l wi th respect to theagriculture of the United States—if consid-ered from the standpoint of production, proc-

essing, marketing, or distribution or from thestandpoint of national resource use and man-agement, environmental factors, or consumerconcerns. In contrast, the SAES regions fur-

8/14/2019 8106



n i s h a m e c h a n i s m f o r i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e nStates shar ing a general geographic area of the United States to relate to common oper-at ion and management problems as wel l assubject areas of mutual concern. The strengthof the former ARS organizat ional s t ructurewas its ability to relate to an individual State

and to the group of States within the SAESregions, and then to transcend these bound-aries and furnish the cohesive and coordinat-ing services and funct ions on a nat ionwidescale.

Under the present organizational structure,respons ib i l i ty fo r a g iven commodi ty p ro -gram is highly decentralized. Although NPSprovide technical leadership, they function asstaff members and do not have line authority.They can advise and exer t some inf luence,but do not have authority to make decisionsconcerning resource allocation. In the lattercase, many others are involved in terms of anational program. Consider, for example, thecase of wheat. It would appear necessary toc o n d u c t , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e h a r d r e d w i n t e rwheat research program through the concur-rence of the AR deputy administrators for theS o u t h e r n , W e s t e r n , a n d N o r t h - C e n t r a l r e -g ions . I t would be necessa ry a l so to workthrough and with 7 area research directorsand the directors of 11 SAES. The interactionwith other regions of the United States wherewhea t i s g rown would requ i re an ex tendedgauntle t of regional deputy adminis tra tors ,area directors, and SAES directors. This or-ganizational structure has resulted in a dilu-t ion of nat ional leadership for nat ional pro-grams and, in effect , subst i tu ted a ser ies of programs oriented to local, State, or severalState areas.

The planning and coordination of researchin specific research problem areas should bedone by knowledgeable scient is ts . This be-comes more impor tan t when the number o f locations is large and consolidation desirable.AR has more field locations than necessary to

c o n d u c t e f f e c t i v e n a t i o n a l a n d r e g i o n a lresea rch , wi th in the p resen t l imi ta t ion o f f u n d s a n d p e r s o n n e l c e i l i n g ( N A S , 1 9 7 2 ;Moseman, et al., 1981). Further, at a number

of these locations, the research programs arep r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h l o c a l a n d S t a t eproblems. In some cases, efforts have beenmade to close such locations. These effortshave met strong political opposition from thelocal community and their congressional rep-resentatives (Moseman, et al., 1981). Usually,

this has been sufficient to prevent their clos-ing. Area directors and local AR administra-tors also frequently work against closing anyresearch effort in their “domain.” Area direc-tors appear to have no function from a tech-nical or scientific standpoint. They could bemore productive in a field station or labora-to ry where the i r sc ien t i f i c exper t i se cou ldrelate to their ass ignment (Moseman, e t a l . ,1981).

Congressional and Professional React ion

In hear ings before a subcommittee of the

House Appropria t ions Committee , ChairmanWhitten repeatedly quizzed USDA represent-atives on the 1972 reorganization of ARS. Hewas most critical of the new regional struc-ture. Examples of some comments are:

Mr. Administer: Mr. Chairman, we arecharged with the operation of a national pro-gram of research to meet the national needs.

M r . W h i t t e n : T h a t i s w h a t y o u w e r echarged with before. But, as you changed, yougave that responsibility to the men at Belts-ville, and the men in Peoria, and the men inBerkeley, and the men in New Orleans, hav-

ing assigned th em you r responsibility, why d owe need you . , . every time you have a regionyou have a breakdown point between the peo-ple and the Members of Congress who repre-sent them. You have a breakdown betweenthe Secretary of Agriculture and the fieldwhere the work is. The more regional peoplethey have to go through the worse it is—whenyou d elegate it, have a straight line to the manwho does the work—don’t have it broken inPeoria.

Mr. Long: May I add one other comment,Mr. Chairman, that relates to Mr. Edmin-ister’s response to your question?

The regionalization of ARS took placebefore I came on the scene. However, I havehad a chance to observe the results in the fieldand from here for some months now.

8/14/2019 8106



Though I don’t pose as an expert on the dif-ference that exists between now and then, Ido observe one thing that I think is importan t.Regionalization, I believe, has given us assist-ance in the area of close coordination withthe university system, It is an extremely im-portant element. There are no dollars in thisbudget indicating what we are gaining here in

terms of coordination and cooperation.We have a lot of work to do but w e are mak-ing headway and I think the regionalization isbroadly helping us in this area to work moreclosely with the universities and other re-search facilities in the country, I could go intomore d etail on this but I think it is an elementwe ought to weigh.

Mr. Whitten. I have a high regard for theuniversities in this country but this is notmeant to be an aid to the university program.This is meant to be the U.S. Department of Agriculture research program. We have allsorts of regional research; we h ave had exper-

iment stations; the land-grant college grants,the various programs that make money avail-able for research, I repeat, this is not an aid tothe Extension Service nor to the experiments t a t i ons , bu t t he Fede ra l r e sea rch p ro -gram . . . .

I think I have mad e it quite clear that w e arenot particularly pleased with the new or-ganization.

Many scientists, not just USDA scientists,were disturbed by the 1972 reorganization.Entomologists were suff iciently disturbed toask the Entomological Society of America to

name a commi t t ee t o s tudy the impac t o f U S D A - A R S r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o n t h e e n -tomology profession.

T h e c o m m i t t e e t o o k t h e f o l l o w i n g a p -proaches in this study:

1.

2.

3.

Personal in terv iews of ARS entomolo-gists , administrators , and State person-nel.Personal letters to entomologists on NPSand PAC staff and entomologists current-ly assigned as assistant area directors orarea directors .

Questionnaires were developed and sentto all ARS entomologists GS-9 and above,s e l e c t e d l a b o r a t o r y d i r e c t o r s a n d r e -search leaders, SAES directors, and all

heads o r cha i rmen o f en tomology de -par tments .

T h e r e s p o n s e w a s s u m m a r i z e d i n f o u rtables. The committee fel t the results wereself-explanatory and did not discuss them indetail.

The number o f USDA en tomolog i s t s r e -sponding was 215 and nearly all were nega-tive to the reorganization (table 7). In general,

Table 7.—USDA Entomologists’ Response to1972 USDA Reorganization (215 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Do you feel that you have as a scientist, more or lessrestrictions on your research activity?More—44.2% Less—29.8% No change—26.00/0

Are you involved more or less in preparing reports andother paperwork since the reorganization?More—38.0% Less—13.4% About the same—48.6%

Do you feel that you have been able to communicateyour needs better under the new organization than theold?

Yes—28.8% No —61.0% No change—10.20/0

Has the new organization been more responsive toyour research needs than under the old system?Yes—27.0% NO—61.0% No change—12.0%

Do you feel that the new organization has been prop-erly and thoroughly explained to you as a researchscientist?Yes—56.70/0 No—41.40/o No answer—1 .9°/0

Do you feel that communication between entomolo-gists within the USDA under the new system isadequate?Yes—28.80/0 No—69.30/o No change—1.9%

Do you feel that the reorganization has promoted acloser cooperation and alignment with State entomol-ogists?

Yes—1 1.20/0 No—26.50/o About the same—62.30/0Do you personally feel that your opportunities foradvancement in your field have been enhanced by thereorganization?Yes—1 1 .2% NO—80.0% No change—9.80/0

Do you feel that the prestige and effectiveness ofentomology as a discipline within the USDA systemhas been adversely affected by the reorganization?Yes—73.0% No—23.0% No change—4.00/0

Do you feel that the reorganization has affected sig-nificantly the recruitment of outstanding young ento-mologists into USDA?Yes—30.3% No—55.6% No change

(too early to assess)1 4 .1 %

Do you feel that the reorganization will affect signifi-cantly implementation o-f future large-scale experi-ments and area suppression/eradication programs?Yes—52.50/0 No—38.1 0/0 No change—9.40/0

SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No. 1, March 1974.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy q 1 0 9

t h e y f el t t h a t : a ) c om m u n i ca t io n w it h inUSDA among entomologists was inadequateunder the new system, b) opportunity for ad-vancement in their f ield had not been en-hanced by the reorganization, c) prestige andeffectiveness of entomology as a disciplinewithin USDA had been adversely affected by

the reorganization, and d) closer cooperationwith State entomologists, a major reason forthe reorganization, was about the same.

Twen ty - two USDA re sea rch l eade r s andlaboratory directors answering the quest ion-naire found few positive attributes to the reor-ganiza t ion ( tab le 8) . They were concerneda b o u t : a ) m o r e p a p e r w o r k a n d b u d g e t a r ywork, b) no better line of communication tohigher administration. c) less response to en-tomological needs, d) inadequacy of NPS inoverall planning at the national level, and e)cooperat ion and coordination with State en-tomologists, a major reason for the reorgani-zation, being no better than before.

Table 8.—USDA Research Leaders’ and LaboratoryDirectors’ Response to 1972 USDA Reorganization

(22 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4,

5.

6.

7.

Do you find yourself doing more or less paperwork andbudgetary work since the reorganization?More—77.3% Less—4.5% About the same—18.2%

Do you feel that you now have a better line of com-munication to the higher administration than beforethe reorganization?Yes—27.3% N o—4 5. 55 About the same—27.2%

Do you feel that you are adequately able to transmit

your unit’s research and budgetary needs through cur-rent organization as well as through the old organiza-tion?Yes—40.9% No—36.4% About the same—22.7%

Is the new organization more or less responsive to en-tomological needs than before reorganization?More—9.1 % Less—59.1% About the same—31.8%

Do you feel that the NPS and PAC staffs are adequatefor overall planning at the national level, programreview and evaluation, and coordination?Yes—22.7% No—72.7% No opinion—4.5%

Do you feel that you have a sufficiently close relation-ship with NPS and PAC staffs to effectively com-municate research needs in entomology?No—72.8% Yes—27.2%

Do you feel that more cooperation and coordinated ef-forts have developed with State entomologists andother personnel since the reorganization?Yes—22.7% No—50.0% About the same—27.3%

Thirty-four SAES directors responded ( ta-ble 9]. Their response indicated that at the ad-ministrative level, but not necessarily at thescientist level, communication was improvedat least from a cooperative State-Federal teama p p r o a c h , a n d t h a t U S D A w a s r e s p o n d i n gmore to local and State research needs.

The chairmen and heads of departments of entomology (36) gave responses that were themost negative of those contacted (table 10).They felt that: a) their departments’ relationswith USDA entomologists had not improved,

Table 9.—Experiment Station Directors’ Responseto 1972 USDA Reorganization (34 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Has communication improved between your officeand USDA Administrators since the reorganization?Yes—73.5% No—20.5% No change—6.0%

Has USDA been more or less responsive to local andState research needs since the reorganization?More—44.1% Less—3.0% About the same—52.9%

Has the new reorganization catalyzed any significantcooperative State-Federal team approaches to solvinglocal or regional problems in your State?Yes—44.1% No—47.0% About the same—8.9%

Do you feel that the reorganization has affected theability of any one discipline in carrying out programs,i.e., entomology, agronomy, agricultural engineering,etc.?

Yes No No change or opinion14.7 ”/0 82.30/o 3.0 ”/0

Have you noted a closer and more cooperative rela-tionship between individual State and Federal dis-ciplinary scientists since the reorganization?Yes—23.50/0 No— 17.5?40 About the same—59.0%

Did you have prior knowledge of the reorganizationbefore it occurred?No—55.90/o Yes—44.90/0

Did you have an opportunity to express your opinionsto USDA officials?Yes—32.4% No—67.6%

Do you now feel that the reorganization has strength-ened or weakened the USDA in research effec-tiveness?Strengthened Weakened About the same

41.2% 11 .8% 47.0%

Did the reorganization significantly affect your sta-tion’s mode of research operation?NO —88.1 % Yes—8.9% No opinion—3.0%

Do you feel that the reorganization has affected the

training of graduate students significantly at youruniversity?Significantly Not significantly No opinion

0% 97.0% 3.0%

SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No 1, March 1974 SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No 1, March 1974

8/14/2019 8106


110 . An Assessment of the u.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

Table 10.–Chairmen and Heads of the EntomologyDepartment’s Response to 1972 USDA

Reorganization (36 reporting)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

In your opinion, has the USDA reorganization improvedyour department’s relations with USDA entomologists?Yes—1 1.1% No—72.2% No change—16.7%

Do you feel that locally USDA entomologists are moreor less responsive to entomological problems in your

area, State, and region?Yes—50.0% No—16.7% No change—33.3%

Has the USDA reorganization had a significant impacton your State research programs?Yes—16.7% NO —80.6% No change—2.7%

Do you feel that the reorganization has improved or im-paired employment opportunities for your entomologystudents?Improved Impaired No change

2.7% 44.5 % 52.8%

in your professional opinion, do you feel that the imageof USDA entomologists has been damaged by thereorganization?Yes—72.2% No —25.0% No difference—2.7%

Do you feel that it is easier or harder to get entomologyresearch projects funded through ARS, USDA since the

reorganization?Easier—5.5% Harder—55.5% No difference—39.0%

in your contacts with USDA entomology personnel,what would be your current assessment of theirreaction to the reorganization after approximately1 year?Favorable Unfavorable No opinion

5.5% 80.5% 14.0%

Do you feel that the reorganization has with ARSDecreased research productivity—19.4%Research productivity has remained

about the same—80.6%

Do you feel that the reorganization hasImproved the security and opportunity

for entomologists—5.5%Lessened the security and opportunity

for entomologists—83.3%No change—11.2%

SOURCE: Entomological Society of America, vol. 20, No. 1, March 1974.

b) there had been no signif icant impact onS ta t e r e sea rch p rog rams , c ) t he image o f USDA entomologists had been damaged, andd) it was more difficult to get entomology re-search projects funded through USDA sincethe reorganization.

As indicated earlier, the committee did notanalyze the data in detail. It did make a few

general comments which clearly indicated itsbelief that the new organization was less ef-fective than the former. The following is onesuch comment:

The reorganization has fragmented the larg-est body of entomologists in the world work-ing effectively together as a single unit. Therole that this unit once served as an organiza-tion structure and communication trunklinefor nationwide entomological research is nomore. The advantages or disadvantages of thereorganization and its impact on the profes-

sion can at this point only be debated, andonly time will enable us to fully evaluate thefull significance of the reorganization (pp.51-52).

Time has shown that the new organization, asnow functioning, is probably less effect ivethan the committee anticipated.

Regional Boundaries andNat ional Needs

The geograph ica l a r ea cove red by eachregional deputy administrator was chosen to

coincide with the SAES regional areas and,consequently, to aid in communicating andw o r k i n g w i t h t h e S A E S . H o w e v e r , t h e s eareas have no signif icance to truly regionalresearch problems. Such problems do not fol-low State l ines, nor do most groups of re-gional problems fall within the same clusterof States. AR regional administrators mostl ikely do not possess the technical expert iseneeded to make sound judgments on the tech-nica l components of the i r var ied researchportfol io because of the wide-ranging subjects, which may include poultry, beef cattle,

corn, soil erosion, and plant disease.The present organizational s tructure does

provide the environment for interdisciplinaryresearch. This is a positive aspect of the or-ganization if a national research focus as op-posed to a local one exists. However, main-taining a national focus is difficult with thepresent organization and there is nothing top rec lude NPS f rom be ing o rgan ized a longinterdiscipl inary l ines.

The development of s t rong, e f f ic ient re -search programs directed toward the solution

of regional and national problems requiress t rong t echn ica l l eade r sh ip a t t he na t iona llevel. Such leaders must have full knowledgeof the technical and scientific aspects of the

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Review Funct ion

CR conducts onsite systematic subject mat-ter reviews in all of the States. These reviewsinclude not only research funded by Hatch orgrant funds but, by mutual consent, all of theresearch, regardless of the source of funding.

Review teams include experts from univer-sities as well as from the USDA and the pri-vate sector. At the close of the review, they re-port to the scientis ts , department head, andSAES director. The reviews generally coverbroad subject areas such as crop science ands o i l s c i e n c e , T h e y a r e u s u a l l y c o n d u c t e devery 3 to 5 years, and their purpose is toserve the needs of the research group that re-quested it (Special Review Process, USDA,1980). They deal only brief ly with the pastand emphas ize approaches to program im-provement and p lans for fu ture endeavors .

After giving an oral and a subsequent writtenstatement of the review, there is no furtherfollowup. Acceptance of recommendations isan option of the client institution. If a requestis not made for a review of an area of workwithin 3 to 4 years, CR may suggest that areview be undertaken. There are no legal re-quirements for reviews; they are conductedas part of CR’s responsibility for coordinationof research sponsored by Hatch funds. How-ever, most SAES personnel bel ieve they arebeneficial (Lovvorn, 1980).

All Hatch-supported projects are sent to CR

for review and approval or disapproval . Bymutual consent between CR and the SAES di-rectors , al l State-supported projects are alsosent to CR. Thus, the CR staff is knowledge-able of all activities at the State level. Thisdesk project review process is not always pro-duct ive . Most SAES di rec tors submit goodoutl ines; some do not . Some CR staff mem-bers make excellent contributions to the out-line; others do not (Lovvorn, 1980).

The House Science and Technology Com-m i t t e e — i n 1 9 7 6 h e a r i n g s o n a g r i c u l t u r a l

R & D — f o u n d t h a t t h e s p e c i a l a n d o n s i t ereviews of SAES performed by CR should bes t r eng thened and more wide ly u sed . They

also suggested that , where appropriate, in-creased use of qualif ied scientis ts from out-side the USDA-SAES system should be en-couraged. These recommendations appear tobe still valid.

Administ rat ion of Grants

CR also administers a research-grants pro-gram that uses the competitive process in theselection of grantees. These programs are:

1.

2.

3.

4.A

competi t ive research grants program tosupport basic research in the food andagricultural sciences,special research grants program to sup-por t research deemed by Congress andUSDA to be of particular importance tothe Nation,a l coho l s and indus t r i a l hyd roca rbonsprogram, and

native latex research program.comparable grant program for the Solar

Energy Systems for Agriculture Program isadministered by SEA’s Southern Energy Cen-ter in Tifton, Ga. Guidelines for grants to beawarded compet i t ive ly are publ i shed annu-ally in the Federal Register.

A CR p rog ram manage r i s s e l ec t ed whochairs the peer panel and reviews and scoresproposals for special grants. Each panel con-sists of eight members, including the chair-person. The panel is selected from: a) USDA

and other Federal agencies (minimum of one);b) SAES, forestry schools, schools of veter-inary medicine, and colleges of 1890 and Tus-kegee Institute (minimum of three); c) scien-t is ts of nonland-grant inst i tut ions with foodand agricultural research capabil i t ies (min-imum of one); and d) scientists with neededexpe r t i s e no t cove red by a member l i s t edabove or by the chairperson. The programmanage r summar i zes t he pane l ’ s f i nd ings ,and on the recommendat ions of the CR ad-ministrator, the SEA director signs off on theproposal (Policies and Procedures for Special

Grants, USDA, 1980). The CR administratorcould make this decision without this extralayer of administration.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy “ 113

Regional Research

Section 3(c)3 of the Hatch Act provides thatup to 25 percent of the funds may be used forregional research to “stimulate and facilitateinterstate cooperation on research of a re-g i o n a l a n d n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r b o t h a m o n gSAES and with the United States Department

of Agr icu l tu re” (USDA Food and Agr icu l -tural Research Grants, 1980).

CR has the responsibility for administeringthese funds. Advisory to CR is the Committeeof Nine, a committee specified by law to in-c lude e igh t SAES d i rec to r s and one homeeconomics research administrator. The con-cept is good and i t has encouraged cooper-ation among States, but the SAES directorshave not allowed the committee enough au-thority to plan and carry out strong regionalprograms (Lovvorn, 1980).

The regional projects carried out under theSAES basically constitute a group of scien-tists working on a problem of importance tomore than one State . The funds for the re-gional projects give these scientists an oppor-tunity to get together and exchange informa-tion. Some change in direction or emphasis of their research may take place as a resul t of such meetings, but there is no one with au-thority to allocate resources (personnel andfunds) to any given area of activity. There isno one source of accountability, and there isno assurance that all aspects of the needed re-

sea rch wi l l be covered . Notwi ths tand ing ,these regional funds have been extremely use-ful. Not only do they benefit the work that isimportant to each of the cooperat ing States ,but usual ly the net resul t is a greater andmore coordinated effor t than i t would havebeen without such funds.

SAES-sponsored regional research shouldbe cooperative with AR where the problem isof sufficient regional or national importanceto require AR input . With interest and ca-pable technical leadership, AR should be ableto adjust its resource input to give assurance

that all necessary aspects of the problem arecovered. Thus, the SAES would be contribut-ing to those aspects that are most useful and

of most interest to them, but the total effortshould lead to a fully rounded research attackon the regional or national problem. Prior tothe 1972 reorganization of ARS, most ARScooperative research with the SAES took thisform of cooperation (Moseman, et al., 1981).

eva lua t ionAttempting to evaluate the adminis tra t ive

and management aspec t o f CR i s d i f f i cu l tconsidering the long history of legislation andthe independent nature of each of the SAES.The original Hatch Act makes the directors of the SAES responsible and accountable for theHatch funds they receive. From the legis la-t ion and the manner in which CR (and i tspredecessors) operates, it appears that CR isan agency only for transmitting funds and forcoordination. CR operates as though it wereunder the supervision of the SAES directors,

rather than the administrator of SEA.

There is no doubt that strengthening the re-sea rch base and bas ic resea rch o f a l l theSAES is desirable and in the public interest,a n d i t s h o u l d b e d o n e t h r o u g h t h e H a t c hprocess. It is difficult for SAES to agree onb u d g e t s o r p r o g r a m s t h a t d o n o t p r o v i d esomething for everyone. However, in times of stringent budgets it is difficult, if not impossi-b le , to conv ince everyone , e spec ia l ly Con-gress, that this is the most efficient way tosolve agricultural research problems, A quick

glance at the Food and Agricultural ResearchGrants, fiscal year 1980, shows most of themto be small and spread over a large number of institutions (USDA Food and Agricultural Re-search Grants, 1980), Since competitive ands p e c i a l g r a n t s w e r e n o t m e a n t t o t a k e t h eplace of formula funding, they should be builtm o r e a r o u n d m a j o r n e w p r i o r i t y p r o b l e m sthat would enable new thrusts to be initiateduntil ongoing programs can be shifted.

Quest ions have been raised as to whetherCR is the appropria te agency to adminis terthe competitive research grants program. All

U.S. research institutions and scientists thathave expertise and capabilities are supposedto be [and should be) considered equally as

8/14/2019 8106



possible grantees. Having one agency, whosemain function and purpose is so closely tiedto one se g me n t o f th e r e se a rc h c o mmu n i ty(and which rece ives a la rge share o f thegrants), administer these grants gives reasonfor concern. In 1980, out of a total of 207grants, 114 went to land-grant institutions, 13

to Federal agencies, and 80 to nonland-grantins t i tu t ions (USDA, Food and Agricu l tu ra lResearch Grants, 1980). This is consistentw i t h t h e r a t i o o f a p p l i c a t i o n s t o g r a n t sreceived.

There would be less criticism and at leastthe appearance of more objectivity if thesegrants were administered by a separate officewithin SEA that had no allegiance to any spe-cial facet of the agricultural research com-munity. This office would include the admin-is t ra t ion o f the compet i t ive g ran ts fo r the

Solar Energy System for Agriculture Program(now administered directly by SEA’s South-ern Energy Center).

Human Nut r i t i on

Authorization for Federal human nutri t ionresearch o f importance to U.S . c i t izens isprincipally the province of USDA and the De-p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h a n d H u m a n S e r v i c e s(DHHS). Within DHHS, it is funded or con-d u c t e d m a i n l y b y N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s o f Health (NIH) and to a lesser extent by the

F o o d a n d Dru g Ad min i s t r a t io n (F DA) a n dCenter for Disease Control (CDC). Other agen-cies (IDCA/ AID, DOC/ NOAA, DOD, NASA,NSF, and VA) are involved to lesser degreesi n c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f h u m a n n u t r i t i o nresearch.

A l th o u g h h u ma n n u t r i t io n r e se a rc h h a dbeen done by USDA under an 1862 congres-sional mandate until the passage of the 1977farm bill, direct Federal effort was confinedto very few issues which related to nationalproblems concerned with nutrition. The 1977

farm bill specifically singled out certain mis-sion-oriented research which was needed toconduct large national intervention programsin v o lv in g n u t r i t io n a n d to so lv e n a t io n a lissues concerned with diet in health promo-

t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , i t s p e c i f i e d t h a t c o o r -d i n a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h i n a n damong Federa l agenc ies on the sub jec t o f human nutrition take place.

Human Nutr i t ion Research in USDA

During the 95th Congress, the displeasureof Congress with the state of Federal humannutri t ion research became apparent. At onepoint in the drafting of the 1977 farm bill, allnutrition research was placed within the pur-view of USDA. This language did not survivethe conference committee , but the NationalAgriculture Research, Extension, and Teach-ing Policy Act of 1977, Public Law 95-113, es-tablished “firmly the Department of Agricul-ture as the lead agency in the Federal Govern-ment for the food and agricultural sciences, ”a n d fu r th e rmo re th a t “ th e De p a r tme n t o f

Agriculture is designated as the lead agencyof the Federal Government for agricultural re-search (except with respect to the biomedicalaspects of human nutri t ion concerned withdiagnosis or treatment of disease) . . . .“ Spe-cifically, the law states: “The Secretary shallestablish research into food and human nutri-tion as a separate and distinct mission of theDepartment of Agriculture, and the Secretaryshall increase support for such research to al e v e l th a t p ro v id e s r e so u rc e s a d e q u a te tomeet the policy of this subtitle. ” In addition,the Secretary of Agriculture was directed to

“establish jointly with the Secretary of HEWprocedures for coordination with respect ton u t r i t i o n r e s e a r c h i n a r e a s o f m u t u a linterest, ” and to “coordinate a ll agriculturalresea rch , ex tension , and teach ing ac t iv i tyconducted or financed by the Department of Agriculture and, to the maximum extent prac-t icab le , by o ther agenc ies o f the execu t ivebranch of the United States Government. ”

The USDA was specifically delegated thefollowing research goals:

1 . research on human nutri t ional require-

ments;2 . research on the nutrient composition of

foods and the effects of agricultural prac-t ices , hand l ing , f o o d p r o c e s s i n g , a n dcooking on the nutrients they contain;

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Figure 23.—USDA Human Nutrition Research Centers

Consumer Nutrition Center . . . . . . . . . . 1954

Grand Forks HN Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1966ofND

HN Res. Center on Aging at Tufts. . . . . 1978 CR95-1579 Tufts

0 31

1 10

9 5

0 16 5

1

$6,435 $6,943 8,532 8,146

2,408 2,788

2,000 3,704

2,500 2,800

1,000 2,010

HNCommercialleasedHN

Cooperator

Cooperator

Fed.Dept. Army

“Original human nutrition research dates back to 1893 based on a Congressional Directive in 1862.qq USDA contact personnel.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981.

and made up of scientific experts from out-side USDA) reviews the scientif ic and tech-nical aspects of the program.

Administrat ively, the coordination, direc-t ion, and monitoring of the centers are car-r i ed ou t by t he HN Admin i s t r a to r ’ s s t a f f through onsite visits and analysis of annualreports and plans from the centers and theiradvisory and oversight bodies. These anal-yses are the basis for the Administrator’s se-lection of priority problems to meet nationalneeds. It is unclear, however, how a directorof a research center who is not a USDA em-ployee, but rather an employee of the cooper-

ating institution, would interact with the Ad-ministrator and his or her staff. The relation-ship would seem to be that of a contractor-contractee rather than that of the usual chain

of command. It is also not clear what lines of authori ty and responsibil i ty exist between adirector or research leader of a center if theya re no t USDA employees and the i r USDAstaff.

I n add i t i on t o t he r e sea rch work o f t hecenters, HN has the responsibility to: 1) sup-port extramural research in human nutrition;2) develop and disseminate to the public anduse r g roups nu t r i t i on i n fo rma t ion th roughappropriate educational programs; 3) devel-op effect ive coordination mechanisms withother agencies concerned wi th human nut r i -

t ion; 4) conduct technica l c learance of a l lhuman nut r i t ion educat ion and informat ionmaterials; and 5) ensure that human nutritionprograms and policy decisions at USDA re-

8/14/2019 8106



fleet and are consistent with scientific con-sensus.

T h e h u m a n n u t r i t i o n c o m p o n e n t o f t h ec o m p e t i t i v e g r a n t s p r o g r a m , w h i l e c o o r -dinated with HN, is funded and administeredthrough CR. The fiscal year 1981 budget al-lowed $2 .9 mi l l ion fo r the p rogram. Th is

reflects an absolute drop of $0.1 million sincethe program’s inception in 1978. At this leveland with the a l lowable research topics l im-ited to a few narrow areas, it does not seemthat th is grants program wil l be capable of stimulating significant creative research ef-forts in nutrition.

Finally, SAES, 1890 land-grant colleges andTuskegee Ins t i tu te , ca r ry ou t nu t r i t ion re -search with Hatch Act or other Federal funds.Determination of research direction is largelydetermined at a local level.

E a c h o f t h e a b o v e U S D A a c t i v i t i e s i nhuman nu t r i t ion resea rch i s ea rmarked andbudgeted for human nutr i t ion research in aprospective manner. Related work in animalso r p l a n t s w o u l d n o t b e c o u n t e d t o w a r dh u m a n n u t r i t i o n r e s e a r c h . T h e d e f i n i t i o nused for human nutrition at USDA is defined,clear-cut, and narrow.

Coordinat ion With Other

Federal Agencies

A H u m a n N u t r i t i o n P o l i c y C o m m i t t e e ,

established by USDA, oversees all nutritionefforts within USDA; coordinates and inte-grates the human nutr i t ion research, educa-tion, and information activities within USDA;and cooperates with other Government agen-cies in coordinating their activities with thoseof USDA.

The basic attempt at coordination of humannutrition research within the Federal Govern-ment has been the Jo in t Subcommit tee onHuman Nutrition Research of the Committeeo n H e a l t h a n d M e d i c i n e ( J S H N R ) a n d t h eC o m m i t t e e o n F o o d a n d R e n e w a b l e R e -

sources , Federa l Coord ina t ing Counc i l onSc ience , En gin eer in g, a n d Te ch n o l og y ,OSTP. The committee meets at fairly regular

intervals and has high-ranking representa-tives from all Federal agencies involved withhuman nutr i t ion research.

