National Research Initiative: A Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and...

title:NationalResearchInitiative:AVitalCompetitiveGrantsPrograminFood,Fiber,andNatural-resourcesResearch

author: Grossblatt,Normanpublisher: NationalAcademiesPress

isbn10|asin: 030907083Xprintisbn13: 9780309070836ebookisbn13: 9780585316895

language: English

subject

UnitedStates.--DepartmentofAgriculture--Grantproposals,Peerreviewof,UnitedStates.--DepartmentofAgriculture--Proposalsforresearchgrants,Peerreviewof,UnitedStates.--DepartmentofAgriculture--Reviewofresearchgrant

proposals,Peer,Unitpublicationdate: 2000

lcc: HD1761.N382000ebddc: 338.10973

subject:

UnitedStates.--DepartmentofAgriculture--Grantproposals,Peerreviewof,UnitedStates.--DepartmentofAgriculture--Proposalsforresearchgrants,Peerreviewof,UnitedStates.--DepartmentofAgriculture--Reviewofresearchgrantproposals,Peer,Unit

NationalResearchInitiativeAVitalCompetitiveGrantsPrograminFood,Fiber,and

Natural-ResourcesResearch

CommitteeonanEvaluationofTheUSDepartmentofAgricultureNationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram

BoardonAgricultureandNaturalResources

NationalResearchCouncil

Pageii

NATIONALACADEMYPRESS2101ConstitutionAvenue,NW*Washington,D.C.20418

NOTICE:TheprojectthatisthesubjectofthisreportwasapprovedbytheGoverningBoardoftheNationalResearchCouncil,whosemembersaredrawnfromthecouncilsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,theNationalAcademyofEngineering,andtheInstituteofMedicine.Themembersofthecommitteeresponsibleforthereportwerechosenfortheirspecialcompetencesandwithregardforappropriatebalance.

ThismaterialisbaseduponworksupportedbytheUSDepartmentofAgriculture,CooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionServiceunderagreement97-COOP-2-5045.Anyopinions,findings,conclusions,orrecommendationsexpressedinthispublicationarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewoftheorganizationsoragenciesthatprovidedsupportforthisproject.

ISBN0-309-07083-X

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

Pageiii

TheNationalAcademiesNationalAcademyofSciencesNationalAcademyofEngineeringInstituteofMedicineNationalResearchCouncil

TheNationalAcademyofSciencesisaprivate,nonprofit,self-perpetuatingsocietyofdistinguishedscholarsengagedinscientificandengineeringresearch,dedicatedtothefurtheranceofscienceandtechnologyandtotheiruseforthegeneralwelfare.UpontheauthorityofthechartergrantedtoitbytheCongressin1863,theAcademyhasamandatethatrequiresittoadvisethefederalgovernmentonscientificandtechnicalmatters.Dr.BruceM.AlbertsispresidentoftheNationalAcademyofSciences.

TheNationalAcademyofEngineeringwasestablishedin1964,underthecharteroftheNationalAcademyofSciences,asaparallelorganizationofoutstandingengineers.Itisautonomousinitsadministrationandintheselectionofitsmembers,sharingwiththeNationalAcademyofSciencestheresponsibilityforadvisingthefederalgovernment.TheNationalAcademyofEngineeringalsosponsorsengineeringprogramsaimedatmeetingnationalneeds,encourageseducationandresearch,andrecognizesthesuperiorachievementsofengineers.Dr.WilliamA.WulfispresidentoftheNationalAcademyofEngineering.

TheInstituteofMedicinewasestablishedin1970bytheNationalAcademyofSciencestosecuretheservicesofeminentmembersofappropriateprofessionsintheexaminationofpolicymatterspertainingtothehealthofthepublic.TheInstituteactsundertheresponsibilitygiventotheNationalAcademyofSciencesbyits

congressionalchartertobeanadvisertothefederalgovernmentand,uponitsowninitiative,toidentifyissuesofmedicalcare,research,andeducation.Dr.KennethI.ShineispresidentoftheInstituteofMedicine.

TheNationalResearchCouncilwasorganizedbytheNationalAcademyofSciencesin1916toassociatethebroadcommunityofscienceandtechnologywiththeAcademy'spurposesoffurtheringknowledgeandadvisingthefederalgovernment.FunctioninginaccordancewithgeneralpoliciesdeterminedbytheAcademy,theCouncilhasbecometheprincipaloperatingagencyofboththeNationalAcademyofSciencesandtheNationalAcademyofEngineeringinprovidingservicestothegovernment,thepublic,andthescientificandengineeringcommunities.TheCouncilisadministeredjointlybybothAcademiesandtheInstituteofMedicine.Dr.BruceM.AlbertsandDr.WilliamA.Wulfarechairmanandvicechairman,respectively,oftheNationalResearchCouncil.

Pageiv

CommitteeonanEvaluationoftheUSDepartmentofAgricultureNationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram

ThomasN.Urban,Chair,DesMoines,Iowa,PioneerHi-BredInternational,Inc.,RetiredPeterJ.Barry,UniversityofIllinois,UrbanaFrancisF.Busta,UniversityofMinnesota,St.PaulMary-DellChilton,NovartisSeeds,Inc.,ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolinaDarylE.Chubin,NationalScienceFoundation,Arlington,VirginiaRobertJ.Collier,UniversityofArizona,TucsonNoelT.Keen,UniversityofCalifornia,RiversideMichaelR.Ladisch,PurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,IndianaG.PhilipRobertson,MichiganStateUniversity,HickoryCornersRonaldR.Sederoff,NorthCarolinaStateUniversity,RaleighWilliamW.Simpkins,IowaStateUniversity,AmesRobertE.Smith,RESmithConsulting,Inc.,Newport,VermontFredrickStormshak,OregonStateUniversity,CorvallisAnnek.Vidaver*,UniversityofNebraska,Lincoln

GregoryH.Symmes,StudyDirector(sinceAugust1999)MichaelJ.Phillips,StudyDirector(throughJuly1999)LucynaKurtyka,ResearchAssociateShirleyB.Thatcher,SeniorProjectAssistantNormanGrossblatt,Editor

*Resignedfromcommittee

BoardonAgricultureandNaturalResources

T.KentKirk,Chair,UniversityofWisconsin,MadisonDavidH.Baker,UniversityofIllinois,UrbanaSandraS.Batie,MichiganStateUniversity,EastLansingMayR.Berenbaum,UniversityofIllinois,UrbanaAnthonyS.Earl,Quarles&BradyLawFirm,Madison,WisconsinEssexE.Finney,Jr.,Mitchellville,Maryland,USDepartmentofAgriculture,RetiredCorneliaFlora,IowaStateUniversity,AmesRobertT.Fraley,MonsantoCompany,St.Louis,MissouriGeorgeR.Hallberg,TheCadmusGroup,Waltham,MassachusettsRichardR.Harwood,MichiganStateUniversity,EastLansingGilbertA.Leveille,McneilConsumerHealthcare,FortWashington,PennsylvaniaHarleyW.Moon,IowaStateUniversity,AmesWilliamL.Ogren,HiltonHeadIsland,SouthCarolina,USDepartmentofAgriculture,RetiredG.EdwardSchuh,UniversityofMinnesota,MinneapolisJohnW.Suttie,UniversityofWisconsin,MadisonThomasN.Urban,DesMoines,Iowa,PioneerHi-BredInternational,Inc.,RetiredRobertT.Wilson,MississippiStateUniversity,MississippiStateJamesJ.Zuiches,WashingtonStateUniversity,Pullman

MyronF.Uman,ActingExecutiveDirector(throughMay1999)WarrenR.Muir,ExecutiveDirectorDavidL.Meeker,Director(sinceMarch2000)CharlotteKirkBaer,AssociateDirectorShirleyB.Thatcher,AdministrativeAssistant

Pagevii

ForewordIn1989theBoardonAgricultureoftheNationalResearchCouncilrecommendedthatanexpandedpublicinvestmentbemadethroughcompetitiveresearchgrantsinagriculture,food,andtheenvironment.Therationaleforthisrecommendedprogram,tobeadministeredbytheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA),wasaperceivedneed"torevitalizeandreinvigorateoneof[America's]leadingindustries,theagricultural,food,andenvironmentalsystem."Theobjectivewastoincreasethegenerationofnewknowledgeinkeyissueareas,whichcouldbestbeaccomplishedbyselectingthehighestqualityresearchproposalsthroughtheuseofpeerreview.InFiscalYear1991,CongresscreatedtheNationalResearchInitiative(NRI),theexpandedcompetitivegrantsprogramatUSDA.Withoutaccountingforinflation,thisprogramiscurrentlyfundedatalevelslightlylessthanonefourthofthatrecommendedbythe1989ResearchCouncilreport.

In1995FrankPress,mypredecessorasPresidentoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,chairedaNationalAcademiescommitteethatexaminedtheallocationoffederalfundsforscienceandtechnology.Amongthecentralrecommendationsofthiscommitteewerethat:(1)federalagenciesshouldmakeallocationdecisionsbasedonclearlyarticulatedcriteriacongruentwiththoseofthePresidentandtheCongress,(2)theallocatedfundsshouldensurethattheU.S.achievespreeminenceinselectfieldsandisworldclassinallothermajor

Pageviii

fieldsofscienceandtechnology,and(3)competitivemeritreview,especiallyinvolvingexternalreviewers,shouldbethepreferredwaytomakeawards.TheNRIisaprogramaimedatmeetingthesethreeimportantcriteria.

TheNationalResearchCouncilisreleasingthisreport,focusedonimprovingandstrengtheningtheNRI,followingastudycarriedoutbyanexpertandknowledgeablecommittee.Manyofitsmembershavebeensuccessful,asdescribedinAppendix4,incompetingforpeerreviewgrantsatNSF,NIH,andNRI.ThiscommitteehasconductedaretrospectiveassessmentofthequalityandvalueoftheNRIprogram,examineditsscienceandtechnologypriorities,andsuggestedchangesforthefuture.Amongthekeyfindingsandrecommendationsare:(1)amajoremphasisoftheprogramshouldcontinuetobethesupportofhighriskresearchthathaspotentiallong-termpayoffs,aswellasbenefitsintrainingandeducation,(2)theproposalsandawardedgrantsaregenerallyofhighquality,butscientistsoutsidethetraditional"food,fiber,andnaturalresources"disciplinesneedtobeattractedtotheprogram,(3)amoreeffectiveperformancetrackingsystemneedstobeestablishedtoimproveresearchaccountability,(4)theprioritysettingprocessneedssignificantrevisionwithcreationofsixstandingscientificresearchreviewcommitteestoidentifycriticalissuesandwithspecialconsiderationgiventoimportantproblemsperceivedbythepublic,and(5)anewNRIadvisoryboardwithrepresentativesofNRIstakeholdersshouldbeestablished.ThecommitteehasalsoreemphasizedtheoriginalNRIbudgetaryrecommendation(adjustedforinflation)ofthe1989BoardonAgriculturereport.

Asemphasizedinthe1995reportofthePresscommittee,thefederalgovernmenthasplayedapivotalroleindevelopingtheworld'smostsuccessfulsystemofresearchanddevelopment.Maintainingthevigorofthisscienceandtechnologyenterprise,ofwhichtheNRIisan

importantcomponent,isessentialtothenation'sfuture.BymakingchangesintheNRIprogramofthetyperecommendedhere,theUScanattractmanymoreoutstandingyoungscientiststocareersinthesecriticalareas.

Ithankthechairandmembersofthecommitteethatproducedthisimportantreport.WehopethatitwillhelptomaketheNRIevenmoreeffective.

BRUCEALBERTSCHAIRNATIONALRESEARCHCOUNCIL

Pageix

PrefaceOurnationfacesdauntingchallengestoitsfoodandfibersystemandtotheconditionofournaturalresourcesinthecomingdecades.Rapidincreasesinworldpopulationandthepressureonresourcesgeneratedbyincreasingpercapitaconsumptionasaresultofincreasingpercapitaincomechallengetheverybasisofourstandardoflivingourfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcebase.Asthenationfacesthechallenges,newtechnologiesandnewinformationsystemsarechangingthefaceofbiologicresearch.

TheUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)hastraditionallybeenthenation'sprimarypublicresearchengineinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.TheNationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram(NRI)isasmallpartofthatUSDAresearcheffort,butitaccountsforasubstantialportionofthenation'smerit-basedpeer-reviewedfundamentalresearcheffortsinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

USDAaskedtheNationalResearchCounciltoreviewtheNRIfromfourperspectives:

1)Toperformaretrospectiveassessmentofthequalityandvalueofresearchfundedbytheprogram.

2)TodeterminewhetherthescienceandtechnologyprioritiesinthemajorNRIprogramsaredefinedappropriately.

3)ToassesshowNRIactivitiescomplementotherUSDAprograms,programsofotherfederalagencies,andstateprogramsintheprivatesector.

4)Torecommendthenatureandcontentofchangesforthefuture.

Torespondtotherequest,theResearchCouncilestablishedtheCommitteeonEvaluatingtheUSDANationalResearchInitiative(NRI)CompetitiveGrantsProgram.Thechargeisbroad.Toassessthequalityandvalueofresearch,thecommitteegathereddatafromtheliteratureandsolicitedinformedopinions

fromabroadspectrumofresearchersandadministratorswhohavelongexperiencewiththeNRIandotherfederalinstitutionsinvolvedinmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearch.Thecommitteedidnothavethetimeorexpertisetorevieweachfundedactivityandassessitsspecificqualityandvalue.Assessingqualityandvalueoffundamentalresearchisdifficultinanyprogramwithoutmanyyearsofhindsight.HadwediscoveredimportantconcernsaboutthequalityorvalueofresearchfundedbytheNRIduringourdeliberations,wewouldhavehadtorevisitourapproachtothecharge.Wedidnothavetodothat.

ItisadauntingprospecttoundertaketheevaluationofprioritiesforanyresearchendeavorthatcoversaswideanarrayoftopicsasthatintheNRIportfolio.Weaddressedthequestionofwhethergrant-settingprioritiesmetcongressionalmandates.Westudiedthepriority-settingprocessitselfinmuchdetailandhavemaderecommendationsforchange.Wechosenottodefineprioritiespersealthoughwehavesuggestedawiderangeofresearchconcernsthat,inourjudgment,theNRIneedstoaddressforthenation'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesagenda.Ourrecommendationsonstructureandprocessshould,however,allowtheNRItoputadetailedpriority-settingprocessintoplace,andthatshouldresultinacomprehensiveagendaforNRIresearch.

AddressingthequestionofcomplementarityrequireddefininghowtheNRIfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesactivitiesfitintothenation'sotherpublicandprivateresearchactivities.Weendeavoredtodothat.

Finally,wechosetogiveitem4recommendingthenatureandcontentofchangesforthefuturethebroadestofinterpretations.InformationgarneredduringthisstudyrequiredthatweaddressthefundingandstructureoftheNRItorespondfullytothecharge.AResearchCouncilcommitteerecommendeddramaticincreasesinfundingofthe

NRIinthe1989reportInvestinginAgriculture,andtheinterimResearchCouncilreviewin1994reiteratedthatposition.Werevisitedthesubjectandrespondedwithrecommendationsonbothstructureandfunding.OurrecommendationsreaffirmandextendtheearlierResearchCouncilvisionforfundamentalmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

SubstantialrecommendationsaremadetostrengthentheNRIitselfand,bystrengtheningtheNRI,toenhancethenation'speer-reviewedresearcheffortsinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources,which,ifsuccessful,willprepareusforthecomingdecades.

Weare,indeed,unpreparedformanyoftomorrow'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourceschallenges.Thereismuchtobedonetoavertcatastropheiftheprojectedincreasesinworldpopulationarerealized.Iamconvincedthattheadoptionofthecommittee'srecommendationsbyCongressandtheexecutivebranchwilldramaticallyimprovethenation'spreparednesstoaddressthechallenges.

THOMASN.URBANCHAIRCOMMITTEEONANEVALUATIONOFTHENATIONALRESEARCHINITIATIVECOMPETITIVEGRANTSPROGRAM

Pagexi

AcknowledgmentsThecommitteeisextremelygratefultonumerouspeoplewhogaveoftheirtimeandexpertisetoprovidedataandotherinputduringthestudyprocessandthedevelopmentofthisreport.Itisdifficulttoprovideanexhaustivelistofthosewhocontributedtothiseffort,butthecommitteewishestothankthefollowing,whoprovidedinputduringpublicmeetings:KennethBarton,MonsantoLifeSciences,St.Louis,Missouri;RobertBremel,GalaDesign,SaukCity,Wisconsin;AnthonyCavalieri,PioneerHi-BredInternational,Inc.,Johnston,Iowa;HaroldCoble,CouncilforAgriculturalScienceandTechnology,Raleigh,NorthCarolina;JackEberspacher,NationalAssociationofWheatGrowers,Washington,DC;NoahEngelberg,OfficeofManagementandBudget,Washington,DC;DavidErvin,WallaceInstitute,Greenbelt,Maryland;KellyeEversole,NationalCornGrowersAssociation,ChevyChase,Maryland;KirkFerrell,AnimalAgricultureCoalition,Washington,DC;CliffGabriel,OfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy,Washington,DC;KarlGlasener,Tri-Societies,Washington,DC;RichardHerrett,AgriculturalResearchInstitute,Washington,DC;TracyIrwinHewitt,C-FARE,Arlington,VA;CharlesJamison,NationalCornGrowersAssociation,Beltsville,Maryland;AndrewJordan,NationalCottonCouncil,Mamphis,Tennessee;EileenKennedy,USDepartmentofAgriculture,Washington,DC;VictorLechtenberg,PurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,Indiana;DavidMcKenzie,

Pagexii

StateAgriculturalExperimentStation,CollegePark,Maryland;TerriNintemann,USSenateCommitteeonAgriculture,Nutrition,andForestry,Washington,DC;TerryNipp,AESOPEnterprises,Washington,DC;KennethOlson,AmericanFarmBureauFederation,ParkRidge,Illinois;LyleRoberts,IllinoisSoybeanAssociation,Bloomington,Illinois;JohnSuttie,UniversityofWisconsin,Madison,Wisconsin;andRobertZimbelman,FederationofAnimalScienceSocieties,Bethesda,Maryland.

Inaddition,wewouldliketothankthosewhotooktimetomeetwiththecommitteethroughoutthestudyprocess:ColienHefferan,USDepartmentofAgriculture,WashingtonDC;TedHullar,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NewYork;RonPhillips,USDepartmentofAgriculture,LittleRock,Arkansas;MichaelRoberts,USDepartmentofAgriculture,Washington,DC;andSallyRockey,USDepartmentofAgriculture,Washington,DC.

Twohundredeighty-eightpersonstookthetimetofilloutthesurveythatprovidedmuchusefulinformationtothecommittee.Wearegratefulfortheresponsesandforthemanyadditionalcommentsandideasprovided.

Thisreporthasbeenreviewedbypeoplechosenfortheirdiverseperspectivesandtechnicalexpertise,inaccordancewithproceduresapprovedbytheNationalResearchCouncilReportReviewCommittee.ThepurposesofthisindependentreviewaretoprovidecandidandcriticalcommentsthatwillassisttheauthorsandtheResearchCouncilinmakingthepublishedreportassoundaspossibleandtoensurethatthereportmeetsinstitutionalstandardsofobjectivity,evidence,andresponsivenesstothestudycharge.Thecontentofthereviewcommentsanddraftmanuscriptremainconfidentialtoprotecttheintegrityofthedeliberativeprocess,butwewishtothankthefollowingfortheirparticipationinthereview:Roger

Beachy,DanforthPlantCenter,St.Louis,Missouri;JohnBurris,MarineBiologicalLaboratory,WoodsHole,Massassachusetts;SusanCozzens,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology,Atlanta,Georgia;RodneyCroteau,WashingtonStateUniversity,Pullman,Washington;JackieDuPont,FloridaStateUniversity,Tallahassee,Florida;RonaldEstabrook,UniversityofTexasSouthwesternMedicalCenter,Dallas,Texas;JackGorski,UniversityofWisconsin,Madison,Wisconsin;EdwardHackett,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe,Arizona;GeorgeHallberg,TheCadmusGroup,Waltham,Massachusetts;TheodoreHullar,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NewYork;JohnShadduck,ShadduckConsultingLLC,FortCollins,Colorado;PhilipSmith,McGearyandSmith,Washington,DC;andPatrickWindham,R.WayneSayerandAssociates,Washington,DCAlthoughthereviewerslistedaboveprovidedmanyconstructivecommentsandsuggestions,responsibilityforthefinalcontentofthisreportrestssolelywiththecommitteeandwithResearchCouncil.

ThecommitteewishestothankStudyDirectorMichaelJ.Phillips(throughJuly,1999),ResearchAssociateLucynaKurtyka,andAdministrativeAssistantShirleyThatcherfortheirassistanceduringourdeliberationsandinpreparingthisreport.Theirorganizationalskillscontributedenormouslytothestudyprocess.WegratefullyacknowledgetheeditorialworkofAnneH.(Kate)Kelly

Pagexiii

onearlyversionsofthereport.WealsothankLauraBoschiniforhereffortsinpreparingthefinalreportforpublication.

Finally,thecommitteeandthemembersoftheBoardonAgricultureandNaturalResourceswishtoextendspecialthankstoGregoryH.Symmes,studydirectorsinceAugust1999.ItwasourgreatfortunethatGregagreedtoassistusinthecompletionofthereportandthattheResearchCouncil'sCommissiononGeosciences,Environment,andResourceswaswillingtoshareGreg'sexpertise.Gregprovidedinvaluableadviceanddirectionduringthefinalphaseofthestudy.Hisexperience,knowledge,energy,andpersistencehelpedthecommitteethroughalong,andsometimesdifficult,process.WedeeplyappreciateGreg'suntiringandextraordinaryeffortsinseeingthisstudytoasuccessfulconclusion.

Pagexv

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary 1

HistoryofCompetitiveResearchattheUSDA 2

Organization 2

StudyProcess 3

StatusoftheNationalResearchInitiative 4

NRI'sMission 4

ResearchAccountability 5

PrioritySettingandOrganization 7

Funding 11

ANationalFoodFiberandNaturalResourcesResearchComplex

1.Introduction 15

BriefHistoryofCompetitiveResearchatUSDA 16

NRIOrganization 19

PriorReviewsoftheNRI 19

StudyProcess 20

OverviewofReport 20

Pagexvi

2.ValueofFood,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesResearch 21

EconomicContributions 22

RatesofReturnfromFoodandFiberResearch 23

ImpactsofAdvancesinLifeSciences 25

Public-SectorandPrivate-SectorResearchFunding 26

3.TheNationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram

QualityandValue 30

MeasuringtheQualityandValueofNRI-SupportedResearch

NoveltyandSignificanceofResearch 35

Fairness 36

TheNRIPeerReviewProcess 36

EvaluationofNRIPeerReviewProcess 38

RelevanceandResponsiveness 39

SummaryFindings 40

4.RoleandScopeoftheNRIProgram 41

ScientificObjectives 42

AppliedversusFundamentalResearch 42

MultidisciplinaryResearch 59

TrainingandEducation 45

DevelopingFutureScientists 45

StrengtheningAcademicInstitutionsintheFoodandFiberSystem

EnhancingPublicUnderstanding 47

Complementarity 48

OtherUSDA-FundedResearchPrograms 48

IntramuralResearch 48

FormulaFunds 49

SpecialGrants 49

OtherCompetitiveGrantsinUSDA 50

ComplementarityofNRIinUSDA 51

OtherFederalPrograms 52

NationalScienceFoundation 52

NationalInstitutesofHealth 53

DepartmentofEnergy 53

InteragencyPrograms 54

ComplementarityofNRIwithotherFederalPrograms

IndustryandtheNRI 56

SummaryFindings 56

ScientificObjectives 56

TrainingandEducation 56

Complementarity 57

Pagexvii

5.PrioritiesandPriority-SettingattheNRI 58

Process 59

OverviewofUSDAPriority-SettingProcess 59

NRIPriority-SettingProcess 59

AnalysisofNRIPriority-SettingProcess 60

NRIResearchPriorities 61

FundingHistoryoftheNRI'sSixDivisions 61

HistoryofNRIResearchPrograms 66

Analysis 66

ResearchOpportunities 69

SummaryFindings 69

Priority-SettingProcess 69

ResearchPriorities 71

6.OrganizationalandFundingIssues 73

OrganizationalIssues 74

LocationinUSDA 74

NRIGovernance 77

ChiefScientist 77

BoardofDirectors 78

Organization 78

FundingIssues 80

TotalNRIFunding 80

SizeandLengthofGrants 81

OverheadRates 84

SummaryFindings 85

Organization 85

Funding 85

7.Recommendations 87

TheNRI'sMission 88

ResearchAccountability 89

Priority-SettingandOrganization 90

Funding 97

SummaryofRecommendations 100

Appendixes

A.Section1615oftheFood,Agriculture,ConservationandTradeActof1990

B.SurveyontheUSDepartmentofAgriculture'sNationalResearchInitiative(NRI)CompetitiveGrantsProgram

C.ExternalViewsoftheNRI 112

D.OutlineforInterviews(June16,1998)withUSDAProfessionalStaffonInternalWorkingsoftheNRIProgram

Pagexviii

E.CommitteeMembers'ExperiencewiththeNationalResearchInitiative,theNationalInstitutesofHealth,andtheNationalScienceFoundation.