The USDA HN Administrator and the chairof the DHHS NIH’s Nutr i t ion Coordinat ingCommittee are the cochairs of this joint sub-

committee; however, all the staff work is pro-vided by DHHS NIH. During the 2½ years of its existence, the subcommittee has enunci-ated a Federal definition of human nutritionresearch; it is an extremely broad definitionw h i c h e n c o m p a s s e s m u c h o f t h e b a s i c r e -search in cell biology, molecular biochemis-t r y , m e m b r a n e t r a n s p o r t , e t c . , w h i c h t h eDHHS NIH classifies as human nutrition re-search. In fact, the JSHNR definition virtuallyduplicates the definition for human nutritionresearch that NIH f i rs t expounded in 1977.JSHNR has also produced the first of a three-

p a rt r ep o rt e n t i t le d Federa l ly Suppor ted Human Nutrition Research and Training and

E d u c a t i o n Update for the 1980’s , Par t 1 :

H u m a n N u t r i t i o n R e s e a r c h a n d T r a i n i n g .

Parts II and III will focus on internationalnutrition research and nutrition education re-search, educat ion for profess ionals and forthe public. JSHNR has been ineffective in fur-ther ing the development of the congression-a l l y m a n d a t e d N a t i o n a l S t a t u s M o n i t o r i n gSystem. Also, effective advance coordinationof Federa l r esea rch p ro jec t s has ye t to bedemons t ra ted .

Human Nutr i t ion Research in DHHS

The overall role of DHHS in human nutri-t i o n r e s e a r c h w a s b r o a d l y m a n d a t e d , a l -though never specif ical ly mentioned in thePublic Health Service Act of 1944 (Public Law410). However, after passage of the 1977 farmbill, DHHS’s role in human nutrition researchand education was precisely defined by Pub-lic Law 95-622, the Biomedical Research andTraining Amendments of 1978. Of DHHS’smany divisions, only FDA has separate statu-

t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o c o n d u c t h u m a n n u t r i t i o nresearch to regulate the safety and labeling of foods.

8/14/2019 8106



DHHS has a ve ry d i f f e r en t managemen tsetup from USDA. At the department level ,DHHS employs an execu t ive s ec r e t a ry fo ri t s depar tment -wide Nutr i t ion Coordina t ingCommittee; this position has no line manage-ment or budgetary authority but is a staff ad-visory post which reports to the Deputy As-

sistant Secretary for Health. Since 1977, thispost has been held by professors of medicineo n l e a v e f r o m t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e m e d i c a lschools for a year.

DHHS’s portion of the Federal human nu-tr i t ion research budget is f igured at $137.3million by JSHNR or greater than 76 percentof the Federa l Government’s e f for t in th isa r ea . However , t h i s f i gu re i s compi l ed byusing the broad definition of human nutritionresearch discussed in the previous sect ion.Relatively limited amounts, less than 2.5 per-cent of the DHHS’s total effort, of money areallocated to the mission-oriented human nu-trition research programs in FDA, CDC, andthe Nat ional Center for Heal th Sta t i s t ics .These are mainly intramural programs, al-though FDA has recently expanded i ts con-tracted research, and are staffed by profes-sionals expert in human nutr i t ion researchwho have clear-cut programs with definedmanagement s t ruc ture .

T h e b u l k o f h u m a n n u t r i t i o n r e s e a r c hfunded by DHHS (over 93 percent) is adminis-tered by NIH. At the institute-wide level there

is a special assistant to the director who actsa s t he cha i r o f t he NIH Nu t r i t i on Coord i -nating Committee (NCC). This committee iscomposed of one representative from each of the inst i tutes conducting research, adminis-tering research, or having an interest in nutri-tion. With the exception of the newly fundedCl in ica l Nutr i t ion Research Uni t (CNRU),NCC has no l ine management or budgetaryauthority over any nutrition research. Even inthe case of CNRU the funds are provided bythree of the institutes (National Cancer Insti-tute (NCI), National Heart, Lung, and Blood

Inst i tute, and National Inst i tute of Arthri t is ,Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases).

Grants make up the largest share of humannu t r i t i on r e sea rch do l l a r s a t NIH and a r e

admin i s t e r ed by the Div i s ion o f Resea rchGrants, This group is totally independent of any of the institutes. The staff does not reviewgrant applications but sets up outside studys e c t i o n s a n d c o o r d i n a t e s t h e i r a c t i v i t i e sthrough a staff executive secretary. Study sec-t ions composed of outside expert reviewers

are set up to review each area of biomedicalresearch including nutrition. After grants arefunded for the year , the abstracts of thesegrants are reviewed by the relevant institutesand NCC, and the nutrition-related moneys inthese grants assigned. Thus, an NIH grantcan be anywhere from 1 to 100 percent nutri-t i on . More t han 75 pe rcen t o f t he g r an t sdesignated nutrition related are reviewed bystudy sections other than nutr i t ion. There-fore, the major emphasis of these grants is notnutrition. In contrast to USDA, grant moneysf rom NIH a re de t e rmined to be nu t r i t i on

related after the fact, rather than before thegrant is made.

In s t i t u t e s (o r g roups o f i n s t i t u t e s unde rcoordination of NCC) may put out a requestfor applicat ion (RFA) for grants in the spe-cif ic neglected areas of nutr i t ion; proposalstha t a re funded under th is mechanism arecons ide red to be 100 pe rcen t nu t r i t i on r e -lated. Six such RFAs have been released fromJune 1977 to June 1980. Program announce-ments (PAs) are similarly released, but theyare much less spec i f ic in the research re-

quested; eight such announcements were re-l e a s e d f r o m J u n e 1 9 7 7 t o J u n e 1 9 8 0 . A l lfunded proposa ls to such an announcementwould be considered 100 percent nutrition re-lated. (No dollar figures are set aside for theg ran t s f unded th rough RFAs and PAs . ) Agiven RFA might result in no funding what-soever.

In cont ras t , reques t for proposa ls (RFPs)have budgeted amounts within individual In-stitutes. With the exception of NCI’s Diet, Nu-trition, and Cancer Program (DNCP), there isno entity within any of the institutes whosemain emphas is i s nut r i t ion and which hasfund ing fo r t ha t pu rpose . Even DNCP nolonger has management or budget authority.Thus , any con t r ac t ed r e sea rch in nu t r i t i on

8/14/2019 8106



must originate from nonnutrition administra-tive entities. Of the nine research RFPs issuedby the institutes from June 1977 to June 1980,three were issued by DNCP when they s t i l lh a d i n d e p e n d e n t f u n d i n g a u t h o r i t y . T h u s ,there is no NIH-wide budgetary or manageri-al control of nutrition research. Indeed, in

many of the inst i tu tes there is no inst i tu te-wide control; these decisions are left to thedivision level or lower. NCC acts only in astaff advisory capacity to most of the nutri-tion research activity at NIH.

S ince the p rov ince o f NIH i s b iomedica lresea rch , the major emphas i s o f nu t r i t ion-related research is the role of nutrition in thecauses , prevent ion, or t reatment of disease.T h u s , m o s t o f N I H ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n dmany of i ts in tramural researchers in nutr i -tion are M.D.’s with an interest in nutrition,ra ther than profess ional nutr i t ionis ts .

In 1978, OTA issued the report NutritionResearch Alternatives which dealt with the in-teragency issues in nutr i t ion research. Thefindings of the report are stil l valid, sincemany o f the same prob lems be tween DHHSand USDA continue.

Need for Change in SEA Management

Title XIV of the National Agricultural Re-search, Extension, and Teaching Policy Actof 1977 designates USDA as the lead agencyof the Federal Government for agricultural re-search (except for biomedical aspects of hu-man nutrition), extension, and teaching in thefood and agricultural sciences. As noted earli-er, USDA created SEA to focus attention onthe coordination of these three functions, par-tially in response to the legislation and to in-c r e a s e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f m a n a g e m e n t a sviewed by OMB. The architects of the agencyfeel the credibility of research has increasedi n O M B a n d t h e W h i t e H o u s e ( L o v v o r n ,1980).

Lovvorn, in interviewing individuals within

USDA as wel l as in the univers i ty commu-nity, gained the impression that the directorof SEA is held in high esteem; he goes on tostate:

A good job is being d one in bud get prepara-tion but at enormous manpower expense, andthat progress is being made in the two advi-sory committees. Little progress seems tohave been accomplished in long-range plann-ing, in expediting decision making, and fur-thermore morale is low in the sub-agenciesbecause of heavy drain on their limited per-

sonnel, thus preventing them from perform-ing their necessary functions. The Universityhalf of the partnership concept is in disarray.They no longer see themselves as a viable andfunctional partner.

Until the early 1950’s, research leaders of USDA, including the chiefs of bureaus andthe head of the Office of Experiment Stationshad direct contact with the Secretary of Agri-c u l t u r e t h r o u g h f o r t n i g h t l y s t a f f m e e t i n g scalled by the Secretary. Secretary Benson ter-minated these meetings but had some contin-uing contact with the agr icul tural research

administrator. However, the lines of commu-nication with the research administrator (andoccasional ly some bureau chiefs) were pr i -marily through the Assistant Secretary for Re-search and Extension. Fol lowing the reorga-nization of 1953, the directors of research andothers at this level had less frequent and pri-mari ly informal contacts with the ass is tantsecretary. By 1963, the position had been re-duced to director of research and education.

I n t h e P S A C A g r i c u l t u r e P a n e l r e p o r t o f January 1962, it was recommended that thereshould be appointed an Assis tant Secretaryfor Science and Technology in USDA to de-vote full attention to USDA activities in do-mest ic and foreign science and technology.T h e s a m e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w a s m a d e 1 5years later by the NAS study on world foodand nutrition.

During the Nixon adminis tra t ion, the Di-rector of Science and Education [S&E) posi-t ion was abol ished and responsibi l i t ies forS&E came under an ass is tant secretary whohad responsibility for conservation, research,and education. This continued into the Carter

adminis tra t ion. After a few months , the re-s e a r c h a n d e d u c a t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w e r esplit off and placed under a Director for SEA.Thus, the heads of the AR and the CR re-

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Economics, and Agricultural Estimates. Ad-ministrator Wells said he thought the reorga-n i z a t i o n o f f e r e d a g r i c u l t u r a l e c o n o m i s t smore opportunity for research than any otherform of organization proposed. Research ap-p rop r i a t i ons d id i n f ac t i nc r ease subs t an -tially, though not without some congressional

concerns.In 1961 , ano the r new admin i s t r a t i on a r -

r ived, and agricultural economics work wasagain substantially reorganized. Work previ-ously grouped in ARS and AMS, as well assome work carried out in the Foreign Agricul-tural Service, was regrouped into two newagencies: The Economics Research Service(ERS) and the Statistical Reporting Service(SRS), which were placed under a new Direc-tor of Agricultural Economics. A staff econ-omists group was also established under theDirector’s supervision.

Whi le the new ar rangement was qui te a t -tract ive to many agricultural economists , i tevidently did not find great favor in Congress.Congressman Whitten said in 1967, quotingan earlier statement of his own:

You insist on having a Bureau of Agricul-tural Economics. It is my judgement it costsyou about a million or a million and a half dollars a year to carry that title, because it ishard to sell (Baker and Rasmussen, p. 67).

Only rarely did an appropriation increasingfunds for a part icular l ine of economic re-search get through Congress. As for the regu-lar ERS budget , Congress cont inued to bec r i t i c a l . T h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r s o m e t i m e sseemed to be on a treadmill where great effortw a s r e q u i r e d m e r e l y t o r e m a i n i n p l a c e(Baker and Rasmussen, p. 68).

In 1977, with the arrival of another new ad-ministrat ion, further organizational changeswere made. ERS and SRS, a long wi th theFarmer Cooperat ive Service, were combinedinto a new agency, the Economics, Statistics,and Cooperatives Service (ESCS). It reported

to a Director of Economics, Policy Analysis,and Budge t . The ac tua l ope ra t i ons o f t hethree component agencies, however, did notchange greatly; the main shift was in the top

administrative structure. In 1980, the tech-nical assistance functions relative to coop-eratives were transferred out and ESCS wasreestablished as ESS. Yet another administra-tion arrived in early 1981. The first move wasto replace the former Director by an AssistantSecretary for Economics. A second move was

to separate ERS and SRS back out of ESS.

Current Status’

Struc ture and Budget . As of ear ly 1981,ESS was d iv ided in to t h r ee ma in compo-nents: economics, statistics, and administra-tion. Each was headed by a deputy adminis-trator, In terms of total budget and total staff-ing as of November 1980, the statistics unitwas somewha t l a rge r t han the economicsunit: a budget of $50.6 million v. $35 millionin fiscal year 1980, and a staff of 1.076 v. 784.

Both units had staff divided between Wash-ington and the field, though in quite differentproportions. Statistics had 70 percent of itsstaff in the field v. 19 percent for economics.

The economics unit (now ERS) is dividedinto four main divisions: national economics,in terna t ional economics , na tura l resourceseconomics, and economic development. Na-tional economics is the largest in terms of budget and staff, and economic developmentis the smallest. On balance, about 78 percentof the funding is devoted to domestic eco-nomics and 22 percent to international eco-

nomics.As of November 1980, 149 economics staff

members were located at 41 field locations in31 States, generally in a department of agri-cultural economics at a State university.

Role of Research.—As noted earlier, about5.5 percent of USDA research budget for 1972to 1980 was spent on economics research .This figure was based on the total appropri-ated budget of the economics unit and i tspredecessor, ERS. Although the figure of 5.5

‘This st [ ion is largely based on “An ilsscssrnent . . Re-sponse to {) I A Quest ions;” “ Economics anct Statistics: Pro-grams Rcsu~t~ ,:[ld Plans”; and “Economic, an d Statistic Ser\ ’-ice: Progr(i 1[)s, Functions and Organ izatiori. ” It was preparedprior to tile recen t di~ is ion of ESS into ERS an d SRS.

+ ,- - J 1 - I

8/14/2019 8106



percent is not high, i t overstates the actualstatus of economics research, In fact, much of the unit’s efforts is devoted to economic anal-ysis and data acquisition. *

It is interesting to note how ESS sorted outthe activities of its economics unit. For fiscalyear 1980, i t est imated that only 35 percent

went for research, 47 percent for analysis ,and 18 percent for data acquisition. If theseproportions are applied to the total fiscal year1980 budget of $35 mi l l ion , i t meant tha t$12,25 million was spent on research, $16,45million on analysis, and $6,3 million on dataacquisi t ion. Following this through suggeststhat only about 2 percent of the USDA re-search budget was spent on economics re-search, and that the other 3,5 percent was be-ing spent on economics re la ted ac t iv i t ies .There are no widely accepted norms in thesematters, but this seems a very small propor-

tion for economics research,

The leadership of ESS was acutely aware of the si tuat ion. I t acknowledged that “from afunctional standpoint, the major emphasis of the agency is on economic analysis” (ESCSresponse to OTA inquiry, 1980). It stated that:

. . . there h as been a real cost in term s of research. Research resources have been pre-empted by the exigency of short-term eco-nomic analysis. We desperately need to re-store the balance between research and anal-ysis in order to build an improved research

program upon which to base our analyses (p.14).

We are taking steps to increase the share of resources devoted to research. We believethat a greater share devoted to research is anecessary investment in our in-house capac-ity, expertise, and knowledge base,which our ability to do economicwould eventually be eroded (p. 4).

withoutanalysis

*While difficult to d raw sharp lines between research an danalysis, ESS defines: a) research as all work that is intendedto m easure or uncover n ew socioeconom ic relationships or

that is directed to testing and imp roving the use of the relation-ships previou sly measured, and b) analysis as the applicationof currently available results of research and statistical meas-urement to current and prospective problems, issues, and de-cisions,

There a r e , howeve r , l imi t a t i ons on howmuch can be done in the way of ad jus t ingwithin the available resources. ESS notes sev-eral constraints in these terms (ESS, p. 9):

q

q

q

q

Legislative commitments. By law, we mustdo an undefined minimum of work in sev-eral areas (cost of production, and crop and

livestock statistics, for example].Budget commitments. (There is an) . . . in-creasing amount of work earmarked in thebudget process. We honor such commit-ments for at least three years.Public expectations, The public and privatesectors have become accustomed to havingus provide some of the basic data and indi-cators on a regular basis.Researchers’ adaptability. Extensive andrapid redirection is often limited by theability of highly specialized researchers orstatisticians to adjust quickly to the otherlines of work.

In short, ESS appears to be in a very tightand difficult situation with respect to the re-sea rch func t ion . I t c an make some ad jus t -ments itself, but to do more research wouldlikely require help from Congress.

Current Issues

According to data in the preceding sectionand in chapter IV, it seems that relatively lim-ited funding is available for economics re-search as such. Research is part of a largereconomic package involving data collect ion

a n d a n a ly sis , A b a la n c e i s n e e d e d a m o n gthese activities, But assessments of what con-st i tutes an appropriate balance vary, Thus,securing more funds for research by shiftingresources from analysis would be a debatablestrategy. In any case, it would be difficult todo because of the strong demand for analysis,Another approach would be for Congress todo less earmarking of funds or provide morefunds for research as such. The probability of either happening, however, is not great at thispoin t ( for fur ther d iscuss ion , see Rut tan ,1981).

The key issues raised more generally in theOTA study , such as: 1) delineating local/ re-gional/ national problems, 2) establishing re-

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy q 1 2 3

search priori t ies , and 3) l inking with otheragencies—Federa l , S ta te , and loca l—are asrelevant to ESS (and now ERS) as they are toAR.

In August 1979, ESCS convened a nationalcommittee of department chairmen and re-searchers to develop recommendations focus-ing on the agency’s problems. The meeting re-sulted in two major findings (ESCS, 1979).The first was that there is no systematic proc-ess to coordinate efforts to identify importantproblems in agricultural economics on whichfuture research should focus. I t was recog-nized that there are many research planninge f fo r t s t ha t have been and a r e be ing con -ducted. However, the classification used doesnot break out economics problems per se and,consequent ly , i t i s imposs ib le to comparep lanned r e sea rch wi th r e sea rch needs fo reconomics as a whole.

The second finding by this group was thatthere is considerable misunderstanding aboutsimilarities and differences in the role of ESSand the departments of agricultural econom-ics in the land-grant universi t ies . More im-portant, perhaps, it was the view of some thatthis lack of understanding was a barrier to im-proving the linkages between ESS and univer-sities. At the conference, several stereotypicaldescriptions indicated the perceptions of thegroup:

ESS works on na t ional problems, anduniversi t ies work on local and regionalproblems;universities work on microproblems andESS on macroproblems;un ive r s i t i e s shou ld conduc t bas i c andm e t h o d o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h , a n d E S Sshould conduct applied research; andESS serves national policy maker clien-tele, and universi t ies serve farmers andState policy makers.

Apparently, there is a need to clarify rolesand dispel misconceptions, so that it will be

less difficult to identify areas of mutual inter-est where cooperative research stands a bet-ter chance of success. The findings in chapter

V regarding USDA and SAES are appropriatehere.

Three additional areas are worth noting inthis discussion. In 1980 when the Farmer Co-o p e r a t i v e S e r v i c e w a s t r a n s f e r r e d o u t o f ESCS, the economics unit of ESS was tenta-t ively assigned the function of review andanalysis of the Capper-Volsted Act for undueprice enhancement by farmer cooperat ives.Enforcement or investigation is incompatiblew i t h E S S e c o n o m i c s r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e swhich rely on voluntary cooperation of clien-tele. ESS is not equipped to handle this func-tion. It would seem more reasonable to locatethis activity in a regulatory agency, such asAMS, not in an economics research agency.

ESS has as its primary objective the collec-tion and analysis of economic data as an in-put into decisions by policy makers, produc-

er s, a gr ib u sin es s, a n d c o n s u m e r s . B e f o r e1976, ERS and SRS were separate agenciesreporting to the Director of Agricultural Eco-nomics, Concern existed in early 1981—par-ticularly in the statistical unit—that its com-b ina t ion wi th t he economics un i t had : a )caused confusion for the public between in-formation reported by the statistical unit andthe projections or forecasts of the economicsunit, b) drained away vital financial and per-sonnel resources to the Office of Administra-tor, and c) created in the Office of Adminis-trator unproductive bureaucrat ic procedures

and paperwork.During the long existence of BAE and since

1961, agr icul tura l economics research hasbeen a separate component in USDA. One re-su l t o f t h i s t ype o f o rgan iza t ion has beensome isolat ion from the rest of the agricul-tural research community. The discovery of new knowledge does not come as easily or insuch small discipl inary packages as i t oncedid, Modern agricultural research tends to bemission oriented and mult idiscipl inary—in-vo lv ing the commi tmen t o f l a rge expend i -tures over time.

In ESS, there is some communication be-tween economists and a few other social sci-

8/14/2019 8106



entists , but very l i t t le cooperat ive work be-tween ESS and AR. In fact, with the excep-tion of some ad hoc groups that meet sporadi-cally, there is no coordinating mechanism forp l ann ing and conduc t ing mu l t i d i s c ip l i na ryresearch between ESS and AR. Closer coordi-nation and collaborat ion of research in the

N a t i o n a l E c o n o m i c s a n d t h e N a t u r a l R e -s o u r c e E c o n o m i c s D i v i s i o n s w i t h A R r e -search is warranted.

pr inc ipal F indings

. Through early 1981, the Director of SEA,with two responsibil i t ies , did not give ade-qua t e a t t en t ion to po l i cy and coo rd ina t ingfunct ions . Opera t ional de ta i l s of SEA in-terfered with effective management at the in-dividual agency administrator’s level.

q NPS staff have insufficient authority andresponsibil i ty for providing effect ive leader-ship to regional and national research pro-grams. A change in responsibil i ty would beconducive to improved staff capability.

q R a t i o n a l e f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g A R r e g i o n salong the same boundaries as SAES regions ismanagerial and has been beneficial for thispurpose; however, they do not conform totypes of farming or to regional or nat ionalresearch problems, and as AR is organized,are detrimental to the development of broadregional and national programs.

q There is little evidence of the need for thearea director positions in AR.

q CR conducts Hatch-supported project re-views that are less than in-depth examina-tions. As a part of the process, onsite reviewsare held every 3 to 5 years but with no re-qui red fo l lowup, except as would be donelocally,

q CR l acks au tho r i t y i n dea l ing wi th t heStates, CR operates as though it were underthe supervision of SAES directors rather thanthe Administrator of SEA.

q CR admin i s t e r s t he compe t i t i ve g r an t sprogram. Its major clientele, SAES, competefor these grants; there is criticism of this ar-rangement .

• HN has not accomp l ished the in tent of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 with re-spect to human nutr i t ion research. SEA has

es t ab l i shed human nu t r i t i on r e sea rch a s amis s ion , bu t i t ha s no t e s t ab l i shed humannutrition as a separate budget item, nor has itproperly funded and staffed the six researchinstitutes to conduct meaningful research,

q Through early 1981, in ESS, concern ex-isted that the combination of the stat is t icalunit with the economics unit had caused con-fusion for the public between the stat is t icalun i t ’ s i n fo rma t ion and the p ro j ec t i ons andforecasts of the economics research unit. Asmall proport ion of the economics researchbudget is allocated to research, and there isvery little cooperative effort with AR.

SAES MANAGEMENT AND POLICY PROGRAMS

It is not the purpose or the intent of this sec- reported earlier in this assessment, the move-tion to evaluate the management of the vari- ment to establish experiment s tat ions in theous SAES. Rather, it is to provide general in- United States drew i ts f i rs t inspirat ion fromformation on how the SAES are organized European expe r i ence . Samue l W. Johnson ,and managed and on some of the changes that one of Amer ica’s foremost p ioneers in therelate to their operation. movement, went to the vi l lage of Moeckern

on the outskirts of Leipzig, Germany, in Feb-Structure of SAES ruary 1854, where he visited a new institution

which its founders called an “agricultural ex-Over the years, neither the structure nor the p e r i m e n t s t a t i o n . ” T h i s s t a t i o n , J o h n s o n

names of the SAES have changed mu ch, As learned , was the Saxon answer to the search

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



research, teaching, and extension. Thus, theSAES director moved a notch lower in the ad-ministra tive structure , These changes weremade for the purpose of enhancing coordina-tion and cooperation.

Al though resea rch p rograms of the SAESare managed in a collegial fashion to optimizeindividual init ia tive , the director has legalresponsibil i ty for funds and programs. Thedirector, associate director, assistant direc-tors, and the department heads often form ana d min i s t r a t iv e c o u n c i l th a t o v e r se e s S AE Soperations.

As a statewide function, the SAES in mostStates is fun ded as a par t of th e general u ni-versity budget, but separate from the generalinstructional fund. In a few States, the SAESbudget is separate from the university budget.SAES receive supplemental funds from Fed-

eral sources.

Beginning in the 1950’s, as sources of non-State funding became available from agenciesother than USDA, grants were not necessarilyo r i e n t e d t o w a r d t h e S t a t e p r o g r a m b u tto wa rd th e p a r t i c u la r in te re s t o f th e in d i -vidual scientists. In spite of what station di-rectors claimed, they were becoming less in-fluential in terms of developing and leadingtheir own programs (Lovvorn, 1980).

Thus, the s ta tus o f SAES has r isen , p la -teaued, and to a degree subsided during thefirst 100 years of their existence. Their contri-butions to society, however, has assured theman important role in the future, regardless of the organizational structure of the university.

Most faculty members of land-grant univer-sity departments do both research and teach-ing; some are also involved in extension. The-ore t ica l ly , these func t ions a re compat ib le .Teaching requires keeping abreast of the lit-erature and keeping in touch with practicalproblems through interaction with students.Research requires keeping up with the litera-

ture in one’s specific field and keeps one in-tellectually stimulated. Extension keeps oneclose to the problems. Some faculty membersare incapable of performing all three func-

tions, so administra tors usually assign indi-viduals to functions they do best—be it full-t ime teach ing , fu l l- t ime resea rch , fu l l -t imee x t e n s i o n , o r , a s i n m o s t i n s t a n c e s , j o i n tteaching and research.

The central station of all but a few SAES is

on the campus of the State’s land-grant uni-versity. The scientists of the SAES are mem-bers o f the facu l ty o f the un ivers i ty . TheSAES gains from that association because itprovides access to many Ph.D. scientists, spe-cializing in different disciplines, whose serv-ices and counsel are easily available. It alsoprovides access to university facilities such aslibraries, computers, machine and electronicshops, analytical laboratories, and other spe-cialized units.

SAES research programs also benefit great-

ly by the expansion of their options for em-p loy ing sc ien t i f ic t a l e n t s m a d e p o s s i b l ethrough the graduate education programs atthe M. S., Ph. D., and post-Ph.D. levels.

There are also some disadvantages. Teach-ing may in te rfe re wi th resea rch . Some re -search programs may be so important that thefu l l - t ime e ffo r ts o f a lead ing sc ien t is t a recritical to the success of the program. Somesc ien t is ts a re most successfu l in managingtheir time when they have only one principalresponsibil i ty; some may be most suited for

ins t ruc t iona l ac t iv i t ie s . Resources in tendedfor research may drift to support scantily sup-ported instructional activities. University ad-ministrators may view instruction as the mostimportant university activity and may givepriority accordingly. University administra-tors also may view the SAES and extensionservice resources, which are usually budg-eted separately, as providing more resourcesto faculty in colleges of agriculture than areavailable to faculty elsewhere in the univer-sity; that could have an adverse effect on re-source a l loca t ion to the agr icu l tu ra l p ro-

grams. SAES land that is close to the officesand laboratories of the station may be neededfor instructional or recreational facilities forstudents (Huston, 1981).

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy * 127

The depar tments are the pr incipal opera-tional units of SAES and provide day-to-dayresearch management. They usually have re-spons ib i l i ty fo r undergradua te and g radua teins t ruc t ion and re la ted scho la r ly resea rchfunded through the univers i ty ins truct ionalbudget, for research of the SAES, for exten-

sion activities of the Cooperative ExtensionService, and for modest international agricul-tural act ivi t ies . Thus, the depar tments havem u c h b r o a d e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a n d g r e a t e rresources than a re charac te r i s t i c o f o the runiversity departments. In those departmentswhere education is a sizable activity, tempo-rary contract ions and expansions may occurin cer ta in SAES research act ivi t ies . Exten-sion activities may also be affected duringpart of the year.

While the above describes the general orga-nizat ion and management character is t ics of

SAES, there obviously are differences amongthem. The relationship of the director to thedean or vice president for agr icul ture is animportant one. The larger univers i t ies havem o r e d e p a r t m e n t s t h a n t h e s m a l l e r o n e s .Some give more responsibilities to the depart-ments than others, Some seek and use grantfunding to a greater degree than others. All of these and other factors are important in deter-mining the degree of authority the director of SAES has in carrying out State agr icul turalresearch programs and in cooperat ing withother research agencies.

Changing Role of SAES

Although the SAES reta in their t radi t ionalfocus in serving farmers and the agriculturalsector of their States, their roles are changing.Some of the factors causing these changes in-clude the following:

Ž Society’s needs for the skills normallyfound in the SAES—and USDA—increas-ingly exceed the needs of farmers and thea g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r . E x a m p l e s i n c l u d echemistry and metabol ism of pest ic idesand the use of soil descriptions in plan-ning land use and in construction.

q

q

Many new staff members have no back-ground in agriculture. They see more op-portunity for recognition and rewards inresearch that is not closely allied to needsof farmers.

L imi ta t ions in funds ava i lab le to theSAES from Hatch and State sources lead

faculty to seek grants that may be avail-able for nonagricultural topics. Becauseof this outside funding, SAES directorshave lost some of their control over suchprograms.

Some of the States with limited resources orwith a small agricultural industry—i.e., cer-t a i n N o r t h e a s t e r n , W e s t e r , a n d N o r t h e r nplains States—are finding it very difficult toa d e q u a t e l y f u n d S t a t e a g r i c u l t u r a l u n i v e r -sities and SAES that try to be all things to allpeople . There has been some discussion onthe desirability of certain States that havesimilar agricultural problems in dividing theworkload or concentrat ing on specif ic prob-lems-–i.e. , centers of emphasis–so that eachState concentrates on cer ta in problems andleaves the rest to other States. While from ascientific, technical, and resource standpointthis would seem feasible and desirable, some-times it is not appreciated by specific vestedinterests in the States . Such an arrangementc o u l d a l l o w e a c h s u c h S t a t e t o d e v e l o pcen te r s o f emphas i s on spec i f ic p rob lems ,rather than to be spread so thin as to haveprograms of questionable value.

SAES-USDA Interactions

In many areas of research in crops, soils,etc. , there have long been very closely knitcooperat ive re la t ionships between the SAESand AR. About 500 USDA scientists are sta-t i o n e d i n S A E S b u i l d i n g s . A r e v e r s e e x -change exists in that 100 or so SAES scien-tists are housed in USDA facilit ies (Huston,1981). There also are a number of special pur-pose AR research uni ts on univers i ty cam-puses , some housed in univers i ty bui ldingsand others in AR buildings built on land do-nated through the SAES by the State. AR sci-

8/14/2019 8106



entists hold courtesy ranks in the universitydepartments and are free to participate in de-partmental and SAES activi t ies .

SAES programs are built around full use of the resources of these sc ient i s t s , and v iceversa as far as AR regional and national re-search is concerned. If efforts by AR scien-

tists or units can effectively serve user needsin that f ield of special izat ion, no State-sup-ported scientis ts wil l be employed. If , how-ever, the manpower commitment by AR is in-adequate for State needs, additional State sci-entists will be employed. Even when AR unitsare remote from the central station, State pro-grams are developed around those efforts .This jo in t endeavor permi ts SAES to meetuser needs more fully by adding to the diver-sity of scientists available and by broadeningthe range of problems SAES can address. Thesame log i c and p l ann ing by AR t echn ica l

leaders assist AR in focusing their resourceson regional and national problems.

Only a few ERS sc ient i s t s a re housed a tSAES. Most ERS work in SAES is done bySAES economis ts on a coopera t ive agree-ment, contract , or grant . While the relat ion-ship between ERS and many agricultural eco-nomics departments has been close, that withthe SAES administration has been distant.

This close working relationship among sci-entists of SAES and AR, as mentioned else-where in this report, has been one of the ma-

jor strong points of the U.S. agricultural re-search system, I t has resulted, general ly, inhigh respect for each other at the scientis tlevel. The major difficulty in the U.S. agricul-tural research system between USDA and theSAES is at the administrative level. This in-c l u d e s d i r e c t o r s o f S A E S a n d s o m e t i m e sheads of depar tments and adminis t ra tors inUSDA.

The root cause of nearly all the difficulties,centers around budgets . SAES fights for in-creased Federal funds for their research ac-

tivities and USDA fights for additional fundsfor their in-house research. The budget prob-lem distorts and tends to create problems inthe stated roles of the two groups and in co-

operation at the administrative level to such apoint that , unfortunately, i t sometimes per-meates the whole system. The problem hasalways existed, but appears to be much moreintense now, in times of stringent budgets forresearch, than in the past.

What appears to be at stake is whether the

United States will be able to maintain a na-t ional research ef for t . As Cas t le s ta ted in1980: “The question should be faced squarelyas t o whe the r t he h i s to r i c pa r tne r sh ip be -tween the USDA and the land-grant univer-sities remains viable. ” Castle goes on to saytha t “ the p lanning f ramework advanced byt h e j o i n t c o u n c i l h a s n o t o n l y b r o u g h tFederal-State conflicts to the surface but hasalso intensif ied internal land-grant tensions,and these tensions are now being reflected atregional and national levels. ”

In his Cosmos Club lecture of April 1980,Dr. John W. Gardner addressed the subject of “The War of the Parts Against the Whole.”Dr. Gardner notes the continued developmento f va r ious “g roups” t ha t have expanded innumber and diversi ty fol lowing World WarII—and in their capacity to organize for com-bat. The following comments from his paperare of special interest.

In most of these group s the element of cohe-sion is supp lied by a common economic activ-ity or interest, But others seek redress of grievances that they have suffered at the

hands of society. And then there are the“issue” groups, members of which may comefrom diverse social, economic, or occupa-tional backgrounds, but have in common ashared concern for advancement of a par-ticular public policy.

I want to emphasize that most of the groupshave legitimate concerns: some of them haveconcerns that are, by any standards, urgent.But as more and more of them learn how toorganize for effective action, and how to slugit out on the adversary mode, what started ashealthy competition has developed destruc-

tive aspects. If we can’t face that fact, we’relost.

The war of the parts against the whole is acentral problem of pluralism today. We’re

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VI—Management, Structure, and Policy q 129

moving toward a society so intricately organ-ized that the working of the whole systemmay be halted if one part stops functioning.Thus our capacity to frustrate one anotherthrough non-cooperation has increased dra-matically. A part can hold the whole systemup for ransom as the air traffic controllers,among others, have so vividly demonstrated.

All of this is ironic when one recognizesthat never have so man y of these groups beenso highly organized and effective in action.They know how to lobby. They know how to“use” the media. They establish “beachheads” in government agencies, sometimeseven force reorganization of an agency to suittheir purposes. And they effect public policy.

It is entirely legitimate for such groups toorganize themselves. It is their constitutionalright to seek to influence government, andoften what they want is not unreasonable. Butwhat can we do when the factional strife be-comes more than the system can bear?

All too rarely have any of the organizedgroups shown the slightest concern for thehealth of the political process. All too oftenthey have been satisfied with incompetent,disorganized, or even corrupt government,provided that they could influence it.

Our pluralistic philosophy invites each or-ganization, institution, or special group to de-velop and enhance its own potentialities. Butthe price of that treasured autonomy and self-preoccupation is that each institution con-cern itself also with the common good. That isnot idealism: it is self-preservation. The argu-

ment is not moralistic. If the larger system

fails, the subsystems fail. That should not besuch a difficult concept for the contendinggroups to understand (Gardner, 1980).

It would be unfair and unrealistic to sug-gest that the competition between USDA andSAES is the only factor that has been delete-rious to the operation of the national agricul-

tu ra l r esea rch sys tem in recen t years . Bu tthere is need for a serious self-assessment of the cur ren t o rgan iza t ions , opera t ions , andpolicies of USDA and the SAES with respectto their basic charters and to relationships inprograms o f mutua l concern (Moseman , e tal., 1981).

Principal Findings

. The SAES resea rch budge t f rom o therthan grant resources has t ightened and anoverall dean or vice president of research co-

ordinates research at most land-grant univer-s i t i e s . T h i s , i n p a r t , h a s d i m i n i s h e d t h estature and authority of the directors of SAESin directing State agricultural programs.

q A t t h e s c i e n t i s t l e v e l , t h e S A E S a n dUSDA sc ien t i s t s en joy good work ing re la -tions and generally excellent cooperation, allto the benefit of the system, the States, andthe Nation.

q At the administrative level of SAES andUSDA, there is competi t ion over funds and

position.

CHAPTER VI REFERENCES

Baker, Gladys L., and Wayne D. Rasmussen, “Eco- Flatt, W., H. Graumann, and A. Cooper, “Agricul-nomic Research in the Department of Agricul- tural Research Classification for Managementture: A Historical Perspective, ” Agricultural Purposes, ” OTA background paper, 1980.Economics Research, July-October 1975, vol. Huston, Keith, “Priority Setting Processes in the27, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 53-72. State Agricultural Experiment Stations,” OTA

Castle, Emery N., “Agricultural Edu cation and background paper, 1980.Research: Academic Crown Jewels or Country Kendrick, James B., Jr., “Clearing Away Confu-Cousins?” Kellogg Foundation Lecture, Na- sion About Agricultural Research, ” Californiational Association of State Universities and Agriculture, April 1980.Land Grant Colleges, Nov. 18, 1980. Kinney, Terry, “Responsibility and Auth ority of

8/14/2019 8106



NPS and Line Managers,” memo to RegionalAdministrators, Deputy Administrators, andNPS Chiefs, February 1981.

Lovvorn, Roy L., “Effect of Organization, Policy,and Procedure on Research Management, ”OTA background paper, 1980.

Moseman, A. H., J. S. Robins, and Harold Wilcke,“The Role of the Federal Government, StateAgricultural Experiment Stations, and the Pri-vate Sector in Research, ” OTA backgroundpaper, 1981.

Peterson, Willis L., “The Allocation of Research,Teaching, and Extension Personnel in U.S.Colleges of Agriculture, ” American Journal of Agricul tural Economics , vol . 51, No, 1 ,February 1969, pp. 41-56.

Pino, John, “Basic and App lied Research in Agri-culture, ” report to the Users Advisory Board(unpublished), Washington, D. C., July 1980,

Ruttan, Vernon W., “USDA Economics Researchin Disarray, ” American Agricultural Econom-ics Association Newsletter, vol. 3, No. 5,September 1981.

Anonymous/Of f i c i a I

( in Chronological Order)

Science and Agriculture, Life Science Panel of thePresident’s Science Advisory Committee, Jan-uary 1962.

“National Program of Research for Agriculture”(report of a study sponsored jointly by the As-sociation of State Universities and Land Grant

Colleges and U.S. Department of Agriculture),October 1966, pp . 60-61.

Report of the Committee on Research Advisoryto the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Na-tional Academy of Science/ Nation al ResearchCouncil, National Technical InformationService, U.S. Department of Commerce,PB-213-338, April 1972.

Entomological Society of America, “Report of Committee on Impact of ARS-USDA Reorga-nization on the Profession of Entomology, ”Bulle t in of the Entomological Society ofAmerica, vol. 20, No. 1, March 1974.

U.S. Congress, Agriculture-Environmental and

Consumer Protection Appropriations for 1975,Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropri-ations, U.S. House of Representatives, 93rdCong, , Zd sess., 1975.

A Special Oversight Review of Agricultural Re-search and Development, report by the Sub-committee on Science, Research, and Tech-nology and the Subcommittee on Domesticand International Scientific Planning andAnalysis (special oversight report No. Z) of theCommittee on Science and Technology, U.S.House of Representatives, 94th Cong. , Zd sess.

Publ ic Law 95-113, 95th Cong. , Sept. 29, 1977,

Title XIV—National Agricultural Research,Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977’.

USDA, “A Process of Identifying Emerging Socialand Economic Issues and Implied ResearchNeeds,” unpubl i shed d ra f t r epor t , ESCS,

October 1979.USDA, Special Review Process, USDA-SEA-CR-

S 1 - s 6 4 6 - 7 , F e b . 2 1 , 1 9 8 0 , mimeographedmaterial.

USDA/ SEA, wr itten responses by SEA to qu es-tions from OTA relative to their assessment of U.S. Food and Agricultural Research, SEA,July 25, 1980,

USDA, The Mission of Science and Education Ad -

ministration-Agricultural Research, SEA, Sep-tember 1980.

USDA, “An Assessment of Food and AgricultureResearch: Response to OTA Questions, ”ESCS, Sept. 8, 1980.

USDA, Food and Agricultural Research Grants, FY1980, Miscel laneous Publ icat ion No. 1396,

Washington, D. C., November 1980.

USDA, Economics and Statistics; Program Resultsan d Plans , 1980, Economics and Stat is t icsService, ESS-3, December 1980.

USDA, “Economics and Statistics Service: Pro-grams, Functions, and Organization,” January1981.

8/14/2019 8106


C h a p t e r VI I

Determin ing

Research Pr ior i t ies

8/14/2019 8106


.

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



H o w ev er , th is “goal” i s o p e n - e n d e d a n d ,therefore, not achievable. For example, whatis meant by an “ample supply?” Does it mean:a) produce to meet U.S. demands? b) produceto mee t U .S . demands p lus economic de -mands of the world market? or c) produce tomeet U.S. and world market demand plus con-

cessional food to poor countries? How wouldw e k n o w w h e n a n “ a m p l e s u p p l y ” i sachieved? What is “nutritious” food? How isi t d e f in e d ? Is a “ r e a so n a b le c os t ” t o co n -sumers 15, 20, or 30 percent of disposable in-come or some other figure? Is a “fair return tothe farmer” 10, 15, or 20 percent on invest-ment? And when would this “fair return” beachieved . . . 1995, 2000, 2500? Is a s u sta in-able system one that tolerates 5, 10, or 15 tonsan acre of erosion annually?

These and o the r ques t i ons mus t be an -swered for a goal to have meaning and to beuseful for the research community in plan-ning a research agenda. With such questionsunanswered, set t ing research priori t ies is afutile task.

In the past, Congress has set well-defined,

achievable goals. Congress set a goal of put-ting a man on the Moon by a certain date; thegoal was met. Congress has set goals for thelevel of gasoline consumption for differentsizes of cars by certain dates. It should be pos-sible for Congress to set well-defined, achiev-able goals for U.S. agriculture as well.

PRIORITY SETTNG IN USDA2

Science and Educat ion

Admin is t ra t ion (SEA)

Information used in developing priorities isdrawn from consumers, producers, in-housescientists, scientific societies, JC and UAB,action and regulatory agencies, cooperators ,policy-level people in the executive branch,and Congress. This information is reviewedand summar ized by s ta f f and presented toSEA managers who, in c lose consul ta t ion

with university cooperators, set the prioritiesthat guide the upcoming planning year.

In Agricultural Research (AR), staff scien-tists on the national program staff (NPS) areresponsible for interact ing with administra-tors and scientists in the regions to maintainup-to-date programs and priorities and to en-sure progress toward national priori t ies andobjectives. Regional administrators in each of the four AR regions are responsible for seeingt h a t r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n a r e g i o nmeets the national goals and priorities.

ZThis information was pr ovided by U SDA in respon se to let-ters of inqu iry from OTA.

In Cooperative Research (CR), the adminis-trator part icipates in meetings of State agri-cultural experiment station (SAES) directors’associations for the four regions and concursin areas of research to be implemented. CRstaff are active in regional technical commit-tees that plan and conduct regional researchprojects.

In Human Nutrition (HN), research is car-ried out in six research centers.

SEA budgets are designed to reflect prior-ities. Budget requests are modified at variouspoints, the changes being based on prioritiesa s v i ewed by the dec i s ionmaker s i nvo lvedand the fiscal constraints. Resources are thenallocated to the SEA units in accordance withthese documented p lans , and usual ly on aprogram-by-program basis.

AR uses several mechanisms to assure thatresources go to the priori ty problems: con-tinuing review of annual program evaluation,and annual project reviews.

Regional priori t ies result from recommen-dations by JC, research planning committees,and their indicat ions of need from researchusers and input from SAES directors, AR re-

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VII—Determining Research Priorities q13 5

gional adminis tra tors , and pr ivate industryrepresentat ives .

Many t radi t ional agr icul tural groups havedeveloped a way to interact with the U.S. De-par tment of Agricul ture (USDA) in discuss-ing their priority research needs (i. e., CottonCounc i l , NASCD, e tc . ) , bu t mos t non t rad i -

tional agricultural groups have not. There is aneed for better and more positive methods of assuring that all interested groups have an op-portunity to be involved in discussions con-cerning food and agricultural research prior-i t i e s . Wi th AR resea rch be ing respons ib lep r i m a r i l y f o r b r o a d r e g i o n a l a n d n a t i o n a lissues, it is important that the interaction bewith national and regional leaders of the in-teres ted organizat ions . AR could designatesome staff to be responsible for developingp r oce d ur es t o a ss u r e t h at a ll in t e r es t edorganizations have an opportunity to express

their views and concerns with respect to agri-cultural research priorities.

Economic Research Service (ERS)

ERS evaluates its programs in accordancewith feedback from user groups and other in-

formation on current and future pr ior i t ies ,such as topics highlighted in the public mediaand personal communication with persons inGovernment and the private sector.

Each year , E R S c o n d u c t s t h r e e o r f o u rworkshops in different regions of the countrywith representatives of farm and commodity

organizations to discuss their need for data aswell as situation and outlook information oncommodities.

ERS has met with UAB to review its workprograms in relation to agriculture and farmmarkets. In addition, the agency meets withJC to obtain their reactions about researchand data needs. ERS interacts regularly withthe Federal agencies, State universities, pro-fess iona l a ssoc ia t ions , and S ta te and loca lgovernments .

ERS provides f lexibi l i ty for scient is ts to

work on problems and issues which they seeas important to decis ionmakers . All work issubject to review to assure consistency withagency plans.

PRIORITY SETTING IN SAES3

In virtually all activities, including prioritysetting, SAES operate in a different mannerthan their USDA counterparts. Planning, pri-ority setting, budgeting, and program devel-opment are funct ions of l ine adminis tra torsand scientists active in research. They are notfunctions assigned to special staff scientists,as some are in USDA agencies.

The goal of priority setting in the States isto aid in allocating scarce resources to devel-op and maintain an effective and responsiveSAES program. Steps in priority setting areto: a) identify the research investigations andprograms of greates t need and value to the

tThe information presented in this section draw s heavily onthe report enti t led “Priority Setting Processes in the StateAgricultural Experiment Stations” pr epared by Keith H ustonfor OTA.

State, b) examine the scientific and practicalfeasibility of those investigations relative tothe resources available or required, and c) setpriorities according to the needs and feasibil-i ty of the research invest igat ions and pro-grams.

There are various levels of priority settingat the SAES beginning with that of the scien-t is t and cont inuing through the depar tment(such as the animal science department), thed e p a r t m e n t h e a d o r c h a i r m a n , t h e e x p e r i -ment s ta t ion as a whole , and the univers i tyitself,

Role o f Scient is t s

At the scientist level, the process beginswith an examination of user needs that relate

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities “ 139

Trends toward industrialization of agricul-ture lend credibility to arguments expressingconcern about close ties between large farms,la rge agr ibus iness f i rms , and the researchestablishment (Paarlberg, 1981). Reality sug-gests that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

La rge f a rms have more i n f luence t hansmall farms on research and educationprograms in the land-grant system andUSDA.Development of technology has more fre-quently followed the demands and needsof the larger and more mechanized farmsthan those of small and less organizedfarming interests .The private sector—i. e., farm input sup-pliers, etc.—benefit from public research.Food processors , market ing f i rms , andre ta i le rs benef i t f rom pos t -harves t re -search, and some have sufficient marketinf luence to de lay the benef i t s of re -search in reaching the public.

One of the important implicat ions of theabove si tuat ion is that research administra-tors and scientis ts should be aware of theneed for public-interest objectivity in makingresearch decisions.

N e w I s s u e s

In addition to food shortages and the con-t in u i n g p r o ce ss o f i n d u s t r ia li za t io n , t h e

1970’s were confronted with a host of newi s s u e s t h a t w i l l s u r e l y c o n t i n u e i n t o t h e1980’s. Demands developed for more gener-ous food programs, organiza t ion r ights forfarm labor, lower food prices, increased foodsafety, increased environmental protect ion,sharing water rights, equal rights for agricul-tural minorities, and improved nutrition.

These new issues are being funded at theexpense of t radit ional agricultural interests .Concern exis t s wi th in the agr icul tura l re -search establishment that all areas will be in-creasingly underfunded as the research base

continues to expand, unless new funds aremade available.

Concern exists also that, without major sci-entif ic breakthroughs in agriculture’s capac-ity to produce, the world may be unable tosatisfy future food needs. It was only natural,therefore, that these concerns created a callfor more research.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 wasresponsive to the perceived need for more re-search. The act explicitly provided for crea-t ion of competi t ive research grants , using asystem of peer review that was foreign to thet r a d i t i o n a l U S D A r e s e a r c h s y s t e m w h e r efunds were allocated on a formula basis. Thecompetitive grants program was opened up toproposals from scientists outside the agricul-tural research establishment.

The 1977 act also created the JC to oversee,adv i se , coo rd ina t e , and se t r e sea rch p r io r -ities. This structure was designed to replace

the previous research policy committee re-ferred to as ARPAC (Agricultural ResearchPolicy Advisory Committee).

This combination of events has created con-siderable tension within the agricultural re-search establishment. Charges are made of at-tempts by special Federal interests to controlag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch a t bo th Fede ra l andState levels. To an important extent, the prob-lem is as much one of s trategy to get theneeded level and mix of support as it is of di-recting research to priority areas. One cannotd i s r ega rd t he f ac t t ha t t he two a r e i n t e r -related.

Real i t ies of Research Planning

The need for planning and coordinating thefood and agricultural research system is ob-vious, Planning must be done to determinethe size of the budget to carry out the re-sea rch mi s s ion . P l ann ing mus t be done toc l a r i f y w h e r e s p e c i f i c a r e a s o f r e s e a r c hresponsibility lie, to communicate what is be-ing done, and to determine what needs exist.The question, therefore, is not whether plan-

ning is needed but: a) who should do whattype of planning, b) how the results of plan-

8/14/2019 8106



ning should be translated into budget, and c)how planning and budget should be t rans-lated into research.

Planning wi th in the food and agr icul tura lresearch system has not come naturally. Thisfact has meant that research planning initia-tives have tended to be mandated by Congress

i tself . The f irst such mandate was the Re-search and Marketing Act of 1946 which setup joint planning for regional research. Thelatest mandates were the creat ion of the JCand UAB. (These two groups are discussedfully in a later section of this chapter.)

It is important to ask why Congress in 1977felt a need to enact these mandates. A numberof reasons can be suggested:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Congress had no confidence in the rec-ommendat ions i t was ge t t ing on appro-priations. The President’s budget recom-mendations were suspected of being ma-nipulated by the agencies, the Secretary,and the Office of Management and Budg-e t . T h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f A R P A Cwere suspected of being the vested in-terests of the performers.Because of an increasingly t ight worldfood situation, it appeared that increasedfunding was going to be required. Con-g re s s des i r ed t o make su re t ha t newmoney was spent in a reas tha t had thepotent ia l for grea tes t payoff—the so-called high-priority research areas.Concern existed that the food and agri-cultural research system was not adjust-ing its research program to evolving cli-entele needs.The complexity of the research situationled to the conclusion that it was out of control , duplicat ing research, and unac-coun tab l e . Hea r ings t ended to fo r t i f yrather than refute this conclusion.Expe r i ence wi th ea rmark ing funds fo rspecific research had not always worked.T h e i m p r e s s i o n e x i s t e d t h a t p r o j e c t s

were simply being renamed and the re-search program did not change.

Each of these reasons was at least partiallytrue (Knutson, et al. , 1980). Restoring confi-

dence in the system will require a recognitionof this fact. It will also require that the foodand agricultural research establishment be-come organized in a manner whereby it canhave a more decisive impact on and controlover legislation enacted in its behalf,

Research Decis ions of Scient is ts

Despite the existence of elaborate adminis-t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n b o t h U S D A a n d t h euniversities, the major decisions on what re-search i s to be under taken are made by re-search scientis ts . They develop project pro-posals, give reasons for the required level of support , and then, within the l imits of theava i l ab l e budge t , dec ide wha t spec i f i c r e -search is to be undertaken.

Because of the increased complexity of re-search projects , research administrators arein a poor posi t ion to evaluate the relat ivemerits of particular projects. Yet, they play ave ry impor t an t r o l e i n coo rd ina t ion , o rga -nizat ion, and policy for research. However,the further removed the administrator is fromthe project—i.e., the higher the level of admin-istrative bureaucracy—the greater the poten-tial for being wrong on the relative merits of particular projects. Thus, the greatest poten-t ial for administrators influencing researchdecisions is through hiring staff and resourceallocation to broad areas of research.

Motives influencing the research decisionsof scientists may be grouped under four gen-era l headings : in te llec tua l cur ios i ty , ava i l-abil i ty of funds, responsiveness to cl ientele,and personal gain (Knutson, et al., 1980).

Intellectual curiosity is research motivationin i ts pure form. I t is the motive that ledGregor Mendel to discover the principles of heredity and caused Darwin to persist in hisstudies until he formulated the theory of evo-lution. It is part of the motivation of every re-searcher worthy of the name. Administrative

in ter rupt ion of th is process of d iscover ingnew knowledge can be costly. Likewise, a sci-entist is likely to be more productive workingon a problem in which he or she has a directinterest.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities q 141

Availabi l i ty of funds can make the dif fer-e n c e b e t w e e n m e a g e r r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s a n dfindings worthy of being converted to usefultechnology. Both new people and new moneyare needed to give research priorities a rea-sonable opportunity for success. If additionalfunds are a l located to a new high-pr ior i ty

p r o j e c t b u t a d d i t i o n a l p e o p l e a r e n o t a p -pointed, these new funds probably wil l bespread over ongoing projects.

A substitution of grant funds for formulafunds does not necessarily solve this problembecause in the face of reduced formula fund-ing, grant money will likewise tend to be usedto support ongoing research projects , whilef o r m u l a f u n d s a r e s h i f t e d t o a r e a s w h e r egrants are unavailable. The lesson here is thatthe most effective means of initiating changei s t h r o u g h i n c r e a s e d i n c r e m e n t a l f u n d i n g .Competitive grants, in addition to providing

scientists an added base of financial support,o f t e n g i v e t h e m f r e e d o m t o p u r s u e t h e i rchosen field of research.

Responsiveness to clientele is not readilyquant i f iable . I t cannot be denied, however ,that there is far less responsiveness to sectorso f a g r i c u l t u r e t h a t a r e p o o r l y o r g a n i z e d —part- t ime farmers , small farms, hired labor ,and minori ty groups. Recent concern aboutsocial structure reflects the belief that a tax-supported research system owes the publ icmore than to respond primarily to those cli-

entele groups that are most affluent, most per-suasive, and best organized.

A growing force in setting priorities—bothin research and act ion programs—is the in-fluence wielded by certain organizations andsociet ies made up of users and consumerswho have a vested interest in Governmentplans and programs that they believe opposetheir own plans, ideals, or philosophy aboutthe environment or the welfare of society .One of the prime concerns of such groups iswise husbandry of natural resources for usein perpetuity. A typical example is the possi-

ble environmental damage incurred by thecontinued damming of rivers to provide morewater for agricultural irrigation, recreational

use, or urban water supplies. They are also in-terested in the exploration of ways to help thef o o d a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l s y s t e m b e c o m e l e s sconcentrated, less reliant on fossil fuel ener-gy, less capital intensive, and less dependenton chemicals. These organizations—such ast h e A u d u b o n S o c i e t y a n d t h e S i e r r a C l u b—will undoubtedly continue to exert pressureon legislators to achieve their goals. Hence,they must be regarded as viable forces in thepriority-setting process.

Personal gain—such as promotions, salary,and peer recognit ion—is an important moti-vator for scientists. Actually, this can be anexcellent means to an end—that is, the discov-ery of new knowledge. For some researchers,however, personal gain is an end in itself.

Di f fe rences ex i s t among un ivers i t i e s andUSDA agencies as to their ability to reward

top-qua l i ty sc ien t i s t s . A lso , subs tan t ia l r e -source differences exist among universitiesfor attracting scientific talent. These differ-ences result from a combination of factorssuch as a S ta te ’ s popu la t ion , income, re -source base, and tax structure. They also re-sult from the Federal system of allocating re-search dol lars . For example, increased em-phasis on competitive grants allocated strictlyon the basis of proposal and scientific qual-i t i e s w i l l f u r t h e r c o n c e n t r a t e r e s e a r c h i nthose universities that have had the researchd o l l a r s n e e d e d t o a t t r a c t t o p - q u a l i t y b a s i c

scientists.Despite its complexity, the U.S. food and

agricul tural research system operat ing in arelatively free-market agricultural setting hasan enviable record of success. This successhas been accomplished in a decentralized re-search setting where scientists in proximityto their agricultural clientele make the criticaldecisions on what research is to be done.

As both fear of and evidence of an increas-ing ly t igh t wor ld food supp ly-demand ba l -ance inc rease , a s p ressures to cu t Federa l

spend ing mount , and as the s ize and com-plexity of the food and agricultural researchestablishment grow, Congress and State legis-

8/14/2019 8106



l atu r e s have become inc reasingly conce rned increased p l ann ing , i ncr eased accoun tab il it y ,about the per formance of the food and agri - and grea ter contro l over what research i s tocu ltu ra l r esea rch syst em. Incent ives exis t fo r be done.

ROLE OF THE JOINT COUNCIL ON

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, gavethe Secretary of Agriculture authority to ap-point a Joint Council on Food and Agricul-tural Science. The JC was to include the tradi-tional teaching, research, and extension part-ners as well as representat ives from otherpublic and private inst i tut ions. Primary re-sponsibility of JC is to foster coordination of research, extension, and teaching activities of the Federal Government, the States, collegesand universities, and other public and privateinstitutions involved in the food and agricul-tural sciences. The JC took over the functionsof ARPAC.

The responsibilities of the JC as specified inthe legislation suggest the formation of a cen-tral planning agency for research, extension,and t each ing . The r e spons ib i l i t i e s i nc ludeevaluation of program impacts, identificationof high-priori ty research, developing memo-randa of unders tanding among the par t ic i -pants , establishing priori t ies , recommendingresponsibility for research, and summarizingachievements . The Secre tary i s to use JC

recommendations, as well as other input, insubmitting to Congress a 5-year projection of national research priori t ies .

In a sense, all JC activities lead to prioritysetting. Recommended priorities form the ba-sis for JC’s annual report. The JC has releasedtwo reports on research planning and a plan-ning repor t by the Nat ional P lanning Com-mi t t ee . These r epo r t s bas i ca l l y summar i zetrends that affect food needs in the future andidentify a long list of research priority areas.The reports do not establish objectives, rank

priorities or develop implementing programs.Without these, JC reports will have only mini-mal impact on agricultural research planning(GAO, 1981).

JC’ s p l ann ing and coo rd ina t ion s t ruc tu rehas evolved over a 3-year period. Consider-able debate attended these efforts to broadenpart icipation in planning and coordinationand create a representative new structure. Inthe structure finally adopted by the JC, eachof the four regions has three committees, onefor teaching, one for research, one for exten-sion. The three fall under a regional council.That is, all four regional research committeesoperate under a national research committee.

The JC’s struggle to develop a workableplanning structure sometimes evoked imagesof overorganization or tenuous communica-tion links. In contrast, ARPAC, a product of m a n y y e a r s o f d e v e l o p m e n t , s o m e t i m e sseemed a be t t e r p l ann ing s t ruc tu re (Mah l -stede, 1980).

The JC faced a problem ARPAC had not en-countered. In at tempting to make teaching,ex t ens ion , and r e sea rch equa l pa r tne r s i nresearch planning, it sought a program struc-ture common to the three functions. How-ever, it found that each function had a uniquestructure, developed to suit its needs. Whenthe JC identified an area for which coordina-t ion across the three functions should havehigh priori ty, these structures did not lendthemselves to examination of exist ing inter-relat ionships or establishment of new ones(Mahlstede, 1980).

T h e r e s e e m s t o b e a p e r c e p t i o n — e v e namong some who make up its membership—that the JC is not fulfilling its intended role.One of its problems, according to USDA, islack of sufficient resources, particularly staff

suppor t . USDA’s Economics and Sta t i s t icsService stated that the JC suffers from thedual role of supporter of the food and agricul-t u r a l s c i ence sys t em and eva lua to r o f t he

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VIl—Determining Research Priorities . 143

sys tem, The p r iva te sec to r i s pa r t i cu la r lycritical of the JC, believing that too much ef-fort is devoted to “lubricating the machinery”rather than identifying desired results and ex-isting impediments to their achievement.

Within the adminis tra t ive segments of theJC itself, some dissension has developed. For

example, on July 31, 1980, the North CentralRegional Experiment Station Directors Asso-ciation voted unanimously to suspend partici-pation in the JC planning process. Their con-cern was that USDA did not use State input inbudgeting and the Association did not under-stand the role of the regional councils. Theyalso disapproved of the membership and sizeof the JC national research planning commit-tee , The Associat ion recent ly resumed par-ticipation in the JC’s activities.