F.NRIApplicationsFunded 147

G.ContributionsofNRItoMajorScientificAdvancesinFood,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesSystem

H.ResearchNeedsinFood,Fiber,andNaturalResources

I.GrantPerformanceFollow-onforQualityEvaluation 181

References 182

AbouttheAuthors 185

Pagexix

Tables,Figures,andBoxes

Tables

Table2-1AggregateReturnsonPublicInvestmentsinAgriculturalResearchandExtension

Table4-1NRISupportofPostdoctoralResearchers

Table4-2SkillsandItemsAffectedbyAcquiredGrant

Table5-1SummaryofCongressionally-MandatedHigh-PriorityResearchAreas(1990)

Table5-2NRIResearchDivisionsandStakeholders'Needs

Table5-3Committee'sListofEmergingResearchIssues

Table6-1NRIFundingLevels,1991to1998

Table6-2HistoryofFundingforFood,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesResearchintheUSDA(inmillionsofdollars)

Figures

Figure2-1 27

Food,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesResearchExpendituresintheUnitedStates,1960-1996

Figure2-2ResearchExpendituresbyFoodandFiberIndustries1960and1996

Figure5-1CongressionalAppropriationsforNRIDivisionsandSpecialInitiatives,1991-1997

Figure5-2NRIPrograms,1987-1998(GanttChart)

Figure6-1OrganizationofResearchattheUSDepartmentofAgriculture

Figure6-2CompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagement

Figure6-3NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgramOrganization

Figure7-1RecommendedOrganizationofUSDAResearch,Education,andEconomicsMissionArea

Figure7-2RecommendedOrganizationofUSDAExtramuralCompetitiveResearchService(NewNRI)

Box3-1EthanolfromBiomass:AnExampleofaSignificant

ScientificAdvancementfromNRIResearch

Box3-2PorcineReproductiveandRespiratorySyndrome:AnExampleofaSignificantScientificAdvancementfromNRIResearch

Box3-3ReductioninFertilizerUseProfitsFarmersandtheEnvironment:AnExampleofNRIResearchwithGreatPromise

Box3-4RulesandGuidelinesforPanelComposition

Box4-1IsItBasicorIsItApplied?

ExecutiveSummaryThenation'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemhasalwaysevolved,butthepaceofchangeisnowmoredramaticthanever.Inthelifesciences,newknowledgecreatedbyabetterunderstandingofanimal,human,microbial,andplantgenomicsisprovidingnewopportunitiestocontrolpestsanddisease,enhancethequalityandsafetyoffood,improvenutrition,andincreaseproductivity.Equallyimpressiveadvancesareoccurringininformationtechnology,providingtheopportunitytoincreaseproductivity,minimizeenvironmentalimpacts,andfundamentallyalterdecision-making.

TheabilityoftheUnitedStatestoresolvechallengestothefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystembydevelopingsustainablefoodandfiberproduction;enhancingfoodsafety,quality,andnutrition;protectinganincreasinglyfragileenvironment;respondingtopredictablecyclesofglobalwarming;anddevelopingalternativeenergysourcesdependsonthedepthofpublicknowledge,thepublicavailabilityoftechnologies,andtheskillandinsighttoapplythem.

TheUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)spendsabout$1.7billionperyearonresearchrelatedtothenation'ssystemoffood,fiber,andnaturalresources,ofwhichabout$120millionisspentonmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchfundedbytheNationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram

(NRI).The$1.6billionthatUSDAspendsonresearchthroughnon-NRIprogramsisdistributednoncompetitivelythroughintramuralresearchgrantstoUSDAstaff(whichcanincludecooperativeagreementswithlandgrantuniversitiesandotherorganizations),formulafundstostateagriculturalexperimentstations,andspecialgrantsfortargetedinitiativesanddirectgrantstostates.Thisallocationsystemdoesnotinitselfnecessarilyreducethequalityorrelevanceofresearch,butitrunscountertopracticesattheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH)andtheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)andtothegeneraldirectionofmostfederalresearchpracticesforassessingresearchqualityandrelevance.

TheNRIisthenation'sprimarymerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchresponsetochallengestoitssystemoffood,fiber,andnaturalresources.Thepotentialfordiseasetransferbetweenanimalsandhumans;theuseofcropsassubstitutesourcesofpetroleum-basedproducts;theadventofnutraceuticals(specificfoodsforthepreventionortreatmentofdisease);preparationforandpreventionofbiologicterrorism;theenvironmentalimpactsoffarming,food-processing,andforestry;andtheimprovementofthevitaminandmineralcontentofwidelygrowngrainsarejustafewexamplesofimportantemergingresearchissuesdirectlyrelevanttoUSDA'smission.Merit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchonsuchissuescouldhaveprofoundlybeneficialeffectsintheUnitedStatesandtherestoftheworld,especiallyindevelopingcountries.

HistoryofCompetitiveResearchatUSDA

Competitivemerit-basedpeer-reviewedgrantsatUSDAwerefirstauthorizedbyCongressin1977.Congressprovided$15milliontostarttheprogramandmandatedthatitbeopentoanyresearcherwhowouldsubmitagrantapplication.From1977to1989,theprogramgrewto$40millionperyear.In1989,theNationalResearchCouncil

calledforexpandingcompetitivegrantsinanewprogramwithproposedannualfundingof$550million.Congressrespondedinthe1990Food,Agriculture,Conservation,andTradeActbyauthorizingannualspendingofupto$500milliononanewcompetitivegrantsprogramwithin5years.CongressinitiatedtheNRIinFY1991withanappropriationof$73million.AnnualfundingfortheNRIwasincreasedtoabout$100millioninFY1992andremainedatornearthislevelthroughFY1998.InFY1999,theNRIbudgetwasincreasedto$120million.Sinceitsinception,theNRIhasfunctionedasapilotprogramtosupporthigh-qualityresearchrelatedtothenation'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.

Organization

TheNRIisintheCompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagementDivisionofUSDA'sCooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionService(CSREES).ItisgovernedbyaBoardofDirectorsthatcomprisesthe

administratorsofalltheUSDAintramuralresearchagenciesandtheundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics,whoistheboardchair.

TheNRIhassixdivisionsorganizedaccordingtothesixmandatedprogramsauthorizedbyCongress:Animal,Plants,FoodandNutrition,MarketingandTrade,NaturalResourcesandEnvironment,andFoodProcessing.Thescientificstaffconsistsofthechiefscientist,divisiondirectors,programdirectors,andtherotatingpanelmanagersrecruitedfromtheresearchcommunitytoadministerNRIreviewpanels.

StudyProcess

In1997,USDAaskedtheNationalResearchCouncil'sBoardonAgriculture(nowtheBoardonAgricultureandNaturalResources)toconductanindependentassessmentoftheNRIprogram.Specifically,USDAaskedtheBoardto(1)performaretrospectiveassessmentofthequalityandvalueofresearchfundedbytheprogram,(2)determineifthescienceandtechnologyprioritieswiththemajorNRIprogramsaredefinedappropriately,(3)assesshowNRIactivitiescomplementotherUSDAprogramsandthoseofotherfederalagenciesandstateprogramsintheprivatesector,(4)recommendthenatureandcontentofchangesforthefuture.TheResearchCouncilappointeda14-membercommitteeinearly1998tocarryoutthisstudy.

TorespondtoUSDA'sfour-pointcharge,thecommitteegatheredimpressionsandsystematicdataontheperformanceoftheNRI.Thecommitteeconductedaseriesofsurveysandinterviewsandsolicitedtestimonyfromseveralconstituentgroups.Formerchiefscientists,deansanddirectorsoflandgrantandnon-landgrantuniversities,andrecipientsandnonrecipientsofNRIgrantswereincludedinmail

surveysasafirstcomprehensiveefforttoassessthefunctioningoftheNRI.Inaddition,thecommitteedevotedafulldaytoreceivingtestimonyfrominterestedstakeholder1groups.EveryeffortwasmadetogaintheviewsofindividualsorgroupsthathadhadcontactwiththeNRIandwerethereforeknowledgeableastoitsactivities.Thecommitteefoundagreatdealofconsistencyinfindingsfromthesurvey,interviewswiththechiefscientists,andtestimonypresentedbystakeholdersatapublicworkshop.

EarlyinthestudythecommitteerecognizedthattheNRIdidnotmaintainasystematicrecordofdirectresearchresults(forexample,publications,patents)orarunningevaluationoftheoriginalityandsignificanceofcurrentapplicationsandrenewals.Thecommitteethereforebaseditsassessmentofthe''qualityandvalueofresearchfundedbytheprogram"(itsfirsttask)largelyonsurveys,testimony,anditsownexperience.Tosupplementthesesubjectiveevaluations,thecommitteechosetoexpandthescopeofitsinvestigationstoevaluatehowwelltheNRIprogramhasmetthegoalsthatweresetforthinthe1989NRCreportandtheoriginalcongressionalauthorization,someofwhichinvolve

1ThetermstakeholderisusedheretorefertoallindividualsandorganizationsthathaveaninterestintheoperationsandoutcomesoftheNRI.

organizationalandfundingissues.Inadoptingthisexpandedcharge,thecommitteethereforehasdiscussedanumberoforganizationalandfundingissuesandhasofferedrecommendationstohelpachievetheoriginalgoalsforthisprogramandtogiveitgreatervisibilitywithin,andexternalto,USDA.

StatusoftheNationalResearchInitiative

ThecommitteefoundtheNRItohavefinancedhigh-qualityscientificworkwithincongressionalguidelines.Thecommitteealsofound,however,thattheprogramisindangeroflanguishing.Programsize,grantduration,grantsize,andalowoverheadallowancehaveledtoreducedapplicationnumbers.Applicantsareprimarilyfromtraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesciences.Akeygoaloftheprogramtoattractscientistsfromoutsidethetraditionalfoodcomplexhasnotbeenachieved.

Furthermore,thecommitteefoundthattraditionalstakeholdersintheNRIarelosingconfidenceinthehealthanddirectionoftheprogram.Unevenandopaqueinternalprocedures,fundingallocationprocesses,andpriority-settingpatternshavereducedthedesirabilityoftheprogramintheeyesofpotentialapplicantsinandoutsidethetraditionalfood-researchcomplex.

Finally,thelocationoftheNRIwithintheUSDAorganizationalstructuresuggeststhattheUSDAandCongressplaceahigherpriorityonformulafunds,specialgrants,andintramuralresearchthanonextramural,merit-basedpeer-reviewedresearch.ExpectationsofincreasedfundingfortheNRIgeneratedbytwoNationalResearchCouncilreports(in1989and1994)andthe1990congressionalauthorizationhavenotbeenmet.Thathasgeneratedfrustrationinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourceresearchcommunityandhashadanadverseeffectontheacceptanceoftheNRIasastrongresearch

program.

Thecommitteereiteratestheextraordinaryimportanceofpublicmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.Inthecommittee'sopinion,pastpublicresearchandcurrentprivateactivitiescannotmeettheneedsthatarebeingcreatedbypopulationgrowth,climatechange,andnatural-resourcedeteriorationorthechallengesrelatedtofoodsafetyandnutritionandtothegrowingconvergenceoffoodsandmedicalresearch.

TheNRI'sMission

Asuccessfulgrantsprogramcontainselementsofvalue,relevance,quality,fairness,andflexibility.ThecommitteefoundthattheproposalstotheNRIandtheresearchconductedbyscientistswhoreceiveNRIgrantsareofhighquality.Thatfindingisbasedontheresultsofthecommittee'ssurveyofapplicants,awardees,administratorsoflandgrantinstitutions,andindustry;theviewsofformerchiefscientistsandindividualsfromfederalagencies;andthepersonalperspectivesofcommitteemembersandtheircolleagues.Throughconscientiousstewardship,theNRIhasbeensuccessfulingeneratingfundamentalandapplied

researchandfosteringthedevelopmentoffuturescientistswithstrongbackgroundsinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ThecommitteerecommendsthatamajoremphasisoftheNRIcontinuetobethesupportofhigh-riskresearchwithpotentiallong-termpayoffs.Muchofthisresearchwouldbeclassifiedasfundamentalinthetraditionaluseofthisterm.TheNRIalsoshouldcontinuetoemphasizetheimportanceofmultidisciplinaryresearch.

TheNRIprogramiscreditedwithimportantcontributionstofundamentalandappliedresearch.Thedistinctionbetweenfundamental(orbasic)andappliedresearchoftenisunclearinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessector,however.Insteadofclassifyingresearcharbitrarilyasfundamentalorapplied,itshouldbethoughtofasonacontinuumwithshort-,medium-,andlong-termobjectivesidentifiedinanyresearcharea.ThecommitteebelievesthatamajoremphasisoftheNRIshouldcontinuetobethesupportofhigh-riskresearchwithpotentiallong-termpayoffsthetypeofresearchthatisunlikelytobefundedthroughotherresearchprogramsinUSDA,otherfederalagencies,ortheprivatesector.ThecommitteealsoencouragestheNRItocontinuetoemphasizemultidisciplinaryresearchbecausetheproblemsinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemdemandmultidisciplinaryapproachesandcollaboration.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRIcontinuetoemphasizeitsmissionoftrainingandeducation.

ThetrainingandeducationofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralresearchersattributabletotheNRIprogramhavebeenvaluable.Althoughgrantshavebeensmallandofshortduration,trainingappearstohavebeenamajoruseofNRIfundsamonguniversityresearchers."Strengtheninggrants"2providedbytheNRIprogramhavehadamajorimpactonthecareersandproductivityoffacultywhootherwisewouldnotreceivefederalgrantsupport.Furthermore,

NRIstaffhavebeensuccessful,particularlyinviewoftheorganization'slimitedresources,inorganizingseveralvehiclestopromotepublicunderstandingofresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ResearchAccountability

Thecommitteerecommendscontinuingtheprocessofmerit-basedpeerreviewasthemosteffectivemethodofcompetitivelydistributingfundsforresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ThecommitteeviewstheNRIasamodelofmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinUSDA.Becauseitusesacompetitivereviewprocesstorank

2Strengtheninggrantsaremadeavailabletofacultyofsmall-andmedium-sizedacademicinstitutionsorinstitutionsinUSDA-EPSCoR(ExperimentalProgramforStimulatingCompetitiveResearch)entitieswhohavenotreceivedNRIawardsduringtheprevious5years.

proposals,however,theNRIremainsoutsidethemainstreamUSDAcultureofformulafunding.Thesuccessfuloperationofthepeer-reviewsystemintheNRIaccountsforthehighqualityoftheprojectsfunded.Stakeholdersinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemholdtheNRI'speer-reviewprocessinhighesteem.SomesurveyrespondentsindicatedthattheNRImerit-basedpeer-reviewprocesswasasfairasandperhapsmoreresponsivethanthereviewprocessofotherfederalresearchagencies.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatamoreeffectiveperformance-trackingsystembeestablishedtoimproveresearchaccountability.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheNRIcouldimproveitsrecordbydocumentingthevalueofresearchthatitfunds.TheNRIdoesnotkeepadefinitiverecordofpatentsandpublicationsresultingfromNRIresearch.Noristherearunningevaluationoforiginalityandsignificanceofcurrentapplicationsandrenewals.Althoughthecommitteehasfoundbasedonitssurveysthatfundedapplicationsareofhighquality,theNRIlacksatrackingsystemofcriticalfactorsneededforself-evaluationoreffectivereportingofresearchaccomplishmentstooutsidegroups,whichwouldcreateafeedbacksystemtoestablishvalue.

Everyfederalresearchagencyfacesimportantchallengesinmeasuringoutcomesofresearchprojects,andtheNRIisnoexception.ThecommitteeconcludedthatthequalityofresearchsupportedbytheNRIishigh,butitwasunabletoscrutinizeindividualprojectsextensivelybecauseoftheabsenceofatrackingsystemtailoredtotyingprojectstooutcomes.AstandardizedtrackingsystemneedstobeimplementedfortheNRIprogram.SuchasystemwouldbebeneficialbothfortrackingoutcomesandformakingtheNRI'sprogramsmoretransparenttostakeholders.TheNationalResearchCouncilhasrecentlyreleasedareport,EvaluatingFederalResearch

Programs,onaccountingforfederaloutcomesaspartoftheGovernmentPerformanceandResultsActmandate.TheNRIshouldusetherecommendationsinthatreport.

ThecommitteerecommendsimplementationofaninternalinformationsystemthatgeneratesdataoncurrentoperationsoftheNRI.

Thecommitteefounditdifficulttofollowyear-to-yearchangesinfundingareasandtogeneratenumberstomeasureeffortbyprojectandcategoryoutcome.Thecommittee'srequestsforinformationgeneratedmoreworkbytheNRIprofessionalstaffthanshouldhavebeenrequired.Thecommitteebelievesthatthoseproblemswereduetodeficienciesintheunderlyinginformationsystemitself.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRIWebsitebemorereadilyaccessibletoallowthelocationofresearchprojectsandresultswiththeuseofissue-orientedkeywordsandtechnicaltermsthatareaccessibleandunderstandabletoallstakeholders.

AnumberofrecommendationsreflectdirectlyontheNRI'sabilitytoreachbothtraditionalandnewstakeholders.Buttheneedsfortransparency,accesstothecurrentresearchagenda,anddocumentationofpastoutcomessuggestasubstantialexpansionincommunicationstrategy.AWebsitecouldbelinkedtonontechnicalsummaries,technicalabstracts,impactstatements,andpublicationsandtoacatalogueofcurrentandpastfundedprojects.Suchdataandcommunicationcouldbemaintainedfor10yearstobuildatimely,comprehensive,andsearchablerecordofresearchimpactsgeneratedbyNRIfunding.

PrioritySettingandOrganization

Thecommitteehasconcludedthatthepriority-settingprocessoftheNRIneedssubstantialrevision.ThecommitteefoundthatpartsoftheprocessusedbytheNRIstaffseemunstructured,appeartobeunevenlyadministeredacrossNRIdivisions,andarenotexplicitlylinkedtothegoalsandotherstrategicplanningelementsoftheResearch,EducationandEconomicsMissionArea.Changesinprogramareasandprioritiesappeartohaveoccurredprimarilyinresponsetotheurgingofvocalstakeholdersratherthanastheresultofadeliberativepriority-settingprocess.MechanismsarenotwellestablishedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofNRI-fundedresearchastimepassesandprogressoccursortodelineatehowkeyresearchoutcomescorrelatewithguidingresearchgoals.TheprioritiesoftheNRIdonotappeartobelinkedcloselywiththeprioritiesoftheAgriculturalResearchService(ARS)andtheEconomicResearchService(ERS),perhapsbecausethepotentialcross-functionalnature

ofpresentresearchprogramsisnotfullyappreciatedineithertheARSorNRIadministration.

Thecommitteebelievesthatanimprovedpriority-settingprocessshouldinvolveindependentinputfromscientistsandinformedmembersofthepublic.Thepriority-settingprocessalsoshouldallocatemoreoftheNRI'sfundsbyissue,notbyresearchcategory.ThecommitteebelievesthatchangesintheNRI'sorganizationneedtobemade.Mostimportant,USDAneedstofindawaytoenhancethepositionofextramuralresearchinUSDAandtoencourageNRIpriority-settingtoreflectnationalprioritiesmoreclearly.

Thecommitteeoffersthefollowingrecommendationstoimprovethepriority-settinginandtheoveralleffectivenessoftheNRI.Othersolutionsarepossible;ultimatelyitwillbeuptoUSDA,andpossiblyCongress,todecidehowbesttoaddresstheseproblems.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatsixstandingscientific-researchreviewcommitteesbeassembledtoidentifycriticalissuesineachresearcharea.Thecommitteefurtherrecommendsthatthecurrent26programsbeeliminatedandreplacedwithanissue-basedagendaacrossthepurviewsofthesixcommittees.

SomeNRIdivisionshavebeenrelativelystableprogrammaticallysincetheirinception,whereasothershaveseenmanyprogramstartsandstops.ThesubdivisionoftheNRI'ssixmainresearchareasinto26programssolelybyresearch"category",intheabsenceofanoverallstrategicplan,mighthavebeenpartlyresponsibleforalackofcriticalmassamongtheNRI'snaturalstakeholders,particularlybecausetherecommendedincreasesinresearchfundingto$500milliondidnotmaterialize.

Severalshort-termchangesinprogramdirection(over4-to6-yeartimeframes)haveoccurredinresearchareasthatwouldotherwiseneedabout810yearstohaveanimpact.Thestop-startnatureofsomeNRIfundingcommitmentsoveritsshorthistoryindicatesthattheNRIhasbeenunabletosustainfundingsupportforsomehigh-riskareaswithlong-termpayoffsthetypesofresearchforwhichtheNRIisideallysuited.Thelackofaclearperceptionofthelogicofannualrequestsforproposalsacrossall26programscouldbepartlyresponsiblefortheNRI'sinabilitytoattractincreasedresearchbudgetsforitsprograms.Amorelogical,priority-settingprocessthatrelatestheNRI'sresearchprogramstoUSDAgoalsandemergingissuesinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemmightbeeffectiveindemonstratingmoreclearlytheimportanceofNRI-supportedresearchandleadtoincreasedresearchbudgets.

Thecommitteerecommendsthattheresearchreviewcommitteesgivespecialconsiderationtoimportantproblemsperceivedbythepublicatlargesuchasalternativeenergy,healthfulnessoffood,foodsafety,

andnutrition(issuesattheconsumerendofthefoodsystem)inadditiontothemoretraditionalemphasesonproductivity,ruraleconomies,andenvironmentalprotection.

Thelikelyoutcomewouldbeabetterdistributionofresearchfundsacrosstheentirefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemandaresearchagendamorecloselyalignedwithpublicconcerns.TheNRIresearchagendawouldthusbecomemoreforward-lookingandissue-driven.

ThecommitteerecommendsthatacooperativeformalgoalandstrategyprocessbeinstitutedinthecontextoftheNRI'sroleinfederalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchprograms.

TheNRIgenerallycomplementsotherUSDAactivitiesanddoesnotduplicateotherfederalresearchefforts.TheNRIactivelyparticipatesincross-agencyfundingopportunitiestoensurecomplementarityofresearchefforts,butitclearlyfollowsratherthanleadsinsuchefforts.ApartfrommemorandaofunderstandingandinteragencycoordinationprovidedbytheNationalScience

andTechnologyCouncil,noprocessexistsforestablishingformalrelationshipswithotherfederalagenciesorforconsultingandusingstakeholdergroups.

NIH,NSF,theDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)andNRIformthebackboneofthenation'smerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearcheffortinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.TheNRIisthenation'sonlymerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchprogramthatfocusesexplicitlyonchallengestoitssystemoffood,fiber,andnaturalresources.AcomprehensivestrategythatrequiredcoordinationamongcongressionalcommitteesparticularlythosewithjurisdictionoverUSDA,NSF,andNIHprogramsandbudgetswouldallowanexpandedNRIfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesagendatobecoordinatedwithcomplementaryworkfundedbyNIHandNSF.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRIandothercompetitiveUSDAresearchprogramsbemovedtoanewExtramuralCompetitiveResearchService(ECRS)thatwouldreporttotheundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics.

ThelocationoftheNRIasonecomponentoftheCompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagementDivision,ratherthanonanorganizationallevelequivalenttoUSDA'stwomainresearchagencies(ARSandERS)suggeststhatUSDAandCongressplaceahigherpriorityonformulafunds,specialgrants,andintramuralresearchthanonextramural,merit-basedpeer-reviewedcompetitiveresearch.Thecommitteebelievesstronglythatunlessextramuralcompetitiveresearchisgiventhesamestatureorganizationallyasformula-fundedandintramuralresearchinUSDA,itwillremaindifficultfortheNRIprogramtoachieveitsmission.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheNRIhassufferedasaprograminanagencyCSREESthatisalsoresponsiblefordefendingandallocatingformulafundsandspecialgrants.Intramuralresearchisrepresented

byARSandERS,whichreportdirectlytotheundersecretaryforresearch,educationandeconomics,asdoesCSREES.ThecommitteestronglyrecommendsthatextramuralcompetitiveresearchbegivenanorganizationalstaturethatwouldallowittocompeteeffectivelyforresourceswithformulafundsandspecialgrantsandtoparticipatedirectlyinUSDA'shigh-levelpriority-settingprocess.