JC’s success has also been limited by a lack

of clear direction by the whole Council to itsrole. Individual members define JC’s coordi-nation role in widely differing terms from “fa-cilitating exchange of information” to acting“as an overs igh t counc i l” and “se t t ing re -search priorities. ” Adding to this confusion,USDA takes the position that the JC’s role isto supply input to USDA’s long-range plan-ning process and to accomplish much of theleg i s la t ive p lann ing respons ib i l i t i e s o f theS e c r e t a r y . J C m e m b e r s , h o w e v e r , b e l i e v etheir key role lies in fostering coordinationand that their role in planning is that of an ad-

visor to other actual planners (GAO, 1981).There is also debate over the composition of

JC. Through early 1981, the JC was composedof 24 members, which represented the follow-ing: 9 from USDA, 5 from land-grant collegesand SAES, 2 from UAB, 2 from private indus-try, 1 from Office of Science and Technologypolicy, and 5 f rom extension, nonland-grantunivers i t ies and other in terested par t ies . Inthe view of SAES, they are not adequatelyrepresented on the JC consider ing that theyf u n d a n d c o n d u c t a s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t o f

agricultural research (OTA letter of inquiry,1981). There is a perception that because theJC is composed of a large number of USDAemployees, it is dominated by USDA.

In relation to this concern is the fact thatthe JC must use USDA for staff support. TheJC believes it would enhance its ability to be

an independent advisory committee if it hadits own staff (OTA letter of inquiry, 1980).

In evaluating its own performance, the JCbelieves it has made some progress in its areaof responsibility. But it recognizes that cer-tain responsibilities charged to it by Congresshave not been fulfilled (OTA letter of inquiry,1980).

It is not surprising that the JC has not, in its 3years of existence, fully satisfied all of its ob-

jectives. In fact, the JC only recently was ableto develop i ts 21-member commit tee on re-

gional and national organizational structure.Serious questions exist as to whether the JCcould ever effectively carry out the functionsassigned to it . Even more serious questionsexist as to whether, if it could carry out thoseassignments, the results would be desirable.

Castle, in a recent evaluation of the foodand agricultural research planning system in-cluding ARPAC, put it this way:

This (the present) system is a vast exercisein hypocrisy. All experienced administratorsknow that planning and coordination exer-

cises are not worth much if control of budgetand personnel res ides e lsewhere. I f youbelieve as I and many others do, that decen-tra l izat ion has been and is a necessarycharacteristic of a productive system, theonly thing worse than the present planningand coordination would be to give it controlover budget and/ or personnel. There areworse things than irrelevance; if the presentplanning and coordination really becamerelevant to budget and personnel the situa-tion would be worse—much much worse (p.16).

8/14/2019 8106



ROLE OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

AND EXTENSION USERS ADVISORY BOARD

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 alsodirected the Secretary of Agriculture to ap-point a National Agricultural Research andExtension Users Advisory Board (UAB). Its

primary purpose is to represent the divergentopinions of users and determine their needsand priori t ies . UAB’s members come fromthe food and agricultural sectors of the econ-omy; others are consumers. They are chosenfor their potential to offer opinions independ-ent of political considerations that might in-hibit Federal employees or representatives of organizations. Among UAB’s mandates arethe

q

q

q

q

.following:

review USDA’s policies, plans, and goalsfor research and extension;

examine r e l a t i onsh ips be tween p r iva t eand public programs and assess the ex-tent of research conducted by the privatesector;recommend policies, priorities, and strat-egies for research and extension; andassess distribution of resources and allo-cation of funds for research and exten-sion.

UAB is required to submit two reports an-nually. One is to the Secretary recommendingal loca t ion of respons ib i l i t ies and fundinglevels among federally supported agricultural

research and extension programs, including areview and assessment of the al location of funds for research and extension by the orga-nizations represented on the JC. The secondis a report to the President and to the Senatea n d H o u s e a g r i c u l t u r e a n d a p p r o p r i a t i o n scommit tees which reviews the Pres ident ’sproposed budget for food and agr icul tura lsciences.

UAB has focused its efforts on primarilyreviewing and advising the Secretary on na-tional long-term research priorities, policies,

and strategies. In preparing the above reportsit develops research priorities in a multistepprocedure. First, members identify their ownconcerns and after discussion develop a l is t

of priority areas. Next, UAB obtains an inven-tory of research and extens ion ac t iv i ty ineach area. After holding f ield meetings ands o l i c i t i n g m o r e o p i n i o n s f r o m u s e r s , t h e

original l is t is modified to develop a state-ment of UAB opinion.

Priorities recommended by UAB are exam-ined by the JC, and UAB in turn reviews theJC’s recommendations. In the end, the twogroups may agree on one set of priorities, butthey are not obligated to do so.

UAB’s respons ib i l i t ies a re more rea l i s t icand attainable than those of the JC (Knutson,Paarlberg, and McCalla, 1980). However, itsimpact on research priorities is unclear. UAB

itself quest ions whether i t has had any im-pact. USDA officials feel that UAB has beeneffect ive. However, when quest ioned, theseof f ic ia l s were unable to poin t to spec i f ics(GAO, 1981). Some USDA administrators in-dicate that they refer to UAB reports whenes tabl i sh ing the i r pr ior i t ies , but , becauseUAB pr ior i t ies of ten para l le l USDA pos i -tions, the UAB’s impact is uncertain. USDA’sresponses to UAB reports indicate the simi-la r i ty of the two groups’ pos i t ions . In re-sponse to UAB's October 1979 report, USDAconcurred fully or in part in 41 of UAB’s 46

r ecom m en dation s. I n c on c u r r i n g , U SD Aof t en c i t ed ongo ing work a s cove r ing therecommendations (GAO, 1981).

Critics have not been as harsh with UAB asthey have been with the JC. USDA believesUAB is fulfilling its intended role but has yett o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h n e g a t i v e o r l o wpriorities. Moreover, says USDA, UAB needsto: a) learn more about the science and educa-t ion system, and b) improve i ts group deci-sion processes and skills. Some critics in theprivate sector believe that both the JC and

UAB have done a miserable job, have had lit-t le impact , and do not adequately representthe private sector (Responses to OTA lettersof inquiry, 1980). These critics are for the

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Vll—Determining Research Priorities q 145

most part organizations that are not repre-sented on UAB.

Lack of user representation on UAB is aproblem. UAB has l imited membership andcannot include individuals from all interestedgroups. Representatives of interested groupsand organizations can appear before UAB,but this procedure is less than satisfactory tomost organizations. Even if UAB were to ar-range for formal and periodic meetings, it isonly an advisory board, and most organiza-tions desire direct contact with those respon-sible for public-supported research. However,UAB members do not see themselves as rep-resentatives of organized groups. They be-lieve their task is to interact among them-selves and with researchers, not to serve asmere condui ts fo r the op in ions o f o thers .

They believe they represent the multiple in-terests of all users, rather than the interests of groups (Response to OTA letter of inquiry,1980),

UAB, like the JC, must rely on USDA for itsresources. It does not have operating funds or

authority to appoint staff. Thus, the scope of work performed by UAB relies on the benevo-lence of USDA.

UAB was established as a citizens group torepresent users of research. However, somere p re se n te d o n th e p re se n t UAB a re mo rep ro v id e r s o r p e r fo rme rs o f r e se a rc h th a nstrictly users. Examples include the Rocke-fe l l e r F o u n d a t io n a n d re t i r e d r e se a rc h e r s .These enti t ies should more appropria te ly berepresented on the JC.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES IN DETERMINING

RESEARCH

The process for determining priorit ies forfood and agricultural research in the UnitedStates invariably ra ises problems for thosewho administer the system. Moreover, theseproblems are exploding into complex policyissues. Unfortunately, the processes that weref o r m e r l y u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e p r i o r i t i e s n olonger seem to be functioning as smoothly as

they did. New processes for improving thepriority-setting system are necessary for threereasons.

F i r s t , d e c i s i o n s w i l l a l w a y s h a v e t o b emade, but they should not be made by default.Decisions deserve to be arrived at by a re-sponsible process.

Second, most of the expertise for makingappropria te decisions is within the systemitself. Some persons would prefer to shift thedecision process— or at least some segmentsof it—outside the system. However, the rec-

8The information presented in this section draws heavilyfrom the OTA resource paper, “The Process of Setting Prior-ities for Food and Agricultural Research, ” prepared byCharles E. French.

PRIORlTIES6

ord of the system is too commanding to allowits leadership to abandon its role.

Third, the evolving planning system some-what legitimized by the Food and AgricultureAct of 1977 threatens the system. Castle char-acterizes the research system as a troubledand uncertain system, and the proposed sys-tem of national planning and coordination as

a vast exercise in hypocrisy (Castle, 1980).This disturbing evaluation has been endorsedby others.

T h o s e m a n a g i n g t h e s y s t e m m u s t w o r kwithin it to adapt it as needed; otherwise theinevitable result is to lose the freedom whichthe system now enjoys. What is needed is astra tegy that can discipline the system, pro-tect its integrity, retain reasonable control of it, provide a framework for more accountabil-i ty , and give more posit ive direction to thesystem.

A number of new processes for priority set-ting are available for research management toconsider. One is the project ranking system,in which an attempt is made to place judg-

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Ch. VIl—Determining Research Prior i t ies q 1 4 7

tion of USDA dominance, and overorganiza-tion.

q Funct ions of UAB are more a t ta inablethan those of the JC. Impact of UAB on re-search priori t ies is unclear . I t cannot repre-sent all users of research, and those not repre-sented are c r i t ica l of UAB’s per formance .UAB, l ike the JC, lacks i t s own opera t ingfunds and is dependent on USDA for its re-sources. Its membership includes performersas well as users.

. There i s lack of sa t i s fac tory long- termprocess for evaluating existing research activ-i t i e s , po t en t i a l r e sea rch oppor tun i t i e s , anddevelopment of a new set of research prior-i t ies . Long-term research planning which isupdated every 4 years or more can be accom-plished by an intensive, comprehensive study

involving research administrators , scientis ts ,and users.

CHAPTER VII REFERENCES

French, Ch arles E., “The Process of Setting Prior-ities for Food and Agricultural Research, ”OTA background paper, 1981.

Guither, Harold, The Food Lobbyists: Behind the

Scenes of Food and Agri-Politics (Lexington,Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980).Had wiger, Don, and William Brown, The New Pol-

itics of Food (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath,1978),

Huston, Keith, “Priority Setting Process in theState Agricultural Experiment Stations, ” OTAbackground paper, 1980.

Knutson, R., D. Paarlberg, and A. McCalla,“Forces Affecting Food and Agricultural Re-search Decisions, ” OTA background paper,1980.

Mahlstede, John, “Role of the Joint Council onFood and Agricultural Sciences and the Na-

tional Agricultural Research and ExtensionUsers Advisory Board in Coordinating Re-search and Determining Research Priorities, ”OTA background paper, 1981.

Paarlberg, Don , Food and Food Policy: Issues of the1980’s (Lincoln, Nebr.: University of NebraskaPress, 1980).

Paarlberg, Don, “The Land Grant Colleges and theStructural Issue, ” Amer. Jour. of Agr. Econ.,vol. 63, No. 1, February 1981, pp. 129-134.

USDA/ SEA, written respon ses by SEA to inquiryby OTA, July 25, 1980,

U.S. General Accounting Office, Long-Range Plan-ning Can Improve the Efficiency of Agricul-tural Research and Development (Washington,D. C.: GAO, July 1981).

Report of the National Agricultural Research andExtension Users Advisory Board, Washing-ton, D. C., October 1979.

Report of the National Agricultural Research andExtension Users Advisory Board, Washing-ton, D. C., March 1981.

Report of the National Agricultural Research andE x t e n s i o n U s e r s A d v i s o r y B o a r d ,Washington, D, C., March 1981.

USDA, 1979 Annual Report on Food and Agricul-tur al Sciences by the Secretary of Agricultur e tothe President and Congress, Washington, D. C.,February 1980.

USDA, 1980 Annual Report in Food and Agricul-

tur al Sciences by the Secretary o f Agricultur e tothe President and Congress, Washington, D. C.,February 1981.

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Science,response to OTA letter of inquiry, Aug. 28 andDec. 23, 1980.

National Agricultural Research and ExtensionUsers Advisory Board, Response to OTA let-ter of inquiry, Sept. 4, 1980.

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter VI I I

In t ernat ional Dim ensions

of Researc h

8/14/2019 8106


Page

Development of U.S. International Research Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....152U.S. Agency for International Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

Origins of Research Component. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,...,153Research at the Country Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154Centrally Funded Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....155Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1975. . . . . . . .......................155

U.S. Department of Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........157General Administrative Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .157Special Foreign Currency Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ...158Tropical and Subtropical Research and Training Program., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158Recent Legislative and Administrative Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,,.......159

Private Sector Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................159T h e E m e r g i n g I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h S y s t e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0

Structure and Growth of the System . . . . . . . . . . . ....................,.........160International Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........161National Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................162International Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................163

Potential Value of the System to the United States... . .........................163General Nature of Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............163

Specific Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,..,.......164

Status of U.S.-International Linkages . . . . . . . . . . ..............................164Co n s t ra in t s o n In te rn a t io n a l p a r t i c ip a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5AID: Lower Income Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............165

The Basic Problems.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................165Title XII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............167

U S D A : M i d d l e - a n d H i g h - I n c o m e N a t i o n s . ...,... . ...........................167The Role of States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................167The International Research Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....168Engaging the Private Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................168Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................168

Principal Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................169Chapter VIII References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............,169

List of Tables

Table No. Page11. CGIAR-Sponsored International Agricultural Research Centers and Programs., ..16112. Total Core Expenditures on Centers and Programs Sponsored by CGIAR,

1972-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......16213, AID Contributions to International Agricultural Research Centers. . ..........,.16214. Public Expenditures on Agricultural Research, Major Regions of

the World, 1959 and 1974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........................162

8/14/2019 8106


C h a p t e r V l l l

In ternat iona l D imens ions

of Researc h

Until the 1930’s, the U.S. food and agricul-tural research system was concerned almostwholly with domestic problems. Immediatelyfollowing World War II , however, changingw o r l d c o n d i t i o n s c a u s e d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e -search to be viewed in a broader internationalsett ing. There are several reasons why thisviewpoint has become even more importantover the past 30 years.

The United States is becoming increasinglydependent on the developing nations for agrowing amount and diversity of food im-

ports (largely noncompetitive) and raw mate-rials. For these countries to continue to assistthe United States they must have economicand political stability, and one way that theUnited States can assure such stability is toh e lp th e m me e t th e i r o wn in c re a s in g fo o dneeds (caused by rap id popula t ion g rowthand rising incomes).

Another reason for strengthening the in-ternational research and technology base of poorer nations is to assist them in producingmore of their basic food needs. This is in their

own best interest, but is also of value to theUnited States to the extent that it enables theNation to cut down on foreign food aid. Sincethe end of World War II , the United Stateshas spent about $30 billion to alleviate starva-t ion among these na t ions (Fur t ick , 1981) .Because of rapidly rising world population,decreasing se l f -suff ic iency , and inc reasingcommodity prices, the annual food-aid cost isrising sharply and could become an impossi-ble burden for the United States and otherdonors.

Helping the developing nations to improvetheir economic standing will, in turn, aid inopening up vast foreign markets for U.S.-pro-duced goods. Now, as never before, we need

added trade to offset the decline in balance of payments caused largely by burgeoning oilimports. Serious disincentives for the Amer-ican private sector make expanded foreigntrade difficult or unattractive.

Yet another reason for stressing expandedin te rn a t io n a l in v o lv e me n t in a g r i c u l tu re i sthat there is much the United States couldlearn from agricultural research conducted inthe rest of the world. Once the United Stateswas far ahead of the rest of the world in thescope of agricultural research achievements;

but in recent years, th is sta tus has declinedsignificantly as the U.S. agricultural researchsy s te m h a s l a n g u i sh e d a n d th e sy s te ms o f other nations have advanced. There is an in-creasing amount of research available, whichthe United States could draw on in meetingits own needs.

Finally, and perhaps foremost in the mindsof many, provision of such assistance is theh u ma n i ta r i a n th in g to d o , e v e n wh e re th eUnited States secures no immediate benefit.

The world will not be a better place solely

or simply because of agricultural research.But it plays a kingpin role in agricultural de-velopment, and agricultural development isof much greater importance to many nationsth a n ma y b e g e n e ra l ly r e c o g n iz e d in th ehighly urbanized U.S. society.

While there is great promise for the UnitedS ta te s a n d o th e r s in a b ro a d e n e d in te rn a -t io n a l d ime n s io n in a g r i c u l tu ra l r e se a rc h ,there is a long way to go before this potentialis fully reached. Much will depend on the per-f o r m a n c e o f t w o o r g a n i z a t i o n s – t h e U . S .

Agency for International Development (AID)a n d t h e U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e(USDA). At present, both face substantial, butdiffering, handicaps in carrying out this task.

151

8/14/2019 8106



This chapter traces the development of in- search system, and presents f indings on theternational agricultural research activities in problems of current U.S. international par-AID and USDA, notes concurrent develop- ticipationme n ts in th e in te rn a t io n a l a g r i c u l tu ra l r e -

DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. IN TERNATIONAL RESEARCH ACTIV ITI ES1

Orig ina l ly , ne i the r USDA nor the land-grant colleges had any governmental chargeor funding for international activities. But asthe research capability of both groups grew,their scientists were increasingly called on byforeign governments and organizations. Bythe 1930’s Americans had provided technicalagricultural assistance on five continents.

All of this was done on an individual and adhoc basis. Not until 1938 was USDA givenlegal authority to provide technical assistance

in the Convention of Cultural Relations. In1939, Public Law 355 established cooperativetropical experiment stations in Latin Americato develop crops complementary (noncompet-itive) to U.S. production. Funds were appro-pria ted in July 1941, and the first programbegan with the signing of an agreement withPeru in April 1942. The onset of World War IIdelayed progress.

After World War II, the Marshall Plan pro-vided the main vehicle for U.S. involvementin international agricultural matters. It is not

known, however, how much assistance thep la n p ro v id e d d i re c t ly to a g r i c u l tu ra l r e -search in Europe. Subsequently, point IV, es-tablished in 1949, extended U.S. assistance toother areas. The early emphasis in point IVwas on the transfer of American agriculturaltechnology and es tab l ishment o f ex tensionservices. In the early 1950’s, the need for in-stitutions of teaching, research, and exten-sion was recognized, but it was still thoughtthat technology could be directly transferredto developing countries.

By the early 1960’s, it became apparent thatU.S. technology simply was not immediately

useful to many tropical and semitropical de-veloping nations. Adaptation was necessary,a n d th i s r e q u i re d a n in d ig e n o u s r e se a rc hcapacity. This realization came slowly andunevenly, and many nonagriculturalists donot comprehend it to this day.

Meanwhile , some useful re la ted activit ieshad been ca rr ied ou t . Ear ly in the 1950’s ,American fo re ign ass is tance agenc ies con-tracted with a number of American agricul-tural colleges to help establish comparable in-

sti tutions in developing nations.2

A m e r i c a ncolleges also provided training for foreignstudents, resulting in development of institu-tions and trained staff which could later con-tribute to research.

One of the most significant research devel-opments a t midcentury started quite differ-ently. In the early 1940’s following a visit bySecretary of Agriculture Wallace to Mexico,the Rockefeller Foundation sent a small teamof’ prominent agricultural scientists to thatcountry to see what steps might be taken to

increase i ts agricultural production. A grainimprovement program was begun in 1943 incooperation with the Office of Special Studiesof’ the Ministry of Agriculture. Dr. NormanBo r la u g so o n jo in e d th e p ro g ra m, a n d in1959, he became head of Rockefeller’s Inter-

na t iona l Whea t Improvement Pro jec t . Thewheat project was merged with a comparablecorn program in 1963 to form the Interna-tional Center for Corn and Wheat Improve-ment. Work sponsored by the Mexican Gov-ernment was shifted to the National Instituteof Agricultural Research in 1961 (Stakman,

Bradfield, and Mangelsdorf, pp. 1-93).

IThis section d raw s heavily from vol. V of the Sup portingPapers: World Food and Nutrition Study, pp. 91-127, and fromFurtick, 1981.

‘See Read for details on a highly successful program inIndia.

8/14/2019 8106


——

Ch. VIII—International Dimensions of Research q 153

In looking back on the early post-WorldWar II period in 1964, one observer stated:

Although our government has been activelyengaged in technical assistance in agriculturethroughout Latin America for two decades,the sad truth is that not a single first-classagricultural research center has been devel-

oped as a consequence of these activities.Mexico has done well, but not because of anytechnical assistance from the U.S. Govern-ment. . , . Japan has done exceedingly well onher own. But throughout South Asia, wherewe have both public and private commit-ments to assist agriculture, with few excep-tions new agricultural research has been ne-glected (Schultz, p. 201)

Despite the strong dependence of U.S. agri-culture on a steady generation of new tech-no logy , the U.S . techn ica l a ss is tance p ro-grams for nearly 20 years neither developed

nor used new agricultural technology in thecooperating countries with any real degree of effectiveness (Moseman, 1970).

U.S. Agency for In ternat ional

Deve lopment

In 1961, the various scattered internationalassistance activities of the United States werecombined into a new AID. This agency pro-vided the link for much of the involvement of USDA and the States in developing countriesfor the next 20 years. However, AID had little

to do with developed nations.

Orig ins of Research Component

The lack of a sound research componentwithin the U.S. foreign assistance programwas recognized when AID was established.Hence a research program with special budg-et support was initiated in 1962. In July 1964,a conference on international rural develop-ment concluded that greater support shouldbe given to the research component by AID,in its own programs and within its contracts

with U.S. agricultural universit ies. Althoughdata are fragmentary, i t appears that therewas a substantial expansion in expenditureson agricultural research during the 1960’s.

Pr io r to the fo rmat ion o f AID, agr icu l-turalists involved in foreign assistance weregrouped in one central Office of Agriculturein the Department of State . Senior membershad line responsibility and could make budg-et decisions involving projects and programs.With the es tab l ishment o f AID, however ,

many of the agriculturalists were dispersed toregional bureaus, a n d th o se th a t r e ma in e dwere given staff duties. With this dispersioncame a decline in responsibility, in Washing-ton and in the field. Some efforts were madeto return to the pattern of the 1950’s, but theproponents were outdone by the powerful re-gional bureaus which preferred to retain theirnew status.

There were other constra ints. One was acongressionally imposed lid on the amount of money that could be spent on all forms of re-

search, which continued to the mid-1970’s.The o ther const ra in t was on commodit iesthat were considered to be in surplus, such aswheat and rice.

The tide began to change for food crops inFebruary 1966 . Pres iden t Johnson , in h is“War on Hunger” message of February 10,emphasized the need to help countries in bal-ancing agricultural productivity with popu-la tion growth and to e liminate the surplusconcept in food aid. On March 7, 1968, AIDissued a new order that liberalized the com-modity focus and made it possible to providesupport for a broader range of research ac-tivities.

Despite the provincialism of the regionalbureaus and the substantial difficulties of theperiod, the AID research specialists had aglobal vision. At a meeting of the Develop-ment Advisory Committee in the spring of 1967, the U.S. delegation presented a pro-posal for strengthening international collab-oration in adaptive research with special em-phasis on: 1) world centers patterned after theInternational Rice Research Institute, 2) re-

gional centers to be concerned with the prob-lems of major ecological regions, and 3) na-tional centers for attention to localized prob-lems (Moseman, 1970, pp. 93-94).

8/14/2019 8106



While this concept exceeded the realities of research in AID at the time, there was somefollowthrough. AID became involved in someprogram reviews of national agricultural re-search systems in several Asian nations. AIDalso began to provide funding to the Interna-tional Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

i n 1 9 6 9 a n d t o t h r e e o t h e r i n t e r n a t i o n a lcenters in 1970. A massive review of the newc e re a l v a r i e t i e s wa s h e ld in th e sp r in g o f 1 9 6 9 , a n d l a t e r t h a t y e a r , a T e c h n i c a lAssistance Bureau, which provided a neededfocus on research, was established.

The Technica l Assis tance Bureau ( to be -c o me th e De v e lo p me n t S u p p o r t Bu re a u in1977) and the regional bureaus sharply ex-p a n d e d th e i r su p p o r t fo r r e se a rc h in th e1970’s. Three main avenues of support wereused : b i la te ra l , mul t i la te ra l , and con trac ts

with American institutions. The regional bur-eaus were invo lved in b i la te ra l ac t iv i t ie swhich were principally research loans sup-plemented by some grant funds. The Tech-nical Assistance Bureau was involved in vary-ing degrees with a ll three activit ies. I t pro-vided technical assistance in the bilateral loanactivit ies and grant funding for multi la teraland contract activities. The multilateral re-search activities involved the support of theinternational centers sponsored by the Con-sultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) p lus two o ther in te rna-

tional research organizations, which are notmembers.

Although overall funding for research in-creased sharply over the period, only thatportion funded by the Technical AssistanceBureau can be documented with much preci-sion. The bilateral programs sponsored by theregional bureaus and country mission usuallyin v o lv e d ma n y o th e r a c t iv i t i e s b e y o n d re -search.

While the research funding levels rose inAID, research continued to have a relatively

uncerta in posit ion in the organization andstaffing of the agency. AID continued to be ageneral purpose organization run by gener-alists ra ther than by scientists. There were

re la t iv e ly f e w t r a in e d a g r i c u l tu ra l i s t s a n de v e n f e w e r e x p e r i e n c e d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e -searchers.

To provide a more clearly defined role forresearch, consideration was given in the late1970’s to es tab l ish ing a separa te—though

companion—research agency , the Ins t i tu tefor Scientific and Technological Cooperation(ISTC). ISTC, however, did not receive con-gressional approval.

AID added a science advisor and allocatedsome funds to the National Academy of Sci-ences to cosponsor modest research projectsin developing nations. There is some concernamong AID research spec ia l is ts tha t thesep r o j e c t s c o u l d b e c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e a n ddiver t le ss-deve loped-country resea rchersfrom projects of greatest importance to their

country to those o f in te res t to a few U.S .scientists, who may have little knowledge of the developing country. An attempt is beingmade to avoid this problem.

Research at the Country Level

AID support of research and rela ted pro-grams has no t been consis ten t . By fa r thelargest expenditure (though small in relationto total funds for AID food and nutrition pro-grams) has been at the country mission levelin response to requests by host governments.

Even so, there has often been reluctance tofund research because most AID country mis-s io n a d min i s t r a t iv e p e r so n n e l d o n o t h a v eagricultural backgrounds. They tend to think,a s w a s c o m m o n i n t h e 1 9 5 0 ’ s a n d e a r l y1960’s, that all the answers are available fromU.S. agr icu l tu re . Pro jec ts wi th more rap idpayoff tend to be favored in order to showc o n c re te r e su l t s d u r in g th e i r to u r o f d u ty(Furtick, 1981). This is unfortunate because of all the donors, AID usually has: 1) the best ac-cess to information in host countries, 2) agreater chance to affect local priorities, and

3) the largest reservoir of food and agricul-tural expertise . AID miss ions can read i lywork with most donors informally to ensurebalanced programs with realistic objectives.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research “ 155

Research p ro jec ts a t the country miss ionlevel have usually been aimed at building orstrengthening the research capacity of localre se a rc h in s t i tu t io n s . S u c h p ro g ra ms h a v eusually been carried out through contractsw i th u n i ve r si ti es , i n te r ag en cy a g r ee m en t swith USDA, or private contractors. Increas-

ingly, these activities have required close co-ordination with other bila teral and multi la t-eral donors that may be supporting differentaspects of the same institution. The effective-ness of these projects has been hampered bylack of qualified persons in the field missions,compounded by frequent transfers. This hasmade it difficult for AID to effectively servethe needs of the host countries. In addition,lengthy review and contracting procedureshave made timely assistance difficult.

AID support for this research has long been

handicapped by inadequate or inappropriatestaffing (Furtick, 1981). Use of foreign serviceofficers as project monitors between foreignservice assignments has led to rapid turnoverof administrative staff, frequently with littleor no research tra ining, result ing in delaysand mismanagement. Some regional bureaustaff have been suspicious of research as lack-ing impact and relevance; this has preventedc o m p e t e n t p l a n n i n g a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .There has also been a chronic lack of ade-quate project evaluations during and after thecontract period.

Centra l ly Funded Research

Centrally funded research covers the vari-ous activities that are not country specific.Many of the funded contracts are strictly re-search in nature. Others have a technical as-s i s t a n c e c o mp o n e n t to p ro v id e e d u c a t io n a land o ther ac t iv i t ie s to hasten use o f theresearch results. (Centrally funded researcha t t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c hcenters is discussed in a subsequent section.)

Because AID does not have a research staff

of its own, all centrally funded research hasbeen con trac ted p r imar i ly to un ivers i t ie s ,consortia of universities, USDA, other Fed-eral agencies, or in a few cases, to private re-search organizations. This research has in-

cluded grants that, as a result of insistence byth e u n iv e r s i ty c o mmu n i ty , h a v e b e e n c o n -tracted to universities with minimum restric-tions on their use (Furtick, 1981). Their pur-pose was to strengthen research capability inareas where AID antic ipated continuing re-quests fo r ass is tance and curren t capac i ty

was inadequate to respond. These strengthen-ing programs usually covered a 5-year period.

A major difficulty in use of expertise wast h a t s t r e n g t h e n i n g g r a n t s w e r e c e n t r a l l yfu n d e d , a n d th e r e g io n a l b u re a u s we re a todds with the central bureau. Further, the re-gional bureau management had l i t t le or notra in ing in agr icu l tu re and d id no t under-stand or appreciate the role of science andtechnology in country development. In a fewcases, this expertise was used by AID. How-ever, with changing missions and regional

personnel who had changing ideas and lackof expertise in agriculture, these resourceswere soon forgotten.

Other contracts have been aimed at solu-tion of problems of multicountry importancesuch as specific pest and disease problems,biological nitrogen fixation by tropical leg-umes, and control of major weed problems.In some miss ions , these resea rch ac t iv i t ie shave been used to backstop specific problemsidentified by AID country missions.

Ti t le XI I o f the Foreign Assist anceAc t o f 1975

Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1975 prov ided fo r the es tab l ishment o f aBoard fo r In te rna t iona l Food and Agricu l-tural Development (BIFAD). The purpose of the act was to more fully use the expertise of American land-grant colleges and universi-t ies in agricultural development programs.The congress iona l sponsors o r ig ina l ly p ro-posed to the Secretary of Agriculture that thisprogram be made part of USDA. This sugges-

tion was not accepted, and the program wasi n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h i n A I D , b u t w i t h o u tse p a ra te fu n d in g . B IF AD me mb e rs a re a p -pointed by the President, of which the firstwere appointed in late 1976. The legislation

8/14/2019 8106



requires that a majority be from universitiesand the others from outside government.

This legislat ion was viewed among someAID staff as an attempt by the universities totake over part of the AID functions (Furtick,1981) . A long s t rugg le be tween AID andBIFAD fol lowed. AID viewed the ro le of

BIFAD as advisory to AID; however, the legis-lation gave it policy and oversight authoritywi thou t AID r ep re sen ta t i on . Af t e r t he ap -pointment of the first BIFAD, the implemen-tation of title XII appeared to bog down in a jurisdict ional wrangle between BIFAD andAID. The leg is la t ion crea ted much of theproblem because title XII did not carry newfunding or provide BIFAD authority over ex-isting funds. Thus, all programs and projectsidentified as title XII had to come from ongo-ing food and agricultural programs of AID.W i t h o u t t e a r i n g d o w n o n g o i n g p r o g r a m s ,programs to be established with universi typart icipation required ei ther: 1) a long waitfor new funds or 2) accepting ongoing pro-grams or commitments as title XII activities.BIFAD was re luc tant to become ident i f iedwith programs for which it had not been in-volved in the planning and programing. Thelatter solution has been used primarily (Fur-tick, 1981).

Even tua l ly unde r t he cu r r en t p roces s , alarge segment of both country AID missionp rog rams and cen t r a l AID p rog rams wi l l

have had major title XII input and will be theresul t of jo in t AID-univers i ty in terac t ion .This process is moving more smoothly. Thelong and often stormy period required to im-plement t i t le XII has caused congress ionalimpatience and provided ammunition to theprogram’s critics. It has taken nearly 5 yearsfor the program to become functional in theways intended, but there are still many unre-solved problems.

As developed, the title XII program has twomain components: the Joint Committee forAgr i cu l tu r a l Deve lopmen t ( JCAD) and theJoint Research Committee (JRC). JCAD dealswith education and technical assistance. Atthe country level, JRC has given particular at-

tention to developing collaborat ive researchsupport programs (CRSPs). The concept of aCRSP is one of cooperation and collaborationin program development among the qualifiedscientists in the United States, national insti-tu t ions in developing count r ies , and appro-priate international agricultural research cen-

ters . Each part icipant must make a signif i-cant contr ibution of i ts own resources. Eachprogram covers a specif ic area of researchpriority. The first of these projects is in effect;o t h e r s a r e u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d i m p l e -m e n t a t i o n w i l l d e p e n d o n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f funds. As in the case of BIFAD, it took time toget this program under way and there wereconsiderable problems. Ini t ial administrat ivecosts of such programs were substantial (Fur-tick, 1981).

Tit le XII has been promoted as providing

the means for universi t ies to commit them-selves to long-term assistance in internationalfood and agricultural development. Althoughmany of the major universities have had mul-timillions of dollars annually from AID con-tracts for many years, contracts have usuallybeen approached on an ad hoc basis. This hasprevented the development of career t racksand promotion and tenure criteria for inter-national activities. Moreover, it became haz-ardous for younger faculty members to ac-cept assignments without jeopardizing theirca r ee r s . The cond i t i on has made admin i s -

t ra tors re luc tant to re lease senior facul ty ,because of the interruption in ongoing pro-grams. This has often caused the universitiesto become hiring halls to fill contract obliga-t ions, rather than develop a pool of perma-nen t f acu l ty wi th i n t e rna t iona l expe r i enceavailable for use in international programs.

BIFAD issued a major policy paper in 1980on ways to overcome these deficiencies in theuniversi ty system; i t was enti t led “TowardMore Effective Involvement of Title XII Uni-ve r s i t i e s i n In t e rna t iona l Agr i cu l tu r a l De -v elop m en t.” A co m p a n i o n d o cu m e n t w a sadopted by the Executive Committee of theNat ional Associa t ion of S ta te Univers i t iesand Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) on Feb-

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Special Foreign Currency ResearchProgram (SFCRP)

One early activity was the SFCRP author-ized by the Agricultural Trade Developmentand Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480)as amended in 1958 and 1959. SFCRP did not,

however, attain substantial proportions untilthe 1960’s, It used local currencies paid to theUnited States for Public Law 480 sales to fi-nance in-country research of mutual interestto the foreign nation and the United States. Itwas administered by the International Pro-grams Division of the Agricultural ResearchService (ARS).

Public Law 480 sales were initially made toa number of countries that are not now classi-fied as developing nations. Thus in fiscal year1965, out of total research expenditures of local currencies equivalent to $7.16 million,

68.4 percent was made in countries not nowclassified as developing nations.

During the 1970’s , the re was a sh i f t inPublic Law 480 repayment terms from localcurrencies to dollars, which sharply reducedthe number o f countr ies wi th excess loca lcurrencies available for the purpose. Hence,SFCRP gradually became limited to just a fewcountr ies . By f isca l year 1975 , the lead ingcountries were Pakistan, India, and Egypt.

Although a large number of research proj-

ects have been conducted under SFCRP, noformal evaluation has ever been made. Thus,i t i s d i f f icu l t to comment on the p ro jec t ’svalue to and impact on the host country or theUnited States. Some observers, however, feelth a t th e p ro g ra m d iv e r t e d l e s s -d e v e lo p e d -c o u n t ry r e se a rc h e r s f ro m ta sk s th a t mig h thave been of greater national benefit. At thesame time, the benefits to the United States,except for work done in Israel, are not well-known.

Trop ica l and Subtropic al Research and

Training Program (TSRTP)

A second research program was authorizedunder section 406(4) of the Food for Peace Actof 1966 as amended. USDA was allowed to

enter into research contracts or agreementswith American ins t i tu t ions in the f ie ld o f tropical and subtropical agriculture and tomake the results available to friendly develop-ing nations.

Authorization was provided to spend up to

$33 million a year. No funding was providedunder the Food for Peace Act; i t was to beo b ta in e d th ro u g h re g u la r US DA c h a n n e l s .USDA, in turn, evidently did not give the pro-gram high priority, No funding was obtaineduntil fiscal year 1975, when $500,000 was ap-propria ted, partly to establish two researchand training centers, in Hawaii and in PuertoRico. Two principal objectives were set: 1) toprovide tropical tra ining and experience forUSDA and land-grant college personnel byworking on tropical research problems undertropical conditions, and 2) to provide foreign

nationals with a place to learn techniques andmethodology under tropical conditions fromU.S. specialists.

As TSRTP evolved by the mid-1970’s, theprogram centered on the University of Ha-waii and the Federal Experiment Station atMayaguez, Puer to Rico , des igna ted as theMayaguez Institute for Tropical Agriculture.In addition, some universit ies had projectsfinanced by TSRTP funds. Coordination wasprovided by the International Programs Divi-sion of ARS. Funding levels were $529,000 in

fiscal 1976 and $681,000 in fiscal year 1977,S u b se q u e n t ly , th e Ha wa i ia n a n d P u e r to

Rican sites were renamed the Pacific BasinC e n t e r a n d t h e C a r i b b e a n B a s i n C e n t e r ,Funding was raised to $1,8 million in fiscalyear 1978, to $2.2 million in fiscal year 1979,and $2.8 million in fiscal year 1980. Fundingwas shifted from the supplementary budget tothe regular budget in fiscal year 1981.

As of early 1981, Furtick noted that:

Competition between universities and AR

(USDA) scientists for the limited funding hasat times hampered sound program develop-ment. It is currently being conducted more asa competitive grants program than as a cohe-sive program to establish overall tropical re-

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research q 159

search priorities and utilize the best scientifictalents to solve critical tropical problems.

The program also appears to be domestic inorientation, This focus was brought out in arecent internal struggle for control of the pro-gram with another USDA agency (OICD): TheScience and Education Administrat ion “de-

cided to give it a strictly domestic tropicalagriculture focus and keep it” (Furtick, 1981).

Recent Legis lat ive and

Administ rat ive Changes

During the 1970’s, USDA became increas-ingly involved in bilateral programs and otherac t iv i t ies tha t involved a research compo-nent. Many of these were with middle-incomenations (not covered by AID), which paid thebills.

In terna t ional sc ient i f ic coopera t ive pro-

grams were developed under an agreementbetween USDA and NASULGC. The agree-ment was implemented through the establish-ment of an International Science and Educa-tion Council in 1974.

Under section 1458 of title XIV of the Foodand Agriculture Act of 1977, Congress auth-orized USDA to: a) become involved in inter-national research, extension and related tech-nical programs in developing nations in col-laboration with AID and land-grant universi-ties, and b) work directly with the more devel-

oped count r ies tha t a re ine l ig ib le for AIDsuppor t .

As discussed earlier, to improve consolida-tion and administer existing and emerging in-ternational activities, OICD was establishedin May 1978. In early 1980, it absorbed someof the research act ivi t ies formerly adminis-tered by the International Programs Office of ARS.

As of early 1981, the most relevant OICDprograms were concen t r a t ed i n two d iv i -sions: a) Scientific and Technical Exchange,

and b) International Research. The latter divi-sion administers: a) SFCRP discussed earlier,b) research carr ied out under i ts binationalprogram with Spain, and c) the Binational

A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n tFund. The last program is carr ied out withIs rae l ; i t became opera t ional in November1978 and operates off the interest from an $80mill ion endowment fund established by theUnited States and Israel, with a focus on sub-

jects of mutual interest. In one sense, it is an

outgrowth of the SFCRP, which once in-cluded Israel.

I n f i s c a l y e a r 1 9 8 1 , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a lCooperative Research Program was proposedby OICD for the International Research Divi-s ion . I t wou ld have focused on p rob lemsshared with other nations, developed and de-veloping, The proposal was not funded byCongress but was to have been resubmitted aspart of the fiscal year 1982 budget (this wasnot done because of budget constraints) . I twould have called for initial funding of $2.5mill ion, and would have included 15 indi-

vidual research projects ranging in cost from$50,000 to $400,000. One would have in-vo lved coope ra t i on wi th t he i n t e rna t iona lag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch cen t e r s and ano the rwould have involved programs between U.S.agricultural universities and other nations.

USDA maintains administrat ion of certainin-house overseas research. Some USDA re-search programs have found it advantageousto maintain overseas laboratories. The sub- jec ts inc lude cont ro l l ing insec t and weedpests, exotic plant and animal diseases, and

improvement of s torage and transportat ionprocedures in sh ipping in terna t ional prod-u c t s , I n 1 9 7 7 , t h e r e w e r e s i x s u c h l a b -oratories.

Pr iva te Sector Act iv i t ies

Although the private sector plays a majorrole in domestic food and agriculture, par-ticularly in developmental research, its activ-ity has not been as significant in the interna-tional area.

One of the most important reasons is thesize, stability and corporate experience of theprivate sector in the U.S. market, For exam-ple, the United States consumes most of the

8/14/2019 8106



world hybrid seed corn, nearly half of theworld’s pesticide production, and is the larg-est single consumer of fertilizer, machinery,animal health products, etc. By far the largestpart of the remaining market for these prod-ucts is in the other temperate zone, hard cur-rency, industrial countries of Europe, Japan,

Australia, etc. Why should the private sectord e v o te e n e rg ie s to th e d e v e lo p in g wo r ld ,l a rg e ly in th e t ro p ic s , wh e re th e i r c u r re n tproducts often do not work well, where smallfarms predominate , where local infrastruc-ture is inadequate , where governments arenot stable, where illegal payments are a stand-ard procedure, and where currencies are dif-f icu l t to conver t and repa tr ia te? Ye t , thepotential of the future market is enormous; if it were ever fully developed, it would dwarf the domestic market.

E u r o p e a n a n d J a p a n e s e p r i v a t e s e c t o r shave been much more aggressive in develop-ing or modifying technology for the develop-ing country market because of their relativelyrestricted domestic market, a history of tradeas a way of life, and the variety of governmentincentives used for this purpose. These incen-tives include complete tax exemption for ex-patria tes, aggressive marketing assistance aspart of diplomatic initiatives, acceptance of the need for special payments to gain busi-ness, and allowance for these payments asdeductible business expenses. They also pro-

vide export incentives and insurance againstexpropriations or losses from government in-stability.

In con tras t , even the $20 ,000 shor t - te rmand $25,000 long-term overseas U.S. incometax exemptions were voided in recent years,but restored again beginning in 1982. * Therehave been l imits on deductions of local taxpayments and fringe benefits, ignoring thepreponderance of services provided to resi-

dent U.S. citizens that are not enjoyed bythose l iving overseas. When American firmsd e c id e d to d o b u s in e ss a b ro a d wh e re e x -patriate staff was required, they were largelytu rn e d to n o n -Ame r ic a n s to so lv e th e t a xcosts that otherwise should have been addedto salary. As noted, recent passage of the 1981omnibus tax bill has alleviated some of theseconstraints.

Under current amendments to the CorruptPractices Act, special payment to gain busi-n e s s a b r o a d i s a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e . T h u s ,

American firms have increasingly stayed inbusiness by becoming subcontractors to non-A m e r i c a n f i r m s t h a t m a k e t h e i l l e g a lpayments .

Less export assistance and fewer incentivesare available to American firms than to theircompetitors. In addition, the imposition of special environmental protection restrictionson some products often makes the develop-ment of new products for overseas marketsimpossible.

*Effective January 1, 1982, the newly enacted tax law will

free from U.S.–though not foreign–taxes income up to$7!5,000 a year from working expatriates. The maximum alsowill rise by $5,OOO a year until 1986 when it reaches $95,000.

Housing allowances will become largely tax exempt.

THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH SYSTEM

Although growth of the U.S. agricultural St ruc ture and Growthresearch system stagnated somewhat in re- of the Systemcent years, much has been happening in agri-cultural research in the rest of the world. An The two main institutional components are:international agricultural research network is a) a group of international agricultural re-

volving. It is perhaps not yet a system in a search centers and b) national agricultural re-fo rmal sense , bu t the major p ieces a re in search systems in developed and developingplace. nations.

8/14/2019 8106



In ternat ional Centers3

The international centers may be the bestknown component of the system, Most aresponsored by CGIAR. CGIAR sponsors 10centers and three related programs (table 11),Several other centers exist outside the CGIARsystem, including the International FertilizerDevelopment Center in the United States, theAsian Vegetable Research and DevelopmentCenter in Taiwan, and the International Cen-ter for Insec t Phys io logy and Ecology inKenya.

Development of the international centersbegan in 1960 with the establishment of the

3Further details on these centers are provided by the Consul-

tative Croup.

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)in the Philippines by the Ford and RockefellerFoundations. This step was followed by estab-l ishment of three other centers later in thedecade by the same groups. CGIAR was es-tablished in 1971 to secure and coordinatefunding from other sources. Both the number

of programs and funding grew sharply duringthe 1970’s (tables 11 and 12). CGIAR had 31donor members by 1980; 33 in 1981. TheUnited States, through AID, is a charter mem-ber and provides about 25 percent of totalfunding (table 13).

In the relat ively short period of their ex-istence, the international centers have had anextraordinary effect on international agricul-tural research. While their focus is on tropical

Table 11 .—CGIAR-Sponsored International Agricultural

Research Centers and Programs

Core funding,Year 198&

Location established (in millions)

Centers1. International Rice Research

Institute (IRRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. International Maize and Wheat

Improvement Center (CIMMYT) . . . . .3. International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (IITA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. International Center for Tropical

Agriculture (CIAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. International Potato Center (CIP) . . . . .6. International Crops Research

Institute for the Semi-AridTropics (lCRISAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. International Laboratory forResearch on Animal Diseases(ILRAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. International Livestock Center forAfrica (lLCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. International Center for AgriculturalResearch in the Dry Areas(ICARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Programs11. West African Rice Development

Association (WARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . .12. International Board for Plant

Genetic Resources (IBPGR). . . . . . . .

13. International Service for NationalAgricultural Research (ISNAR) . . . . .

Philippines 1960

Mexico 1966

Nigeria 1968

Colombia 1968Peru 1972

India 1972

Kenya 1974

Ethiopia 1974

Syria, Lebanon 1975

United States 1975

Liberia 1968

Italy 1973

Netherlands 1979

$15,032

16,056

14,038

14,2757,100

10,375

10,031

8,954

11,292

2,305

2,562

2,925

1,095

ao~~~ no t in~l”d~ ~ ~ e c l a l p~oje~t~, s~~~ contributions remained to be allocated tO Individual Cer l t e rS /p rOgra r I IS ,

SOURCE U S. Agency for International Development, 1981.

8/14/2019 8106


.


Table 12.—Total Core Expenditures on Centers andPrograms Sponsored by CGIAR, 1972-80

have created a new appreciation of the valueof applied agricultural research.

Year Millions of dollars

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1981 (prop.) . . . . . . . .

$20,06024,95534,52547,54562,870

77,22585,28098,535

118,565139,200

SOURCE: CGIAR Secretariat.

Table 13.—AlD Contributions to internationalAgricultural Research Centers

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal year C G I A RaA V R D C

b IFDCC Total

1970 . . . . . . . . .1971 . . . . . . . . .1972 . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . .1974 . . . . . . . . .1975 . . . . . . . . .1976 . . . . . . . . .1977 . . . . . . . . .1978 . . . . . . . . .1979 . . . . . . . . .1980 . . . . . . . . .

$ 1.6792.9843.770

5.3906.805

10.75514.87018.14021.40024.80029.000

$000.600

0.6000.6000.6000.6000.6000.6000.6000.600

$000

004.100d

5.100d

3.445 d

3.8004.0004.000

$ 1.6792.9844.370

5.9907.405

15.45520.57022.18525.80029.46033.600

acenters arldprograrns sponsored by the Consultative Groupon International

Agricultural Research (tistedintablell).bAsian vegetable Researcfland hK t 10pmen t ( h I h3 r , Taiwan.

Clnternat ional Fertilizer Development Center, Nabarna.dOfthetotalof $12.6 million for the 3years, $8,8 milhon bVasfOr caPital cOn-

structlon and equipment and$3.8mlllion was for operations.

SOURCE: AID/DS/AGR.

and semitropical agriculture for the develop-

in g n a t io n s , th e y p ro v id e a n in te rn a t io n a lpoint of exchange for agricultural research intheir respective fields—for developed countryd o n o rs a n d d e v e lo p in g c o u n t ry r e c ip ie n t s .They are firmly in the mainstream of interna-t iona l resea rch , and the i r resea rch qu ick lyb e c o me s k n o wn a n d u se d in n a t io n a l r e -search programs. They have also shown theneed for further development of national re-search systems in developing nations.

The cen te rs a re exce l len t , p roduc t ive re -search organizations. They have modern fa-

cilities and highly qualified staffs. Naturallythey have their own difficult ies and l imita-tions. They are not, for example, designed todo basic research, which may be more effec-tively done in developed nations. But they

Nat ional Programs

While the international centers may havetaken center stage in recent years, the na-t iona l (pub l ic ) resea rch p rograms of o therdeveloped and developing countries have ex-panded significantly . This expansion is doc-umented in financial terms in table 14. From1959 to 1974, total global expenditures (inconstant dollars) increased three times. Thela rgest inc rease w a s i n A s i a ( e x c l u d i n gJapan). The smallest increase (excluding per-haps some small developing nation) was inthe United States. In 1959, public research ex-penditures in Western Europe were less thanhalf of those in the United States; by 1974,Western Europe exceeded the United States.

Or to view the matter differently, in 1959,U.S. expenditures represented about 27.7 per-cent of global agricultural research expend-i t u r e s ; b y 1 9 7 4 , t h e U . S . p r o p o r t i o n h a ddropped by 10 percent to 17.9 percent. If pri-vately sponsored research, which is of signif-icant importance in the United States, wereincluded, the si tuation might be somewhatdifferent, but the same might be true of otherdeveloped nations.

Table 14.—Public Expenditures on AgriculturalResearch, Major Regions of the World, 1959 and 1974

(in millions of constant 1971 dollars) —

Expendituresa

Change

1959 1974 1959 to 1974Region/country (millions of dollars) (percent)

Asia (excludingJapan) . . . . . . . . . . $ 40.9 $210.5 414%

Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.7 260.4 451Western Europe . . . . 117.1 452.4 287Latin America . . . . . . 33.9 129.4 281Canada, Australia,

and New Zealand . 83.6 241.5 189U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . . . . . 158.6 425.0 168Eastern Europe. . . . . 83.4 216.4 159Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.5 115.4 120United States . . . . . . 240.3 447.5 86

World total . . . . . . $868.0 $2,498.4 188%0 —

aDOeS not include expenditures onintwnatlmd agricultural research centers.

SOURCE: Compiled from James K. Boyce and Robert E. Evenson, Natiorrfd andInternational Agricultural Research and Extension Programs,Agricultural Development Council, New York, 1975, pp.21-31 (table

2.1) (’”Constructed Time Series”).

8/14/2019 8106



It would be useful to know what has hap-pened since 1974; it is probable that the samegeneral t rends have continued. The increasein fund ing in t he deve lop ing na t ions mayhave become even more pronounced as inter-national assistance agencies, part icularly theW o r l d B a n k , h a v e s h a r p l y i n c r e a s e d t h e

volume of lending for agricultural research(World Bank, p. 34). CGIAR, as noted in table11, has recently established an InternationalService for National Agricultural Research toassist developing nations. Prel iminary dataga the red by Evenson ind i ca t e t ha t a pa r -t icularly sharp increase in research expend-i t u r e s h a s t a k e n p l a c e i n S o u t h e a s t A s i a(Evenson, phone conversation, Jan. 28, 1981). 4

U.S. funding during this recent period ap-pears to have increased only slightly.

In te rnat iona l Networks

As suggested earlier, national and interna-tional agricultural research programs are in-creasingly being linked in scientific networksa t t h e c o m m o d i t y l e v e l . O n e e x a m p l e i nwhich the United States is particularly activeis the International Winter and Spring WheatResearch Networks The United States is oneof several developed-country members thatprovide or coordinate the transfer of germplasm or some other needed technology. Theyalso report on the results of multisite testing.In this way, part icipants can have promptaccess to the results of international trials.The system is inexpensive and extraordinar-ily efficient.

Potent ia l Va lue o f the System to the

Uni ted Sta tes

Few nations cannot benefi t direct ly or in-directly from agricultural research done else-where . Th i s i s pa r t i cu l a r ly t r ue o f na t ionswith well-developed research systems that areable to adapt the research to their own condi-tions. Hence the United States, as one of the

4The International Food Policy Research Institute has com-pleted a study of research funding in developing Nations. Thedata are not quite comparable with Evenson’s, but do confirmthe growth in funding. See Oram and Bindlish.sFor details, see Kern.

world’s largest generators and users of agri-cultural technology, should be in a position tocont r ibute and ga in as much as any na t ion .Considering the need to continually improveour ag r i cu l tu r e i n o rde r t o keep domes t i cfood cos ts down and to mainta in our com-peti t ive abil i ty in foreign markets , this is a

signif icant matter ,

General Nature of Benef i ts

Direct benefits to U.S. agriculture includenew and improved technologies that couldeither be put directly to use or be applied withs o m e f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s , T h e U n i t e dStates, like other nations, has borrowed agri-cultural technology for centuries. Over time,foreign borrowing may have played a smallerr o l e . W h e n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s d o m i n a t e dworld research, it was perhaps felt that therewas less to learn elsewhere, but with the resto f t h e w o r l d n o w s u r p a s s i n g t h e U n i t e dStates in research growth, there will be muchmore that the United States might profitablyuse.

Similarly, the United States might do wellto study the structure of research systems inother nations in order to identify useful ideasfor our system. Despite an early interest inforeign systems (see footnote 1 on p. 30 in ch.III), the United States has paid little attentionto t hem fo r t he pas t 75 yea r s . One o f t hepapers prepared for th is s tudy has br ie f ly

reviewed six leading foreign systems and hasidentified several features that might be wor-thy of further study (Smith, 1980).

The exis tence of expanded research sys-tems in other developed and developing na-t ions should contr ibute signif icantly to theimprovement of agriculture in those nations.From the point of view of the U.S. foreign-as-sistance program, this means that there is al a rge r r e sea rch base f rom which to d r aw,both in the other developed nations and in theinternational centers, and a greater opportu-nity to profi tably use i t in the developingnations.

Improvement of agriculture in developingnations can benefit the United States in sev-

8/14/2019 8106



eral ways. First, as it contributes to economicdevelopment, it will improve commercial ex-port markets for U.S. agricultural products.Second, it will reduce the need for UnitedStates confessional food aid—which is get-ting increasingly expensive as U.S. surplusesdisappear. Third, moderation of food prices

in other nations may have a moderating effecton food prices in the United States. Fourth,the United States is a major importer of agri-cultural products that are not grown here; im-provements in this area can mean lower coststo U.S. consumers.

Spec i f i c Exam ples

T h e a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d b y t h e U n i t e dStates to international research has a lreadyfound use in U.S. agriculture. One example isrice (Dalrymple, 1980).

Semidwarf rice originated in East Asia, andmost of the varieties in use trace their originsto varieties developed at IRRI. These vari-e ties, a long with semidwarf varie ties devel-oped through irradiation of domestic vari-eties, were used as parents in breeding pro-grams in the United States, particularly inCal i fo rn ia .6

Semidwarf r ice varie ties adapted for U.S.conditions are fairly recent and as yet haveo n l y b e e n u s e d i n C a l i f o r n i a . S e m i d w a r f r ice varie ties are under development in the

Southern States and may make a contributionthere . Of the semidwarf area in California ,half or more was recently planted with a vari-ety (M9) of IRRI parentage (60 percent in 1979and 50 percent in 1980). It in turn representedabout 30 percent of the California rice area in1979 and 37.5 percent in 1980.

C a l i f o r n i a s p e c i a l i s t s e s t i m a t e t h a t t h esemidwarf varieties have increased yields 10to 15 percen t . Ca l i fo rn ia y ie lds were a t arecord level in 1979 (6,520 lb/ acre) and next-to-record level in 1980 (6,440 lb/ acre). The

1979 yield was 11.1 percent above the previ-ous high. California yields in turn were 41.8and 46.3 percent above the U.S. average in1979 and 1980.

8For details, see Rutger and Brandon .

A related example is semidwarf wheat vari-eties, which occupied over 30 percent of theU.S. wheat area in 1979 (Dalrymple, 1980).The United States has also benefited in irriga-tion technology from bila teral research withIsrael: drip irrigation and the use of watercontaining higher salt concentration are two

such areas.The future will offer many further oppor-

tunities for the United States to benefit fromresearch done e lsewhere . The major con-stra int a t present is the ra ther l imited U.S.connection with the emerging internationalresearch system

Status of U.S.- Internat ional L inkages

The degree of U.S. involvement with the in-ternational research system varies somewhatwith the direction of linkage and the groupsinvolved . It is probably stronger on th e givingthan the receiving end, and AID probably hasstronger connections than USDA.

The reasons are fairly simple: AID has acharge and funding to support this sort of ac-tivity; USDA as yet does not have a directcharge or funding to link into the system. Thelatter group has some AID-funded programswith certain aspects of the international sys-tem, but these are more in the nature of pro-viding assistance; any re turn flow is a sidebenefit. A question might be raised as to how

we l l AID d o e s in t e rms o f ma k in g u se o f Ame r ic a n a g r i c u l tu ra l r e se a rc h k n o wle d g eoverseas, but there can be little question thatthe United States is poorly organized to stim-u la te a r e tu rn f lo w f ro m th e in te rn a t io n a lsystem.

Much of what has been drawn from the in-ternational system to date has been a result of individual init ia tive and contacts of Amer-ican scientists. They have generally receivedl i t t l e e n c o u ra g e me n t o r f in a n c ia l su p p o r tfrom their administrators. Travel budgets are

nearly a lways restric ted when budgets aret igh t , and h igh-cost in te rna t iona l t rave l i sprone to be at the head of the list. Yet, only somuch can be done at the international level bymail; u lt imately the scientists must travel.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. Vlll—international Dimensions of Research “ 165

Other a r rangements may have to be made,wh ich p re sen t t r oub le some admin i s t r a t i veproblems or suggest less than complete fidel-i ty to some immediate domestic problems.Thus, what has been accomplished in somecases may be in spite of the system ratherthan because of it.

Furtick has outlined the specific charge inthe following terms (1981):

The need now is for the United States tolink its scientific capacity into this major na-tional and international research network toboth contribute and gain from the new knowl-edge that they are generating.

With reference to the international researchcenters themselves, he states:

In spite of their importance, the UnitedStates to date has made only limited govern-ment effort to link its scientific community tothese centers or build major linkages that willinsure that new technology discovered bythese centers which is useful to the UnitedStates will be rapidly transferred from thesecenters to the mainstream of U.S. science.

Finally:

The question is, how can we develop asound partnership between our science andthat of the rest of the world for mutual ben-efit? We are no longer going to be only adonor in the future, We will also become a re-cipient.

It is not very difficult to list the many con-straints on more effective participation in theinternational agricultural research system. I ti s much more d i f f icu l t to provide rea l i s t icsuggestions as to what might be done about it.Because of current economic constraints, ad-ditional resources in funding and staffing willbe hard to obtain. In any case, the U.S. inter-national research effort has not organized ina manner to make optimum use of availableresources.

AID: Lower Income Nat ions

Although the United States may not havethe commanding lead in agricultural researchthat i t once had, i t s t i l l harbors one of thelargest agricultural research systems in theworld. It also has a very large and perhapsbe t t e r f unded sys t em o f r e sea rch on morebasic but related scientific matters; however,l i t t le at tention has been given to using thisresource.

AID is the main out le t for ass i s tance to

lower income nations, but many legit imatequestions have been raised about AID’s abil-ity to perform this task efficiently and effec-tively,

The Bask Problems

One of the major AID l imitat ions in ad-dressing international research is an inade-quate number of appropriately trained profes-sional staff. Records of the past 10 years showa dramatic increase in funding levels in theAID agricultural sector ($270 million in 1971to $720 million in 1980) (Furtick, 1981). Therelative share of the agricultural sector in AID-appropriated funds has gone from 19 to 50 per-cent s ince 1970, I n a d d i t i o n , c o n g r e s s i o n a land o the r manda te s have p ro l i f e r a t ed t hetype of special issues that AID is expected toaddress in the agricultural sector.

AID’s to ta l employment leve l peaked in1968. Since that time, the numbers in certainprofessional categories have been substantial-ly reduced, part icularly in agriculture. Be-tween 1968 and 1976, the to ta l number of AID’s U.S. employees was reduced by 55 per-cent; however, during the same period, agricul-turists were reduced 78 percent. It appears thatthe reduction in professional s taff has beensomewhat inversely proport ional to funding

increases.As of 1980 , w i t h 5 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e -

sources, the agricultural officers composed

8/14/2019 8106



only 5 pe rcen t o f the agenc ies’ to ta l pe r-sonnel. There were 256 agricultural positionsa n d m o r e t h a n 2 0 p e r c e n t w e r e v a c a n t ,Almost 80 percent of the agricultural officersare assigned overseas; and most of them actas program generalists/ administrators. Manyare older, and although about 75 percent have

advanced degrees , most ly M, S . , ve ry fewhave had recent specialized technical experi-ence. Very few have been released for in-serv-ice professional improvement in agricultureduring their careers.