ThecommitteerecommendstheestablishmentofanewExtramuralAdvisoryBoard(1214members)thatrepresentsNRIstakeholdersandhasanon-USDAchair.

FundinghasbeenunevenlyallocatedamongtheNRI'sdivisionssinceitsinitiation.Nosubstantialchangesintheproportionsoffundingallocatedtothedivisionshaveoccurred,eventhoughthenatureoffood,fiber,andnaturalresourceshaschangedsince1991.Fundingallocationsdonotappeartohavedistinguishedbetweentraditionalandemergingareasinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ThecurrentNRIBoardofDirectorsprovidesnecessaryadministrativeoversightoftheNRIprogramandcanbeusedtolinktheNRIwithUSDA's

otherresearchorganizations.TheBoardofDirectorsisnotresponsibleforprovidingguidanceonscientificortechnologicpriorities,providingaforumforstakeholderconcerns,ormeasuringresearchoutcomesandevaluatingNRIoperations.Anexternaladvisoryboardofsometypeisnecessarytohandlethoseresponsibilities.

TheAdvisoryBoardwouldadviseandassistthechiefscientistinidentifyingfundamentalissuesandfuturestrategiestomeetthegreatestneeds.Itwouldrepresentscientistsandengineers,deansoflandgrantandnon-landgrantinstitutions,industryacrosstheentirefoodandfibersystem,commodityandfarmgroups,consumergroups,and1890colleges.ExofficiomemberswouldincludeselectprogrammanagersatNIHandNSFandtheNRIchiefscientist.Boardmemberswouldserve3-yeartermsonastaggered,rotatingbasiswithamaximumoftwoterms.Theboardwouldbeappointedbythesecretaryofagriculture.

Inthecommittee'sopinion,anexternalAdvisoryBoardiscriticaltothesuccessfulfunctioningoftheNRI.Stakeholdercontact,theadvocacyofextramuralresearchinsideandoutsideUSDA,measurementofresearchoutcomes,andcontinuingevaluationofNRIoperations(includingthepeer-reviewedproject-selectionsystem)wouldensurethoroughness,objectivity,andtransparency.Avisible,mandatedexternalAdvisoryBoardwouldbringrenewedenergyandfocustoanexpandedNRIeffortandwouldprovideCongresswithanobjectiveappraisalofNRIefforts.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatthepositionofchiefscientistbeafull-time,permanent5-yearposition,withanoptionofone5-yearrenewal,chosenbythesecretaryofagriculturewiththeconsultation,recommendation,andadviceofthenewlycreatedNRIAdvisoryBoard.ThechiefscientistwouldbetheadministratorofECRS.

ThecurrentresponsibilitiesoftheNRIchiefscientistareequivalenttoafull-timeposition.Apart-timerevolvingchiefscientistcannotmeetthestrategic-planning,priority-setting,andcommunicationneedsofaneffectiveNRI.Althoughpastchiefscientistshavedoneexcellentwork,havingapart-timechiefscientistimpedescontinuityinaccountabilityandleadershipandcounterssuccessfullong-rangeplanningandfollowupandconsistentstakeholderinvolvement.

Thenecessarydutiesofthechiefscientist-administratorofECRS,inadditiontothosenowassignedwithintheNRI,wouldincludedirectingtheprogramanddevelopingadefinitivestrategicplanandadvocacyfortheNRIprogram.ThechiefscientistcouldalsotaketheleadinchangingthecultureoftheNRIfromaprogram-basedtoanissue-basedresearchagenda.Thefull-timechiefscientistwouldreportdirectlytotheundersecretaryandwouldplayamajorroleinsettingthenation'sfederalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchagenda.

Thecommitteerecommendsthateachofthesixmandatedareasofresearchemphasisbeledbyahalf-timeassociatechiefscientistwitha2-yearrotation.Eachassociatewouldbeascientistfromavisibleandproductiveoutsideresearchprogram.

Inrecentyears,theNRIstaffhasbeenstretchedtocoveritsresponsibilities,andthishasincreasedtheburdensofcommunicationandtimelinessonNRIstaffatalllevelsandonthescientistswhoserveasadhocreviewersandpanelmembers.TheproposedrotationsystemwouldallowthechiefscientisttorecruitaflowofintellectualcapitalandwouldprovideamechanismforobtaininginputfromthepopulationofresearchersservedbytheNRI.Thefull-timechiefscientistplusthesixassociatechiefscientistswouldhavethetimeandresourcestocarryoutlong-termanalysesofresearchneedsinthecontextofissuesratherthanprograms,asisnowthecase.Thisrecommendationhighlightstheimportanceofestablishingandmaintainingascientificallybasedresearchagenda.Theassociatechiefscientistswouldcomplementthedivisiondirectors,programmanagers,andvolunteerpanelleaders.

AnumberoffactorscouldaccountforthefactthatUSDA'sresearchagendahasstruggledoverthelastdecade.Thecommitteeunderstandscurrentbudgetconstraintsandunderstandsthattheimplementationofsomeofitsrecommendationswouldincreasepersonnelandoperatingcosts.Webelievestrongly,however,thatsubstantialchangesareneededtoensurethefuturesuccessofmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

Funding

Thecommitteerecommendsthatgrantawardsbeimmediatelyincreasedtoanaverageof$100,000peryear(totalcosts)over3years.

NRIresearchgrantsaremuchsmallerandshorterthangrantssupportingsimilartypesofresearchatNSF,NIH,andDOE.ContinuedunderfundingofNRIresearchgrantsrelativetothoseofotherfederalresearchagencieswilltendtodiscouragenewresearchersoutsidethetraditionalfoodandfibersystemfromapplyingforNRIgrantsoneoriginalgoaloftheNRI.ItmightalsocausehighlyqualifiedscientistswhohavereceivedNRIsupporttoapplyforresearchfundsfromothersourcesandevenredirecttheirresearchawayfromissuesimportanttothefoodandfibersystem.Thatcouldleadtoadecreaseintheoverallqualityoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

TheproposedincreasewouldsolidifythestakeholderfoundationoftheNRIandprepareittoreceiveadditionalfunds.ThecommitteerecognizesthatwithoutanincreaseintheNRI'stotalbudget(asrecommendedstronglybythiscommittee),theincreaseinsizeanddurationofgrantswouldreducethenumberofgrantsandperhapscausehardshipamonginvestigatorswhohavedependedonNRIfundingtosustaintheirresearchprograms.However,continuedunderfundingofindividualresearchgrantswillreducetheaggregateimpactof

theNRI'scompetitivefunding.Thenumberofcurrentproposalsislowerthaninthepast,andstakeholdersupportappearstobewaning.Anincreaseinthesizeanddurationofgrantswouldenablethescientificcommunitytoattackissuesinfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesbypreparingproposalsthatrequiremulti-investigatorandmultidisciplinaryteamsofresearchers.Increasedsizeanddurationofgrantswouldallowresearcherstocarryoutprojectsasplannedwithoutnarrowingtheirscopetofitashorterperiodandsmalleramount.Finally,increasedsizeanddurationofgrantswouldattractnew,creativeproposalsfromresearcherswhoarenowoutsidethetraditionalfoodandfibersystem.ThelatterwasoneofthekeyreasonsforinstitutingtheNRI,anditcontinuestobeaworthwhileobjective.Toachieveit,theNRImustproviderealisticfundinglevelstocontinuetoattractthebestandthebrighteststudentsandinvestigatorstofood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

TheNRIshouldbenchmarkthefundinglevelanddurationofitsgrantstothoseoftheotherfederalmerit-basedpeer-reviewagenciesthatsupportresearch.NSFandNIHsupportcompetitiveresearchprojectsinsomeofthesamebasicscienceandengineeringareasastheNRI,thatcomplementfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.ThechallengeistokeepthebestintellectualcapitalengagedintheNRI'sscopeofissues.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRI'soverheadlimitbeimmediatelyreplacedwithindirect-coststandardsthatareusedbyotherfederalresearchagencies.

WhenitestablishedtheNRIprogramin1991,Congressimposeda14%limitontheamountofindirectcoststhatcanbechargedasapercentageofthetotalaward.3The14%limitwasreplacedbya19%limit4inFY2000aspartoftheAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andEducationReformActof1998.Althoughtheincreasefrom14%to

19%reducesthegapbetweenoverheadratesonNRIgrantsandratesongrantsawardedbyotherfederalagencies,overheadratesformostacademicandprivate-sectorresearchinstitutionsaresignificantlyhigherthanthe19%limitcurrentlyallowed.AverageoverheadratesforNSF'sBiologyDirectorate,forexample,areapproximately45%ofthemodifiedtotaldirectcostsoftheawardnearlydoubletheNRIlimit.Thecommitteeisnotawareofanyotherfederalmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchprogramwithsuchacongressionallymandatedlimitonoverheadrates.

Presumably,themotivationforsettingsuchalimitwastoincreasethepercentageofNRIresearchfundsspentonresearchactivities.However,suchamandatedcaponoverheadmayhaveanegativeeffectontheNRIprogrambecauseitcausessomeinstitutions(especiallythosefromoutsidethetraditionalapplicantcommunity)todiscouragetheirresearchersfromsubmittingproposalstotheprogram.Becausethecommitteedidnotaddressthisissueinitssurvey,itwasnotabletoestimatethemagnitudeofthiseffectontheNRIprogram.

3Thislimitationisequivalentto0.16279ofthetotaldirectcostsofanaward.4Thislimitationisequivalentto0.23456ofthetotaldirectcostsofanaward.

However,thecommitteeisawareofoneresearchinstitutionthatprohibitsitsscientistsfromsubmittingproposalstotheNRIbecausethelowoverheadratesdonotcoverthetrueinstitutionalcostsassociatedwithsuchresearchandbecauseitsauditorsrequireconsistencyamongallincominggrants.Otherinstitutionsdiscouragetheirresearchersfromsubmittingproposalsbyrequiringthattheresearchers(ortheirdepartments)useotherfundstomakeupthedifferencebetweenmandatedlowoverheadratesandtheestablishedratesusedbyotherfederalagencies.Thisisespeciallyproblematicforsmallerinstitutionswhereresearchersdonothavetheflexibilitytobalancelow-overheadgrantsagainstothersourcesofunrestrictedfunds.Thesefactorsalsomayhaveadisproportionateimpactoninstitutions(ordepartments)fromoutsidethetraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystembecausetheydonothaveahistoricassociationwithUSDAandmaybelesswillingtoacceptalowoverheadratethatisuniquetoUSDA-sponsoredresearch.

ThecommitteebelievesthatCongresscouldhelpbroadenthescopeofNRIresearchersbeyondthetraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemoneoftheoriginalgoalsoftheprogrambyallowingtheNRItousethesamenegotiatedoverheadratesusedbyotherfederalagencies.Thisaction,togetherwiththeincreasedgrantamountsrecommendedpreviously,wouldmaketheNRIamoreattractivesourceoffundingtoallinstitutionsandresearchersandcouldencourageproposalsfromresearchersfromoutsidethetraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem

Thecommitteerecommendsthatby2005theNRIbudgetbeincreasedtoalevelequivalent(adjustedforinflation)tothe$550millionrecommendedbytheNRCin1989butonlyifrecommendedchangesinprioritysetting,documentation,andorganizationareputintoplace.

InadequatefundingoftheNRIhassignificantlylimiteditspotential

andplacedtheprogramatrisk.Asubstantialincreaseinfundingwillensurearobustandhighqualitypublicresearcheffortthatcansignificantlytransformthenation'sfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcessysteminresponsetocriticalneedsinagriculturalproductivity,environmentalhealth,andsocietalwell-being.

Inits1989reportInvestinginAgriculturalResearch,theNRCcalledforexpandingcompetitiveresearchwithintheUSDAandestablishingtheNRI,withaproposedfundingincreaseto$550millionwithinoneyear,ifpossible.Congressrespondedin1990byauthorizing$500millionfortheNRIby1995,butthecurrentprogramisonly$120million.Thecommitteestronglyre-affirmsthepreviousNRCrecommendation,andhasestimatedthattheequivalentsizeoftheNRIbudgetwouldbeapproximately$800millionin2005.Thecommitteebelievesthatattainingthislevelwouldbeanimportantstepinre-energizingthenationalfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesresearchcomplexwhichinturn,wouldresultinmajorbenefitstothenation.Afterreachingthisbudgetlevel,thefuturegrowthoftheNRIbudgetshouldbeevaluatedandcomparedwiththegrowthinthebudgetsofcomplementaryresearchprogramsinNSF,NIH,and

DOE,assuggestedinthecommittee'searlierrecommendationtobenchmarktheamountandlengthofNRIgrantsagainstsuchresearchprograms.

Thecommitteebelievesthattherecommendedincreaseinfundingshouldtakeplaceincrementallyasthevariouschangesrecommendedearlierinthisreportareputintoplace.Theabilitytoutilizelargeamountsofnewfundingeffectivelywillbecompromisedunlessrecommendedchangestothepriority-settingprocessandNRI'sorganizationareimplemented.

ANationalFood,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesResearchComplex

Ifimplemented,therecommendationsgrowingoutofthisthirdNationalResearchCouncilreviewoftheNRI(theothertwowerein1989and1994)willre-energizetheNRIandthenation'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchcomplexandwillgiveUSDAtheopportunitytorediscoveritsfundamentalresearchrootswhereitbegan120yearsago.Inthecommittee'sopinion,thenationneedsUSDAtore-emergeastheresearchengineofthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcescomplexthathasservedthenationsosuccessfullyinthe20thcentury.Thereisnoacceptablealternative.Thefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesystemistooimportantandtoofundamentaltofuturenationalsecurityandstabilitynottohaveitsownresearchprogramthatfocusesexplicitlyonhigh-riskproblemswithpotentiallong-termpayoffs.ThecommitteebelievesthatanexpandedandrefocusedNRIistheproperplatform.Withoutadramaticallyenhancedcommitmenttomerit-basedpeer-reviewedfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch,thenationplacesitselfatrisk.

1IntroductionOverthelast20years,theUSfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemhasexperienceddramaticchanges.Ithasexpandedrapidlytoincludehealth,safety,andenvironmentalissues.EmergingtechnologiescasttransgeniccropsaspharmaceuticalfactoriesandsoilsasmitigatorsofatmosphericCO2increases.Improvedunderstandingofanimal,human,microbial,andplantgenomicsisprovidingnewopportunitiestocontrolpestsanddisease,enhancethequalityandsafetyoffood,improvenutrition,andincreaseproductivity.Equallyimpressiveadvancesareoccurringininformationtechnology,providingtheopportunitytoincreaseproductivity,minimizeenvironmentalimpacts,andfundamentallyalterdecision-making.Newdiscoveriesandtheirapplicationsarechanginghowbusinessisdoneintheglobalfoodandfibermarketplace.Public-sectorresearchhasbeenattheheartofthenation'sresponsetochallengestoitsfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

Thepredictedadditionof3billionpeopletotheworld'spopulationoverthenext30yearsa50%increasecouldhaveadverseeconomicandsocialeffects,especiallyinthefoodandhousingsectors.Theincreasingpopulationcouldhavemajoreffectsontheworld'slimitedsupplyofarablelandandcausesubstantialenvironmentaldegradation,includingthepotentialforglobalclimatechange.SpinoffsfromUSfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchtothe

developingworldthereforecouldbeevenmoreimportantaspopulationpressureintensifies.

Underlyingthedramaticshiftsinsociety'sexpectationsofthenation'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemhasbeenarapidlyexpandingresearchagendabasedondiscoveriesinchemistryandbiology.Someoftheexcitingadvancesthatwilldrivefuturedevelopmentsinthissysteminclude

·Discoveriesinplantandanimalmolecularbiology,inecosystemscience,andinplantandsoilchemistryandbiology.

·Developmentofinformationtechnologythatallowsfoodtobetrackedfromproducertoconsumer.

·Moreinformationabouttheconnectionbetweendietandthebody'sdefensesagainstdisease.

·Measurementofmajoreconomicrelationshipsandtheirconnectiontoinstitutionalchangeandorganizationalstructureinthefoodandfibersystem.

·Genomicstudiesofagriculturalcrops,plantpests,andbeneficialmicrobes.

TheNationalResearchCouncil'sCommitteeonEvaluatingtheNationalResearchInitiativebelievesthatmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchonsuchissuescanhaveprofoundlybeneficialeffectsintheUnitedStatesandthedevelopingworld.Asthenation'sprimarymerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchresponsetochallengestoitssystemoffood,fiber,andnaturalresources,theUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)NationalResearchInitiative(NRI)competitivegrantsprogramshouldplayanimportantroleinsuchprogress.

ThisreportsummarizesthecurrentstatusoftheNRIandoffersanumberofrecommendationstoimproveitseffectiveness.This

introductorychapterprovidesabriefoverviewofthehistoryofcompetitiveresearchatUSDAandtheNRIitself,summarizestheresultsofpriorreviewsoftheNRI,brieflydescribesthecommittee'sstudyprocess,andprovidesabriefguidetothereport.

BriefHistoryofCompetitiveResearchatUSDA

ThepassageoftheHatchActof1887establishedUSDAasthefirstfederalagencytosponsorextramuralscientificresearch.Aformula-basedfundingprocessbasedoneachstate'sshareoftotalruralandfarmpopulationspermittedtheestablishmentofUSDAAgriculturalResearchServicelaboratoriesinseveralgeographiclocationsandannualfundingtostateagriculturalexperimentstations.Thisapproachtofundinghasprovidedconsiderableflexibilityatthestateleveltousefundstoaddresspracticalfoodandfiberproblemsandtobuildandmaintainthelocalresearchinfrastructure.Althoughformulafundshaveprovidedlittlesupportoffundamentalresearch(researchhavingnoimmediateapplicationseediscussioninchapter4),thecombinationofmission-orientedresearch,teaching,andextensioninthelandgrantcollegesprovidesauniquestructurethatrapidlytransmitsresearchresultstothefarm,student,and

consumerlevelandhascontributedtoadramaticexpansionoffoodandfiberoutputintheUnitedStates.

Inthelastcentury,andparticularlysinceWorldWarII,anewapproachtofundingresearchdevelopedinAmericanuniversitiesoutsidethefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.Fundswereawardedforprojectsonacompetitive,peer-reviewedbasisratherthanbygeographicoreconomicformula.ManyhavecitedthenewapproachasoneoftheprincipalreasonsforthesuccessoftheresearchenterpriseintheUnitedStates:theapproach''hasreliedonanabidingfaithinthesuperiorityofafreemarketinideasandentrepreneurialcompetitionovertop-downdecision-makinginensuringthequalityandefficiencyofresearchefforts"(CED,1998).

In1969,thesecretaryofagricultureaskedtheNationalResearchCounciltosponsorabroad-basedevaluationofthefoodandfiberresearchenterprise.Theresultingreport(NRC,1972)acknowledgedthehistoricalstrengthofUSfoodandfiberresearchbutfoundthat"fartoomuchoftheresearchisoflowscientificquality"andthat"agriculturalresearchissufferingfromaninadequateinteractionwiththebasicdisciplinesthatunderlieit."Reasonsforthosedeficienciesincludedthefindingsthat"grosslyinadequatesupportwasgiventothebasicsciencesthatunderpinagriculture"andthattherewas"inadequateopportunityforafreeflowofideasfromthescientisttothefundingsource."

TheNationalResearchCouncilreport(NRC,1972)contained20recommendationstoremedythoseandotherdeficienciesinthefoodandfiberresearchenterprise,amongthemthatUSDA

seekagreatlyincreasedlevelofappropriationsforacompetitivegrantsprogram,whichshouldincludesupportofbasicresearchinthesciences(biological,physical,social)thatunderpintheUSDAmission,...availabletoscientistsintheUSDA,inlandgrantandnon-landgrantpublic

universitiesorcolleges,andinprivateuniversitiesorcolleges,institutes,andotherresearchagencies,...administeredinsuchawaythatresearchproposalsaresubjectedtoevaluationbypeerpanels,...[andfundedto]approximate20%oftheUSDA'sresearchbudget.[Pp.4950]

Fiveyearslater,thecongressionalOfficeofTechnologyAssessment(OTA)reiteratedtheneedforacompetitivegrantsprogramforfoodandfiberresearchinitsreportOrganizingandFinancingBasicResearchtoIncreaseFoodProduction(OTA,1977),andCongressprovidedauthorizationforcompetitiveresearchgrantsinthe1977farmbill.ThatlegislationestablishedtheUSDACompetitiveResearchGrantsOffice(CRGO)andprovided$15milliontostarttheprogram.From1977to1989,thecompetitivegrantsprogramslowlyexpandedfrom$15milliontoabout$40millionperyear.

Inits1989reportInvestinginAgriculturalResearch,theNationalResearchCouncil(1989)calledforexpandingCRGOintotheNRI,withaproposedfundingincreaseto$500million.TheResearchCouncilreportarguedthatahealthyNRIwasnecessarytoaddressthethreemajorissuesfacingUSagriculture:itscompetitiveness,foodsafety,andenvironmentalquality.Thereportjustifieditsrecommendationforincreasedfundingonthebasisthat

(1)Thepervasiveneedsandproblemsrequirelargeamountsofnewknowledgeandtechnologyfortheirresolution.(2)Agriculturalresearchprovidesahighreturnoninvestment.(3)Theagriculturalresearchsystem,aspresentlyfunded,isunabletoprovidethenecessaryfinancialsupportforthequality,amount,andbreadthofscienceandtechnologynecessarytoaddresstheproblems[P.5].

Congressrespondedinthe1990Food,Agriculture,Conservation,andTradeAct(FACTA)byexpandingthecompetitivegrantsprogramintothenewNationalResearchInitiative,authorizedtospendupto$500millionwithin5years(relevantsectionsof1990FACTAarereproducedinappendixA).TheNRIwasinitiatedinFY1991withanappropriationof$73million.Inlateryears,theappropriationsfellfarshortoftheauthorizedlevels(seechapter6).

FACTAcalledforfourtypesofcompetitivegrants:

·Single-investigatorgrantsawardedtosupportasinglescientistorcoinvestigatorsworkinginthesamediscipline.

·Multidisciplinaryteamgrantsawardedtosupportcollaboratingscientistsintwoormoredisciplinesfocusingonbasicresearch.

·Multidisciplinaryteamgrantsawardedtosupportcollaboratingscientistsconductingappliedresearch,withtechnologytransferamajorcomponentofallsuchgrantproposals.

·Institutionalstrengtheninggrantsawardedtosupportaninstitutionfortheimprovementofitsresearch,development,technology-transfer,andeducationcapacitythroughtheacquisitionofspecialresearchequipmentandtheimprovementofagriculturaleducationandteaching.

InauthorizingappropriationoffundsfortheNRI,Congressstipulateddistributiontocategoriesofgrantsasfollows:ineachfiscalyear,30%forfundamentalandappliedmultidisciplinarywork;atleast20%for

mission-linkedsystemsresearch;andatleast10%forstrengtheninggrantsandawardstofacultyatsmallandmiddle-sizedinstitutionsthathavenotbeensuccessfulintheirquesttoobtaincompetitivegrants.Mission-linkedresearchismoreappliedandprovidesscientificunderstandingneededtosolvecurrent,identifiedproblemsofimportancetofood,fiber,andtheenvironment.Mission-linkedresearchcanprovideinformationandtechnologythatistransferabletousersandwhichcanberelatedtoaproduct,processorpractice.Withrespecttostrengtheninggrants,nomorethan2%oftheappropriatedfundscanbeusedforequipmentgrants.Theoverheadrateforthegrantswouldbe14percent.1Nomorethan4%ofthefiscalyearappropriationcanbeusedbythesecretaryofagricultureforcostsofadministeringtheNRI.

1Congressincreasedtheoverheadratefrom14%to19%inFY2000intheAgricultural,Research,Extension,andEducationReformActof1998.

NRIOrganization

TheNRIisintheCompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagementDivisionoftheUSDACooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionService(CSREES).TheNRIisgovernedbyitsBoardofDirectors,whichconsistsoftheadministratorsofalltheUSDAintramuralresearchagenciesandtheundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics,whoistheboardchair.

TheNRIhassixdivisionsorganizedaccordingtothesixmandatedprogramsauthorizedbyCongress:Animal,Plants,FoodandNutrition,MarketingandTrade,NaturalResourcesandEnvironment,andFoodProcessing.Programdirectorsaretheresponsiblescientificstaff,androtatingmanagersarerecruitedfromtheresearchcommunitytoadministerNRIreviewpanels.AmoredetaileddescriptionandanalysisofNRI'sorganizationareprovidedinchapter6.