The lack of an agricultural career ladderand professional identification has made re-cruitment and re tention of qualified person-nel difficult. Recently, the pressure for re-cruitment has become more critical due to thelarge number of staff reaching retirement age.Understaffing and vacancies make adequate

in-service orientation and training nearly im-possible (TPCA, 1980).

The personnel system is inadequately de-signed to attract or retain agricultural scien-tists. There are two categories of professionals ta f f : Fore ign Serv ice and Genera l Serv ice(GS) . Fore ign Serv ice pe rsonne l a re , a s aresu l t o f recen t congress iona l in i t ia t ives ,clearly favored over GS personnel in top-levelstaffing and promotion. Most of AID’s fewtrained scientists, however, are GS employeeswho can expect little or nothing in the way of promotion. As a result, about one-third of thestaff of the Office of Agriculture in the Devel-opment Support Bureau is composed of agri-cu l tu ra l is ts on shor t - te rm loan f rom o therGovernment agenc ies (pa r t icu la r ly USDA)a n d u n iv e r s i t i e s . Mo s t a re n o t e n h a n c in gtheir careers by working for AID; AID, more-over, shows little gratitude.

The other key problem is organization of agricultural and research staff. Through early1981, no one person or office was in charge of agriculture or agricultural research. Nor wereany agriculturalists to be found at high ad-

ministra tive levels.* Those on the staff are

*This situation changed later in 1981 with the appointment

of Dr. Nyle Brady, a prominent soil scientist and former Direc-tor General of IRRI, as Senior Assistant Administrator of theAgency for Science and Technology.

scattered throughout the agency, a lmost in-variably serving in a staff capacity. They haveno line authority and are not in a position tomake budget decisions, Most are found inregional bureaus, where they are a distinctminority and hardly have time to focus on re-search. The situation is even worse in country

o r f i e ld miss io n s , wh e re th e re a re u su a l lyonly one or two agriculturalists, and some-times none. Even in the central Office of Agri-culture in the Development Support Bureau(DSB), research is only one of many activitiesand often seems to play a subordinate role. *DSB is considered a service organization bythe regional bureaus, which often have quitedifferent concepts of research,

Some improvements could be made in staff-ing and organization, but this will not be easy.T h e F o r e i g n S e r v i c e p r o b l e m t r a n s c e n d s

AID; i t permeates the whole State Depart-me n t s t ru c tu re . T h e o rg a n iz a t io n p ro b le mt r a n s c e n d s a g r i c u l t u r e a n d i n v o l v e s t h ewh o le AID s t ru c tu re . T h e re a re v e s te d in -terests in both groups which would mitigateagainst change, Yet unless something is doneabout these fundamental points, other effortsto improve the scientific component of AIDwill be frustrated. It may be easier to modifythe organizational structure than the person-nel system.

Many observers think that AID needs topull all its technical staff members together

into one or more central bureaus with l inea u th o r i ty a n d re sp o n s ib i l i ty e q u iv a le n t toth o se o f th e r e g io n a l b u re a u s . Ag r ic u l tu rewould be a major component of such a con-solidation, Each of the major functional divi-s io n s , in c lu d in g a g r i c u l tu re , m ig h t h a v e aresearch division. * *

A n o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e i s t o a b o l i s h t h eregional bureaus and establish technical oper-a t in g b u re a u s a ro u n d th e ma jo r th ru s t s o f

*DSB has subsequently been designated the Bureau of Sci-ence and Technology (S&T).

**A partial shift has recently been made in this directionwith the designation of four technical directorates within S&T.

Food and Nutrition is one of the four. Technical staff members

from the regional bureaus will be allowed to become associatemembers of S&T, Agency-wide sector councils are being estab-lished. But in most other respects, the regional bureau struc-

ture remains the same.

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Chapter IX

Im pl icat ions for

8/14/2019 8106


.

8/14/2019 8106


Im pl ic at ions for Researc h Funding

Information on the various aspects of fund- of funding and identifies the pertinent issuesing U.S. agricul tura l research appears in sev- as they apply to the overa l l assessment of e ra l chapters of th is repor t . This chapter research.

brings together the more signif icant aspects

In approaching this topic, it is well to keepin mind not only that the food and agricul-tural industry is the largest of all U.S. indus-tries, but also that the application of scienceto ag r i cu l tu r e has p l ayed a ma jo r ro l e i nbringing the United States to the center of world power and leadership,

One of the major ways in which agriculturehas contributed to this status is the phenom-enal increase in agricultural exports. The val-ue of these exports rose from $2.9 billion in1950 to $7 .2 b i l l ion in 1970, and then in-creased sharply in 1975 to $21.9 billion and to$41.2 billion in 1980. This growth had the ef-fect of increasing the agricultural balance of exports over imports from a deficit of $1,1 bil-lion in 1950 to a positive balance of $23.8 bil-lion in 1980. In contrast, the United Stateshad a negative trade balance for al l othercommodities of $48.6 billion in 1980. Similar

data for the period 1930-80 appear in figure25.

The fact that the rate of increase in yields of some commodities seems to be leveling off—together with the fact that the level of con-stant Federal dollars for some commodity re-search through U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) has been declining—raises con-cern as to whether the high level of agricul-tural exports can be maintained. Concern isalso being expressed as to whether this dis-pari ty might lead to markedly higher food

prices at home.As discussed in chapter IV, most evalua-

tions of food and agricultural public researchindicate an internal rate of return that is quite

Figure 25.—Agricultural and Nonagricultural TradeBalance—1930-80 (in billions of dollars)

kb

– 4 0i ,

– 5 0 /1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I

/ / / / <

/ 1 9 3 0 1 9 4 0

1 9 7 51 9 5 0

1 9 8 51 9 6 0 1 9 7 0 1 9 8 0

5

Year

SOURCE: USDA/ESS.

favorable. For aggregate investment, rate-of-r e tu rn e s t ima te s a r e p r edominan t ly i n t herange of 30 to 40 percent. The estimates rangefrom a low of 23.5 percent to as high as 100percent. However, these high rates of returnare evidence of a problem of inefficiency.Economic e f f i c i ency ca l l s f o r i nves tmen tfunds to be allocated in such a manner thatthe marginal returns in all categories are thesame. The high rate of return on agriculturalr e sea rch ind i ca t e s unde r inves tmen t by thepublic sector . The present funding si tuat ionreflects this fact.

Among the ma jo r Fede ra l agenc i e s con -

ducting research, USDA ranks the lowest indol la r expendi tures for research . In 1978,total Federal expenditures for research anddevelopment were $26.2 billion. USDA’s ex-

173

8/14/2019 8106



penditures were $381 mill ion, or about 1 .5percent of the total. This compared to Depart-ment of Defense—45 percent; Department of Energy—16 percen t ; a n d D e p a r t m e n t o f Health, Education, and Welfare—12 percent.USDA’s status among Federal agencies repre-sents a continuing decline in the Federal re-

search and development budget—from a highof 39 percent in 1940 to 1.5 percent in 1978.

In addition to the low level of funding, thecost o f conduc t ing resea rch has inc reasedsubstantia lly . Research today requires moresophisticated and expensive equipment andsupport staff than was required 10 years ago.For example, new research horizons, such asgenetic engineering and systems approachesto agriculture, are much more expensive thanpast traditional research.

Researchers are having great difficulty in

replacing wornout or obsolete equipment andacquiring newly developed ones. Total cap-ita l expenditures per scientist doubled from1975 to 1979 (Berlowitz, et al., 1981). In a re-cent study of five important physiochemicalsubdiscipline, i t was shown that the cost of sc ien t i f ic ins t ruments p r iced above $5 ,000rose at an annual rate of 20 percent from 1970through 1978, far exceeding the average rateof inflation (Berger and Cooper, 1979).

At many public institutions, operation andmain tenance costs fo r sc ien t i f ic equ ipment

could be supported by other budgets in thepast, but now the costs exceed the capacity of insti tutional funds to meet them (Berlowitz ,et al., 1981). When institutions cannot meetoperation and maintenance costs, scientificequipment is improperly maintained, short-ening the useful l ife thereof; support per-sonnel are decreased and support activit iesaccumulate; and faculty and graduate stu-dents function as technicians, with a conse-quent loss of time for research and training.T h e s e c o n s e q u e n c e s g r e a t l y h i n d e r a r e -search program.

In a d d i t io n to t r a d i t io n a l r e se a rc h a re a ssuch as production efficiency, resource con-servation, and crops and livestock, there aremany new areas that require research such as

e n v i ro n me n ta l c o n c e rn s , c o mmu n i ty se rv -ices, community living standards, and humann u t r i t io n . T h u s , ma n y t r a d i t io n a l r e se a rc hareas ac tua l ly a re rece iv ing less fund ingtoday, because the tota l research funds areb e in g sp re a d a mo n g a w id e r r a n g e o f r e -search areas, some of which require consider-

able support.

With reduced budgets, much of the basicand long-term research efforts dwindle. Evenworse, new opportunities, such as genetic en-gineering in plant or animal breeding (thenew biology), do not receive attention due tothe pressure to keep current projects active.For example, there is pressure to develop aninsect-resistant sorghum during the next 3years, rather than develop a whole new breed-ing system for sorghum.

It appears that the primary responsibil i tyfor th is dec l ine and low leve l o f Federa lr e se a rc h fu n d in g fo r a g r i c u l tu re h a s b e e nUSDA’s. USDA leadership has not had muchappreciation for the value of research and hasnot given it high priority (this is particularlylikely to happen during a period of surpluses).To be sure , the Office of Management andBudget puts limits and pressure on all depart-ments to stay within monetary budget levels,but departments have discretion within theselimits to make priority adjustments withintheir departments. Up to 1980, the executive

budgets have not shown the needed increasesin agricultural research. As a general rule ,Congress has appropriated the full requestedbudget level for agricultural research and insome cases has increased the level of USDAfunding.

Although Federal funding of agriculturalresearch has remained nearly sta tic in con-stant dollars since 1965 and research on agri-c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n h a s d e c r e a s e d , m a n yother countries have had major increases ine x p e n d i tu re s fo r a g r i c u l tu ra l r e se a rc h ( se e

table 14, p. 162). Even as late as 1959, U.S.public expenditures for agricultural researchwe re s ig n i f i c a n t ly g re a te r th a n a n y o f th ecountries or regions listed. This is not truetoday.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. IX—implications for Research Funding q 1 7 5

To view the data in the right perspective,one should keep in mind tha t most of theother countries probably badly needed an in-c r eased emphas i s on ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rchduring the period surveyed, At the same time,the United States was still reaping broad ben-efits from a past era when research had re-

ceived greater emphasis,Since the productivi ty of agriculture and

most industries relies heavily on research andnew technologies, i t i s ev ident tha t i f theUnited States is to remain the world leader inagriculture, a major change will be needed inthe trend of expenditures in U.S. agriculturalresearch.

What should be the extent of public invest-ment in U.S. agricultural research? This ques-tion cannot be answered precisely. Evidenceindicates, however, that i t should be muchhigher than it is. The trend to relatively slightin cr ea se s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l r e se a r ch h a sresulted in actual decreases in most old-line

agricultural research efforts. (The term "old-line research” refers to areas such as ways toinc rease p roduc t iv i t y o f an ima l s o r c rops .Newer kinds of research that compete for ther e sea rch do l l a r wou ld i nc lude s tud i e s i nareas such as environmental quali ty, energyfrom nonfossil fuel sources, etc.)

FUTURE SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

From what source or sources should thefunding for public-supported research come?There is little doubt that many States will con-tinue to increase their investments in agricul-tural research, but the rate of increase wil lprobably be less than needed. Some will fallbehind; a few are already experiencing diffi-cult ies . There is ample evidence, based onbeneficiaries and spillover effects of research,tha t f rom an equ i ty s t andpo in t t he ma jo rsou rce o f f und ing shou ld be t he Fede ra lGovernment .

The question also arises as to how agricul-

tural research dollars funded by the FederalGove rnmen t shou ld be d i s t r i bu t ed . Aga in ,there are no quantitative data to give preciseanswer s . The re a r e , howeve r , pa s t r eco rdsand logic that can give some guidance. In thefirst place, USDA has the responsibility as thelead agency for the program and for workingcooperat ively with the State agricultural ex-periment s tat ions (SAES) and other inst i tu-t ions . S ince 1916, the re la t ive amount of federa l ly appropr ia ted funds has averagedabout 78 percent for USDA in-house researchand 22 percent for the States in the form of formula and special grant funds. Since thatsystem has served the United States well inthe past, there appears to be no overriding ra-tionale for a major change in this ratio.

Fo rmula (Ha tch ) funds were f i r s t madeavailable to the SAES on the basis that it wasin the national interest to have a SAES ineach State working on State and local prob-lems. This need still exists, and now that wehave a better knowledge of the beneficiariesand the spillover effects of research, the ra-t ionale for Federal funding is even greatertoday. Unlike research in many other fields,much agricultural research is s i te specif ic,simply because it is so closely related to theproblems of a specific area. Hence there mustbe faci l i t ies and professional s taff available

for such research, none of which can be cre-ated or dissipated on short notice. Biologicalresearch must be long term and continuous tobe effective. SAES are best equipped to man-age the solution of local and State problems.Formula funding, therefore, which has been acontinuing and secure source of funds, hasbeen a mainstay in developing strong SAES.The need continues and will continue in theforseeable future.

Competitive grant funds are useful in pro-viding f lexibil i ty in funding research areasthat have high priori ty because of changing

economic or other condit ions or where newresearch indicates a greater effort has a highprobabil i ty of being successful . These grantfunds thus are concerned primarily with rela-

8/14/2019 8106



tively short-term projects—i.e., 2 to 6 years(even though these may be on long-term prob-lems). Another use of grant funds is to obtainexpertise in certa in research areas where i teither is unavailable from the in-house staff orwould not be desirable or effic ient for in-house staff to conduct such research. All re-

search institutions are eligible to compete forthese grants, and the desirable level of fund-ing for such grant research is probably bestdetermined through experience. Unless somespecific amount is set aside for grant funding,

CHAPTER IXBerger, M., and M. J. Cooper., “The Cost of R&D

Living, ” Science, vol. 204, June 1979.Berlowitz, L., R. A. Zdanis, J. C. Crowley, and J. C.

there may well be a tendency to contract for aless desirable level of research.

The SAES and the U.S. universities repre-sent a tremendous resource—in physical fa-cil i t ies and in qualified personnel—for agri-cultural research and education. I t is in the

U.S. interest to use these resources in carry-ing out the national research effort wherevercapabili ty and mutual interest exist on spe-cific objectives and programs.

REFERENCES

Vaughn, “Instrumentation Needs of ResearchUniversities, ” Science, vol. 22, March 1981.

8/14/2019 8106


Chapter x

Issues and Opt ions

NOTE: This chapter was largely completed in early 1981 and refers to thefood and agricultural system as of that date. Draft copies were made availableat that time for congressional committee staff and executive agencies. Some

of the report’s policy options have already been enacted. The chapter has notbeen revised to reflect these changes, but the options enacted or in the proc-

ess of being enacted are mentioned in footnotes.

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Chapter X

Issues and Opt ions

This assessment of U.S. food and agricul-tural research addresses the structure of theresearch system as i t relates to meeting thena t iona l and in t e rna t iona l r e sea rch needs :a] to define local, regional, and national prob-lems on a scientific or other basis in order toassign research responsibilities, b) to identifyresearch roles of participating agencies, c) toevaluate present methods of priority determi-nation, and d) to assess the quality of researchmanagement , the adequacy of funding sys-tems, and methods of fund allocation.

tinent findings for each issue. Those findingsthat require act ion by the executive branch,

but that also may be of interest through over-s ight to Congress , a r e d i s cus sed in moredetail in appendix A. Others led to a numberof options which Congress might consider inactions i t chooses to take in strengtheningand improving the U.S. food and agriculturalresearch system. The relative merits and dis-advantages of the options also are presentedto give guidance in choosing the most suitableoptions and their possible courses of action.

Six main issues were identified and investi-gated. The study resulted in a number of per-

ISSUE: ARE CURRENT ROLES OF THE PARTICIPANTS

IN THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMWELL-DEFINED AND APPROPRIATE?

FINDINGS

There is a role for a strong national U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) researchprogram. This role has been carried out in thepast by USDA in-house research and Federalfunding to State agricultural experiment sta-

tions (SAES). Historically, the USDA role wasassociated with broad regional, national, andinternational activities. The role of SAES, in-so fa r a s Fede ra l f unds a r e conce rned , hasbeen primarily for local, State, and regionalp r o b l e m s . T h e s e r o l e s a r e b e c o m i n g l e s sdistinct.

Grant funds are provided for newly iden-t i f ied h igh-pr ior i ty research needs . SAES,nonland-grant universi t ies , and others com-pete for these funds on the basis of their inter-est and ability to do Federal research. This is

a desirable aspect of the total research effort.The Committee on Food and Renewable Re-

sources has not yet satisfactorily fulfilled itsrole. This is because it is a relatively new fea-

tu r e i n a we l l - en t r enched bu reauc racy ; i tneeds more speci f ic , highly defined objec-t ives; and i t does not have the authori ty of individual agencies that might be addressingthe same problems from more authori tat ivepositions.

Under the 1977 Food and Agriculture Act,the 1890 land-grant institutions and TuskegeeInst i tute part icipate in research and receivemost of their funds from Federal resources.Their academic role and functions are con-sistent with those of the 1862 land-grant in-stitutions, They have pressing needs—one of the more important being improved facilities.Coordination with the rest of the system isless than adequate.

The private sector tends to view its role pri-marily from a profit potential. It conducts re-

search in areas of company interest and inareas that may give it proprietary advantages.There are significant research areas of inter-est to the public that are not receiving nor will

179

8/14/2019 8106



receive adequate research attention if left tothe private sector.

OPTION 1Maintain present roles with clarifica-

tion. This option would imply continuationof most procedures in effect.

USDA would continue in i ts role as leadagency in the Federal Government, includingcoordination of all agricultural research, ex-tension, and teaching activities conducted orfinanced by Federal funds. Roles would bemore clearly defined as follows.

Federal funds allocated to USDA would beprimarily for problems of regional or nationalimportance, where: a) the nature or magni-tude of the problem is such that a single Stateor States cannot provide the resources for itssolution, b) there is regional or national con-

cern for the problems, or c) from an industrialstandpoint, the risk is too high or too demand-ing for a single industry. USDA also would re-main responsible for servicing the researchn e e d s o f a c t i o n a g e n c i e s w i t h i n U S D A .US DA wo u ld re ma in r e sp o n s ib le a n d a c -countab le to the execu t ive and leg is la t ivebranches of Government for the administra-t ion and national coordination of such pro-grams. USDA would leave to the States thoselocal, State, and site-specific problems thatcan be handled by the SAES.

SAES, insofar as formula funds are con-cerned, would have primary responsibil i t iesf o r S t a t e a n d l o c a l p r o b l e m s . S A E S a l s owould deal with problems of a regional, na-tional, and international nature that are an ex-tension of their State and local problems. But,where USDA has active regional and nationalprograms, such p rograms would be deve l-oped cooperatively. SAES and other insti tu-tions (e.g., nonland-grant universities) wouldcompete for grant funds on the basis of theirability to effectively perform needed tasks.

The 1890 land-grant institutions would con-

tinue to receive Federal funds and carry outt h e ir p r e se n t r o le . H o w e v e r , co o r d in a t io nwi th th e r e s t o f th e sy s te m wo u ld b e im-proved.

The private sector would continue withoutspecial incentives or pressures to conduct theresearch that best fits its interests.

Pros

This option provides Congress and the ex-e c u t i v e b r a n c h w i t h o n e F e d e r a l a g e n c y ,USDA, to hold responsible and accountablefor the coordination of all Federal agricul-tural research funds, and within USDA, Agri-cultural Research (AR), which is responsibleand accountable for broad regional, national,and international research programs. I t pro-vides a mechanism (when properly managedand organized) to carry out programs of im-mediate concern to Congress and the execu-tive branch and to respond quickly to theirm a n d a t e s . I t a l s o p r o v i d e s a m e c h a n i s mw h e r e b y F e d e r a l f u n d s c a n g o d i r e c t l y

(through formula funding) to the SAES andthe 1890 land-grant insti tutions. This helpsmaintain their research base and makes avail-able the extensive resources of these institu-tions for problems of national concern—fordirect use through grant funding and throughcooperative efforts with AR. Further, throughgrant and contract funding, other interestedresearch institutions can contribute to the na-tional goals and needs of U.S. agriculturalresearch.

The private sector is encouraged to con-tinue its research efforts in those areas of

most importance to the specific firms in ac-cordance with the competitive and free enter-prise system of this country,

Cons

T h is o p t io n c o n t in u e s to p e rp e tu a te th econcern on the pa r t o f SAES of too muchdirection and coordination of research con-ducted with Federal funds. Non-USDA re-search institutions may feel that USDA is at-tempting to dic ta te their research programsto them. It also continues to foster greater dif-

ficulties in coordination of regional researchfunded through Federal sources than mighto therwise occur i f ea rmark ing o f fo rmulafunds by Congress for high-priority areas of

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. X—Issues and Options q 181

research were implemented. I t perpetuatesthe problem of lack of strict accountability toCongress or USDA regarding the types of re-search problems which are to be funded. Inaddition, it perpetuates the lack of objectivityor clear rationale reflected by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), andothers as a basis for choosing the researchareas for funding. The decisionmaking proc-ess for agricultural research would remainunclear to the outside critics concerned withagricultural research.

O P T I O N 2Eliminate the in-house USDA role. Pro-

vide increased funding to SAES to conductmost publicly supported research.

P r o s

The SAES have large and capable researchfacilities and staff. They are well-acquaintedwith local and State problems and can effec-t ively conduct research on these problems.Mos t r eg iona l and na t iona l p rob lems a r emade up of local and State problems and if these are solved at the State level, eventuallyall such regional and national problems willbe solved. Federal funds to the States providemore freedom to the individual researchers,and research can best be carried out in an at-mosphere free of constraints.

This decentral izat ion reduces the problemof bottlenecks in the articulation of local andState research needs and the flow of commu-nication from the cl ientele to the researcherby not having to pass through high levels of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n W a s h i n g t o n , t h e n b a c kdown to the researchers themselves.

C o n s

This option provides no mechanism for anagency or individual to be responsible for theidentification of specific national or regional

research needs, methods of attack, and assur-ance that given programs could be carr iedout. It provides for no agency with direct ac-countabil i ty. I t provides no mechanism forimmed ia t e and qu ick r e sponse t o i s sues ,

problems, and programs of immedia te con-cern to Congress. It provides no direct sup-port linkage to the research needs of USDAand other Federal action agencies.

When funds are in short supply, prioritiesmust be set and funds allocated to the high-priori ty i tems. Researchers have to d i rec t

their interests and efforts to the high-priorityitems and the availability of funds. The im-p o r t a n t n a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i s s u e s a r e n o tsolved by a large number of researchers work-ing “on” a problem, but by a few concen-trat ing their efforts on the more importantaspects of the problem and by coordinatingand us ing in a p lanned approach a l l in ter -ested efforts relating to the specific problemin question. It is doubtful that an individualState or group of States is capable of support-ing and conducting research of major nation-al interest problems involving, for example,

marketing, t ransportat ion, watersheds, andFederal regulations.

O P T I O N 3Eliminate the in-house USDA research

role. Use present in-house funds, specialgrants, and competitive grant funds forcontract research to carry out importantUSDA research programs.

Al l i n -house USDA re sea rch funds andUSDA contract and grant funds except for-mula funds would be placed in one agency tobe used for contracting important USDA re-search programs, a sys t em s imi l a r t o t ha tused by the U.S. Agency for International De-velopment (AID) . USDA labora tor ies andfield locations, including Beltsville, could beorganized into centers for contract purposes.Federal posi t ions, except those required forcon t r ac t i ng pu rposes , a t s u c h l o c a t i o n swould be el iminated. A fair ly large overal lU S D A m a n a g e m e n t a n d c o n t r a c t i n g s t a f f with training in appropriate technical aspectsof agriculture would be required. Ownershipof field and laboratory facilities could be re-tained by the Government.

P r o s

This would el iminate many Federal posi-tions in USDA and would ease the personnel

8/14/2019 8106


182 q An Assessment of the u.S. Food and Agricultural Research System

ceiling problem considerably, Coordinationmight be improved in cases where SAES orState universities received contracts to carryout USDA programs. It might make the clos-ing o f some low-pr io r i ty Federa l fac i l i t ie seasier. USDA’s ability to shift program em-phasis when desired might be improved, I t

could provide special funds for additionalshort-term contracts on high-priority areas.Land-grant university research programs andthose o f the SAES rece iv ing resea rch con-tracts probably would be strengthened by theinflux of new research funds.

C o n s

This would eliminate the largest agricul-tu ra l r e se a rc h o rg a n iz a t io n in th e Un i te dStates under one management system. AID,which did and does operate in this manner,has never been able to attract sufficient com-pe ten t techn ica l s ta f f . Thus, USDA wouldprobably find it difficult to maintain a highlycompetent staff capable of planning broadregional and national programs, Since con-duct of agricultural research on these pro-grams is the principal purpose of the Federalin-house program, th i s fu n c t io n wo u ld b emost ly los t . Costs o f conduc t ing such re -se a rc h p ro g ra ms p ro b a b ly wo u ld in c re a se ,b eca u s e co n tr a ct or s , w h e t h e r f r o m St a t eagencies or the private sector, would requirea certain level of profit. It would be disruptive

to a l l a f fec ted Federa l resea rch sc ien t is ts ,because they would have to become researchcontract managers to stay in USDA, or losetheir Federal retirement and other benefits if they became contractors themselves or if theyresigned. Many, if not most, scientists prob-ably would seek employment elsewhere, andit probably would be difficult to hire compe-tent staff. It would be very disruptive to thep re se n t r e se a rc h p ro g ra ms , a n d i t wo u ldmake planning and coordination with SAESmore d i f f icu l t , excep t where the SAES orState university was the contractor.

O P T I O N 4Reduce the role of SAES in regional, na-

tional, and international research from theFederal standpoint by eliminating all for-

mula funds, leaving grants as their sourceof Federal funds.

Pros

This would help eliminate the criticism thatformula funds are given to SAES without suf-fic ient accountabili ty and Federal manage-ment, I t might help to remove some of thecompetition between SAES and USDA overb u d g e t s . I t wo u ld in c re a se th e p ro b a b i l i tythat Federal funds going to SAES and otherinstitutions would go to those most capable of performing good research, if done on a com-petitive basis. It would make it easier to bes u r e t h e f u n d s w e r e s p e n t o n p r o b l e m sdeemed by the Federal granting agency to beof high priority at the time of the grant.

Cons

This would tend to eliminate or drasticallyreduce the partnership between USDA andSAES and have some negative effect on coor-dination and cooperation. Many SAES couldnot maintain their research base without thepresent formula funding.

Unlike research in many other fields, muchagricultural research is site specific, simplybecause it is so closely related to the problemsof a specific area. There must be facilities andprofessional staff available for such research,none of which can be assembled or dissipated

on short notice. Biological research must belong te rm and con t inuous to be e f fec t ive .S A E S a r e b e s t e q u i p p e d t o m a n a g e t h i sre se a rc h , a n d fo rmu la fu n d in g p ro v id e s acontinuous and secure source of funds forthis activity. In addition, overhead costs ongrant funds are high; there are no overheadcharges on formula funds. Therefore , fromthe Federal standpoint, less money is actuallysp e n t o n re se a rc h u n d e r g ra n t fu n d s th a nunder formula funds.

It would draw resources (scientists) to one

institution (receiving the funds) from other in-stitutions. It would intensify competition foran available pool of scientists and the tota lsocial product could be decreased, I t woulda lso weaken the posi t ive in te rre la t ion be-

8/14/2019 8106



tween fundamental knowledge creation andapplied technologies or processes that exist inSAES. In addition, it could weaken the syner-g is t ic re la t ionsh ip among resea rch , ex ten-sion, and teaching. This would also decreasethe capacity and initiative of some land-grantun ivers i t ie s to

sc ien t is ts whoorientation.

develop young agricultural

h a v e re g io n a l a n d n a t io n a l

OPTION 5Increase the role of the private sector

through incentives to conduct more re-search of concern to the public.

Pros

The private sector now conducts research

for the agricultural industry on the basis of business investment. It has the capability toconduct more research and probably would if i t were p rof i tab le to do so . By prov id ingdirect grants, tax deductions, or other incen-tives, the private sector might be induced toincrease its efforts in agricultural research.Since most businesses are profit oriented, theresearch would be directed more to practicalbusiness needs and hence might be of moreimmediate economic value than some long-term basic research efforts.

Cons

The very nature of the private sector re-quires it to be concerned with self-interestand self-preservation. While increased incen-tives might be helpful in some areas, it wouldbe a mistake to assume any amount of incen-tives would assure adequate research on allissues of public concern and priority needs.Many public research needs in agriculture, if solved, would be counterproductive to someagr ibusiness f i r m s — p r o b a b l y t h o s e t h a twould be the most capable of working onsuch problems. Industry is not interested inconducting research on nonproprietary prod-u c t s . R e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d b y U S D A a n dSAES main ta ins compet i t ion and is in thepublic interest. Research in the private sector,while frequently having many public benefits,c a n h e l p t o d e c r e a s e c o m p e t i t i o n a m o n g

firms comprising the food and agriculturalsector and can have adverse effects on thep u b l i c in th e a b se n c e o f a d e q u a te p u b l i cresearch.

There is danger of research inquiry focusedon narrowly defined issues that are of propri-etary interest to the business firms conduct-ing the research. Most of the benefits wouldtend to be focused on business-related activ-it ies of the firm and affi l ia ted firms, withmuch less a ttention directed to benefits toconsumers and the general public.

ISSUE: ARE CHANGES NEEDED IN THEINTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF USDA

TO EFFECTIV ELY CONDUCT RESEARCH?

FINDINGS research programs. A change in responsibil-

Through ea r ly 1981 , the Direc to r o f theity would be conducive to improved staff ca-

Science and Education Administration (SEA)pability.

did not give adequate attention to policy and Rationale for establishing AR regions along

coordinating functions. Operational details of the same boundaries as SAES regions is man-

SEA interfere with effective management a t agerial and has been beneficial for this pur-

the administrator’s level. pose . Th is ra t iona le does no t conform totypes of farming or to regional or national

The national program staff (NPS) has insuf- issues, and as AR is organized, is detrimentalficient authority and responsibility to provide to the development of broad regional and na-effective leadership to regional and national tional programs.

8/14/2019 8106



There is little evidence of the need for areadirector positions in AR.

Cooperative Research (CR) conducts Hatch-suppor ted p ro jec t rev iews. These a re le ssthan in-depth examinations. As a part of theprocess, onsite reviews are held, but a t nospecific intervals and with no required fol-

low-up except as would be done locally.

CR la c k s a u th o r i ty in d e a l in g w i th th eStates. It operates as though it were under thesupervision of SAES directors rather than theadministrator of SEA.

CR admin is te rs the compet i t ive resea rchgrants programs. Its major clientele, SAES,compete for these grants. There is criticism of this arrangement.

Hu ma n Nu t r i t io n (HN) h a s n o t a c c o m-plished the intent of the Food and Agriculture

Act of 1977 with respect to human nutritionresearch. USDA established human nutritionresearch as a mission, but it did not establishhuman nu tr i t ion as a separa te budge t i tem.Nor has it properly funded and staffed the sixre se a rc h in s t i tu te s to c o n d u c t me a n in g fu lresearch.

Through early 1981, in the Economics andStatistics Service (ESS), concern existed thatthe combination of the sta tist ical unit withthe economics research unit had caused con-fusion for the public between the sta tist ical

unit’s information and the projections andforecasts of the economics research unit. Asmal l p ropor t ion o f the economic resea rchbudget is a llocated to research and there isvery little cooperative effort with AR.

SEA Organizat ionaI St ructure

OPTION 1Operate as a policy and coordinating of-

fice. *

SEA would no longer have an operatingfunction. The administrators of the respective

agencies would be responsible for the oper-ating functions of their agencies. For exam-ple, budgets and other management functions

*USDA has begun putting this option into effect.

would be prepared within each of the agen-cies and coordinated at the SEA level.

P r o s

The administrators of AR, CR, HN, and Ex-tension could operate more efficiently if SEAwere strictly a policy and coordinating office

rather than an operating office, thus delayingdecisions that can easily and more effectivelybe made by the administrators, and often sec-ond-guessing them. T h e d i r e c t o r o f S E Awould have more time to carry out the policyand coordinating responsibil i t ies of the of-fice. These are not given enough attentionand this may be one of the reasons researchhas not done well financially in recent years.This option would be helpful in removing thecriticism of the administrators and SAES of the t ime involved and l imited results pro-duced from the SEA budget process. It wouldreduce staff requirements of SEA and shortendecisionmaking time for the administrators.

Cons

Removing the operating responsibil i t ies of SEA and placing full operating responsibili-ties with the administrators would strengtheneach of the respec t ive admin is t ra to rs , bu tmight make coordination and planning at theSEA level more difficult.

O P T I O N 2

Establish an Assistant Secretary for Re-search, Extension, and Higher Educationwith a Deputy Assistant Secretary whowo u ld c o o rd in a te a g e n c ie s c o mp r i s in gSEA. The posit ion of Director of SEAwould not be retained.**

In recent years, research has become in-creasingly less important in USDA as evi-denced in the budget and structure of the Sec-retary’s office. Most studies of U.S. agricul-tu ra l r e se a rc h h a v e re c o mme n d e d th a t th epresent functions of SEA be headed by anassistant secretary.

—* *The presently drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

authorizes a USDA Assistant Secretary for Research, Exten-sion, and Higher Education.

8/14/2019 8106


Ch. X—Issues and Options . 185

Pros

This option would give research increasedprominence in USDA and in the eyes of OMBand Congress. The office would have a largerrole in forming overall policy and would giveagricultural research a higher level of recog-nition. Further, it would have additional ad-

vantages as discussed in option 1. The role of knowledge creat ion and applicat ion in con-tributing to overall national policy and wel-fare would be strengthened within USDA.

The cost, both in terms of funds and socialproduct or welfare forgone, always goes up asthe number of individuals involved in coordi-nation, planning, etc. , is increased. Creatingan assistant secretary could reduce somewhatthe marginal social costs relat ive to currentoperat ions.

ConsUSDA has a l imited number of assistant

secretary positions. Since USDA in the recentpas t ha s no t r a t ed r e sea rch and the o the rfunctions of SEA at a high level, it would notl i ke t o s ee one o f t he p r e sen t au tho r i zedas s i s t an t s ec r e t a ry pos i t i ons manda ted fo rthese functions. This option would requirethe removal of an assistant secretary positionfrom another function unless Congress au-thorized an additional one.

Agr icu l tu ra l Research

OPTION 1Within AR, transfer line authority in-

cluding the responsibility and accountabil-ity for planning and coordination of re-search, and resource allocation for re-gional and national research, from re-gional administrators to NPS staff. (Dis-cussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2Same as above, but consider a change in

the number and/or location of regions toprovide more efficient management andeliminate the offices of area directors.(Discussed in app. A.)

Cooperat ive Research

OPTION 1Strengthen authority in managing Fed-

eral funds to the States.

The authority of CR would need to be in-c r eased to enab le i t t o admin i s t e r Fede ra l

funds more ef fec t ive ly . CR would exerc isemore r i go rous au tho r i t y i n app rova l anddisapproval of proposed projects under for-mula funding and for reviews of such proj-ec t s t o be con t inued , r educed , o r d i s con -tinued than it does today,

Pros

With increased authori ty, CR could repre-sen t t he SAES in a more mean ing fu l waywithin USDA concerning budgets , researchpr ior i t ies , formula v . grant funds , e tc . I tw o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n t h e

review of research projects funded by Hatchor grant funds, as well as in their periodicreviews at the individual SAES. Such reviewswould tend to increase the contr ibutions of these projects and programs to agriculturalresearch in general. This plan would help toel iminate cr i t icism by OMB and others thatthese funds are not well-managed.

Cons

The original Hatch Act makes the directorsof the SAES responsible and accountable for

the Hatch funds they receive. I t is doubtfultha t a l l SAES di rec tors would agree to astronger CR without legislation changing theagency’s organic ac t . An ef for t to do th iswithout the support of the SAES would bedisruptive to the research effort.

OPTION 2Establish formula funds as block grants

and eliminate the CR office; establish asecretariat for handling block grants.

The directors of the SAES have the respon-s i b i l i t y a n d a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r t h e H a t c h

funds they receive. At best, CR is a generalc o o r d i n a t i n g o f f i c e w i t h l i t t l e o r n o r e a l

8/14/2019 8106



authori ty. This option would el iminate CRand set ‘up anecessary toblock grants.

Pros

secretariat to perform the tasktransmit the formula funds as

This option would save t ime, funds, and

p e r s o n n e l p o s i t i o n s o f S A E S a n d U S D A ,since the present reports, reviews, and plan-ning with CR would not be required. It wouldhave little or no adverse effect on researchprograms.

Cons

This option would tend to increase the criti-cisms that formula funds receive little or nomean ing fu l r ev i ew by USDA. The p re sen treviews are desired and thought to be helpfulby a number of SAES, but this benefit wouldbe los t . CR s taf f provides serv ices to theSta tes o ther than pro jec t rev iews , such astraining for SAES directors , that would beeliminated.

OPTION 3For options 1 and 2 above, remove ad-

ministration of all competitive grants fromCR or secretariat staff and establish an of-fice for this function that would reportdirectly to the Assistant Secretary of Research, or Director of Science andEducation.

Pros

The competitive grants would be adminis-tered by an agency or office that would haveno vested interest in who receives the grants.Any office that has a vested interest and ad-ministers such grants is subject to criticism,whether warranted or not. This option wouldg i v e m o r e o b j e c t i v i t y t o t h e c o m p e t i t i v egrants program. While this would mean ane x t r a o f f i c e r e p o r t i n g t o t h e A s s i s t a n tSecretary or Director of SEA, there would bea comparab le r educ t ion in au tho r i t y and

workload in CR.

Cons

It would require establishing anoffice.

Human Nut r i t ion

In teragency Opt ions

addit ional

The OTA report Nutrition Research Alter-

natives d i scus sed ea r l i e r dea l t w i th i n t e r -agency issues in nutr i t ion research. The op-t ions on in teragency coopera t ion s ta ted inthat report are still pertinent. The followingoption is added:

O P T I O NAdopt a uniform accounting system for

nutrition research expenditures for Federalagencies engaged in nutrition research.

Th i s sys t em wou ld d i f f e r en t i a t e be tweenthose projects whose primary goal was hu-man nu t r i t i on and those i n wh ich humannutrition was of secondary interest. A stand-ard defini t ion of human nutr i t ion researchwould be followed.

P r o s

This system would give Congress a mecha-nism whereby i t could reasonably comparenutr i t ion research efforts at USDA and theDepartment of Health and Human Services(DHHS) . At present , th is cannot be donebecause of the retrospective approach to the

nu t r i t i on - r e sea rch budge t t aken by DHHSand the l a rge number o f r e sea rch p ro j ec t sdone by the Na t iona l I n s t i t u t e s o f Hea l th(NIH) in which nutrition is of secondary in-terest.

This system would eliminate double report-ing of research funds which frequently oc-curs in an area such as nutrition because of the interdiscipl inary nature of the f ield andi t s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h d i s e a s e s , a s w e l l a sgrowth and aging.

Th i s sys t em wou ld d i f f e r en t i a t e be tween

research actually carried out in humans and

8/14/2019 8106



t h a t w h i c h m e r e l y m a y h a v ehumans .

C o n s

applicability to

Unless Congress can articulate a satisfac-tory accounting method that wil l clar ify theresearch efforts of USDA and DHHS, it willbe lef t to the individual agencies to deter-mine.

In t ra-Agency Opt ions

OPTION 1Maintain present management structure

within USDA with clarifications in budgetand staffing. [Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2Remove HN from SEA and place it under

the Assistant Secretary for Consumer Af-

fairs. (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 3Dispense with the HN center as an ad-

ministrative and planning entity, and dis-perse human-nutrition research within AR,with each of the centers under the authori-t y of the director for that region. (Discussedin app. A.)

OPTION 4Dispense with HN as an administrative

and planning entity, disperse the clinicaland laboratory components within AR

under the authority of the regional direc-tors, and place the survey and statistical re-search information services under the As-sistant Secretary for Food and ConsumerServices.* (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 5For options 1 and 2 above, determine if

all regional HN research centers areneeded, and if not, which ones best servethe public interest. Available funds for HNwould be allocated to the needed centers.(Discussed in app. A.)

Economics and Stat ist ics Service (ESS)

OPTION 1Reinstate each ESS component to sep-

arate agency status reporting to the Assist-ant Secretary or Director for Economics.**(Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2Reinstate each ESS component to sepa-

rate agency status with the StatisticalReporting Service (SRS) reporting to theAssistant Secretary or Director for Eco-nomics and the Economics Research Serv-ice (ERS) reporting to SEA. (Discussed inapp. A.)

* USDA has put this option into effect.* *USDA has put this option into effect.

ISSUE: IS THE PRIORITY-SETTlNG SYSTEM FOR

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH WORKING?

FINDINGS

To adequately determine research priori-ties, explicitly stated goals for food and agri-culture are required. There are no well-de-fined food and agricultural goals for the re-search community to use in determining pri-

orities.

The re i s conce rn whe the r t he func t ionsassigned to the Joint Council on Food andAgricultural Science (JC) are attainable. It has

had major problems in attempting to satisfythese functions and as a result has had lim-ited impact. Its effectiveness is limited by alack of consensus among its members on itsro le , percept ion of USDA dominance , andoverorganization.

Functions assigned to the National Agri-cultural Research and Extension Users Ad-visory Board (UAB) are more attainable thanthose for the JC. Impact of UAB on researchpriori t ies is unclear . I t cannot represent al l

8/14/2019 8106



users of research, and those not representedare critical of UAB’s performance. UAB, likethe JC, lacks its own operating funds and isdependen t on USDA for i t s resources . I t smembership includes research performers aswell as users.

There is lack o f a sa t is fac to ry long- te rmprocess for evaluating existing research ac-tivities, potential research opportunities, anddevelopment of a new set of research prior-ities. Long-term research planning covering aper iod o f 4 years o r more can be accom-plished by an intensive, comprehensive studyinvolving research administrators, scientists,and users.

Food and Agr icu l tura l Goals

OPTION 1

Maintain present system of no goals.

Pros

Establishing goals for food and agricultureis complex and time consuming. Not settinggoals saves much time and expense of electedofficials. Congressional action frequently rep-resents the thinking of the most art iculategroups. This may or may not represent thebest action for a given sector.

C o n s

With no goals set by society, the researchcommunity must assume some goals in orderto prepare a research agenda. The researchcommunity cannot agree on what these goalsshould be, and this results in continuing con-fu s io n o v e r th e r e se a rc h a g e n d a . T h e re -search community will continue to be cri t i-cized for its lack of direction. Further, sinceCongress provides the funds for research, i tshould set the broad long-term goals and ex-pect the research community to respond tothem.

O P T I O N 2Congress and/ or the executive branch set

goals for food and agriculture.

Pros

This would give c lear direction to the re-s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y o n w h a t t h e r e s e a r c ha g e n d a sh o u ld b e . P u b l i c fu n d s wo u ld b espent on research needed to meet goals estab-lished by society through its elected officials.

Congress and the executive branch must dealwi th conf l ic t ing goa ls a l l the t ime , conse-quently they are in the best position to do this.S ince Congress p rov ides the funds fo r re -search, it should set the broad goals and ex-pect thethem.

C o n s

Settingplex and

research community to respond to

goals in food and agriculture is com-time consuming.

Research Agenda

OPTION 1Prepare a national research agenda at

specific intervals using scientists, ad-ministrators, users, and consumers underthe auspices of USDA. *

Such a study would: a) evaluate what is be-ing done, existing priorities, and needed re-search opportunities, and b) develop a newset of research priorit ies and recommenda-tions.

The study would use methodologies pio-

neered by the National Academy of Sciences’Wo r ld F o o d a n d Nu t r i t io n S tu d y a n d th eOTA studies on nutri t ion research alterna-tives and emerging food marketing technol-ogies for priority determination.

It would be conducted every 4 years with afinal report delivery date of December 1 of theyear of each Presidential election. The timingwould coincide with both the insta llment of an administra tion and the enactment of thefarm bill.

—.—“The presently drafted Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

mandates USDA to conduct a long-range planning study forfood and agricultural research.

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



sea rch . Also , hav ing NAS responsib le fo r ship role in research, which is contrary to re-such a study would weaken USDA’s leader- cent legislation.

FOR IN-HOUSE USE AND

FINDINGS

Formula funds are necessary for maintain-ing a strong SAES in the pluralistic food andagricultural research system.

Distribution of Federal funds for in-housefunds, formula funds, and special grants hasremained relatively constant over the last 65years.

O P T I O N 1Maintain present method for distribution

of in-house and formula funds.

The distribution of Federal funds to SAESand USDA would continue to be determinedby negotia tion between the two parties andthe re levant appropria tions subcommittees.

P r o s

Since historically the distribution of Fed-eral funds for in-house and formula funds hasremained relatively constant and has seemed

to work well, there is little need for change.

C o n s

Much time and energy are spent by manyindividuals and organizations in vying forthese funds . The ir e f fo r ts cou ld be be t te rspent in conducting research.

The f r ic t ion c rea ted by th is p rocess un-necessarily interferes with the needed closerela tionship between SAES and USDA.

FORMULA DISTRIBUTION?

OPTION 2Set Federal funds for formula funding

and special grants at a fixed percentagebased on historical precedents.

SAES would receive a specific percentageof the total Federal funds for research. Thepercentage to be derived is not meant to be aminimum or maximum. It would be a fixedamount that is determined by Congress basedo n p e r fo rma n c e a n d h i s to r i c a l p re c e d e n t .This would be based on the total of formulafunds, special grants, and AR in-house funds.

T h e b a s e w o u l d n o t i n c l u d e c o m p e t i t i v eresearch grants and capital investments.

P r o s

A fixed percentage would end the vying forfunds by SAES and USDA at the expense of each other and would reduce the time and ef-fort involved. It would allow these two majorresea rch ins t i tu t ions to work more c lose lytogether toward their common goals and pre-sent to Congress a more unified approach tosolving our important food and agricultural

problems. It would eliminate the most impor-tan t cause o f f r ic t ion be tween USDA andSAES, which at times adversely affects thewhole system.

C o n s

In the budget process, individual budgetsshould be authorized on their merit and notas a percentage. Budgets set as a percentageof tota l funds introduce the l ikelihood of alack of r igor in responsibil i ty and account-ability of expenditures.

8/14/2019 8106


I

Ch. X—Issues and Options q 19 1

ISSUE: WHAT

FOR U.S.

ARE

FINDINGS

SHOULD THE SOURCE OF FUNDINGAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, AND

PRESENT LEVELS ADEQUATE?

USDA expend i tu r e s fo r r e sea rch a r e t helowes t among ma jo r Fede ra l agenc i e s t ha tconduct research. In 1978, USDA’s share of Fede ra l expend i tu r e s fo r r e sea rch was 1 .5percent of total expenditures.

Cons t an t do l l a r ag r i cu l tu r a l r e sea rch ex -pend i tu r e s o f USDA in -house r e sea rch in -c r eased on ly 1 pe rcen t be tween 1966 and1979, while those in SAES increased 40 per-cent.

State appropriat ions are the major sourceof research funding at the SAES, and in con-stant dollars increased 57 percent from 1966to 1979. Federal Hatch funds account for 20percent of SAES funding , and in cons tantterms have increased on the average only 1.5percent a year from 1966 to 1979, or 20 per-cent for this time period.

The justification of public funding of foodand agricultural research is based on benefitswel l in excess of cos ts . I ssues of equi ty ,because of the interstate f low of food andrelated commodit ies and the spil lover effectof research from one geographic region toanother , a re a l so c i ted . Producers benef i t

f rom expanding demand and f rom reducedcosts. The distribution of consuming popula-tion among States, however, is related to thedistribution of agricultural production only toa very limited degree. From the equity con-siderat ion of the geographic distr ibution of c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s e a r c h a n d t h ebenefits flowing from this research, substan-tial Federal funding of food and agriculturalr e sea rch i s cons ide red the mos t equ i t ab l e .Paradoxically, Federal research funding, rela-t ive to State funding, has decreased as theinterstate flow of commodities has increased.

Therefore, taxpayers in food-surplus Statesare subs id iz ing consumers in food-def ic i tStates, and the degree of subsidization is in-creasing steadily.

BE

q

Maintain present Federal funding levels.

Pros

From a managemen t s t andpo in t , l imi t edfunding, up to a point, tends to increase theefficiency in the use of funds. It focuses theuse of funds on the highest priori ty areas.Even though funds are not adequate, in timesof austerity it may be all that can be afforded.

Cons

There is a certain level of funds needed justto maintain the research establishment. Thisdoes not al low research inst i tut ions to keeppace with higher research costs and does notallow research into new problem areas with-out reducing significant levels of effort in im-portant t radit ional research areas. Nor doesi t al low the United States to maintain thes t r eng th and r e spons ivenes s neces sa ry i nmeeting growing U.S. and worldwide needsand demands for food and other agriculturalproducts . From an equity considerat ion, theratio of Federal funding relative to State fund-ing for research would not improve, causingtaxpayers in food-surplus States to continuesubsidizing consumers in food-deficit States.

O P T I O N 2Signif icantly increase present Federal

funding levels for food and agriculturalresearch.

P r o s

Significantly increasing the Federal level of funding wil l : 1) al low the research inst i tu-tions to better keep pace with the high cost of conducting research, 2) al low the plural is t icresearch system to embark into new areas of

research while maintaining significant levelsof e f for t in impor tant t rad i t ional researchareas, and 3) allow the United States to main-tain the strength and responsiveness neces-

8/14/2019 8106



sary in meeting growing U.S. and worldwide C o n sneeds and demands for food and other agri- From a strict management standpoint an in-cultural products. From an equity standpointFederal funding relative to State funding for

crease in funding may tend to decrease the ef-ficiency in the use of funds.

r e s e a r c h w o u l d i n c r e a s e , w h i c h i n t u r nwould decrease, if not eliminate, the subsidi-zation by taxpayers in food-surplus States to

consumers in food-deficit States.

ISSUE: DOES THE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

SERVE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS?

FINDINGS

AID a n d US DA a re in v o lv e d in in te rn a -t iona l agr icu l tu ra l resea rch and techn ica lassistance, but from the developing countrystandpoint, AID is the prime Federal agency.

Research and technical assistance to assistdeveloping countries requires an in-house ca-pability in the technical disciplines and issuesto be effective. Organizational structure, re-sponsibilities, a cco un ta bilit ies , a n d p r o -cedures must reflect this fact.

Through early 1981, AID was not organizedto be e ffec t ive in ca rry ing ou t i t s respon-sibilities. Technical leadership was lacking inthe decisionmaking posit ions. With 50 per-cent of the total budget in food and agricul-tural activities, technical personnel trained in

these areas accounted for 5 percent of thetotal. Few, if any, were in decisionmakingpositions.

The United States has much to gain as wellas give in the international research network,At present no Federal agency has the specificresponsibil i ty for taking the lead in coordi-nation and cooperation on methods, proce-

dures, and actions necessary to accomplishmaximum U.S. benefits.

OPTION 1Centralize technical staff in one bureau

in AID. USDA would maintain its present

level of activity. * (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 2Establish within AID technical operating

bureaus around the major thrusts of theAID program as defined in legislation—i.e., food and nutrition, population andhealth, and natural resources and energy(technical bureaus would be headed bytechn ical career p rofess ionals) . U S D Awould maintain its present level of activ-ity. (Discussed in app. A.)

OPTION 3

Increase USDA involvement in the inter-national agricultural research networkwith major emphasis on maximizing U.S.benefits. This applies to both options 1 an d2 above. (Discussed in app. A.)

*AID has moved in the direction of this option, but still re-tains the regional bureau structure,

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



tions concerning the need for and efficiency of thepresent number and their location.

Pros

This option or option 1 would eliminate theneed for the area director positions. All technicalplanning w ould be carried out by N PS and techni-

cal staff, and with the reduced workload, theregional administrators could easily handle theadministrative functions without the need for areadirectors. This would aid in eliminating in-houseopposition to the closing of unneeded AR fieldlocations. The area directors could find employ-ment in the local and regional research stations orlaboratories, where they could use their talents tothe advantage of both. Locating the regional ad-ministrators in the D.C. area would facilitatefocusing on broad regional and national issues.

Cons

Locating the regional administrators in the fieldand having their duties correspond to SAES re-gions assists in frequent contacts between theregional administrators and the SAES directors of his regions and probably helps in coordination atthe management level.

HN Int ra-Agency Opt ions (see p. 187)

OPTION 1Maintain present management structure

within USDA with clarifications in budgetand staffing.

Human Nutrition (HN) would remain withinSEA but with its own bu dget. The adm inistrator of HN would be given budgetary authority similar tothe AR administrator. The administrative relation-ship of the HN administrator to the center direc-tors who are not emp loyed by USDA would be de-lineated.

Pros

This option would clarify HN’s status withinUSDA. At present, administrative and budgetaryauthority are split, in contrast to good manage-ment principles. It would obviate possible con-flicts of interest between AR research interests

and HN research interests, This option wouldremove one layer of bureaucracy between the ad-ministrator of HN and the Secretary. It also wouldcarry out the mandate of Congress.

Cons

The HN budget is not large enough to warrant aseparate system,

OPTION 2Remove HN from SEA and place it under

the Assistant Secretary for Food and Con-sumer Services.

Pros

This option would place all nutrition activity of USDA within the purview of a single assistantsecretary concerned with nutrition, and wouldgive the administrator of HN direct access to theassistant secretary.

Cons

This option would separate nutrition researchfrom all other research in USDA. Use could not bemade of the peer review mechanisms within SEA.

Placement of HN within an action arm of USDAwould cause research results to be less respectedthan if they were produced by an independent re-search arm, It would cause research to be directedtoward the needs of that arm and thus hamperlong-term research projects. It would politicizenutrition research so that research directionsmight change with each change in administration,

Placing HN in a nonresearch division will placeit under administrators unfamiliar with researchadministration and inexperienced in solving theunique problems associated with human nutritionresearch,

Situated as it is in SEA, HN is not tied to any oneconstituency within USDA. By placing it in thesame division as the Food and Nutrition Service(FNS), HN would be under tremendous pressureto focus primarily on FNS’s research needs. WhileFNS represents a large fraction of USDA’s budget,the clientele served represent only a small fractionof the U.S. public. The human nutrition researchneeds of producers, processors, and a large seg-ment of the consuming public might be neglected.

OPTION 3Dispense with HN as an administrative

and planning entity and disperse HN with-in AR, with each of the centers under theauthority of the director for the region inwhich it is situated.

8/14/2019 8106


App. A—Options That Relate Primarily to Action by the Executive Branch . 197

Pros

Any positive aspects of such a move would bepolitical rather than managerial. It would reassertthat USDA holds producers’ interests to havegreater priority than consumers’ interests.

Cons

Se gmen tat io n o f h u ma n -n u t r it io n r e se archwould destroy the ability of USDA to develop acoordinated research effort in human nutrition.Human nutrition is one aspect of USDA’s re-search effort whose parameters are not “site spe-cific.” Dispersal of HN component parts to the re-gional directors would make coordination of thehuman nutrition research effort nearly impossi-ble.

Dispersal of HN would also place the centers inthe position of competing for funds with otherresearch in its particular region. Since mostregional directors are agricultural-production

oriented, the HN centers’ budgets would not beexpected to fare well.The regional directors have little experience in

administering human nutrition.Research at the HN centers would lose its na-

tional character and could become focused on theagricultural products of a region, rather than onbasic human conditions and their nutritionalneeds, e.g., infancy, parturition, lactation, aging.

The coordination of all Federal HN research ascalled for in the 1977 farm bill and the develop-ment of the nutritional surveillance networkwould become difficult, if not impossible, whenthe lead agency (USDA) for human nutrition re-

search has no in-house administrative, budgetary,or coordinating mechanism for the directionand/ or use of human-nutrition research. For ex-ample, the mechanism for the coordination of thenutrient data bank and food consumption surveyin the Consumer Nutrition Center and Beltsville’snutrient composition laboratory with the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services’ Health andNutrition Examination Survey would be nonexist-ent.

The development of information and education-al material relating to human nutrition—a nation-wide concern—would be under regional author-ity.

OPTION 4

Dispense with HN as an administrativeand planning entity, disperse the clinicaland laboratory components within AR un-

der the authority of the regional directors,and place the survey and statist ical re-search and information services under theAssis tan t Secretary fo r Food and Con-sumer Services. *

Pros

FNS would have closer coordination with thedevelopers of nutrition information and educa-tional material and with researchers who surveyand analyze food consumption patterns in theUnited States.

Cons

All the cons of options 2 and 3 apply. In addi-tion, there is the problem of separating the de-velopment of educational and informative materi-als from the research on which they are based.Not only would the possibility of misinterpreta-tion arise, but it would be the necessary to hire ad-

ditional staff to do the interpretive work, becausethe scientists who developed it would be in a dif-ferent division of USDA.

The clinical and laboratory research segmentsof HN would presumably still use USDA’s infor-mation bureau for the dispersal of information.With coordinating mechanisms absent, the infor-mation released could contradict that being re-leased by FNS.

The informative and educational materials re-leased by FNS would be seen by m any to be p oliti-cally tainted, since they are released by an actionarm of USDA, rather than by a research group.

Separation of either the nutrient-composition

labs or the nutrient data bank from the food-consumption survey would be cumbersome andineffic ient. The development and transfer of usable information would be severely hampered,making use of the data bank extremely expensiveand time consuming.

OPTION 5For all options above, determine if all

regional HN research centers are needed,and if not, which ones best serve the publicinterest. Available funds for HN would beallocated to the needed centers.

ProsThis will assure that funds allocated to HN are

used for high-priority needs. It would assist in

*USDA has put this option into effect.

8/14/2019 8106



funding centers at a level commensurate with U.S.national interests.

Cons

National laboratories for the six centers havebeen built for or assigned to the objectives of thecenters. At the time it was authorized by Con-

gress, there was a need for this research. Eventhough the centers are inadequately funded, thereis continuing interest in these activities. Also,because of the deluge of nutrition misinformationand its increasing impact, as evidenced by thegrowing health food and health care industry, itwould be in the best interest of U.S. producers andconsumers to maintain regional HN research cen-ters that address areas of public concern in nutri-tion and can distribute to the public scientificallybased information on food and nutrition as itrelates to health.

Economic s and Stat is t ics Serv ice (ESS)

(see p. 187)


rate agency status reporting to the Assist-ant Secretary or Director for Economics. *

The two components of ESS, the Economics Re-search Service (ERS) and the Statistical ReportingService (SRS), would become distinct operatingagencies, each headed by an administrator. Thisoption would eliminate positions in the presentadministrator’s office.

Pros

This option would help eliminate confusion be-tween the statistical unit’s information and theprojections and forecasts of the economics re-search unit.

It would also reduce the adm inistrative layeringthat exists by eliminating the present questionablebureaucratic procedures and paperwork.

Cons

It would create two entities where the appear-ance of one existed before.


rate agency status with SRS reporting to

the Assistant Secretary or Director for Eco-nomics and the ERS reporting to SEA.

ERS would join the other research agencies–-i. e., AR and HN in SEA. For the economic pol-icy analysis that needs to be conducted, an ana-lytical and policy staff would be assigned directlyto the Assistant Secretary or Director for Eco-

nomics.

Pros

Having the main research agencies reporting toSEA at either the director or assistant secretarylevel has the following advantages: 1) coordina-tion among research agencies is much easier, 2) itfacilitates the integration of economics researchwith biological and physical science research,3) much biological and physical science researchwould become more relevant and productive withleadership and participation by production andmarketing research economists, and 4) by working

more closely with the biological and physicalscientists, it may be easier for economics researchto obtain increased funding.

Cons

The disadvantages include: 1) not all economicsresearch lends itself to integration with biologicaland physical science research, 2) the AssistantSecretary for Economics would have only one

reporting agency which does not warrant positionat the level of assistant secretary or director, and

3) the economics unit maybe regarded as a serviceunit to biological and physical research,

In ternat ional Food and Agr icu l tura l

Research (see p. 192)

OPTION 1Centralize technical staff in one bureau

in the Agency for International Develop-ment (AID). USDA would maintain itspresent level of activity. *

The technical staff from the regional bureausand missions would be combined with the presentcentral staff of the Development Support Bureau(DSB) to form an overall operating technicalbureau. The technical bureaus would have re-

sponsibility for country and central programs of technical assistance, research, training, and in-stitution building and would be headed by out-

*USDA has put this option into effect,*AID has moved in the direction of this option, but still re-

tains the regional bureau structure.

8/14/2019 8106


App. A—Options That Relate Primarily to Action by the Executive Branch q 1 9 9

standing professionals in their relevant fields. Thefunctions of the regional bureaus would be re-duced essentially to those necessary for liaisonwith State and collation of normal desk functions.Presidential appointees would not be required forthese positions. More study would be needed onthe details of structuringreorganization.