TheNRIprogramdescriptionisdraftedeachyearbythechiefscientistandscientificstaff;itisguidedbytheauthorizinglegislationandappropriationlevelandbasedonuser-workshopreports,advisorycommittees,suggestionsfrompanelmembers,andpriority-settingdocuments,suchasOTAandNationalResearchCouncilreports(seechapter4foramoredetaileddiscussionofpriority-settingattheNRI).TheresultingrequestforproposalsispublishedintheFederalRegisteranddistributedwidelywithinthescientificcommunity.

PriorReviewsoftheNRI

TheonlypriorfullyexternalreviewoftheNRIhasbeenthe1994ResearchCouncilreportbytheBoardonAgriculture,InvestingintheNationalResearchInitiative.Thatreportstatedthat"theboardbelievesthatitisyettoosoontoconductacomprehensiveevaluationoftheNRI,itsprogramareas,andthebenefitsfromtheresearchithas

supported.AlthoughearlyresultsareindeedencouragingtheNRIisonlynowonitsfourthgrantingcycle."Thereportwentontoindicate,however,that"today,theboardfindsthattheNRIhasyettoreachthepotentialenvisionedforit"owinginlargeparttolowfunding,whichhadrestrictedthenumberandsizeofgrants.Asstatedintheprefacetothereport,"ultimately,theboardfoundtherationalefortheestablishmentandvigorousexpansionoftheNRImorecompellingthanever."

AnoverviewoftheNRIwaspublishedinBioSciencein1996byA.KelmanandR.J.Cook(1996),formerNRIchiefscientists.TheynotedthatsixresearchsubjectsinwhichmajorscientificbreakthroughshadoccurredhadbeentargetedinitiallyforsupportbytheCRGO,theNRI'spredecessor,includingplant-pestinteractions,plantandanimalgeneticmechanisms,humannutrition,andanimaldiseases.Theconcentrationofscientificadvancesnowforthcomingintheseandrelatedsubjectsreinforcestheimportanceofsustainedsupportforresearch.

StudyProcess

In1997,USDAaskedtheNationalResearchCouncilBoardonAgriculture(nowtheBoardonAgricultureandNaturalResources)toconductanindependentassessmentoftheNRIprogram.Specifically,USDAaskedtheResearchCouncilto:performaretrospectiveassessmentofthequalityandvalueofresearchfundedbytheprogram;determinewhetherthescienceandtechnologyprioritiesinthemajorNRIprogramsaredefinedappropriately;assesshowNRIactivitiescomplementotherUSDAprograms,thoseofotherfederalagencies,andstateprogramsintheprivatesector;andrecommendthenatureandcontentofchangesforthefuture.TheResearchCouncilappointeda14-membercommitteeinearly1998tocarryoutthisstudy.

TorespondtoUSDA'sfour-pointcharge,thecommitteegatheredimpressionsandsystematicdataontheperformanceoftheNRI.Itconductedaseriesofsurveysandinterviewsandsolicitedtestimonyfromseveralconstituentgroups.Formerchiefscientists,deansanddirectorsoflandgrantandotheruniversities,andrecipientsofNRIgrants,andotherswereincludedinmailsurveysasafirstcomprehensiveefforttoassessthefunctioningoftheNRI.Inaddition,thecommitteedevotedafulldaytoreceivingtestimonyfrominterestedstakeholder2groups.EveryeffortwasmadetogaintheviewsofindividualsandgroupsthathadhadcontactwiththeNRIandwerethereforeknowledgeableaboutitsactivities.Thecommitteefoundagreatdealofconsistencyinfindingsfromthesurvey,interviewswiththechiefscientists,andtestimonypresentedbystakeholdersatthepublicworkshop.

OverviewofReport

Thisreportsummarizestheresultsofthecommittee'sanalysis.

Chapter2summarizesthevalueoffood,fiber,andnaturalresources-researchtotheUnitedStates,focusingoneconomiccontributionsandratesofreturnoffoodandfiberresearch.Thecommittee'sanalysisofthequality,value,fairness,relevance,andresponsivenessoftheNRIcompetitivegrantsprogramispresentedinchapter3.Chapter4presentsthecommittee'sanalysisoftheroleandscopeoftheNRI,includingitsscientificobjectives,itsvalueintrainingandeducation,anditscomplementaritywithotherresearchactivities.Thecommittee'sanalysisofNRI'spriority-settingprocessanditsresearchprioritiesisgiveninchapter5.Thecommittee'sanalysisoforganizationalandfundingissuesisgiveninchapter6.Chapter7presentsthecommittee'srecommendationstoimprovetheeffectivenessoftheNRIprogram.AdditionalsupportingmaterialsarefoundinappendixesAthroughI.

2ThetermstakeholderisusedinthisreporttorefertoallindividualsandorganizationsthathaveaninterestintheoperationsandoutcomesoftheNRI.

2ValueofFood,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesResearchManystudieshavedemonstratedthevalueofpubliclysupportedresearchinscienceandtechnology.Forexample,the1995NationalResearchCouncilreportAllocatingFundsforScienceandTechnologyfoundthat"thefederalinvestmentsin[theUSscientificandtechnicalenterprise]haveproducedenormousbenefitsforthenation'seconomy,nationaldefense,health,andsocialwell-being"(NRC,1995,p.3).AreportoftheUSCommitteeforEconomicDevelopment,America'sBasicResearch:ProsperitythroughDiscovery,notedthat"continuedexcellenceinbasicresearchisessentialtoAmerica'sprosperityandgloballeadership"(CED,1998,p.2).Thatcommitteeobservedfurtherthatthefederalgovernmenthadlongbeenthemostimportantsourceoffundingofbasicresearch;thisistrueespeciallyforfoodandfiberresearch,whichuntilWorldWarIIwastheprincipalbeneficiaryoffederalfunding.

Congressalsohasreviewednationaltrendsinresearch,asrecentlydescribedinthe1998HouseCommitteeonSciencereport,UnlockingOurFuture:TowardaNewNationalSciencePolicy(the"Ehlersreport").Thereport,writtenundertheleadershipofphysicistandUSRepresentativeVernonEhlers,documentstheimportanceandthe"stunningpayoffs"ofthefederalresearchinvestmentintheUStechnologyenterprise.Theimportanceofapplicationsofresearchfindingsinthephysicalandchemicalsciencesandengineeringtotelecommunication,defense,transportation,andhealthisduplicatedintheimportanceofapplicationsofresearchinbiology,agriculture,

andengineeringtofood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesthefocusofthisreport.Agriculturalandphysicalsciencesalikebenefitimmenselyfromunderstanding-drivenorbasicresearch,targetedbasicresearch,andmission-directedorappliedresearch(thetermsusedintheEhlersreport).

Ingeneral,20thcenturyresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresourceshascontributedsubstantiallyinbothquantitativeandqualitativetermstothestabilityandprosperityoftheUSeconomyandtothebroaderworldeconomy.Inthischapter,thecommitteesummarizestheeconomicvalueofthisresearchtotheUSeconomy,discussestheimpactofadvancesinlifesciences,andprovidesanoverviewoftrendsinpublicandprivate-sectorfundingoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

EconomicContributions

Theeconomiccontributionsoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearcharereflectedinthecontributionsmadebythefoodandfibersystemtothegrowthoftheUSandglobaleconomies(Liptonetal.,1968;Dailyetal.,1998).In1996,USfarminganditsrelatedindustriesaccountedfor$997.7billion13%ofthegrossdomesticproductandemployedalmost23millionpeopleand16.9%ofthecivilianworkforceand20%oftheworkforceresidinginnonmetropolitanareas.Farmingitselfaccountsforlessthan1%ofthegrossdomesticproductandemploysonlyabout1%oftheUSworkforce,butitisjustonelinkinthevalue-addingchainofinputsuppliers,capitalproviders,processors,transporters,serviceunits,retailers,andotherswhoproduceanddeliverfoodandfiberproductstoconsumers.

TheUnitedStatesistheworld'sleadingexporteroffoodandfiberproducts,withsalesof$60.4billionin1996.Cropsfrommorethan

30%ofUSfarmers'acreageareexported.USDA'sEconomicResearchServiceestimatesthateachdollarearnedfromexportedfoodandfiberstimulatesanother$1.32ofoutputintheUnitedStates.USfoodandfiberexportsalonewereestimatedtosupportabout859,000full-timejobsin1996.

Foodandfiberexportsalsoareimportantinnarrowingtheforeign-tradegap.In1996,thefoodandfibertradesurpluswas$26.8billion;thenon-food-and-fiberaccountwasindeficitby$235.1billion.ThesurplusaddstothestrengthoftheUSdollar,whichhelpstocontrolinflationandmoderatesthepricesofimportedgoods.Thenatureoffoodandfiberexportshaschangedsubstantiallyfrommostlybulkcommoditiessuchasgrain,feedcrops,andoilcropsinthe1960sand1970stomostlyhigh-valueitems,suchasmeatproducts,fruits,vegetables,andbeerandwine.Inadditiontoexports,1995salesbyforeignfood-manufacturingaffiliatesofUScompaniestotaledanother$113billion.

ThehighefficiencyofproductionanddeliveryofUSfoodandfiberenablesAmericanstospendonlyabout11%oftheirdisposableincomeonfoodthelowestrateofexpenditureintheworld.Incontrast,estimatedratesofdisposableincomespentonfoodare17%inEurope,30%inSouthAmerica,and51%inIndia(B.Meade,USDA,personalcommunication,March23,

1999).Thelowcostoffoodfreesconsumerincomeforotheruses,allowsacost-effectivefocusonfoodqualityandsafetyandhumannutrition,andcutscoststoUStaxpayersforfoodstampsandrelatedpublic-assistanceprograms.

TheUSfoodandfibersystemhasrespondedquicklyandeffectivelytoimportantlong-termtrends.Changingincomes,demographics,lifestyles,andconsumerperceptionsofrelationshipsbetweenhealthanddietareamongthosetrends.TheethnicdiversityoftheUSpopulationhasbroadenedthearrayoffoodproductsavailabletoconsumers.Theneedforconvenienceinfood-purchasingchoiceshasledtogreaterdiversityofservicesinbasicfoods(processingandpreparedfood).Fast-foodestablishments,restaurants,andhoteldininghaveshiftedthelocationandstyleofconsumption.Concernsaboutsafetyanddietaryissueshaveledtoproductsthathaveimprovedhealthandsafetyattributes,includingimprovednutritionalquality.Healthandsafetyinformationisnowtransmittedinamorecoordinatedfashionthroughthestagesofthefoodsystembecauseofincreasingrelianceonproductioncontractsandverticalintegration.

RatesofReturnfromFoodandFiberResearch

Sincethelate1950s,morethanthreedozenstudieshaveestimatedratesofreturnonpublicinvestmentinfoodandfiberresearchintheUnitedStates(Fuglieetal.,1995;AlstonandPardey,1996;Barry,1997).Thestudieshave,forthemostpart,foundhighrealratesofreturnfrommostcategoriesofappliedandbasicfoodandfiberresearch.Theestimatedreturnsonresearchtypicallyrangefrom35%to60%peryear.Thoseratesarehighrelativetothegovernment'scostoffunds,relativetoreturnsonalternativeinvestments,andrelativetoprivatesectorratesofreturn.Fuglieetal.(1995)summarizedtheaggregatereturnstoagriculturalresearchandextensionfortheperiod1964through1982(seetable2-1).

Table2-1showsthattheannualrateofreturnonresearchinvestmentinagriculturewasestimatedtobeabout41%between1950and1982.Suchahistoricallyhighrateofreturnbefore1982illustratesthepowerfulimpactofwell-managed,targetedfoodandfiberresearch.Sincethefirstcommercialintroductionofarecombinant-DNAproduct(humaninsulin)in1982,therehasbeenasubstantialchangeinthetechnologyofagricultureandinchemistryandbiology.Maintainingsuchaneffectofresearchandreturnoninvestmentinfood,fiber,andnaturalresourceswillrequirefocusedandwiseinvestmentsintheresearchenterprisethatwillcatalyzeadvancesinagriculturalbiotechnologyandinfundamentalbiologicandengineeringresearchappliedtofood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

Thereturnoninvestmentinfoodandfiberresearchincludesnotonlyreturnstothetechnologydevelopersthatbenefitfromtheresearchoutcomes,butalsothereturnstofarmers,agribusinesses,consumers,andothermembersofsocietythatbenefitfromtheresearchoutcomes.Thus,foodandfiberresearchreturnrateshaveabroaderscopeandaregenerallylargerthanprivateratesofreturnonshorter-termindustrialprojects,whichtendtobe10%to15%.

TABLE2-1AggregateReturnsonPublicInvestmentsinAgriculturalResearchandExtension

AnnualRate

Study Methodology Period Return,%

Griliches,1964 Productionfunction 194959 3540Latimer,1964 Productionfunction 194959 aEvenson,1968 Productionfunction 194959 47Cline,1975 Productionfunction 193948 4150Huffman,1976 Productionfunction 1964 110PetersonandFitzharris,1977

Economicsurplus 193742 50

194752 51195762 49196772 34

Lu,Quance,andLiu,1978

Productionfunction,R&Eb

193972 25

KnutsonandTweeten,1979

Productionfunction,R&E

194958 3947

195968 3239196972 2835

Lu,Cline,andQuance,1979

193948 30.5

194958 27.5195968 25.5196972 23.5

Davis,1979 Productionfunction 194959 66100196474 37

Evenson,1979 Productionfunction 1868192665WhiteandHavlicek,1979

Productionfunction 192972 20

White,Havlicek,andOtto,

Productionfunction 192941 54.7

1979 194257 48.3

195877 41.7DavisandPeterson,1981Productionfunction 194974 37100WhiteandHavlicek,1982

194377 736

Lyu,White,andLu,1984Productionfunction 194981 66BrahaandTweeten,1986Productionfunction 195982 47HuffmanandEvenson,1989

Productionfunction 195082 41

Yee,1992 Productionfunction 193185 4958aNotsignificant.bR&Egivesestimatedrateofreturnoncombinedresearchandextensionexpenditures.Otherwise,estimateisforresearchalone.Source:AdaptedfromFuglieetal.(1995).

Theresearchreturnsreflectseveralotherkeycharacteristics.First,theresearchbenefitsgenerallyoccuroverlongperiods(forexample,upto40years).Second,specificresearchoutcomesarerelativelyrisky,especiallywhenhighpayoffsareconcentratedinafewmajorbreakthroughs.Third,theresearchreturnsaremagnifiedbystimulatingtechnologyadoptionandfurtherresearchinothercountries,economicsectors,andindustries.

Theratesrepresentthereturnsonprimarilyproductionbasedresearchinvolvingplantsandanimals.Thereturnstypicallydonotincludethecostsof

externalitiesattributedtoresearch,suchaspossibleenvironmentaldegradation,adjustmentcostsofdisplacedlabor,andotheradverseeffectsonhumanhealth,communities,andfamilies.Alsonotincludedinthesereturnsarethesignificantcontributionsofeconomicsandothersocialscienceresearch,whichprovideadditionalvalue.Examplesofsocial-scienceresearchoutcomesareeconomicandsocialpolicyanalyses,decisionsupportandforecastinginformation,institutionalinnovations,andneworganizationalstructuresinfoodandfiberproductionanddistribution.

ImpactsofAdvancesinLifeSciences

Largelywithinthelastdecade,foodandfiberresearchinvestmentsbytheprivatesectorhaveincreasedfromahistoricallevelof2%to4%ofgrosssalesto10%ormorealevelthatismoretypicalofvalue-addedproductsthanoftraditionalagriculturalcommodities.Thetrendreflectstherealityoftoday'shighresearchcosts,largelytheresultofexpensivetechnologynotavailable20yearsago.Thedevelopmentandapplicationofbiotechnologyclearlyillustratethisexpense.Notonlyisthetechnologyexpensive,butitsdevelopmentoftenrequiresamultidisciplinaryapproach.Forenvironmentaltechnologiesandotherswithnoimmediateproprietaryapplicationbutwidespreadpublicpayoffsinthelongterm,fundingfallsexclusivelytothepublicsector.Moreover,thepublicsectorisincreasinglyresponsiblefortrainingthestudentsthatareneededbyindustrytousenewtechnology.Assigningrelativecontributionsofpublicandprivatefundsinsupportofresearchisdifficult.

ThedevelopmentofnewtechnologiesapplicabletofoodandfiberhasledtonewrelationshipsbetweentheresearchandregulatoryarmsoftheUSDepartmentofAgricultureandbetweenUSDAandotherregulatoryagencies.Forexample,geneticallyengineeredplantandanimalproductsnowfallunderthejurisdictionoftheFoodandDrug

Administrationiftheengineeringleadstosubstantiallyalteredproducts.Productsthatcontainnewproteins,fats,orcarbohydratesorthathavegreaterpotentialforallergenicitythanexistingvarietiesmustpassrigorouspremarketreviewandmustbeappropriatelylabeledwhenbroughttomarket.

Similarly,newtechnologiesthataffecthowfoodandfiberproductioninfluencesair,soil,andwaterqualityareleadingtonewrelationshipsbetweenfoodandfiberresearchandtheregulatoryagenciesresponsibleforenvironmentalprotectioninparticular,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyanditsstate-levelequivalents.Insomecases,suchashigh-densityanimalproduction,newtechnologiesmightincreasetheriskofenvironmentaldegradation;inothercases,suchasprecisionagriculture,newtechnologiespromiseopportunitiesforimprovedenvironmentalstewardship.Alladvancesintechnologyplaceadditionaldemandsontheresearchenterpriseapartfromthediscoveryanddevelopmentoftheadvancesthemselves.

Public-SectorandPrivate-SectorResearchFunding

Thefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessciencesheldaprivilegedpositionuntilWorldWarII.Aslateas1940,almost40%offederalexpendituresforresearchanddevelopment($29millionof$74.1million)wasallocatedtoUSDAintramuralandstateexperiment-stationresearch(MoweryandRosenberg,1989).WorldWarIItransformedthefederalresearchsystem.First,thegovernmentcontractedlargeamountsofresearchtotheprivatesector.Thatshiftedmuchfederallyfinancedresearch,particularlydefense-relatedresearch,toindustry.SinceWorldWarII,about75%ofallfederalR&Dexpenditureshavegonetotheprivatesector(MowreyandRosenberg,1989).Second,thewarspawnedhugeincreasesinfederalR&Dspending.National-securityconcernswereoftentheprincipaldrivers.SocialissuesandprioritiesalsomotivatedtheexpansionoffederalR&Dinvestment,includingtheGreatSocietyprograms,environmentalconcerns,publichealth,andrecentlyconcernsabouttheinternationalcompetitivenessofUSindustries.Untilthelate1970s,theUnitedStatesspentmoreonresearchthanallotherindustrializedcountriescombined(MoweryandRosenberg,1989).

AfterWorldWarII,otherfederalagenciesreceivedagreaterproportionoffederalresearchfundingrelativetoUSDA.Becausedefense-relatedresearchdominatedfederalresearchspending,theDepartmentofDefense,DepartmentofEnergy,andNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministrationhaveaccountedforalargeshareoffederalresearchobligations(about70%in1998).However,university-basedresearchalsoreceivedalargeboostfromthecreationoftheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)in1950andtheexpansionoftheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH).NSFandNIHgreatlyexpandedfederalsupportforuniversityresearchandfortheuniversities'researchinfrastructure.In1998,NSFandNIHtogether

accountedforalmost22%ofallfederalresearchobligationsandovertwo-thirdsofthefederalresearchobligationsforuniversitiesandcolleges(NSF,1999).By1998,USDAexpendituresforresearchwereabout2%ofallfederalresearchspending,andabout2%offederalsupportforuniversityresearchwasforfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch(NSF,1999).

Thegovernment'sroleinsupportingfoodandfiberresearchhashadtoadapttotherisinginvolvementoftheprivatesectorinresearchanddevelopment.Thepost-WorldWarIIperiodhaswitnessedalargeincreaseintheprivatesector'scontributiontofoodandfiberresearch.Severalfactorshavespurredprivateindustry'sinterestinfoodandfiberresearch,includingscientificadvancesinmolecularbiology,increasedmarketopportunities,andstrongerintellectualpropertyrightstobiologicinventions.Between1960and1994,privatesectorfoodandfiberresearchexpendituresmorethantripledinrealterms.Today,theprivate-sectorinvestsmoreinfoodandfiberresearchthandothefederalandstategovernmentscombined(figure2-1).

Thoseresearchexpendituresmaskamajorshiftinthetypeofresearchconductedintheprivatesector(figure2-2).In1960,theresponsibilitiesofpublicandprivateresearchwereclearlydrawn.Morethan80%ofprivateresearchwasforimprovingfarmmachineryordevelopingnewfoodproductsor

processingmethods,andpublicresearchconcentratedonincreasingyieldsofcropsandlivestock.Sincethen,theprivatesectorhasdevelopedalargeresearchcapacityinsubjectslongdominatedbythepublicsector,suchasplantbreeding.By1996,nearly21%ofprivateresearchwasdevotedtoincreasingcropandlivestockyieldsbysupplyingfarmerswithimprovedcropvarieties,animalbreeds,feeds,andpharmaceuticals.Thosetrendssuggestcontinuingchallengesofoverlapbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorsinsomekindsoffoodandfiberresearch.

Thedramaticgrowthinprivateinvestmentinfoodandfiberresearchmighthaveovershadowedthenation'shistoricalpublicresearchagenda.Therecentexplosionofprivateinvestmentinthefoodandfibersystemis,however,builtontheprecedinglong-termpubliceffort.Thereisnoreasontodoubtthattheimportanceofpublic-sectorresearchtoindustryisanylessforfoodandfiberthanforotherkindsofresearch.A1997patent-citationstudywhichfoundthat70%ofpatent-applicationcitationswereofpublic-sectorresearch(Narinetal.,1997)illustrateswellthesymbioticlinkagebetweenpublicandprivateresearchinvestments.Thepublicsectorprovidesinnovativeandcreativeresearchthatcouldtakeconsiderabletimeforcommercialdevelopmentormightnotbeundertakenatall.

Figure2-1

Food,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchexpendituresintheUnitedStates,19601996

Sources:BasedonKlotz,Fuglie,andPray(1995),USDepartmentofAgriculture,Economic

ResearchService,Private-SectorAgriculturalResearchExpendituresintheUnitedStates;

publicresearchdataderivedfromUSDepartmentofAgricultureInventory

ofAgriculturalResearch

Figure2-2Researchexpenditures(innominaldollars)byfoodandfiberindustries,1960and1996.

Source:USDepartmentofAgriculture,

EconomicResearchService.DatabasedonKlotz,Fuglie,andPray,1995

3TheNationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgramThedefiningattributesofasuccessfulcompetitivegrantsprogramarequality,fairness,relevance,andflexibility(ChubinandHackett,1990;Chubin,1994;Kostoff,1997a,b).High-qualityresearchisnovel,valuable,feasible,technicallysound,andonoccasionelegant.Inpractice,thequalityofbasicresearchisconveyedbythepublicationofresearchresultsinapeer-reviewedscientificjournal.Thequalityofappliedresearchmightbedemonstratedbyapatentorbythesuccessfulimplementationofresearchresults,perhapsasnewmanagementpractices,newproducts,newinstitutionalarrangements,ornewpublicpolicies.High-qualityresearchalsoimpactsscienceandtechnologythemselvesthatis,onthedirectionanddevelopmentofthescientificenterpriseanditstechnicalimplementationanattributecloselyrelatedtorelevance.

Fairnessreferstothelikelihoodthataproposalwillbeevaluatedwithstrictadherencetoasetofevaluationcriteriarelatedtothequalityandrelevanceoftheproposedresearch.Race,sex,age,geography,andinstitutionalaffiliationmustbeeffectivelyignoredwhenoneisevaluatingaproposal.Fairnessalsomeansthatthereviewprocessmustbeopentoindependentexaminationandthateachproposalisconsideredseriouslyandappropriatelybyawell-qualifiedgroupofreviewers.Inpractice,thisworksbyensuringthatreviewersandpanelmembersarebroadlyrepresentativeoftheentirescientificcommunityinagiven

field.1Afairprocessalsoensuresthatgrantapplicationsaresolicitedfromaswideavarietyofapplicantsaspossible.

Theremainingtwoattributesofasuccessfulcompetitivegrantsprogramarerelevanceandflexibility.Arelevantgrantsprogramprovidesfundingforresearchthatwillmosteffectivelyfurtherthegoalsoftheprogramandmeetnationalneeds.Flexibilityreferstotheprogram'scapacitytoshiftinresponsetoemergingfieldsofresearch.Almostbydefinition,emergingfieldsarehighlyrelevant.However,flexibilityalsoshouldbeintrinsictotheresearchenterpriseasawhole.Achievingflexibilitycanbedifficultbecauseofinstitutionalinertiatheadditionofindividualprogramsadverselyaffecttheresourcesremainingforotherprograms.Thus,amechanismforperiodicallyevaluatingandrevisingprogrammaticareasiscrucialinasuccessfulcompetitivegrantsprogram.

Otherattributesofasuccessfulprogramarerelatedtospecificpracticalaspectsoftheprogram'simplementation.Forexample,theprogrammustgiveawardsofsufficientsize,duration,andnumbertoattracthigh-qualityscientistsandsupportimportantresearch.Iftheawardsaretoosmallortooshort,manyhighlyqualifiedscientistsarelikelytoignoretheprograminfavorofotherfundingsources.Similarly,grantsmustbenumerousenoughtoattracthigh-qualityscientists,especiallythoseatthebeginningoftheirresearchcareers.Grantacceptanceratesbelow10%suggestlowchancesforsuccessanddiscouragemanyscientistsfromparticipatingaseithergrantwritersorreviewers.Atverylowfundingrates,theeffortexpendedbyscientistsinwritingunsuccessfulapplicationsexceedsthatofthescientistswhoseresearchissupported.Somehavearguedthatsuchaprogramisanetburdenratherthananassettothescientificcommunityasawhole(Chubin,1998).Clearly,therearetradeoffsinthemanagementofanyresearchprogram(Chubin,1994;BaldwinandMcCardle,1996).Implementationissuesareanalyzedinmoredetail

inchapter6.

QualityandValue

Qualityandvaluearetermscommonlyusedtoranktypesofactivities,andresearchisnoexception.Specificmetricscanbeusedtoassessquality;alternatively,testimonialscanbeobtainedfromvarioussourcestotapperceptionsofquality.ThelatterapproachgenerallywasusedbythiscommitteetoassessthequalityandvalueofNRI-supportedresearch.Theformerapproachisaddressedlaterinacommitteefindingonevaluationofqualityandprogramaccountability.

Evaluationofresearchhasbeenalong-termchallengeforthescientificcommunity(NRC,1998).Inassessingthevalueoffundamentalresearch,theprivatesectorlargelyavoidssuchstandardtoolsasreturnoninvestmentand

1Governmentscienceagenciesusepeer-reviewinmanyways.Foradditionalinformationontheuseofpeer-review,seePeer-reviewPracticiesatFederalScienceAgenciesVary,GeneralAccountingOffice,1999.

insteadfocusesonscientificmeritandaccomplishmentsoftheresearcherinfieldsrelevanttothefundingunit.Thevalueofresearchinacademealsoincludesthelearningexperiencefortheinvestigatorandthestudentseekinganswerstocompellingquestions.Valuecanalsoreflecttheintendeduseoftheresearch.GovernmentagenciesmotivatedbytheGovernmentPerformanceandResultsActusevariousapproachestomeasurevalue(Kostoff,1997b).TheDepartmentofEnergyOfficeofBasicEnergySciencesusesscientificexcellence,relevancetoenergyfuture,stewardship,andprogrammanagement.TheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)usesexpectedoutcomes,includingdiscoveriesatthefrontiersofscience,connectionsbetweendiscoveriesandtheiruse,anddevelopmentofadiversegloballyorientedworkforceofscientistsandengineers.TheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH)considersbothbroadoutcomessuchasunderstandingofbiologicfunctionsandbehaviors,andimprovementinprevention,diagnosis,andtreatmentofdiseasesandspecificdescriptionsoftheknownandunknowntounderstandandimprovehumanhealthasevidenceofresearchvalue.

MeasuringtheQualityandValueofNRI-SupportedResearch

ThemeasurementsofqualityandvalueofNRI-supportedresearchthatthecommitteereviewedorgeneratedincludedsurveysofapplicants,awardees,andinstitutions(seeappendixesBandC);testimonyfromchiefscientists,representativesoftheprivatesector,governmentagencystaff,andotherconstituents;interviewswithNRIstaff(seeappendixD)andNSFofficials;andtheexperienceofmembersofthecommittee(appendixE)andtheircolleagues.Thenumericalqualityindicatorsincludedtheproportionofapplicationsfundedandsuccessfulrenewalrates(appendixF).Documentationofsuccessfullycompletedprojectsandtheiruseandapplicationaddedtotheoverallassessment(seeboxes3-1,3-2,3-3andappendixG).

Withregardtoproposalquality,mostofthesurveysandtestimonialsagreeinspiritwithHaroldD.Coble,representingtheCouncilforAgriculturalScienceandTechnology,whotestifiedbeforethecommitteethatpanelreviewersconsistentlyratedproposalqualityasexcellent.Similarly,pastchiefscientistsunanimouslyconcludedthatNRIproposalswereofhighquality.

FundedNRIprojectsgenerallyhavecomefromthetopoftheprioritypoolestablishedbythereviewpanels.Forexample(thisistypicalofmostcategories),thecategory''PlantResponsestotheEnvironment"received1,196applicationsoverthe8-yearperiod19911998.Ofthose,52(4%)wereconsideredoutstandingandwerefunded;208(17%)wereregardedashaving"highpriority",and178(86%)ofthemwerefunded;and254"medium-priority"applications(21%)werereceived,and59(23%)ofthemwerefunded.Onlyfour"low-priority"projectsoutofabout300soclassifiedwerefundedoverthe8-yearperiod.Anadditional341applicationswerejudgedas"havingsomemerit"or"donotfund"andwerenotfunded.Overthe8-yearperiod,24%ofapplicationswerefundedatsomelevel.Atotalof$259millioninapplicationswasreceivedinthe"PlantResponsestotheEnvironment"category

overtheperiod.Thefundsrequestedforapprovedgrantstotaled$59million;butonly$40millionwasactuallyawarded.Inall,only15%ofthe$259millionrequestedwasawarded(NRIProgramOffice,personalcommunications,September1,1998).

Inthecommittee'sexperience,high-qualityapplicationsgenerallyleadtohigh-qualityresearch.JohnW.Suttie,pastpresidentoftheFederationofAmericanSocietiesforExperimentalBiology,testifiedthatthequalityofresearchselectedthroughpeer-reviewhasalwaysbeenhigh.RichardA.Herrett,oftheAgriculturalResearchInstitute,indicatedthattheNRIhasbeenproductiveinprovidingnewtechniques.HecitedtheAmericanSocietyofPlantPhysiologistsobservationontheimportanceofNRIfundingindevelopingenvironmentallybenigninsecticides.RobertG.Zimbelman,chairmanoftheCoalitionofFundingAgriculturalResearchMissions,testifiedthat"therecordshowstheNRIhassupportedveryhighqualityresearchandtheresultshavebeenmeaningful."KennethE.Olsen,dairyandanimalhealthspecialistwiththeAmericanFarmBureauFederation,testifiedthat"withinthescientificcommunitytheNRIiswellrespectedfortopqualitybasicresearch."TonyCavalieri,ofPioneerHi-BredInternational,Inc.testifiedthat

webelieve[NRI]isaverysoundprogramand,infact,maybethemosteffectiveexampleofUSDAusingtheirresearchmoneyeffectively.Theyhavebeeneffectiveinfundingimportantworkandinfundingresearcherswhocandothework....Asfarasthequalityoffundedresearch...itisobviouslyamongthebestworkdoneinplantsciences.

Inindividualdiscussionswiththecommittee,severalNSFpersonnelcitedNRIresearchasexcellent.ApreviousNationalResearchCouncilreportontheNRI(NRC,1994)attestedtothequalityoftheresearchbynotingthe"consensusamongNRIstaffandpanelmembersandmanagersthat'goodtohigh'characterizestheoverallqualityandrelevanceoftheproposalsbeingreceivedandthatthe

qualityhasbeenincreasingeachyear"(p.21).Thereportalsostatedthat"thecontributionoftheNRIextensivereviewprocesstothequalityofscienceshouldnotbeoverlooked"(p.20).Inshort,thestewardshipoftheNRIhasbeenunquestionablyhigh.

BOX3-1EthanolfromBiomass:

AnExampleofaSignificantScientificAdvancefromNRIResearh

Ifrenewablebiomasssourcesaretosupplytomorrow'senergyneeds,cost-effectivetechnologiesareneeded.ResearchersattheUniversityofFloridahavebeenmakingsignificantstridestowardremovingbarrierstoethanolproductionfrombiomass.Usingbiologicapproaches,LonnieIngramandcolleaguesarelayingthefoundationforethanolproductionfrombiomassthatislesscostlyandlesscapital-intensive.Thegeneralapproachhasbeentodevelopdifferentmicroorganismsinwhichusefultraitsforcellulosehydrolysisandsugarmetabolismarecombinedwithgenesforethanolproduction.WithNRIsupport,geneticallyengineeredEscherichiacoliweredevelopedtoproduceethanolfromallthemonomersugarsthatcanbederivedfromplantcellwalls.

Theresultingstrain,KO11,hasbeenusedtofermenthemicellulosesugarsderivedfromseveralsourcesofbiomass.LaterawardshaveledtotheintegrationoftheethanolproductiongenesfromZymomonasmobilisintothechromosomeofE.coliandtheengineeringofKlebsiellaoxytocaforthesimultaneoussaccharificationandfermentationofcellulose.

Morerecenteffortsareseekingtoimprovethesemicroorganismsfurther,forexample,byengineeringthesecretionofanErwiniaendoglucanaseinE.coliandklebsiellaoxytoca.Theaimistoreducetherequirementforsupplementalcellulasesfromfungi,whicharecostly.Otherresearchistodevelopethanol-producingbiocatalystswithincreasedresistancetotoxicproductsgeneratedduringthechemicalhydrolysisoflignocellulosecomponents.Thesecompounds,sugarandlignindegradationproducts,currentlymustberemovedbyandexpensivemultistepprocess.

Workcontinuestomakethebiomassconversiontoethanolmorecompetitive,butamilestonehasbeenreached.OnOctober20,1998,BCInternationalbrokegroundinJennings,Louisiana,foracommercialscaleplanttoproduceethanolfromagriculturalwaste.Theplantwhichhasthecapacitytoproduce20milliongallonsofethanolperyear,willrunonbagasse(aresiduefromsugarcanerefining)buthasflexibilitytouseotherfeedstocksaswell.Thisfirst-of-its-kindplantisbasedonthegeneticallyengineeredKO11bacteriumdevelopedbyDr.Ingramandcolleagues.

CompetitiveResearchGrantsOfficeandNRIawardstoDr.Ingram1986ConstructingofLactoseUtilizingStrainsofZ.mobilis,

$102,000,3years.1988GeneticEngineeringofAlcoholProductioninE.Coli,$110,000,3years,1990GeneticEngineeringofBacteriaforEthanolProduction,$120,000,3years.1992InVitroAnalysisofPlant-PathogenicMycoplasmaLikeOrganisms,$180,000,3years1995GeneticEngineeringofBacteriaforEthanolProduction,$180,000,3years1998EngineeringBacteriaforFuelEthanolProduction,$179,000,3years1998AdvancedEthanologenicBiocatalystsforLignoCelluloseFermentations,$298,935,3years

PatentsUSPatent5,000,000,EthanolproductionbyEscherichiacolistrainsco-expressingZymomonasPDCandADHgenes,Mar.19,1991USPatent5,028,539,EthanolproductionusingengineeredmutantEscherichiacoli,July2,1991USPatent5,162,516,CloningandsequencingofthealcoholdehydrogenasegenefromZymomonasmobilis,Nov.10,1992.USPatent5,424,202,Ethanolproductionbyrecombinanthosts,Jun13,1995.USPatent5,482,846,EthanolproductioninGram-positivemicrobes,Jan9,1996USPatent5,602,030,Recombinantglucoseuptakesystem,Feb.11,1997.USPatent5,821,093,Recombinantcellsthathighlyexpresschromosomally-integratedheterologousgenes,Oct.13,1998

Source:USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalResearch:InitiativeCompetiveGrantsProgramOffice,PersonalCommunication,March1999.

BOX3-2PorcineReproductiveandRespiratorySyndrome:

AnExampleofaSignificantScientificAdvancementfromNRIResearch:

Porcinereproductiveandrespiratorysyndrome(PRRS),formerlyknownasmysteryswinedisease,firstbecameapparentintheUnitedStatesin1986.Inthenextfewyears,itaffectedamajorityofhersineverystatethatraisedpigs.Economiclosseswereestimatedat$250300perbreeding-agefemales,soatypical600-sowfarmcouldlose$150,000180,000peroutbreak,excludingothercosts.By1990,PRRShadappearedinEuropeandwaswellonthewaytobecomingaglobalepidemic.TheNationalPorkProducersCouncilconsideredthedisease"themostimportantanimalhealthproblemaffectingpigs".

ScientistsknewthatPRRSwascausedbyahighlycontagiousvirusbutunderstoodlittleabouthowitwastransmittedandwhereitreplicatedinsidetheanimal.WithfundingfromtheNRIandtheNationalPorkProducersCouncil,DavidBenfield,atSouthDakotaStateUniversity,andJamesCollins,attheUniversityofMinnesota,begantoaddresstheseissues.Theyidentifiedtheprimarytargetsofthevirus:thelung,heart,bloodvessels,andlymphnodes.Theyalsodiscoveredthatthevirusistransmittedfrompigtopigbyclosecontact,suchasnose-to-nosetouching,byexposuretobodilysecretions,bysementofemalepigs,andfrommotherpugtofetus.AnadditionalfindingthatPRRSvirusreplicatesinaunknownprimarytargettissueandisthenreleasedintothebloodstreamwasespeciallyimportantbecauseitsuggestedthatavaccinecouldbesuccessfulinfightingthedisease.Inpartnershipwithprivateindustry,BenfieldandCollinsdevelopedavaccineusinga

weakenedformofthevirus.Theyalsodevelopedmonoclonalantibodiesforuseinlaboratorytestofpigserumortissuesamples.Theseantibodiesallowquick,accurate,andeconomicaldiagnosisofthedisease,thusreducingtreatmentcostsandproducerlosses.

Althoughhevaccineanddiagnosticresourcesdescribedabovearewidelyusedtoday,PRRScontinuestochallengeproducersandscientistsasnewstrainsofthevirusemerge.TheresearchfundedbytheNRIrepresentssignificantprogressinunderstandingandcombatingthediseaseandlaidthegroundworkforcontinuedadvancesincontrollingthisimportantanimal-healthproblem

NRIAwardstoDrs.BenfieldandCollins1992PathogenicMechanismofSwineInfertilityandRespiratorySyndromeVirus,$150,0001995MechanismsofPersistenceofPorcineReproductiveandRespiratorySyndromeVirus,$210,5531998RushmoreConference:MechanismsinthePathogenesisofEntericDiseases,$5,000

PatentsUSPatents5,677,429,Monoclonalantibodiestothemysteryswinediseasevirus,Oct.14,1997.USPatent5,683,865,Vaccineformysteryswinediseaseandmethodfordiagnosisthereof,Nov,4,1997USPatent5,846,805,Cultureofswineinfertilityandrespiratorysyndromevirusinsimiancells,Dec,8,1998

Source:USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgramOffice,PersonalCommunication,March1999.

Box3-3ReductioninFertilizerUseProfitsFarmersandthe

Environment:AnExampleofNRIResearchwithGreatPromise

PamerlaMatsonandcolleagues,atStanfordUniversity,usedNRIfundsfromtheForest/Range/Crop/AquaticEcosystemsProgramtocounteracttheconsequencesoftheGreenRevolution.Althoughthisgreeningoftheworldhasindeedincreasedcropyields(throughirrigationandapplicationofnitrogenfertilizers),ithasdonesoinconjunctionwithunwantedgreenhousegasaccumulations(specificallynitrousoxide),increasedtroposphericlevelsofozoneandacidrainduetoincreasesinnitricoxide,anddepositionofnitratesfromsoilsintofreshwaterandmarineecosystems,oftenresultingineutrophication.However,Matsoncolleagues'researchconfirmsthathighyieldsarepossibleiflessfertilizerisused,resultinginbothlowerapplicationcostsforfarmersandlowersocialcostsfortheenvironment.

TheresearchtookplaceintheYaquiValleyofSonora,Mexico,amajorwheat-producingregionthathashelpedtofostertheGreenRevolutionwithhighproductivity,usingfertilizersandirrigation.Theexperimentincludedacontrolwherenofertilizerwasadded,aconventionalfarmingtreatmentcurrentlyinuseintheregion(addingnitrogenat250kg/ha),andthreealternativefarmingmethodsthatusedlessfertilizerbeforeirrigation.

Allbutthatcontrolhadayieldofabout6tons/ha,or2.4tons/acre,butthereweresignificantdifferencesintheamountofnitrogenreleasedinthesoilandair.Thebestalternativemethod,whichapplied28%lessnitrogenthantheconventional

method,resultedin69%reductionintotalnitrogenlossandanapproximatesavingsof$5575/haor$2230/acretothefarmer.Thus,thisalternativemethodisnotonlyenvironmentallyfriendly,butalsoagronomicallyfeasibleandeconomicallymoredesirable.

NRIAward(directlyrelatedtothisresearch)1994Forest/Rangeland/Crop/AquaticEcosystemsProgram(nowEcosystemScienceProgram,$431,112for3years

Publications(directlyrelatedtothisresearch)MatsonP.,NaylorR.,Ortiz-MonasterioI.,1998.Integrationofenvironmental,agronomic,andeconomicaspectsoffertilizermanagement,Science280:112115

Source:USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgramOffice,PersonalCommunication,March1999

NoveltyandSignificanceofResearch

Thecommitteehaddifficultyinevaluatingthenoveltyandimpactofthe8-yearresearchportfoliooftheNRI.Thisdifficultyisnotpeculiartoresearchorganizations.DiscussionswithNSFindicatedsimilarchallenges.Clearly,however,anumberofnovelandsignificantresultshaveoccurred(seeappendix).Thecommitteeconcludedthat,althoughevidencesuggeststatNRI-fundedresearchisnovelandsignificant,detaileddocumentationislacking.

AdefinitiverecordofpatentsandpublicationsresultingfromNRIresearchisnotavailable,norisacontinuingevaluationofcurrentapplicationsandisnotavailable,norisacontinuingevaluationofcurrentapplicationsand

renewalsastotheiroriginalityandimpact.InformationfromtheprivatesectoraboutapplicationsoftheresultsofNRI-fundedresearchalsoislacking.

Fairness

Fairnessisthekeystoneofanysuccessfulcompetitivegrantsprocess.Participantsmustknowthattheirproposalwillbetreatedinaprocedurallyimpeccablewaythatgivesnoadvantagetoacompetitorandthatisopentoscrutinywithoutbetrayingconfidentialinformation.Thisdelicatebalanceismaintainedprincipallybystaff,althoughpanelmanagerscanbeinstrumental.Thecommitteebelievesthathigh-qualitymerit-basedpeerreviewisanessentialcomponentofafaircompetitivegrantsprogrambecauseitsubjectsallproposalstosystematicscrutinybyknowledgeablespecialistsandrequiresratingsofqualityandfeasibilitythatconstitutevaluableadvicetoagencystaff.Inthefollowingsections,thecommitteedescribestheNRI'speer-reviewprocessandthenevaluatesitseffectiveness.

TheNRIPeer-ReviewProcess

TheNRIpeer-reviewprocessisadministeredby"panelmanagers"whoworkasshort-termconsultantswithUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)staffandbringextramuralscientificcredibilitytotheprogramanditsoperation.Panelmanagersareinstrumentalinrecruitingreviewersforthepanelsandreinforcingtheperceptionthatcutting-edgeresearchisbeingconsideredforNRIfunding.Theparticipationofsome15,000proposalreviewersandpanelists(manywithexperienceonbothNSFandNIHpanels)intheNRIpeer-reviewprocessover8yearsatteststothecommunity'scommitmenttomaintainingprogramquality(NRIProgramOffice,1998).Therulesandguidelinesforpanelcompositionaregiveninbox3-4.

Afterexaminingallproposalssubmittedtothespecificprograms,the

panelmanagersandtheprogramdirectorsdeterminethescientificexpertiseneededtoevaluateeachproposalandthenassignproposalstoappropriatepanelistsandadhocreviewers.Adhocreviewersareselectedtoextendthepanelists'scientificexpertise.Carefulattentionispaidtoavoidconflictofinterestduringreviewerselection.Eachreviewer,whetherapanelmemberoranadhocreviewer,isadvisedtotreattheproposalwithconfidentiality.Beforethepanelmeeting,copiesofeachproposalaremailedtothepanelmembersandtotheadhocreviewersforevaluation.Panelistswritetheirownreviewsoftheproposals;thencopiesoftheadhocreviewers'commentsandevaluationsaremailedtopanelists.Thisprocedureallowsthepaneliststodeveloptheirownviewsregardingtheproposalsbeforereadingtheadhocreviewsbutgivesthemtimetostudytheadhocreviewsbeforethepanelmeets.

Eachproposalisevaluatedbyaprimaryandasecondaryreviewerandbyathirdpanelmemberwhoservesas"reader".Theprimaryandsecondaryreviewersprovidewrittenreviews.Evaluationcriteriaincludescientificmeritof

theproposal,qualificationsoftheinvestigators,andrelevanceoftheproposaltoprogramgoalsandtolong-rangeimprovementsinthesustainabilityofUSfoodandfiber.Thesameevaluationcriteriaareappliedtorenewalapplications,withparticularconsiderationofprogressduringthepreviousawardperiod.

BOX3-4RulesandGuidelinesforPanelComposition

Ingeneral,eachpanelisformulatedasatruepeerpanel,representativeofpeopleeligibletoapplytotheparticularprogramthemselves.Totheextentpossible,thepanelisrepresentativeof

·Demonstratedexpertiseinarelevantdiscipline.

·AllmajorregionsoftheUnitedStates.

·Manytypesofinstitutionslandgrant,private,public,industrial,andgovernmentalinstitutions.

·Balancebetweennewpanelistsandthosewhohavepreviouslyserved.

·Diversityinsexandminoritystatus

Panelcontinuityisachievedbyrequestingpartofapaneltoserveinthefollowingyear.Continuityofthereviewprocessisalsoensuredbyaskingsomeoftheadhoc(mail)reviewersforarepeatreviewifaproposalisrevisedandresubmittedinthefollowingyear.

Atentativelistofpanelmembersisapprovedbythechiefscientistbeforeanycontactismadewithprospectivepanelmembers.Afterthepanelisassembled,itissubmittedthroughthedivisiondirectorandchiefscientisttothedeputy

administratorofcompetitiveresearchgrantsandawardsmanagementofCooperativeStateResearch,EducationandExtensionServiceforadministrativeapproval.

Atthepanelmeeting,theprimaryreviewerofeachproposalpresentsasynopsisofhisorherreviewandevaluationtothepanel.Thesecondaryrevieweralsopresentshisorherevaluationoftheproposal.Thethirdreviewer(thereader)isprovidedtheopportunitytomakeadditionalevaluativecommentsbutdoesnotfurnishawrittenreview.Theprimaryrevieweralsosummarizestheadhocreviewers'evaluations.Theproposalisthendiscussedbythepanelandrankedbyconsensus.Rankinginvolvesplacingaproposalinoneofsixfundingprioritygroups(outstanding,high,medium,andlowprioritiesforfunding;somemerit;andnottobefunded)andthenrankingitsmeritrelativetothatofotherproposalsintheprioritygroup.

Beforeconcluding,andafterallproposalsarereviewed,thepanelreconvenesforanintensereassessmentoftheproposalrankings.Thererankingsessionallowsthepaneltocheckandaffirmthateachproposalisproperlyandfairlyrankedwithrespecttorelativescientificmerit.Thedegreeofrerankingvaries,dependingontheparticularpanel.Theconsistencyofthisprocessacrosspanelsisensuredbyoversightandcommunicationamongtheprogramdirectorsandbyvisitsoftheprogramdirectorstopanelsinotherprograms.

Theprogramdirectorandpanelmanagerrecordthefinalrankingofthepanel.Proposalsaregenerallyfundedaccordingtothisrankinguntilprogramfundsaredepleted.Thebestproposalsreceivemostofthefunding,butprogrammanagersonoccasionareabletofundlower-rankedproposalswith"strengthening"fundsthatcanbeusedtoawardstandardstrengthening,postdoctoral,andnewinvestigatorgrantsinrankorder.2Allawarddecisionsarereviewedbythedivisiondirectorandthechiefscientist.Allapplicantsreceiveananonymouscritiqueoftheirproposalsconsistingofallreviewercomments.

Becausepanelsforeachprogrammeetannually,nonrecipientsofawardshavelittleopportunitytoappealintheyearofsubmission.However,theymayresubmittheirproposalsinthenextyearandincludearebuttaltothereviewers'comments.