Pros

This would permit butand m ore coherent patterns

the agency within such a

not assure much bettero f r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e -

tween AID and sources of needed U.S. technicalexpertise such as universities, other Federal agen-cies, voluntary agencies, and private firms, Itshould permit improvement in developing strat-

egies for various functional programs such asagricultural development, population, etc. I tmight result in more emphasis on research as aninstrument in development.

ConsIn the absence of major organizational and pol-

icy changes, central izat ion of technical s taff wou ld result in confused line of authority, particu-larly to field staff.

Country program decisions are made “in-line”—i. e., missions to regional bureaus to Programand Policy Coordination (PPC) to administrator,DSB’s central staff is involved only by regionalbureau sufferance and on a very limited basis. Incases of differences, the regional bureau view pre-vails except on rare occasions where an admin-istrator may override. DSB influence is largely viaprofessional relationships with regional bureau

specialists, who have some influence, albeit usu-ally marginal, in mission/ regional bureau deci-sions. The influence is usually on technicaldetails—not program strategy, program composi-t ion, or intercountry al locations. Unless but-tressed by actions sharply reallocating decision-making responsibility, centralization of technicalstaff would probably reduce even further tech-nical staff participation in major decisions regard-ing country programs and “regional strategies. ”

This option could well sever the line of com-munication between technical personnel in fieldmissions and their counterparts in Washington.This communication, in the formal sense of col-

laboration on program and project design and im-plementation, is currently nebulous and variesgreatly, Centralization of technical staff mightreduce it still further.

It would cause further program imbalance to-ward capital transfer (in some su itable d isguise) asthis would reduce the need for intrusion of centralstaffs in regional bu reau decision m aking,

OPTION 2Within AID establish technical operating

bureaus around the major thrusts of AIDprograms as defined in legislation—i.e.,food and nutrition, population and health,and natural resources and energy (techni-cal bureaus would be headed by technicalcareer professionals). USDA would main-tain its present level of activity.

The technical bureaus would have responsibil-ity for country as well as central programs of tech-nical assistance, research, training, and institu-tion building and w ould be headed by ou tstandingprofessionals in their relevant fields. The regionalbureaus would be eliminated and regional officepositions set up in the PPC or under an assistant

administrator with limited role and power neces-sary for liaison with State and collation of normaldesk functions. Presidential appointees would notbe required for these positions. This would reducethe cost and amount of manpower to performthese functions. More study would be needed onthe details of structuring the agency within such areorganization.

Pros

This option would make desired organizationalchanges and enlarge the role of technical to non-technical personnel. With the technical operatingbureaus organized around the major thrusts asdefined in legislation, the program would focusmore clearly on U.S. interests. With it organizedaround technical issues, it would strengthen tre-mendously the ability of AID efforts to identify theimportant technical issues constraining develop-ment of the various countries, to recruit andmanage technical resources, and to work with thedepartments or instruments of government of thedeveloping countries in solving their own prob-lems. This would reduce both the cost and amountof manpower to perform these functions.

Cons

This option would require a major change in thetypes of personnel hired by AID. The number of technical people would increase considerablywith a greater decrease in nontechnical people. It

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


Appendix B

Sta t i s t i cs on Researc h Funding

Table B-1 .—Role of Research in Total USDA Budget,1915-54

(1) (2) (3)Research as

Funds for Total USDA proportion ofFiscal research

abudget USDA budget

year (thousands) (millions) (percent)

1915 . . . . . .1916 . . . . . .1917 . . . . . .1918 . . . . . .1919 . . . . . .

1920 . . . . . .1921 . . . . . .1922 . . . . . .1923 . . . . . .1924 . . . . . .

1925 . . . . . .

1926 . . . . . .1927 . . . . . .1928 . . . . . .1929 . . . . . .

1930 . . . . . .1931 . . . . . .1932 . . . . . .1953 . . . . . .1934 . . . . . .

1935 . . . . . .1936 . . . . . .1937 . . . . . .1938 . . . . . .1939 . . . . . .

1940 . . . . . .1941 . . . . . .

1942 . . . . . .1943 . . . . . .1944 . . . . . .

1945 . . . . . .1946 . . . . . .1947 . . . . . .1948 . . . . . .1949 . . . . . .

1950 . . . . . .1951 . . . . . .1952 . . . . . .1953 . . . . . .1954 . . . . . .

$ 7 , 4 4 0

6,640 7,240 7,740 8,340

9,140 9,240 9,640 9,940 9,840

10,740

12,600 13,380 15,060 17,640

19,835 21,040 20,426 17,437 15,500

15,828 19,386 22,04124,187 29,882

28,992 28,274

28,925 28,736 29,030

29,922 34,807 40,426 47,739 57,285

60,043 58,69158,182 57,948 59,828

$ 29.929.137.473.4

117.3

149.4151.7134.587.589.9

79.8

168.5155.0151.0166.8

213.4371.6288.6425.4626.6

1,060.7710.5789.4931.7

1,529.2

1,656.01,548.0

1,610.01,131.01,185.0

1,169.01,258.01,292.01,241.01,198.0

1,507.01,311.01,365.01,318.01,504.0

24.9%

22.819.410.5

7.1

6.16.17.2

11.410.9

13.4

7.58.6

10.010.6

9.35.77.14.12.5

1.5

2.72.82.62.0

1.81.8

1.82.52.5

2.62.83.13.84.8

4.04.54.34.44.0

alncludes both Federal research and funds passed On to States.

SOURCES: Col. 1. Table B-2, col 1.Col. 2. “USDA Appropriations:’ USDA Office of Budget and

Finance, B&FR 67-H-245, January 25,1966.

201

84-3’23 - ;1 - l !

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106


App. B—Statistics on Research Funding “ 203

Table B-2.—Appropriations for Research in USDA Budget, 1915-73—Continued

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Total research Proportion offunds in USDA Funds allocated Funds for USDA funds used

budget to States Federal research for USDA researchYear (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) (percent)

1950 . . . . . . .1951 . . . . . . .1952 . . . . . . .1953 . . . . . . .1954 . . . . . . .

1955 . . . . . . .1956 . . . . . . .1957. . . . . . .1958. . . . . . .1959. . . . . . .

1960. . . . . . .1961 ..,....1962. .,....1963. . . . . . .1964. . . . . . .

1965. . . . . . .1966. ...,..1967. . . . . . .

1968. . . . . . .1969. . . . . . .

1970. . . . . . .1971 . . . . . . .1972. . . . . . .1973. . . . . . .

$60,04358,6918,182

57,94859,828

72,56183,943

115,543113,426129,877

136,039160,747161,480172,800190,000

239,400264,700274,800

278,000272,600

300,100331,200382,200407,900

$ 13,21913,58513,23012,58713,564

19,11824,30428,89029,70230,863

30,85331,82534,72836,70040,200

46,90052,00056,300

58,50059,400

61,40068,10088,200

104,000

$46,824 45,106

54,952 45,36146,264

53,443 59,639 86,653 83,724 99,014

105,186 128,922 126,752 136,100 149,800

192,500 212,700 218,500

219,500 213,200

238,700 263,100 294,000 303,900

78.0%76.9

77.378.377.3

73.771.0

75.0

73.876.2

77.380.278.578.878.8

80.480.4

79.5

79.078.2

79.579.476.974.5

Average. 1915-73 78.4%

SOURCES: Coil. Cols.2and3.

COI.2. 1915-62. Robert George Latimer, ’’Some Economic Aspects of Agricultural Research and Education intheUnited States;’ Purdue Unlverslty, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ph.D. Dissertation, January

1964,p. 171.

1963-73. Funds for Research at State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA/CSRS, annual Issues.

Col. 3. 1915-62. Latimer, pp. 65-66. (The same statistics, In rounded form, are reported byW. L. Peterson and J. C.Fitzharris In “Operation and Productlvlty of the Federal. State Research System in the United States,” inResource Al locat ion and Product iv i ty in Nat iona l and In ternat iona l Agricu l tu ra l Research (1. M. Arndt,D. G. Dalrymple, and V. W. Ruttan, eds.), Urrlverslty of Minnesota Press, 1977, p. 63).

1963-73. Peterson and Fitzharrls, pp. 63, 64.

8/14/2019 8106



Table B-3.—Research and Development Expenditures by Government Agencies(DOD, HEW, USDA, DOE, NASA, NSF, Other Selected Agencies and Total) at SAES

and USDA—1966-78 (in thousands of current and constant dollars)

DOE NASA NSF Other agencies

Year Current Constant Cur re nt Con stan t Cur re nt Con stan t Current Constant

1966 . . . .1967 . . . .1968 . . . .

1969 . . . .1970 . . . .1971 . . . .1972 . . . .1973 . . . .1974 . . . .1975 . . . .1976 . . . .1977 . . . .1978 . . . .

$1,212 $1,271.771,257 1,257.001,369 1,296.40

1,406 1,260.991,346 1,117.011,303 1,009.301,298 942.631,363 925.951,489 912.942,047 1,153.242,464 1,308.553,536 1,761.834,196 1,930.97

DOD

$ 5 , 0 5 04 , 8 6 74 , 4 2 9

3 , 9 6 33 , 8 0 03 , 2 5 83 , 1 5 73 , 0 6 13 , 0 0 23 , 0 6 43 , 4 4 73 , 7 0 33 , 8 7 6

$5,299.06 4,867.00 4,194.13

3,554.26 3,153.53 2,523.63 2,292.67 2,079.48 1,840.59 1,726.20 1,830.59 1,845.04 1,783.71

$244262284

274289337455480

556595609697754

$256.034262.000268.939

245.740239.834261.038330.428326.087340.895335.211323.420347.285346.986

$ 541694625

7441,0431,3571,1691,2881,2781,4861,5411,6952,005

$567.68694.00591.86

667.26865.56

1,051.12848.95875.00783.57837.18818.37844.54922.69

HEW

Year Current Constant Current Constant

USDA

Current Constant

Total

Current Constant

1966 . . . .1967 . . . .1968 . . . .1969 . . . .1970 . . . .1971 . . . .

1972 . . . .1973 . . . .1974 . . . .1975 . . . .1976 . . . .1977 . . . .1978 . . . .

$7,0248,0497,7097,6967,3607,509

8,3188,4048,4209,0129,655

10,96311,825

$ 7 , 3 7 0 . 4 18 , 0 4 9 . 0 07 , 3 0 0 . 1 96 , 9 0 2 . 2 46 , 1 0 7 . 8 85 , 8 1 6 . 4 2

6 , 0 4 0 . 6 75 , 7 0 9 . 2 45 , 1 6 2 . 4 85 , 0 7 7 . 1 85 , 1 2 7 . 4 65 , 4 6 2 . 3 85 , 4 4 1 . 7 9

$ 1 , 0 1 41 , 1 4 71 , 2 5 21 , 2 9 71 , 2 2 11 , 4 7 6

1 , 7 5 11 , 8 3 82 , 2 9 02 , 3 6 32 , 5 4 62 , 7 8 73 , 1 3 2

$ 1 , 0 6 4 . 0 11 , 1 4 7 . 0 01 , 1 8 5 . 6 11 , 1 6 3 . 2 31 , 0 1 3 . 2 81 , 1 4 3 . 3 0

1 , 2 7 1 . 6 01 , 2 4 8 . 6 41 , 4 0 4 . 0 51 , 3 3 1 . 2 71 , 3 5 2 . 1 01 , 3 8 8 . 6 41 , 4 4 1 . 3 3

$153 $160.546165 165.000159 150.568163 146.188177 146.888197 152.595

224 162.672236 160.326240 147.149265 149.296303 160.913344 171.400381 175.334

$15,24716,44115,82715,54315,23615,437

16,37716,67017,27518,83220,56523,72526,169

$ 1 5 , 9 9 9 . 01 6 , 4 4 1 . 01 4 , 9 8 7 . 71 3 , 9 3 9 . 91 2 , 6 4 4 . 01 1 , 9 5 7 . 4

1 1 , 8 9 3 . 21 1 , 3 2 4 . 71 0 , 5 9 1 . 71 0 , 6 0 9 . 61 0 , 9 2 1 . 41 1 , 8 2 1 . 1

1 2 , 0 4 2 . 8

SOURCE: NSF, Science Indicators 1979, “Table 4-2 Research and Development Expenditures by U.S. Government Depart-ments, 1986 -1978.”

Table B-4.—Total Research Expenditures at SAES, USDA, and Combined SAES and

USDA—1966-79 (in thousands of current and constant dollars)

SAES USDA Combined SAES + USDA

Year Current Constant Current Constant Current Constant

1966 . . . . . .1967 ...., .1968 . . . . . .1969 . . . . . .1970 . . . . . .1971 . . . . . .1972 . . . . . .1973 . . . . . .1974 . . . . . .1975 . . . . . .1976. , . . . .1977 . . . . . .1978, . . . . .1979 .....,

$205,215207,675242,687259,292282,101300,224346,942378,658430,609490,054527,120605,455662,533708,932

$215,336207,675229,817232,549234,109232,552251,955257,240264,015276,087279,936301,672304,893301,288

$153,084165,424159,150163,865176,896197,084224,308236,291240,183265,604302,531343,859380,556381,242

$160,634165,424150,710146,964146,802152,660162,896160,524147,261149,636160,664171,330175,129162,024

$ 358,299373,099401,837423,157458,997497,308571,250614,949670,792755,658829,651949,314

1,043,0891,090,172

$375,970373,099380,527379,513380,911385,212414,851417,764411,276425,723440,601473,001480,022463,312

SOURCE: Compiled from USDA, Inventory of Agricultural Research FY1966-79, vol. 11, Science and Education Administra-tion.

8/14/2019 8106


App. B—Statist ics on Research Funding q 2 0 5

Table B-5.—USDA, SAES, and Combined USDA andSAES Scientist Years, 1966-79

Year USDA SAES Combined

1966 . . . . . . 3,660.401967 . . . . . . 3,817.801968 . . . . . . 3,515.961969 . . . . . . 3,511.671970 . . . . . . 3,544.30

1971 . . . . . . 3,541.431972 . . . . . . 3,682.611973. . . . . . 3,610.911974. . . . . . 3,489.611975. . . . . . 3,436.861976. . . . . . 3,439.381977. . . . . . 3,540.231978. . . . . . 3,595.101979. . . . . . 3,451.40

6,146.006,179.005,752.505,955.906,031.10

5,841.105,914.305,953.506,034.206,133.406,281.306,556.706,514.026,520.47

9,806.4 9,996.8 9,268.5 9,467.7 9,575.4

9,382.5 9,597.0 9,564.3 9,523.8 9,570.19,720.5

10,096.7 10,114.5 9,971.8

SOURCE. Compiled from USDA, Inventory of Agricultural Research

FY1966-79, voI. II, Science and Education Administration.

Table B-6.—Total Research Expenditures by USDA Research Agencies(ARS, ESS, and CR)–1966-79 (in current and constant dollars)

ARS CRa ESS


1966 . . . . . . $136,761 $143,506 $ 0.0 $ 0. 0 $ 16 ,32 3. 0 $ 17, 128 .01967 . . . . . . 145,716 145,716 1,997.0 1,997.0 17,711.0 17,711.01968 . . . . .. 142,405 134,853 1,969.9 1,865.4 14,774.9 13,991.31969 . . . . . . 146,801 131,660 1,999.6 1,793.4 15,064.3 13,510.61970 . . . . . . 161,113 133,704 1,694.4 1,406.1 14,089.1 11,692.21971 . . . . . . 176,076 136,387 2,647.2 2,050.5 18,361.0 14,222.31972 . . . . . . 192,617 139,882 12,500.0 9,077.7 19,190.8 13,936.61973 . . . . . . 200,322 136,088 15,400.0 10,462.0 20,569.2 13,973.61974 . . . . . . 206,995 126,913 11,583.0 7,101.8 21,604.9 13,246.41975 . . . . . . 224,096 126,251 16,471.6 9,279.8 25,036.1 14,104.91976 . . . . . . 252,514 134,102 21,973.8 11,669.6 28,043.0 14,892.71977 . . . . . . 292,956 145,967 21,903.0 10,913.3 28,999.8 14,449.31978 . . . . . . 323,146 148,710 23,707.0 10,909.8 33,703.0 15,509.91979 . . . . . . 327,168 139,043 16,933.0 7,196.3 37,141.0 15,784.5

aTfleSeeXpendltureS Include only the funds used wlthln USDA foradmlnlsterlng research funds lntheStates and obliga-

tions of CR administered special grants They are not double-counted (n anyof the SAESexpendltures from Federal

sources

SOURCE: Comp!led from USDA, inventory of Agricultural Research FY1966-79, voI IL Science and Education Administra-tlon

8/14/2019 8106



Table B-7.—Total Research Expenditures at SAES by Source of Funding (FederalFormula Funds, Cooperative Grants and Cooperative Agreements (CGCA), Other

Federal Funds, State Appropriations, and Private Grants)-–1966-79(in thousands of current and constant dollars)

Federal Otherformula funds CGCA Federal funds


1966 . . . .1987 . . . .1988 . . . .1989 . . . .1970 . . . .1971 . . . .1972 . . . .1973 . . . .1974 . . . .1975 . . . .1976 . . . .1977 . . . .1978, . . .1979 . . . .

$ 48,01748,69452,44953,91256,43962,74370,58777,22082,12790,302

102,505116,761132,179142,735

$50,385.148,694.049,667.648,351.646,837.348,600.351,261.452,459.250,353.850,874.454,437.158,176.960,827.960,660.9

$6,0086,2609,5947,7846,8376,3206,8507,4768,631

10,7739,882

11,75814,78317,827

$6,304.306,260.009,085.236,981.175,673.864,895.434,974.585,078.805,291.856,089.305,248.015,858.506,803.047,576.29

$24,52223,56628,60227,83426,44025,95727,29928,74831,20534,23637,77251,75953,59056,165

$25,731.423,566.027,085.224,963.221,941.920,106.119,825.019,529.919,132.419,287.920,059.525,789.224,661.823,869.5

State appropriations

Year Current Constant

1966 . . . . . $117,942 $123,7591967 . . . . . 120,610 120,6101968 , ... , 142,276 134,7311989 . . . . . 157,526 141,2791970 . . . . . 178,666 148,2711971 . . . . . 190,892 147,8641972 . . . . . 226,185 164,2591973 . . . . . 247,691 188,2681974 . . . . . 288,022 176,5921975 . . . . . 331,270 186,6311976 . . . . . 349,502 185,6091977 . . . . . 393,358 195,9931978 . . . . . 428,489 197,1871979 . . . . . 457,104 194,264

Private

Current Constant

$8,726 8,545 9,788

12,238 13,719 14,312 16,02117,52320,62423,47327,45931,81933,58735,101

$9,156.38,545.09,248.1

10,974.011,385.111,086.011,634.711,904.212,645.013,224.214,582.615,854.015,456.514,917.6

SOURCE: Compiled from USDA, Inventory of Agricultural Research FY1966-79, vol. II, Science and Education Administra-tion.

Table B-8.—Private Industry Funds for Applied Research and Development forAgricultural Products—1963-75

(in millions of current and constant dollars)

Year

1 96 3 . . . . .

1 98 4 . . . . .

1 96 5 . . . . .

1 96 6 . . . . .

1 96 7 . . . . .

1 96 8 . . . . .

1 96 9 . . . . .

1 97 0 . . . . .

1 97 1 . . . . .

1 97 2 . . . . .

1 97 3 . . . . .

1 97 4 . . . . .

1 97 5 . . . . .

Food and Farmkindred machinery

Current Constant Current Constant

$102 $125.5 $ 7 6 $ 9 3 . 5 –

118 139.0 79 93.1131 147.0 96 107.7130 137.9 100 106.0134 134.0 102 102.0165 154.3 96 89.8179 156.7 99 87.8204 170.1 89 74.2

207 165.2 90 71.8222 168.9 92 70.0234 170.8 117 85.4269 181.8 127 85.8292 184.8 145 91.8

Agricultural Total privatechemicals agricultural research

Current Constant Current Constant

$ 4 5 $ 55.4 $223 $274.356.571.881.792.092.692.2

105.1

103.882.283.292.6

104.4

245291307328360362419

427422465533602

288.6326.6325.6328.0336.0339.3349.5

340.8321.2339.43 6 0 . 1381.0

SOURCE: NSF, “Table B-51 Research and Development in Industry 1975,” Surveys of Science Resources series, p. 72,NSF77-324.

8/14/2019 8106


8/14/2019 8106



Worth BatemanDepartment of Energy

George BentonDepartment of Commerce

Anson BertrandU.S. Department of Agriculture

John Birdsall

American Meat Institute

Billy BondTennessee Valley Authority

Nyle BradyAgency for International Development

Mark BuchananWestern Association of Agricultural

Experiment Station Directors

Robert BuckmanU.S. Department of Agriculture

Mahlon BurnetteGrocery Manufactures of America

Emery CastleResources for the Future

Eloise Clark

National Science FoundationJohn Deutch

Department of Energy

Johanna DwyerFrances Stern Nutrition Center

Kenneth FarrellU.S. Department of Agriculture

Stephen GageEnvironmental Protection Agency

Dean GilletteBell Laboratories

Ellen HaasNational Agricultural Research and

Extension Users Advisory BoardDon Hadwiger

Iowa State University

James HalpinSouthern Agricultural Experiment Stations

Charles HardinUniversity of California Davis

Lowell HardinThe Ford Foundation

Mark HegstedU.S. Department of Agriculture

John HoodAgricultural Research Institute

Keith HustonNorth Central Regional Association of State

Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

James IaconaU.S. Department of Agriculture

James JohnstonThe Rockefeller Foundation

Terry KinneyU.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert KramerW. K. Kellogg Foundation

Gordon LawDepartment of the Interior

Oran LittleExperiment Station Committee on

Organizations and PolicyBill Long

Department of StateWilliam Marion

Institute of Food TechnologistsJames Meyers

National Agricultural Research andExtension Users Advisory Board

Don PaarlbergPurdue University

Willis PowellNational Farmers Organization

Denis PragerOffice of Science and Technology PolicyJohn Ragan

National Agricultural Research andExtension Users Advisory Board

Wayne RasmussenU.S. Department of Agriculture

J. S. RobinsJoint Council on Food and Agricultural

SciencesThomas Ronningen

Northeast Association of AgriculturalExperiment Stations Directors

R. Dennis Rouse

Auburn UniversityO. C. SimpsonAssociation of Research Directors of

1980 Schools and Tuskegee InstituteCharles Smallwood

California State University, FresnoThomas Sporleder

Texas A&M UniversityGeorge Stone

National Farmers UnionWalter Thomas

U.S. Department of AgricultureRobert Wildman

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdministrationPhillip WinterDepartment of Defense

Vivian WiserU.S. Department of Agriculture

8/14/2019 8106


App. C—commissioned Papers, Acknowledgments, and Food & Renewable Resources Program Advisory Committee q 209

Sylvan WittwerMichigan State University

Catherine WotekiU.S. Department of Agriculture

Food and Renew able Resources

Program Advisory C o m m i t t e e

Johanna Dwyer, ChairmanFrances Stern Nutrition Center,

New England Medical CenterStephen H. Berwick

Chief ScientistHDR Sciences

Cy CarpenterPresidentMinnesota Farmers Union

Eliot ColemanDirectorCoolidge Center for the Study of

AgricultureRichard L. Hall

Vice President, Science and TechnologyMcCormick & Co., Inc.

Laura HeuserAgricultural Council of America

J. Frank McCormickProfessor and DirectorGraduate Program in EcologyUniversity of Tennessee

R. Dennis RouseDean, School of Agriculture

Auburn UniversityDaryl B. Simons

Associate Dean for Engineering ResearchCollege of EngineeringColorado State University

Thomas SporlederDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

William StappProgram ChairpersonBehavior and EnvironmentSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Michigan

Sylvan Wittwer

Director and Assistant DeanCollege of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesMichigan State University

8/14/2019 8106


Append ix D

Glossary, Acronyms, and

A b b r e v i a t i o n s . . .-

Glossary

Biological nitrogen fixation—A term used forprocesses by which organisms such as bacteria

or fungi take nitrogen out of the air and changeit into a form that plants can use. Nitrogen isone of the most important plant nutrients, as itis the basis of all protein compounds. Althoughabundant in air, plants cannot use nitrogen di-rectly from the air.

Block grant—Given primarily to general pu rposegovernmental un its in accordance with a statu-tory formula and can be used for a variety of ac-

tivities within a broad functional area.Constant dollars—Current dollars adjusted for in-

flation,Consumer surplus—The excess of the amount

consumers are prepared to pay for a product(rather than go without it) over the amount ac-tually paid for it.

Demand—A schedule of the quantities of a prod-

uct or service consumers are willing and able tobuy at various prices.

Donors–Countries or organizations that makemajor contributions directly or through groupaction to support international development ac-tivities.

Economic surplus—The sum of consumer andproducer surplus.

Food and agricultural science-The biological,social, economic, and political considerationsof: a) agriculture, includin g soil and water con-

servation and u se, use of organic waste materi-als, plant an d anim al protection, and plant and

animal health; b) processing, distributing, mar-keting, and using food and agricultural prod-ucts; c) aquiculture; d) home economics, hu-man n utrition, and family life; and e) rural andcommunity development. For purposes of thisassessment it does n ot include forestry and for-estry produ cts.

Formula funds—Expenditure for agricultural re-search from the Federal Government to the

States, based on size of rural population andnumb er of farms.

Hatch Act—An 1887 Act of Congress establishingexperiment stations in all States,

Income elasticity–The responsiveness of thequantity demanded of a product to a change inincome of consumers.

Integrated pest management—Optimization of pest control in an economically and ecolog-ically sound manner, accomplished by the co-ordinated use of multiple tactics to assurestable crop production and to maintain pestdamage below the economic injury level whileminimizing hazards to humans, animals,plants, and the environment.

International network—A multicountry coopera-

tive program with common objectives in whichthere is joint planning, assignment of areas forprimary responsibility, coordination of ac-tivities, reporting on results and decisions onfollow-up activities. These networks may bepartly or wholly funded from one source or en-tirely by the individual collaborators.

Land-grant university—An agricultural institu-tion established by the Merrill Act in 1862,

Marginal product—The additional output fromthe last input employed,

Marginal rate of return—The net value of the lastdollar invested.

Marketing margin—The difference between farmprice and retail price; includes processing andtransportation costs, etc.

Mission-oriented research—Research aimed atthe solution of a well-defined problem of eco-nomic importance such as the control of a spe-cific insect problem, curing an animal disease,etc.

Multilateral aid—The aid programs that repre-sent contributions from numerous donors butact in the same manner as would a singledonor. UN agencies are good examples.

Multiplier effects—A measure of the effect ontotal national income arising from a unitchange in one of its components.

Nonland-grant university—A private universityor public State university.

Post-harvest technology research–Physical andbiological study of the functions involved in the

210

8/14/2019 8106


App. D—Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations “ 211

assembling, processing, fabricating, preserv-ing, packaging, storing, distributing, and trans-porting of agricultural commodities and foodproducts.

Price elasticity of demand—The degree of re-sponsiveness of the quantity demanded of aproduct to changes in its price.

Price elasticity of supply—The responsiveness of the quantity of a product supplied to a changein its price.

Research management—Systematic allocationand distribution of funds, scientists, supportpersonnel, and other resources to be used toseek solutions to problems related to science.

Scientist-year—One scientist working full timefor a period of 1 year.

Spillover benefits—Research conducted in a geo-graphic area, such as a State, that impactsanother geographic area.

Sustainability of farming system—A farming sys-tem that uses renewable resources in such a

way that farming can be continued in perpetui-ty.Value of marginal product—The additional reve-

nue generated from the last unit of an input.

Acronyms and Abbrev iat ions

AID

AMS

AR

ARA

ARPAC

ARS

AVRDC

BAI

BDIBEPQ

BHNHE

BIFAD

BPISAE

— Agency for InternationalDevelopment

—Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA–Agricultural Research, SEA,

USDA (1977-81)

—Agricultural ResearchAdministration (1941-53), USDA

—Agricultural Research PolicyAdvisory Committee

—Agricultural Research Service(1953-77), (1981- ), U S D A

—Asian Vegetable Research andDevelopment Center

— Bureau of Animal Industry,

USDA– Bureau of Dairy Industry, USDA— Bureau of Entomology and Plant

Quarantine, USDA— Bureau of Human Nutrition and

Home Economics, USDA— Board for International Food and

Agricultural Development,USAID

— Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils,

and Agricultural Engineering,

USDA

CAS

CDCCGIAR

.

CFRR

CNRUCR

CRIS

CRSP

CSESS

CSRS

DAC

DHHS

DOCDOD

DOEDSBEPA

ERS

ESESCOP

ESCS

ESS

FCCSET

FDAFSGAOGNPHEW

HN

ICARDA

ICRISAT

—Committee on AgriculturalScience (1963-69)

—Center for Disease Control— Consultative Group on

International AgriculturalResearch

—Committee on Food and

Renewable Resources—Clinical Nutrition Research Unit–Cooperative Research, SEA,

USDA (1977-81)—Current Research Information

System— Collaborative Research Support

Program—Cooperative State Experiment

Station Service, USDA (1962)—Cooperative State Research

Service, USDA (1962-77) (1981-— Development Advisory

Committee

— Department of Health andHuman Services— Department of Comm erce— Department of Defense— Department of Energy— Development Support Board— Environmental Protection

Agency— Economics Research Service,

USDA (1961-77) (1981- )– Extension Service, USDA— Experiment Station Committee

on Organization and Policy— Economics, Statistics, and

Cooperatives Service, USDA(1977-80)— Economics and Statistics Service,

USDA (1980-81)— Federal Coordinating Council on

Science, Engineering, andTechnology

— Food and Drug Administration–Forest Service, USDA–General Accounting Office— gross national product– Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare– Human Nutrition, SEA, USDA

(1977-81)— International Center forAgricultural Research in the DryAreas

— International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-AridTropics

8/14/2019 8106



IDCA-AID — International Development

IITA

ILCA

ILRAD

I PAIRRI

ISNAR

ISTC

JC

JCAD

Cooperative Administration— International Institute for

Tropical Agriculture— International Livestock Center

for Africa— International Laboratory for

Research in Animal Diseases

— Intergovernmental Personnel Act— International Rice Research

Institute— International Service for National

Agricultural Research— Institute for Scientific and

Technological Cooperation

–Joint Council on Food andAgricultural Sciences

– Joint Committee for AgriculturalDevelopment

NPSNSFOES

OICD

OMB

OSTP

OTA

PAC

P.L.PPC

P P S

–National Program Staff, USDA— National Science Foundation

— Office of Experiment Stations,USDA

—Office of InternationalCooperation and Development,USDA

—Office of Management and

Budget— Office of Science and

Technology Policy–Office of Technology

Assessment, U.S. Congress— Program Analysis and

Coordination, USDA— Public Law— Bureau of Program and Policy

CoordinationProgram Planning Staff USDA