AsaconsensusbodyexemptfromtheFederalAdvisoryCommitteeAct,reviewpanelscanspeakwithasinglevoice.Thisattributelendscredencetoapanel'srecommendationsandtothefundingdecisionsmadebyNRIstaff.Byretaining30%-40%ofmembersfromthepreviousyear,thereviewpanelsembodythecollectivewisdomofresearchcommunities.Yettheymustbesensitivetoaccusationsoffunctioningas"old-boy"networks.Theyvary,too,intheirwillingnesstoadvisestaffonsuchissuesaswheretocutthebudgetinhigh-rankedproposals.Somepanelsrefusetodiscussbudgets;othersroutinelyweighsuchconsiderations.

EvaluationoftheNRIPeer-ReviewProcess

Byandlarge,thecommittee'ssurveyrevealsthatrecipientsandnonrecipientsofNRIawardsconsidertheNRIreviewprocessfairandeffective(seeappendixC).MostofthosesurveyedviewedtheNRIasusingafairpeer-reviewprocesstoselectproposalsforfunding,including97%ofawardees,74%ofnonrecipients,and84%ofparticipantsinlandgrantinstitutions(appendixC).Respondentswith

review-panelexperienceinothercompetitivegrantsprogramswereespeciallycomplimentaryoftheNRIpeer-reviewprocess.

Thefourformerchiefscientistsinterviewedforthisstudyalsoexpressedgreatconfidenceinthepeer-reviewandevaluationprocess(appendixC).Similarly,despitesomecriticismsofthelengthofthereviewprocess,panelmembersrepresentingNRIstakeholdersgenerallyviewedtheprocessassatisfyingandfair(appendixC).Overall,scientists,panelmembers,andadministratorsjudgedthefairnessofthepeer-reviewprocessasexceptional,andtheyconsideredpeer-reviewthebestwaytoassessprojectsanddistributefunds.

2Seechapter4foradiscussionofNRI's"strengthening"awards.

RelevanceandResponsiveness

Arelevantgrantsprogramprovidesfundingforresearchthatwillfurtherthegoalsoftheprogramandmeetnationalneeds.Thecommittee'ssurveyindicatesthatnearlyallrespondents(awardees,nonrecipients,andthoseinlandgrantinstitutionsandindustry)thinkthattheprogramhascontributedtotheNRImissionofgeneratingfundamentalandappliedresearchandfosteringthedevelopmentoffuturescientistswithstrongbackgroundsinfoodandfiber(appendixC).Itshouldbenoted,however,thatsubstantialfractionsofrespondentsindicatedthattheNRIcontributionhasbeenlessthantheyexpected(16%ofrecipients;27%ofnonrecipients;and43%ofpeopleinlandgrantinstitutions).Surveyrespondents,chiefscientists,andthosewhotestifiedbeforethecommitteerepeatedlycitedtwomainfactorsthathavelimitedtheNRI'sabilitytoreachitsfullpotential.First,nearlyallexpressedtheviewthatthetotalbudgetfortheprogramwasinadequateandthatawardsweretooshort,toofew,andtoosmall(appendixC).Second,manyoftherespondentsindicatedthattheNRIpriority-settingprocesswasnotclear(appendixC).Thecommitteediscussesthosetwoissuesmorefullyinchapters6and5,respectively.

Inadditiontobeingrelevant,asuccessfulresearchprogrammustberesponsive.Howanyprogramreflectsintellectualdevelopmentswhilebeingsensitivetoappropriations(anexternalconstraint)andbudgeting(aninternalconstraint)isatestofitsresponsiveness.ManycommunitiesseetheNRIastheirprogram;eachhasitsownexpectationofpriorities.Tobesuccessful,NRIstaffmustmanagerelationswitheachcommunity,andthisisespeciallydifficultinaconstrainedfundingenvironment.Onefundamentalcharacteristicofaresponsiveresearchprogramisitsabilitytofacilitateresearchinnewandemergingfieldsthroughthecreationofnewprogramsandthe

consolidationofdecliningprograms.NRIdivisiondirectorsandprogrammanagerswhometwiththecommitteeassertthatnewpanelsandprogramsarecreatedinresponsetothenumberofproposalsreceivedinafield,ratherthaninresponsetopoliticalpressurefromcommodityorothergroups.ThenarrativehistorythatNRIstaffprovidedtothecommitteesuggests,however,thattheevolutionofthesixmandateddivisionsintothe26currentprogramswasoverwhelminglytheresultofupper-levelmanagementdecisions(especiallyspinoffsofexistingprogramsintotheAgricultureSystemsprogram)ratherthantheresultofproposalsubmissions.Thecommitteediscussesthisissueinmoredetailinchapter5aspartofitsanalysisoftheNRIpriority-settingprocess.

Asecondimportantfactorinherentinaprogram'sresponsivenessinvolvestheallocationoffundstosupportdifferentelementsoftheprogram'smission(suchasbasicresearch,mission-orientedresearch,andhumandevelopment).Forexample,duringtheirdiscussionswiththecommittee,someNRIstaffquestionedwhetherthepercentageofNRIfundingspenton"strengthening"grantsandthesupportofpostdoctoralfellowsandgraduatestudents(currently25%)hasbeenadequateandwhethersuchawardshavebeenmadeappropriately.Thecommitteediscussesthatissueinmoredetailinchapter4aspartofitsanalysisoftheroleandscopeoftheNRIprogram.

Athirdimportantfactorrelatedtoaprogram'sresponsivenessishowtheprogramdealswiththeinherenttradeoffbetweenthenumberofproposalsfundedandtheaveragefundingprovidedforeachgrant.NRIprogramstaffhaveexpressedaresistancetoincreasinggrantsizebecausesuchincreaseswouldrequireadecreaseinthenumberofresearchersreceivinganysupport(assumingnoincreaseintheprogram'sbudget).Asaresult,individualawardamountscurrentlyaverage60%ofrequestedamounts.NRIdatashowadeclineinproposalsubmissionsinrecentyears,whichcouldbearesultofgrowingdoubtsabouttheprogram'sviability(seesurveyresultsinappendixC).Thecommitteediscussesthatissueinmoredetailinchapter6aspartofitsanalysisofNRIfunding.

SummaryFindings

Asuccessfulgrantsprogramcontainselementsofvalue,relevance,quality,fairness,andflexibility.ThecommitteefindsthattheproposalstotheNRIandtheresearchconductedbyscientistswhoreceivedNRIgrantsarebothofhighquality.Thatfindingisbasedontheresultsofthecommittee'ssurveyofapplicants,awardees,administratorsoflandgrantinstitutions,andindustry;theviewsofformerchiefscientistsandindividualsfromfederalagencies;andthepersonalperspectivesofcommitteemembersandtheircolleagues.Documentationofsuccessfullycompletedprojectsandtheiruseandapplicationwasfactoredintothecommittee'sassessment,asweretheproportionofapplicationsfundedandsuccessfulrenewalrates.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheNRIcouldimproveitsrecordbydocumentingthevalueofresearchfunded.TheNRIdoesnotkeepadefinitiverecordofpatentsandpublicationsthatresultfromNRIresearch.Noristherearunningevaluationoforiginalityandsignificanceofcurrentapplicationsandrenewals.Althoughthecommitteehasfoundbasedonitssurveysthatfundedapplicationsare

ofhighquality,theNRIlacksatrackingsystemofcriticalfactorsneededforself-evaluationorforeffectivereportingofresearchaccomplishmentstooutsidegroups,whichwouldcreateafeedbacksystemtoestablishvalue.

ThecommitteeviewstheNRIasamodelofmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinUSDA.Becauseitusesacompetitivereviewprocesstorankproposals,however,theNRIremainsoutsidethemainstreamUSDAcultureofformulafunding.

Throughconscientiousstewardship,theNRIhasbeensuccessfulingeneratingfundamentalandappliedresearchandfosteringthedevelopmentoffuturescientistswithstrongbackgroundsinfoodandfiber.TheNRIprogramis,however,notasresponsiveorflexibleasitcouldbe.Proposalsubmissionshavedeclinedinrecentyears,owinginparttoconcernovertheviabilityoftheprogramandinparttotheprogram'sresistancetoincreasethesizeofgrantsbecausesuchanincreasewouldcomeatthecostofsupportingfewerresearchers.

4RoleandScopeoftheNRIProgramTheroleandscopeoftheNRIarebroadlyshapedbythelegislativeauthoritythatestablishedtheprogram,whichinturnwasmodeledcloselyafterthe1989NationalResearchCouncilreportInvestinginResearch:AProposaltoStrengthentheAgricultural,Food,andEnvironmentalSystem.TheNRIwasauthorizedinsection1615oftheFood,Agriculture,Conservation,andTradeActof1990(FACTA),whichmandateda''nationalcompetitiveresearchinitiative"tobeadministeredunderthedirectionofthesecretaryofagriculture.Congressfurtherstipulatedthatfundsforthenewprogramwouldbedirectedto"highpriorityresearch",definedas"basicandappliedresearchthatfocusesonbothnationalandregionalresearchneeds(andmethodstotransfersuchresearchtoon-farmorin-marketpractice)."Theresearchwastobedirectedatsixprimarysubjects:plantsystems;animalsystems;nutrition,foodquality,andhealth;naturalresourcesandtheenvironment;engineering,products,andprocesses;andmarkets,trade,andpolicy.

Theenablinglegislationcalledforfourtypesofgrants:grantsforprincipalinvestigators,grantsforfundamentalmultidisciplinaryteams,grantsformission-linkedmultidisciplinaryteams,andgrantsforresearch-strengtheningactivities.InvestinginResearchidentifiedgrantsinthefirsttwocategoriesasscience-driven,thatis,grantsintendedtoadvancesciencebysupportingfundamentalresearchrelevanttofood,fiber,andtheenvironment.Grantsinthesecondtwocategorieswereexpectedtoberelatedtoscienceandengineering

questionsofnationalimportancelinkedtomore-appliedproblems.AlltypesweredesignedtostrengthenUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)researchefforts.

Inthischapter,thecommitteepresentsitsviewsontheroleandscopeofNRIresearchwithintheboundsestablishedbyCongresstheNRI'snichewithinfederal,state,andprivate-sectorresearchinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.WebeginbydiscussingsomeofthescientificobjectivesoftheNRI,suchassupportingfundamental,applied,andmultidisciplinaryresearch.WethendiscusssomeoftheNRI'sobjectivesrelatedtotrainingandeducation.Finally,wediscussthecomplementarityoftheNRItootherfederalresearchprogramsandtheprivatesector.

ScientificObjectives

AppliedVersusFundamentalResearch

Researchprogramsarecommonlyclassifiedassupportingeitherfundamental(alsoreferredtoasbasic)orapplied(alsoreferredtoasmission-linked)researchorboth.The1995NationalResearchCouncilreportAllocatingFederalFundsforScienceandTechnologydefinedbasicresearchashavingthefollowingcharacteristics:"createsnewknowledge;isgeneric,nonappropriable,andopenlyavailable;isoftendonewithnospecificapplicationinmind;andrequiresalong-termcommitment".Thesamereportdefinedappliedresearchashavingthefollowingcharacteristics:"usesresearchmethodstoaddressquestionswithaspecificpurpose;paysexplicitattentiontoproducingknowledgerelevanttoproducingatechnologyorservice;overlapsextensivelywithbasicresearch;andcanbeshort-orlong-term".

Eventhoughthereisextensiveoverlapbetweenthetwotypesofresearchandthedistinctionbetweenbasicandappliedresearchis

oftenunclear(seealsobox4-1),theoriginalNationalResearchCouncilproposaltoestablishtheNRIandtheenablinglegislationfortheprogramreferredexplicitlytothetwogeneraltypes.Inparticular,theenablinglegislationrequiredthat"notlessthan20%[ofappropriations]shallbeavailabletomakegrantsforresearchtobeconductedbypersonsconductingmission-linkedsystemsresearch."Morerecently,theAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andEducationReformActof1998increasedtheminimumformission-linkedresearch,requiringthat"notlessthan40percent[ofappropriations]shallbeavailabletomakegrantsforresearch...directlyapplicabletoproducersandagriculturalproductionsystems."NRIannualreportsshowthatfortheperiodFY1991-1999fundingformission-orientedresearchrangedfrom26%to50%oftotalresearchexpenditures,andthedatashowamonotonicincreaseofabout4percentagepointsperyearinresearchperceivedtobe"mission-oriented"overthisperiod.

NRIstakeholdersseemtorecognizethevalueoftheNRIprograminsupportingbothfundamentalandappliedresearch.Thecommittee'ssurveyshowsthattheNRIiswidelyperceivedtobeUSDA'spremierbasic-researchprogram,whereasUSDAformulafundsareperceivedassupportingapplied

research(seeappendixC).Inthecommittee'squeriesofNRIawardeesandunsuccessfulapplicants(appendixC),bothgroupsoverwhelminglycredittheprogramformakingimportantcontributionstofundamentalandappliedresearch,asdolandgrantandindustryrespondents.Commentsfromindividualscientistsrevealdivergentopinionsastowhethertheprogramfocusestoomuchonfundamentalorappliedresearch.Thesedivergentviewsprobablyreflectahealthymixofshort-termandlong-termapplicationhorizons.

BOX4-1IsitBasicorIsItApplied?

Noathousandtimesno;theredoesnotexistacategoryofsciencetowhichonecangivethename"appliedscience."Thereisscienceandtherearetheapplicationsofscience,boundtogetherasthefruittothetreewhichbearsit.LouisPasteur,1871

AlthoughPasteurwasadmirableinhisemphasisontheunityofthebasicandappliedaspectsofscience,wecontinuetothedifferentiatebetweenbasicandappliedscienceinimportantways.Whatismeantwhenwediscussbasicandappliedresearch,whenthesamestudymaybeviewedasbasicbysomeandappliedbyothers"Basicandappliedresearchcanbedistinguishedbytheintentionoftheworkandexpectedtimeframefortheuseoftheresults.Astudyintendedtosolveandimmediatepracticalproblemiscommonlyviewedasapplied;astudyintendedtouncoverinformationisviewedasbasic.Basicsciencemaybeconsideredtobecuriosity-drivenknowledgeistheintendedproduct.Basicresearchismorelong-terminperspective,andtheutilityoftheresultsislikelytobemoredistantintime.Whatisviewedasappliedresearchisintendedtosolveapracticalproblem,withaneedtoapplythe

informationintheshorttermforasocialoreconomicbenefit.

Althoughtheintentionsofbasicandappliedresearcharequitedifferent,theresultsmayleadtoimportantconclusionsorutilitythatgobeyondtheoriginalintentions.Manybasicstudiesleadtounexpecteddiscoveriesthathaveimmediateapplication,andappliedstudiesoftenuncovernewknowledgewhileinpursuitofpracticalobjective.Serendipityoccursinbothkindsofresearch.

Asrecognizedinthedefinitionsofbasicandappliedresearchcitedabove,thereoftenisnocleardistinctionbetweenfundamentalandappliedscience.Thatisespeciallytrueinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources,wherefundamentalresearchcomplementsappliedresearch(forexample,itisdifficulttoconceiveofanadvanceinfundamentalbiologythatmightnothaveeventualapplicationtothefoodsystem)andappliedresearchoftenleadstofurtherquestionsthatfundamentalresearchcouldhelptoanswer.ThecommitteethereforebelievesthatitmightbemoreusefultoviewNRIresearchalonganexpected-time-to-applicationgradientratherthantoforceeachprojecttobeclassifiedaseitherappliedorfundamental.1Recentdevelopmentsinscienceandtechnologyhave

1ThecommitteerecognizesthatsuchachangewouldprobablyrequireachangeintheNRIauthorizationlanguage,whichprescribesaminimumof"mission-linked"research.

dramaticallyreducedthelagbetweenlaboratoryresearchandusefulproductsinmanycases.Itisnowdifficulttoimagineaparticularresearchprojectthatmightnotcontributetosomeapplicationwithin1020years.Placingresearchalonganexpected-time-to-applicationgradientwoulddistinguishresearchwithanexpectedlong-termpayofffromresearchwithashorter-termhorizon.Itmightalsoallowbothtobedistinguishedfromtechnologytransfer(themovementofinformationfromthepublictotheprivatesector)orproductdevelopment.Atechnology-transferorextensioncomponentmightthusbeencouragedformanyprojectsotherthanthosetagged"applied",andtheextensioncommunitycouldbeconnectedmoredirectlytotheresearchenterprise.

ThecommitteedoesrecognizethatapotentialnegativeeffectofviewingNRIresearchalonganexpected-time-to-applicationgradientisthepossibilitythatresourceswouldbefocusedpredominantlyonnear-termapplicationslikelytoproduceshort-termresultsratherthanonlonger-termresearchwithapotentialforhigherpayoffs.TheobservedincreaseinNRIresearchperceivedasmission-linkedoverthelast8yearsmightreflectsuchatrend.ThecommitteebelievesstronglythatamajoremphasisoftheNRIshouldcontinuetobethesupportoflong-term,high-riskresearchwithpotentiallong-termpayoffs-thetypeofresearchthatisunlikelytobefundedthroughotherresearchprogramsinUSDA,otherfederalagencies,ortheprivatesector.Muchofthisresearchwouldbeclassifiedasfundamentalinthetraditionaluseoftheterm.

MultidisciplinaryResearch

Multidisciplinaryresearchhasbeendefinedasthat"conductedbyateamofcollaboratingscientistsfromtwoormoredistinctscienceorengineeringdisciplinesintegratedintoasingleplanofstudy"(NRC,1989,p.13).Multidisciplinaryresearchhasbeenalong-timegeneral

goalinsciencetomaximizetheoutputandbreadthofresearchapplications.Accomplishingeffectivemultidisciplinaryresearchisnoteasy,becausemostresearchinstitutionshavedevelopedculturesthatrewardindividualdisciplinaryaccomplishments.Inaddition,multidisciplinaryprojectsareoften,bytheirnature,moreexpensivethanresearchconductedbyindividualresearchers.From1993on,bylaw,atleast30%ofthevalueofNRIfundedgrantseachyearmustbededicatedtomultidisciplinaryresearch.2Theactualvaluesrangedfrom25%34%from1991to1994(OTA1995).In1998,43.4%oftheNRIbudgetwasdefinedasmultidisciplinary.3TheNRIappearstohavedeliveredonitscongressionalmandate.

2Section1615ofFACTAprescribedthat"notlessthan10%forfiscalyear1991,20%forfiscalyear1992,and30%forfiscalyear1993andeachfiscalyearthereaftershallbeavailabletomakegrantsforresearchtobeconductedbymultidisciplinaryteams."3IntheNRI'sanalysis,itwasassumedthattriagency(USDA,NationalInstitutesofHealth,andNationalScienceFoundation)researchwasmultidisciplinary.

TrainingandEducation

ThreecomponentsoftheNRIprogramaredirectlyrelatedtotrainingandeducationinthebroadsense.Inparticular,NRIfundsareusedtodevelopfuturescientiststhroughthesupportofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralresearchers,tostrengthensmallandmediumacademicinstitutionsorinstitutionsinUSDA-EPSCoR(ExperimentalProgramforStimulatingCompetitiveResearch)entities,andtoenhancepublicunderstandingofissuesrelatedtothenation'sfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.

DevelopingFutureScientists

TheNRIsupportsabout425graduatestudents4eachyearthroughitsawardstoprojectinvestigators.Responsestothesurveys(seechapter5)indicatedthatthisaspectoftheprogramisimportantandbeneficial.Inthewordsofonerespondent,"manyyoungscientistshavestartedtheircareerbyNRI-supportedresearchprograms....NRIfundshaveplayedamajorroleintraining,recruitingandretainingbrightscientistsinUSagriculture."Infact,evenwiththesmallamountandbrevityofgrants,trainingmighthavebecomeamajoruseofNRIfundingamonguniversityresearchers.

TheNRIsupportsmorethan300postdoctoralresearcherseachyear5includingabout30thatreceivedirectpostdoctoralfellowships.6InformationonpostdoctoralresearcherssupportedbytheNRIispresentedintable4-1.BoththetotalawardamountsandthenumberofpostdoctoralresearchersincreasedfromFY1992throughFY1996,followedbyageneraldecreasefromFY1996toFY1999.

AnimportantstatedgoaloftheNRIisthetrainingandsupportofyoungscientistsspecifically,graduatestudents,postdoctoralfellows,andprincipalinvestigatorswhoareintheinitialorearlystagesoftheirscientificcareers.HowsuccessfulhastheNRIbeenin

accomplishingthatgoal,andhowhasthesuccessbeenmeasuredanddocumented?Theonesetofdataavailableindicatesthat5.7%ofthetotalnumberofawardsin1997wenttonewinvestigators.Therangeindifferentprogramswas1.2%7.3%.Eachyear,fiveto14grants,representing0.16%0.5%ofthetotalnumberofawards,aregiventopostdoctoralfellowsseekingtheirfirstgrants(NRIProgramOffice,June,1998).

NootherdatawereavailablefromtheNRIonspecifictrainingofgraduateorpostdoctoralstudents,buttraditionalacademicapproachesgenerallyusethemextensivelyinresearch.Thatwasconfirmedinthesurveyofgrantees,inwhich

4Agraduatestudentisdefinedasapersonpursuinganadvanceddegree,suchasaMaster'sdegreeordoctorate.5ApostdoctoralresearcherisdefinedasapersonwhohasrecentlyreceivedaPhDinafieldofscienceandisreceivingfurthertraininginconductingresearch.6Postdoctoralfellowshipsareawardedtohighlypromisingresearchersandcanbeusedtoobtaintraininginanyresearchfield.Afellowshipisseparatefromresearchgrantfundsthatcanbeusedtosupportapostdoctoralresearcherworkingonaspecificresearchgrant.

TABLE4-1NRISupportofPostdoctoralResearchersFundsUsedforSupportingPostdoctoral

Year No.Grants Fellowships,$1992 15 1,216,0001993 20 1,635,0001994 28 2,218,0001995 31 2,451,0001996 32 2,548,0001997 27 2,362,7261998 24 2,125,5861999 20 1,744,503Source:NRIannualreportsfor1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,and1999(draft).

careerdevelopmentofgraduatestudentswasscoredby81of120respondentsasgreatlyaffectedandby21respondentsassomewhataffectedbyNRIgrants.Asimilarresponse(71of105greatlyand19of105somewhat)wasreportedwithrespecttocareerdevelopmentofpostdoctoralstudents.EvennonrecipientsofawardsbelievedthattheNRIgreatlyorsomewhataffectedgraduateandpostdoctoraleducation.ThesurveyalsoindicatedanoverwhelmingbeliefthattheNRIcontributedtodevelopmentofhumanresourcesinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchsystems.

Ingeneral,theNRIhasbeensuccessfulinsupportingthetrainingofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientists,givenhowsmalltheprogramanditsgrantsarerelativetothoseofotheragencies.

StrengtheningAcademicInstitutionsintheFoodandFiberSystem

StrengtheningawardsaremadeavailabletofacultyofsmallandmediumacademicinstitutionsorinstitutionsinUSDA-EPSCoRentitieswhohavenotreceivedNRIawardsduringtheprevious5

years.Smallandmediuminstitutionsaredefinedasthosewithtotalenrollmentsof15,000orfewerthatarenotamongthetop100universitiesandcollegesinreceivingfederalfundsforscienceandengineeringresearch.

USDA-EPSCoRentitiesbesidestheDistrictofColumbia,PuertoRico,andotherUScommonwealths,territories,possessionsandtheirsuccessorscomprisestatesthathavehadafundinglevelfromtheNRInohigherthanthe38thpercentilebasedona3-yearrollingaverage.InFY1999,theNRIsupportedsixcareer-enhancementawards,44equipmentgrants,38seedgrants,and56standardstrengtheningawards(NRIAnnualReport,1999).

NRIstrengtheninggrantshavehadamajoreffectonthecareersandproductivityoffacultywhootherwisewouldnothavefederalgrantsupport.ThatisreflectedbyresultsofasurveyconductedforUSDAbytheOakRidge

InstituteforScienceandEducation(ORISEunpublisheddata).Theresultsofthesurveyarepresentedintable4-2.

Thecontributionsofstandardstrengtheninggrantsorequipmentgrantstoinstitutionalteachingandresearchprogramsincludethedevelopmentofnewcourses;theinitiationofadditionalresearchprogramsoremphases;theacquisitionofcomplementaryequipment;theestablishmentofnewresearchcentersandlaboratories;anincreaseinthequalityofteachingrelatedtofood,fiber,andnaturalresources;anincreaseinthequalityofresearchrelatedtofood,fiber,andnaturalresources;andanimprovedresearchenvironment.

EnhancingPublicUnderstanding

TheNRImaintainsanInternetsitefordistributionofinformationresultingfromitsactivities.ItalsodistributesResearchHighlights,anewsletteraboutresearchresultsofNRI-sponsoredresearchthathasbeenpublishedinscientificjournals.ThenewsletterwascitedfavorablybytheHouseCommitteeonScience(1998).ThecongressionalreportalsoconsideredtheNRIInternetsiteasamodelforotherfederalagenciestomaketheirresultsmorereadilyavailabletoCongressandthepublic.TheNRIstaffssuccessinorganizingthesevehiclesisincontrastwiththeorganization'slimitedresources.

TABLE4-2SkillsandItemsAffectedbyAcquiredGrantTypeofGrant,%

AspectorItemAffectedStrengthening

EquipmentRCEAaSeed StandardAcquisitionofnewskillsandknowledge 84 100 93 91Newprofessionaltiesandlinkages 61 90 73 76Increaseinnumber.ofprofessionalpresentations 38 90 72 74Increaseinnumber.ofscientific

publications 56 70 73 77Submissionofproposalsforotherresearchfunding 89 80 73 69Improvedcontinuityoffunding 50 30 41 51Inventions 2 10 3 4Patents,copyrights,orlicensingagreements 4 0 1 5Professionaladvancementinposition,rank,orsalary 32 20 38 37Recruitmentorretentionofstudents 57 30 50 51aRCEA=researchcareerenhancementawards.Source:StrengtheningAwardProgramAssessmentResults,ORISE1997;unpublisheddata.

Complementarity

ComplementarityreferstothedegreetowhichNRIactivitiescomplementsimilaractivitiesconductedbyothersinindustryandinotherfederalandstateagenciesandprograms.ComplementarityalsoincludestheextenttowhichtheNRIreachesouttootherfederalandstateagencies,academe,andtheprivatesector.Complementarityratherthanisolationorduplicationisnecessaryanddesirableforaddingvaluetoresearchconductedwithinsingleprograms,forensuringthatoverallresearchfundsareusedefficiently,andforprovidingaclearerpathbetweenbasicresearchanditsapplication.ThecommitteeprovideshereabriefoverviewofsomeoftheresearchprogramsinUSDA,otherfederalandstateagenciesandprograms,andindustrythatcomplementtheNRI.Theresearchprogramsdescribedshouldbeviewedasillustrativeexamples,notasacomprehensivecompilationofallcomplementaryprogramsinthefederal,state,andprivatesectors,whichwasnotpossiblegiventhetimeandfundingconstraintsofthisstudy.

OtherUSDA-FundedResearchPrograms

USDAsupportsresearchonfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesthroughanumberofresearchprogramsinsideandoutsideUSDAthatcomplementtheNRI.Forexample,threeUSDAagenciesconductintramuralresearchondifferentaspectsofUSDA'smission:theAgriculturalResearchService(ARS),theEconomicResearchService(ERS),andtheUSForestService.USDAalsoprovidesformulafundstosupportresearchatstateagriculturalexperimentstations,specialgrantstosupporttargetedresearchinitiativesspecifiedbyCongress,andasmallamountoffundsforotherformsofcompetitivegrants.

IntramuralResearch

Intramuralsupportprovidesstablefundingforlong-termresearch

activitiesthatarecentraltothemissionsoftheagencies.InFY1998,fundingforintramuralresearchtotaled$982million,or52%oftheUSDAresearchbudget.

AgriculturalResearchService.

ARSconductsbasicandappliedresearch,someofittargetedathelpingUSDAagenciesresolvescientificandtechnicalissuesthatariseastheyfulfilltheirprogramresponsibilities.Itsresearchisinthreenationalprograms:AnimalProduction,ProductValue,andSafety;NaturalResourcesandSustainableAgriculturalSystems;andCropProduction,ProductValue,andSafety.TheAnimalProduction,ProductValue,andSafetyProgramconductsmultidisciplinaryresearchtosolveproblemsthatthreatenthesecurity,safety,andproductivityoftheUSfoodandfibersystemandthosearisingfromtheinteractionbetweenanimalandcropproductionandsustainablefoodandfibersystems.TheNaturalResourcesandSustainableAgriculturalSystemsProgramconductsmultidisciplinaryresearchtosolveproblemsarisingfromtheinteractionbetweenfoodandfiberproductionandtheenvironment.

TheCropProduction,ProductValue,andSafetyProgramconductsmultidisciplinaryresearchtosolveproblemsthatthreatenthesecurity,safety,andproductivityofUSfoodandfibersystem.Incarryingoutitsresponsibilities,ARSworkscloselywithotherfederalresearchprogramsandwithUSDA'smissionagenciesthatrelyontechnologyandsciencetocarryouttheirprogramresponsibilities.

EconomicResearchService.

ERSprovideseconomicandothersocial-scienceinformationandanalysisforimprovingtheperformanceofagricultureandimprovingruralAmerica.Itcollectsandmaintainsanumberofhistoricaldataseriesonfarmtype,size,andnumber;productionandinputlevels;trade;effectsoffarmpolicy;andsocioeconomiccharacteristicsofruralareasoftheUnitedStates.ERSalsoprovideskeystatisticalandanalyticsupporttotheexecutiveandlegislativebranchesofthefederalgovernment.

USForestService.

TheUSForestServiceconductsbasicandappliedresearchonthenation'sforestsandontechnologiesusefulinthemanufactureofpulpandwood-basedproducts.ResearchissuesexaminedbytheForestServiceincludetheeffectsofclimatechangeonforestproductivity,thebehavioroffiresandecosystemresponsetocatastrophicfires,theeffectsofforestryonwaterqualityandwildlife,andmethodstoincreaseproductivitythroughimprovedmanagement.

FormulaFunds:StateAgriculturalExperimentStations(SAESS)andCooperativeExtensionServices.

FormulafundsprovidematchingdollarstotheSAESs,whichusuallyusetheseallocationsforapplied,state-specificresearch.Formulafundsprovidevaluableflexibilitybywhichexperimentstationscan

respondtoemergingproblemsandresearchissues.Formulafundsareoftenusedtosupportlong-termresearchprogramsatthenation'slandgrantuniversities.InFY1998,thesefundsdistributedbyaformulabasedonthesizeofthefarmandruralpopulationinindividualstatesamountedto$516million,orabout27%oftheUSDAresearchbudget.

SpecialGrants

Specialgrantsaretargetedtoshorter-termresearchneedsidentifiedbyCongress.ThesegrantsareusuallyaminorpartoftheUSDAresearchbudget,butoccasionallylargeinitiativesemergefromUSDAallocationbills.RecentlargeinitiativesincludetheFY1998appropriationforplant-genomeworkandtwoinitiativesincludedintheAgriculturalResearch,Education,andReformActof1998.Smallerinitiatives(41inFY2000)areoftenthesizeofindividualNRIresearchgrants(about$200,000).Insomecases,fundingforspecialgrantscomesatthedirectexpenseoftheNRIbudget(personalcommunication,NRIstaff,1998).InFY1998,specialgrantsaccountedfor$169million,orabout9%oftheUSDAresearchbase.

InitiativeforFutureAgricultureandFoodSystems.

Thepurposeofthisinitiativeistosupportresearch,extension,andeducationactivitiestargetedtothefollowingresearchareasmandatedbyCongressintheAgriculturalResearch,Education,andReformActof1998:agriculturalgenomics;agriculturalbiotechnology;foodsafety,foodtechnologies,andhumannutrition;newusesforagriculturalproducts;natural-resourcesmanagement,includingprecisionagriculture;andfarmefficiencyandprofitability.Theinitiativewillgivehighprioritytoproposalsthatsuccessfullyintegrateresearch,extension,andeducationoraddresstheconcernsofsmallandmediumproducersandlandmanagers(especiallyinnatural-resourcesmanagementandfarmefficiencyandprofitability).Thegoaloftheinitiativeistoawardlargegrantstomultistate,multi-institutional,andmultidisciplinaryprojects.Theinitiativehasatotalbudgetof$120millionforFY2000.

IntegratedResearch,Education,andExtensionCompetitiveGrantsProgram.

Thepurposeofthisprogramistosupportintegrated,multifunctionalagriculturalresearch,extension,andeducationactivitiesmandatedbyCongressinsection406oftheAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andEducationReformActof1998.Theactspecifiedthatresearchgrantsbeawarded,subjecttoavailabilityofappropriations,onacompetitivebasistocollegesanduniversities(asdefinedinsection1404oftheNationalAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andTeachingPolicyActof1977).ItspecifiedthatgrantsbeawardedtoaddressprioritiesintheUSfoodandfibersystemthatinvolveintegratedresearch,education,andextensionactivitiesasdeterminedbythesecretaryofagricultureinconsultationwiththeNationalAgriculturalResearch,Extension,Education,andEconomicsAdvisoryBoard.FundedinFY2000werewaterquality($13million),foodsafety($15million),

pesticideimpactassessment($4.54million),CropsatRiskfromFoodQualityandProtectionAct(FQPA)implementation($1million),FQPARiskMitigationProgramforMajorCropSystems($4million),andMethylBromideTransitionProgram($2million),foratotalprogrambudgetof$39.5million.

OtherCompetitiveGrantsinUSDA

ThecompetitiveresearchgrantscomponentofUSDAincludesthreeoperatingprogramsinadditiontotheNRI:theOfficeofExtramuralPrograms,theSmallBusinessInnovationResearchprogram,andtheBiotechnologyRiskAssessmentProgram.Eachofthoseisadministeredbyitsowndirector.TheNRIisbyfarthelargestcompetitivegrantsprograminUSDA,accountingfor87%ofthecompetitivegrantsawardedbyUSDAinFY1998.

TheOfficeofExtramuralPrograms(OEP)providesleadershipandguidanceinthemanagementofthefederalassistanceprogramsrelatedtoresearch,education,andextensionactivitiessupportedbytheCooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionService(CSREES).OEPisresponsiblefortheexecution,administration,andpaymentsofCSREESformulafunds,grants,cooperativeagreements,specialprojects,andotherfederalassistanceinstrumentstofurthertheUSDAmission.

TheSmallBusinessInnovationResearch(SBIR)programinUSDAmakesgrantstoqualifiedsmallbusinessestosupportresearchtodevelopadvancedconceptsrelatedtoscientificproblemsandopportunitiesinagriculturethatcouldleadtopublicbenefit.ObjectivesoftheSBIRprogramaretostimulatetechnologicinnovationsintheprivatesector,strengthentheroleofsmallbusinessesinmeetingfederalresearchanddevelopmentneeds,increaseprivate-sectorcommercializationofinnovationsderivedfromUSDA-supportedresearchanddevelopmentefforts,andfosterandencourageparticipationbyfemale-ownedandsociallyandeconomicallydisadvantagedsmallbusinessfirmsintechnologicinnovations.

ThepurposeoftheBiotechnologyRiskAssessmentResearchGrantsProgramistoassistfederalregulatoryagenciesinmakingscience-baseddecisionsaboutthesafetyofintroducingintotheenvironmentgeneticallymodifiedorganisms,includingplants,fungi,bacteria,viruses,arthropods,fish,birds,mammals,andotheranimals.Theprogramaccomplishesitspurposebyprovidingscientificinformationderivedfromtherisk-assessmentresearchthatitfunds.Researchproposalssubmittedtothisprogrammustaddressriskassessment,notriskmanagement.

ComplementarityofNRIwithinUSDA

Thenon-NRIresearchactivitiesfundedbyUSDAillustratetwoimportantpointsaboutthecomplementarityofNRIresearchwithrespecttootherUSDA-fundedresearch.First,theNRIdiffersfrommostoftheresearchfundedbyUSDAinthatitsupportsresearchersoutsideUSDAonthebasisofacompetitive,merit-basedpeer-reviewprocess.Mostoftheroughly$1.6billionthatUSDAspendsonresearchthroughnon-NRIprogramsisdistributednoncompetitivelythroughintramuralresearchgrantstoUSDAstaff,formulafundsto

stateagriculturalstations,andspecialgrantstostatesfortargetedinitiativesanddirectgrants.Thisallocationsystemdoesnotinitselfnecessarilyreducethequalityorrelevanceoftheresearchitsupports,butitrunscountertopracticesattheNationalInstitutesofHealthandtheNationalScienceFoundationandtothegeneraldirectionofmostfederalresearchpracticesforassessingresearchqualityandrelevance.Second,althoughARSfocusesmoreonappliedresearchthantheNRI,therecouldbesomeoverlapintheresearchconductedin-housethroughARSandthatfundedthroughtheNRI.ThecommitteeconcludesthattheNRIcomplementsotherUSDAactivitiesbutthatmoreemphasisshouldbeplacedoncoordinatingARSandNRIagendas.

OtherFederalPrograms

NationalScienceFoundation

AnumberofentitieswithintheNSFBiologyDirectorateinvolveresearchrelatedtofood,fiber,andnaturalresources,includingtheDivisionofEnvironmentalBiology(DEB),theClusterforSystematicandPopulationBiology,theClusterforEcologicalStudies,theDivisionofIntegrativeBiologyandNeuroscience,theDivisionofMolecularandCellularBiosciences(MCB),andtheDivisionofPlantGenomeResearch.

DEBsupportsfundamentalresearchontheorigins,functions,relationships,interactions,andevolutionaryhistoryofpopulations,species,communities,andecosystems.ScientificemphasesofDEBincludebiodiversity,moleculargeneticandgenomicevolution,mesoscaleecology,computationalbiology(includingmodeling),conservationbiology,globalchange,andrestorationecology.

TheClusterforSystematicandPopulationBiologysupportsresearchonthepatternsandcausesofdiversitywithinandamongpopulationsandspecies.Researchprojectsinvolveanygroupoforganismsincludingterrestrial,freshwater,andmarinetaxaandrangeinsubjectfrommicroorganismstomulticellularplants,animals,andfungi.Researchareasarearrangedinthreemaingroups:populationbiology,systematicbiology,andbioticsurveysandinventories.

TheClusterforEcologicalStudiessupportsresearchonnaturalandmanagedecologicsystems,primarilyinterrestrial,wetland,andfreshwaterhabitats.Researchareasincludeexperimental,theoretical,andmodelingstudiesonthestructureandfunctionofcomplexbiotic-abioticassociationsandthecouplingofsmall-scalesystemstoeachotherandtolarge-scalesystems.Theyarearrangedinfourgroups:ecosystemstudies,ecology,long-termecologicalresearch(LTER),

andlong-termresearchinenvironmentalbiology.

TheDivisionofIntegrativeBiologyandNeurosciencesupportsresearchaimedatunderstandingthelivingorganismplant,animal,microorganismasaunitofbiologicorganization.Suchresearchencompassesthemechanismsbywhichplantsandanimalsdevelop,grow,reproduce,regulatetheirphysiologicalactivity,andrespondtotheirenvironment;theintegrationofmolecular,subcellular,cellular,andfunctionalgenomicapproachestounderstandingthedevelopment,functioning,andbehavioroforganismsinthelaboratoryandinnaturalsettings;allaspectsofthenervoussystem,includingitsstructure,function,development,andintegrationwiththephysiologicandbehavioralsystemsaffectedbyit;factorsinfluencingthebehaviorofanimalsinthelaboratoryandinthefield;whole-organismapproachestophysiologicecology;andtheformandfunctionoforganismsinviewoftheirevolutionandenvironmentalinteractions.

MCBsupportsresearchandrelatedactivitiesthatcontributetoafundamentalunderstandingoflifeprocessesatthemolecular,subcellular,andcellularlevels.Investigator-initiatedresearchproposalsareconsideredinbiomolecularstructureandfunction,biomolecularprocesses,cellbiology,andgenetics.BiodiversityandbiotechnologyaremajorfocalpointsofMCB.

TheDivisionofPlantGenomeResearchwasinitiatedinFY1998aspartofanationalplantgenomeresearchinitiativeestablishedbytheOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy.Thelong-termgoalofthisprogramistounderstandthestructure,organization,andfunctionofplantgenomesimportanttoagriculture,theenvironment,energy,andhealth.Theprogramsupportsresearchonplantgenomicsandaimstoacceleratetheacquisitionanduseofnewknowledgeandinnovativeapproachestoelucidatefundamentalbiologicprocessesinplants.

TheHydrologicSciencesProgramintheEarthSciencesDivisionofNSF'sGeosciencesDirectoratehassomepotentialoverlapwiththewater-qualityresearchsupportedbytheNRI.Theprogramsupportsfundamentalresearchoncontinentalwaterprocessesandtheglobalwaterbalance.Researchontheformerfocusesonthephysicalandchemicalprocessescharacterizingordrivenbythecyclingofcontinentalwateratallscalesandonbiologicprocessesthatinteractwiththewatercycle.Researchonthelatterfocusesonthespatialandtemporalcharacteristicsofthewaterbalanceintheatmosphere,oceans,andcontinents.

NationalInstitutesofHealth

TheNationalInstituteofEnvironmentalHealthSciences(NIEHS),oneof25institutesandcentersofNIH,supportsresearchrelatedtothreeinteractiveelementsthatplaycentralrolesinhumanhealthanddisease:environmentalfactors,individualsusceptibility,andage.TheNIEHSmissionistoreducetheburdenofhumanillnessanddysfunctionwithenvironmentalcausesbyunderstandingeachofthoseelementsandhowtheyinterrelate.NIEHSachievesitsmissionthroughmultidisciplinarybiomedicalresearchprograms,preventionandinterventionefforts,andcommunicationstrategiesthatencompasstraining,education,technologytransfer,andcommunityoutreach.AlthoughNIEHScoversawidevarietyofissues,oneresearcharea

directlyrelatedtotheNRI'smissionispollutionrelatedtofoodandfiberproduction.NIEHSresearchinthisareafocusesonhealtheffectsofchemicalsusedinfoodandfiberproductionathighconcentrationsandofnaturalmaterialsinvolvedinfoodandfiberproduction(suchasgraindust).

DepartmentofEnergy

TwopartsoftheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)researchprogramthatarerelatedcloselytofood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesaretheDivisionofEnergyBiosciencesintheOfficeofBasicEnergySciences(BES)andtheOfficeofBiologicalandEnvironmentalResearch(BER).BothprogramsareinDOE'sOfficeofScience.

TheBESDivisionofEnergyBiosciencessupportsfundamentalresearchneededtodevelopfuturebiotechnologiesrelatedtoenergy.Thesupportedresearchfocusesonthebiologicmechanismsoccurringinplantsandmicroorganismsthatcouldserveasrenewableresourcesforfuelandother

fossil-resourcesubstitutes,asvehiclestorestorepreviouslydisruptedenvironmentalsites,andaspotentialcomponentsofindustrialprocessestoproducenewproductsandchemicalsinanenvironmentallybenignmanner.Thedivisionsupportsresearchprogramsinfourmainareas:plantscience,fermentationmicrobiology,extremophilicorganisms,andbiomaterialsandbiocatalysis.

ThemissionofBERistodeveloptheknowledgeneededtoidentify,understand,andanticipatethelong-termhealthandenvironmentalconsequencesofenergyproduction,development,anduse.Themissioniscarriedoutthroughsupportofpeer-reviewedresearchatDOEnationallaboratories,universities,andprivateinstitutions.TwoBERdivisions,theLifeSciencesDivisionandtheEnvironmentalSciencesDivision,couldsupportsomeresearchrelatedtofood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

TheBERLifeSciencesDivisionmanagesadiverseportfolioofresearchtodevelopfundamentalbiologicinformationandtoadvancetechnologyinsupportofDOEmissionsinbiology,medicine,andtheenvironment.Specificresearchareasincludehumangenomics;ethical,legal,andsocialimplicationsofgenomeresearch;structural-biology;model-organisms;microbialgenome;andlow-doseradiation.

TheBEREnvironmentalSciencesDivisionfundsbasicresearchinenvironmentalprocesses,globalchange,andothersubjects.Global-changeresearchactivitiesrelatedtothenation'sfoodandfibersystemincludestudiestoquantifysourcesandsinksofenergy-relatedgreenhousegases(especiallycarbondioxide)andstudiestoimprovethescientificbasisforassessingthepotentialconsequencesofclimaticchanges.Thelatterincludethepotentialecologic,social,andeconomicimplicationsofhuman-inducedclimaticchangescausedbyincreasesingreenhousegasesintheatmosphereandthebenefitsand

costsofalternativeresponseoptions.

InteragencyPrograms

TheNRIdoesnotusuallysharefundingofindividualprojectswithotheragenciesbutdoesattempttocooperateinprogramsthatfurtherthecauseoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.Jointprogramsthatbringtogetherseveralagenciestofocusoncommongoalsuseavailablefundseffectively.Suchprogramsalsoprovidevisibilitytoneglectedresearchareas,attractscientistsintonewareas,andfocusattentionontopicsofbroadinterest.AprimeexampleofinteragencycooperationistheArabidopsisthalianaGenomeSequencingProject,offeredtoresearchersasacompetitionseveraltimessinceitsdevelopmentfromthe1990''JointNSF,NIH,USDA,andDOEAgreementonCooperationinSupportofArabidopsisthalianaGenomicAnalysis".

Anexampleofcross-agencycooperationistheJointProgramonCollaborativeResearchinPlantBiology(offeredviaaDOE-NSF-USDApartnership),whosegoalsareto"fosterthedevelopmentofcreativescientiststrainedininterdisciplinaryresearch,tostimulateinterestinresearchtopicsthat

needmoreattention,andtoutilizetheavailablefundsforplantscienceresearchinthemosteffectivemanner".

MorerecentcooperativeprogramsaretheTerrestrialEcologyandGlobalChangeProgram(involvingNSF,DOE,theNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration,USDA,andtheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration)andtheOpportunitiesinMetabolicEngineeringProgram(involvingUSDA,theDepartmentofCommerce,theDepartmentofDefense,DOE,andNSF).Ineachofthoseprograms,proposalsarerecommendedforfundingbyasingleinteragencypeer-reviewpanel;individualagenciesthensponsortheproposalsmostrelevanttotheirmission.

AlthoughtheNRIactivelyparticipatesincross-agencyfunding,itclearlyfollowsratherthanleads.Nocross-agencyprogramtodatehasbeeninitiatedbytheNRI.ThecommitteebelievesthattheNRIsuffersfrombeingsmallerthanotheragencies;thislimitstheamountofresourcesthatitcancontributetocross-agencyinitiatives.AsidefrommemorandumsofunderstandingandinteragencycoordinationprovidedbytheNationalScienceandTechnologyCouncil(NSTC),theNRIdoesnothaveaprocessforestablishingformalrelationshipswithotherfederalagenciesorforconsultingandusingstakeholdergroups.TheNRIreceivesadviceonareastofundfromdiversesources,suchastheNSTCandUSDAgroups,aswellasfromitsownboardofdirectors.However,noprogramisinplacetoconsultandusenaturalaffinitygroups,suchastheFarmBureau,Grange,farm-commoditygroups,agribusinessleaders,environmentalinterests,andtherural-developmentcommunity.

ComplementarityofNRIwithOtherFederalPrograms

ThedescriptionsofresearchareasfundedbyotherfederalagenciesillustrateanumberofimportantpointsaboutthecomplementarityofNRIresearch.Thereappearstobesomeoverlapinthetypesof

researchthatcouldreceivefundingthroughotherfederalresearchprogramsandwhichcouldbefundedthroughtheNRI.TwospecificcasesofoverlaparetheNSFPlantGenomeResearchDivisionandNIEHSresearchonagriculturalpollution.Clearly,itisimportantforsuchoverlappingprogramstobecoordinatedwithNRIresearch.

Asidefromthespecificcasesdiscussedabove,NRIresearchdoesnotappeartoduplicateresearchconductedinotherfederalorstateagenciessubstantially.Mostoftheotherfederalresearchprogramsdescribedabovecouldpotentiallysupportresearchonfoodandfiberissuesbutthebreadthofthoseprogramssuggeststhatresearchonfoodandfiberissuesisaverysmallcomponentofanyofthem.Forexample,thebroadmissionofNSF'sDivisionofEnvironmentalBiology(tosupportfundamentalresearchontheorigins,functions,relationships,interactions,andevolutionaryhistoryofpopulations,species,communities,andecosystems)couldincludesomeresearchonspeciesthatareimportantinthefoodandfibersystembutitwouldalmostcertainlysupportfarmoreresearchonspeciesoutsidethefoodandfibersystem.Similarly,DOE'sresearchonglobalchangemightincludesomeresearchonthe

impactofglobalchangeonthefoodandfibersystem,butothertypesofimpactswouldprobablydominateDOE'sresearchinthisarea.

Itisunlikelythatanyoftheotherfederalprogramswouldsupportenoughresearchonimportantfoodandfiberissuestoconstituteacoherentprogramofresearchonsuchissues.

IndustryandtheNRI

Wherethescienceisripeforproductdevelopmentandmarketability,public-privatepartnershipswillthrive.Forexample,thereisgoodindustryparticipationingenomicsadvisorygroups.IndustryscientistsalsoparticipateinNRIpanels,bringingtheirperspectivetothecompetitivegrantsprocess.However,industry'slackofunderstandingofandparticipationintheoverallNRIprogramwasstronglyexpressedintheindustrysurveyconductedbythecommittee(seeappendixC).Reasonsincludedthelowleveloffunding,longresponsetime,andconcernsaboutthehandlingofproprietaryinformation.IndustryshowedinterestonlyintheabilitytouseNRIgrantstoenhancepostgraduatetraining,particularlyinthelargerindustries.Thecommitteefindsthatindustry-NRIinteractioniswellbelowwhatmightbefruitfullypursued.

SummaryFindings

ScientificObjectives

·TheNRIprogramiscreditedformakingimportantcontributionstofundamentalandappliedresearch.

·Thedistinctionbetweenbasicandappliedresearchoftenisunclearinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessector.Suchresearchmightbethoughtofasacontinuumwithshort-,medium-,andlong-termobjectivesidentifiedinanyresearcharea.

·AmajoremphasisoftheNRIshouldcontinuetobethesupportoflong-term,high-riskresearchwithpotentiallong-termpayoffs.Muchofthisresearchwouldbeclassifiedas"fundamental"researchinthetraditionaluseofthisterm.

·TheNRIappearstohavedeliveredonitscongressionalmandatethatatleast30%ofitsfundsbedevotedtomultidisciplinaryresearch.

TrainingandEducation

·TrainingandeducationofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralresearchersattributabletotheNRIprogramaresubstantial.Evenwiththesmallamountsandshortdurationofgrants,trainingmaybethemajoruseofNRIfundsamonguniversityresearchers.

·StrengtheninggrantsprovidedbytheNRIprogramhavehadamajorimpactonthecareersandproductivityoffacultywhootherwisewouldnotreceivefederalgrantsupport.

·TheNRIstaffhasbeensuccessfulinorganizingseveralvehiclestopromotepublicunderstandingofresearchinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesarea,particularlyinviewoftheorganization'slimitedresources.

Complementarity

·NRIcomplementsotherUSDAactivities,butmoreemphasismightbeplacedoncoordinatingARSandNRIagendas.

·NRIdoesnotduplicateotherfederalresearchefforts.

·AlthoughtheNRIactivelyparticipatesincross-agencyfundingopportunitiestoensurecomplementarityofresearchefforts,itfollowsratherthanleadsintheseefforts.TheNRIsuffersfrombeingsmallerthanotheragencies;thislimitstheamountofresourcesitcancontributetointeragencyinitiatives.

·Noprocessexistsforestablishingformalrelationshipswithotherfederalagenciesorforconsultingandusingstakeholdergroups.

·Industry-NRIinteractioniswellbelowwhatmightbefruitfullypursued.

5PrioritiesandPriority-SettingattheNRIAnumberofstudieshaveproposedmore-rigorousproceduresforsettingfederalresearchpriorities(OTA,1991;NRC,1995;McGearyandSmith,1996).Priority-settingchallengesallfederalresearchorganizationsbecause,atsomelevel,itforcesarankingofresearchinvestments,andthiscangalvanizecriticismfromresearcherswhoseprojectsarenotamongthosemosthighlyranked(OTA,1991).Evenso,inalltimes,especiallyintimesofdecreasingorflatresearchbudgets,priority-settingisanessentialtoolforfederaldecision-makers,whomustmakechoicesamonghighlyrankedprojectsandprograms.

Effectivepriority-settingalsocanbeusedbyaresearchorganizationasawayto"market"itsresearchprogramstothosewhomakefunding-allocationdecisions.Asystematicandrigorousprocessthatidentifiesmajorgapsinknowledge,estimateshowresearchcouldclosethesegaps,andanticipatesthelong-termbenefitsofapplyingthenewknowledgecanbeeffectiveinconvincingdecision-makerstoincreaseinvestmentsinsomefieldsofresearch(McGearyandSmith,1996).Arigorouspriority-settingprocessalsocanbeusedtoestablishmetricsusefulinthecontextofthe1993GovernmentPerformanceResultsAct(GPRA)(Kostoff,1997).

Thischapterpresentsthecommittee'sanalysisofpriority-settingattheNRIandsuggestionsforimprovingit.Throughoutthechapter,thecommitteeattemptstodistinguishbetweentheNRIpriority-settingprocess(theproceduresusedtoarriveatresearchpriorities)anditsresearchprioritiesthemselves.The

chapterbeginswithbriefdescriptionsoftheUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)andNRIpriority-settingprocessesandfollowswiththecommittee'sanalysisoftheNRIprocess.ThecommitteethenanalyzestheNRI'sresearchprioritiesandoffersitsownsuggestionsforresearchofemergingimportance.

Process

OverviewofUSDAPriority-SettingProcess

Comprehensiveplanningandpriority-settinghavecharacterizedtheUSDAExperimentStationSystemsincetheearly1980s,withtheJointCouncilonAgriculturalResearch,Education,andExtensionservingasamechanismforcoordinationofparticipatingfederalandstatepartners.Theplanningandpriority-settingprocesswasmodifiedduringanagencywiderestructuringofUSDAin1995,whichcreatedanewUSDANationalAdvisoryCommittee.TheAdvisoryCommittee'sroleincludestheresponsibilitytooverseeandfacilitatepriority-settinginresearchandeducation.Theinvolvementofstakeholders(includingresearchusers)thathadcharacterizedthepriority-settingprocessesbefore1995wasformalizedandenhancedbytherestructuringlegislation.

InresponsetoUSDArestructuringandGPRA,theResearch,Education,andEconomics(REE)MissionAreaofUSDAestablishedfivegoalstowardwhichtheplanningofresearchandeducationprogramswillbedirectedandagainstwhichprogramperformancewillbemeasured.Thegoalsareintendedtobringtogethertheinterestsofstakeholdersinsettingprioritiesbystrivingfor

·Anagriculturalproductionsystemthatishighlycompetitiveintheglobaleconomy.

·Asafeandsecurefoodandfibersystem.

·Ahealthy,well-nourishedpopulation.

·Greaterharmonybetweenagricultureandtheenvironment.

·EnhancedeconomicopportunityandqualityoflifeforAmericans.

Thosebroadgoalswereestablishedwithinthecontextoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchandeducation.ThelandgrantuniversitycollegesofagricultureandotherresearchinstitutionsandagenciesarelinkedtothegoalsthroughvariousfundingmechanismsadministeredbytheCooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionService,oneofthefouragenciesthatmakeuptheUSDAREEMissionArea.

NRIPriority-SettingProcess

Priority-settingattheNRIisbroadlyshapedbythelegislativeauthoritythatestablishedtheprogram.TheoriginallegislationestablishedsixbroadNRI

divisions.1Withinthedivisions,NRIscientificstaff(primarilythedivisiondirectors)playanimportantroleinsettingprioritiesamongresearchneeds.NRIstaffrelyonavarietyofmechanismsforreceivingexternalinputtohelpshapepriorities.Forexample,someattendscientificandprofessionalmeetingstogainunderstandingofcurrentscientifictrendsandemergingresearchissues.Someuseperiodicinputfromscienceforums,userworkshops,andcommunicationwithotherfederalagencies.Additionalinputcanbesoughtfromvariousresearchconsortia,policygroups,andtradeorganizationsandfromthepolicycommitteesoftheExperimentStationSystem.

TheNRIscientificstaff,theNRIchiefscientist,andagencyadministratorsareresponsibleforassimilatinginputfrommanydiversegroupsintoanannualprogramdescriptiondesignedtosolicitthebestpossibleresearchproposals.InconsultationwiththeNRIchiefscientist,divisiondirectors,anddeputyadministrator,NRIscientificstaffrecommendchangesormodificationsinexistingprogramsannually.Recommendationsfortheconsolidationofprogramsorthecreationofnewresearchareaswithinthesixdivisionsmaybepreparedbythechiefscientist,divisiondirectors,programdirectors,orthedeputyadministrator.FinalconsensusrecommendationsemergefromaprocesschairedbythechiefscientistandarepresentedtotheNRIBoardofDirectorsforapproval.

Researchersalsoplayanimportantroleinthepriority-settingprocessthroughtheissuesaddressedintheproposalstheychoosetosubmit.Similarly,thepeer-reviewpanelscontributetopriority-settingthroughtheirfundingrecommendationsforproposalsjudgedmostworthywithrespecttorelevanceandscientificmerit.Inthismanner,theprocessesofplanning,priority-setting,andaccountabilityareinherentlylinked.NRIfundingalsohelpstobuildfutureresearchcapacitiesinhigh-priorityareasthroughthesupportofnewscientists,

graduatestudents,andpostdoctoralappointments.

AnalysisofNRIPriority-SettingProcess

TheNRIstaffandleadershiphavemadesubstantialeffortsandinvestedmuchintellectualcapitaltoorienttheannualprogramdescriptionsandrequestsforproposalstomajor,emergingissuesthatcouldnotnecessarilybeclearlyforseenwhentheauthorizingstatutewasestablished.Atthesametime,however,partsofthepriority-settingprocessusedbytheNRIstaffseemunstructured,appeartobeunevenlyadministeredacrossNRIdivisions,andarenotexplicitlylinkedtothegoalsandotherstrategicplanningelementsoftheREEMissionArea.Forexample,althoughsomeNRIdivisionsholduserworkshopsregularlytosolicitinputonresearchpriorities,otherdivisionshavenodiscernableorregularmechanismofexternalinput.Thecommitteefoundthatinsomecases,changesinprogramareasandprioritiesappeartohave

1Twoothermajorresearchareas,AgriculturalSystems(establishedinFY1994)andPestBiologyandManagement(establishedinFY1995),aremanagedoutsidethesixoriginaldivisions,andareessentiallyatthedivisionlevel.

occurredprimarilyinresponsetotheurgingofvocalstakeholdersratherthanastheresultofadeliberativepriority-settingprocess.ThecommitteealsofoundthatmechanismsarenotwellestablishedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofNRI-fundedresearchastimepassesandprogressoccursortodelineatehowkeyresearchoutcomescorrelatewithguidingresearchgoals.TheprioritiesoftheNRIdonotappeartobelinkedcloselywiththeprioritiesoftheAgriculturalResearchService(ARS)andEconomicResearchService(ERS),perhapsbecausethepotentialcross-functionalnatureofpresentresearchprogramsisnotfullyappreciatedineithertheARSortheNRIadministration.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheseissuesneedtobeaddressedthroughrevisionsoftheNRIpriority-settingprocess.Theprocessofsettingprioritiesshouldbeacontinuingactivitythatpromotesaviewofthefutureinordertoanticipateemergingresearchissuesandtoensureadequateandcontinuingresourcesratherthanaone-timeeffort.Asuccessfulpriority-settingprocessshouldrecognizetheeffectsofresearchaccomplishmentsandpushthetransferoftheresultsintopractice.

Aclearprocessforsettingpriorities,combinedwithtransparentcommunicationoftheresultingpriorities,coulddemonstratethatUSDAisexercisingleadershipinthehusbandingofscarceresourcestosolvemajorfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesproblemsinaneraoftightfederalbudgetsandpublicaccountability.Theagencywillthenalsoserveitsstakeholdersbyensuringthatresearchprogramsareinplacetoaddressmajorissuesbeforetheybecomecrises.

NRIResearchPriorities

BecausetheNRIdoesnothaveaformalstrategicplan,thecommitteehasascertainedtheNRIresearchprioritiesonthebasisofitsanalysis

ofthefundinghistoryofthesixmaindivisionsandthenumbersandtypesofresearchprogramsthathavebeensupportedsincetheNRIwasinitiatedin1991.

FundingHistoryoftheNRI'sSixDivisions

CongressestablishedthefollowingsixdivisionswhenitauthorizedtheNRIintheFood,Agriculture,ConservationandTradeActof1990:

·NaturalResourcesandtheEnvironment.

·Nutrition,FoodQuality,andHealth.

·AnimalSystems.

·PlantSystems.

·Engineering,NewProducts,andProcesses.

·Markets,Trade,andPolicy.

Competitivegrantsareawardedinthosesixmajorresearchareastosupportbasicandappliedresearchthatfocusesonbothnationalandregionalresearchneeds(andmethodstotransfersuchresearchtoon-farmorin-marketpractice).

Alistofhigh-priorityresearchareasmandatedbyCongressin1990isprovidedintable5-1(seealsoappendixA).Table5-2liststhemajorstakeholdersforeachofthesixdivisions.Fundinghistoriesforthedivisionsandsomeoftheadditionaltargetedprogramsfrom1991to1997areprovidedinfigure5-1andsummarizedbrieflybelow.

ThefundinghistoryoftheNRIanditssixcongressionally-mandateddivisionsiscomplicated.Awardshavebeenmadeinasmanyas26programswithinadivision,inmultipledivisions,ormostlyoutsidethedivisions.Thenamesofdivisionshavebeenalteredovertimetoreflectthechangesintheirprogramareas.Awardsarealsomadetospecialinitiativesand"earmarks"forexample,BinationalAgriculturalResearchandDevelopment(BARD)thatliewhollyoutsidethesixdivisionsbutarefundedbytheNRI.TheNRI'slackofastandardizedgrant-trackingandbudgetingsystem,however,makesaccuratereconstructionofthefundinghistoryofthedivisionsnearlyimpossible.LackofsuchasystemisashortcomingintheNRIinfrastructure.AppendixIoutlinesthedetailsofastandardizedtrackingsystemthatwouldbebeneficialbothfortrackingofoutcomesandformakingtheNRI'sprogramsmoretransparenttostakeholders.TheretrospectiveanalysisprovidedherereliesheavilyonbudgetinformationgiveninthepubliclyavailableNRIannualreports.Thereconstructionofthefundinghistoryisanapproximationoftheactualdollarsawardedthroughtheprogramsince1991.

TheNRIPlantsDivisionwascreatedfromthePlantScienceProgramandtheBiotechnologyProgram,bothofwhichexistedintheUSDACompetitiveGrantsResearchOffice(CRGO)before1987.ThePlantsDivisionmaintainedthelargestandmostconstantfundinglevelbetween1991and1997,rangingfrom$33.2millionto$37.8millionfrom1991to1994.Ithassupportedasmanyas11programareassimultaneouslyandnowsupportsnineprogramareas.Theapparentdeclineinfundingto$21millionin1995wasduetotheexcisionof

PestBiologyandManagementfromthePlantsDivision(figure5-1)andintoaseparatefree-standingmajorresearcharea(seebelow).ThePlantsDivisionalsoexperiencednearlycontinuousfundingofindividualprogramsduringthe7-yearperiodthisisgenerallynotthecaseforotherdivisions.TheactualprogramfociandtheirnamesinthePlantsDivisionhaveprobablychangedlessthanthoseinanyotherNRIdivision.

ProgramsintheAnimalsDivisionwerebasedonpre-existingprogramsinanimal-scienceresearchundertheauspicesofCRGO.ThoseprogramsunderwentamajorreorganizationwiththeadventoftheNRIin1991.FundinginthisdivisionissecondonlytothatinthePlantsDivisionandhasbeenlessconsistent,rangingfrom$15.5millionin1995to$23.5millionin1993.From1993to1995,theAnimalsDivisionhassupporteduptofiveprogramareas.MostoftheprogramareashavemaintainedconstantfundingsupportthroughoutthehistoryoftheNRI.

TheNutrition,FoodSafety,andHealthDivisionhadalonghistorywithinCRGObefore1991.Supportforhuman-nutritionresearchhadexistedinCRGOsince1978.TheHumanNutrientRequirementsProgramwasmoveddirectlyfromCRGOintotheNRI,andCongressdesignatedfundingforfood-safetyresearchinanewFoodSafetyProgram.Thisdivisionhasexperienced

TABLE5-1SummaryofCongressionally-MandatedHigh-PriorityResearchAreas(1990)Division(ResearchArea)

ResearchPrograms

'PlantSystems PlantgenomestructureandfunctionMolecularandcellularbiologyPlantbiotechnologyPlant-pestBiocontrolCropplantstressImprovednutrientqualitiesNewfoodandindustrialuses

AnimalSystems AquacultureAnimalreproduction,growth,disease,healthmolecularBasisNutritionAnimalproductionandhusbandryAnimalwell-being

NaturalResourcesandthe

Ecosystems

Environment SustainableproductionMinimizingsoillossEffectsofglobalclimatechangeonagricultureForestryBiodiversity

Markets,Trade,andPolicy

Internationalmarketshare

Decision-supportsystemsChoicesandapplicationsoftechnologyTechnologyassessmentRuraleconomicdevelopment

Nutrition,FoodQuality,and

Microbialcontaminants

Health PesticideresidueslinkedtohumanhealthDietandhealth

BioavailabilityofnutrientsPostharvestphysiologyImprovedprocessing

Engineering,NewProducts,

Newusesofandnewproductsfromcrops,animals,

andProcesses byproducts,andnaturalresourcesRoboticsEnergyefficiencyComputingExpertsystemsNewhazardsandriskassessmentWaterqualityandmanagement

TABLE5-2NRIResearchDivisionsandStakeholders'NeedsDivision StakeholdersforResearchProductPlantSystems Farmers,agriculturalbiotechnology

companies,seedcompanies,ornamental-andforest-productcompanies,consumers

AnimalSystems Livestockproducers,dairyfarmers,meatpackers,consumers

Consumers,farmers,food-andwood-processingplants,

Environment forestmanagers,environmentalpolicy-makers,wildlifemanagers

Markets,Trade,andRural

Farmers,commoditycompanies,statedepartmentsof

Development agricultureNutrition,FoodQuality,and

Domesticandinternationalconsumers,food-processing

Health companies.EngineeringProductsand

Consumers,specialty-chemicalcompanies,food-

Processes processingcompanies

Figure5-1CongressionalappropriationsforNRIdivisionsandspecialinitiatives,1991-1997

NRE=NaturalResourcesandEnvironment;NFSH=Nutrition,FoodSafetyandHealth;MTRD=Markets,TradeandRuralDevelopment;EVAFP=EnhancingValueandUseofAgriculturalandFoodProducts;

Ag.Sys.=AgriculturalSystems;PBM=Pests,BiologyandIntegratedPestManagement.Source:USDA,NRIOffice,1999

considerablylessfundingsupportintheNRIthanmostoftheothers,rangingfrom$3.7millionin1991to$6.8millionin1994(figure5-1).Onlytwoprograms(HumanNutritionandFoodSafety)havemaintainedcontinuousfunding.

OfallthedivisionsintheNRI,theNaturalResourcesandtheEnvironment(NRE)Divisionprobablyhasthemostcomplicatedhistory.Fundinginthedivisionhasrangedfrom$12millionin1997to$20.6millionin1994.Thedivisionhassponsoredfourprograms,exceptforareductiontothreein1998.The1998programsincludeWaterResourcesandProtection(WRAP),SoilsandSoilBiology(SSB),andPlantResponsestotheEnvironment.Thelatterbeganin1985aspartofthenow-defunctBiotechnologyProgram.ItistheonlyconsistentlyofferedprogramintheNREDivision.ProgramsofWRAP,SSB,andEcosystemsareonarotatingbasisforfundinginthisdivision.

TheEnhancingValueandUseofAgriculturalandForestProductsDivisionhashadrelativelystablefundingrangingfrom$3.8millionin1992to$8.3millionin1995.Itnowsupportsthreeprograms.

TheMarkets,Trade,andRuralDevelopmentDivisionwasfirstfundedin1992andhasmaintainedcontinuousfundingsincethenforitstwoprograms:theMarketsandTradeprogramandtheRuralDevelopmentprogram.Ithasthelowestfundingofthesixdivisions.Fundinghasrangedfrom$3.2millionto$3.8million.

TwootherresearchareasintheNRIareoutsidethesixdivisionsandareessentiallyatthedivisionlevelthemselves.PestBiologyandManagementwassplitoutfromthePlantsDivisionin1995andisnowfundedunderaseparatebudget.AgriculturalSystemswasformedasafree-standingresearchareain1994tohelpfosterinterdisciplinaryfoodandfiberresearchinvolvingthenatural,physical,andsocialsciences.AllNRIdivisionsnowhelptofund

AgriculturalSystems.

SuchinteragencyprogramsasCollaborativeResearchinBiology($135,331in1997),TerrestrialEcologyandGlobalChange($887,666),andtheArabidopsisthalianaGenomeSequencingProject($6.5million)requirefundsfromtheNRI.Strengtheningawards(1997awards)whichincludecareerenhancementawards($0.3million),equipmentgrants($1million),seedgrants($2million)andstandardstrengtheningawards($6.7million),inadditiontopostdoctoralfellowships($2.4million)andnewinvestigatorawards($4.1million)alsodrawfundsfromtheNRI.

Figure5-1showsthatfundinghasalwaysbeenunevenlyallocatedamongNRIdivisions.Thefigurealsoshowsthatnosubstantialchangesintheproportionoffundingallocatedtoeachdivisionhaveoccurred,althoughthenatureoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchhaschangedsince1991.Fundingallocationsdonotappeartohavedistinguishedbetweentraditionalandemergingfieldsinfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

HistoryofNRIResearchPrograms

ThecurrentportfolioofNRIresearchprogramsbydivisionisgiveninfigure5-2.Animportantobservationabouttheresearchprogramsinfigure5-2isthatmostareorganizedaroundsubdisciplinesor''categories"ratherthanspecificissuesorproblemsthatneedtobesolved.Thedevelopmentofthecurrent26programsinthesixmaindivisionscanbeunderstoodinthecontextofthehistoricalevolutionoftheNRIresearchagenda.TheGanttchartinfigure5-2summarizestheinitiationandconsolidationofspecificprogramsthroughouttheNRI'shistory.Thechartillustratesseveralimportantpoints.First,severalchangesinprogramdirection(suchasprograminitiationfollowedbyprogramcessation)haveoccurredover4-to6-yeartimeframesthatareshorterthanwouldberequiredforthesupportedresearchtohaveanimpact(atleast8or10years).Thatsuggestsalackoflong-termstrategicplanninginsomecases.Second,somedivisions(suchasthePlantsandAnimalsDivisions)havebeenrelativelystableprogrammaticallysincetheirinception,whereasotherdivisions(suchasNaturalResourcesandtheEnvironment)showalargenumberofprogramstartsandstops.Ingeneral,programswithhigherandmorestablefundinghavedemonstratedconsistencyandstabilityintheiroperations.

Analysis

ThesixmainNRIdivisionsreflectpotentiallylarge,identifiablegroupsofstakeholders(table5-2)andarethusalogical,first-orderorganizingschemefortheNRI.However,thecommitteebelievesthatsubdivisionintotheexistingNRIprogramssolelybyresearch"category"intheabsenceofanoverallstrategicplanispartlyresponsibleforalackof"criticalmass"amongtheNRI'snaturalstakeholders,particularlyinasmuchastherecommendedincreasesinresearchfundingto$550milliondidnotmaterialize.Manyofthe

programslistedinfigure5-2donothavestrongnaturalconstituenciesamongstakeholdersofthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.

ThemismatchbetweenNRIprogramsandtargetstakeholderscanbeillustratedthroughananalysisofsomeoftheentriesinfigure5-2.Forexample,theprogramslistedforthePlantSystemsDivisiondonotexplicitlytargetresearchontheuseofgeneticallymodifiedorganismsthatwouldallowadecreaseintheuseofchemicalsincropproductionanissuethatwouldbeofgreatinteresttobothfarmersandconsumers.TheprogramsintheNutrition,FoodQuality,andHealthDivision,donotexplicitlytargetresearchontechnologiestoproducecropsthatcouldpotentiallyhelptopreventparticulardiseases;suchresearchwouldbeofgreatinteresttoconsumers,food-processingcompanies,andfarmers.IntheNaturalResourcesandtheEnvironmentDivision,theprogramsdonotexplicitlytargetresearchontheeffectsofanimal-productionsystemsonwaterqualityanimportantissueforfarmersandconsumers,especiallyinruralareas.Itshouldbenotedthatthelackofexplicittargetingofsuchissue-basedresearchproblemsdoesnotprecludeNRIsupport

Figure5-2NRIPrograms,1987-1998(GanttChart)2

2*Currentprogram**IncludesPlantsandAnimalsDivisions.

ofproposalsonsuchtopics.Rather,itsimplyreducesthelikelihoodthatasubstantialgroupofresearchproposalswouldbesubmittedonsuchissues.

Thelistofresearchissuesinfigure5-2appearstohavebeentheresultofgroupingresearchproposalsintocategoriesrepresentingsubdisciplinesratherthantheresultofadeliberative,priority-settingprocess.Thecommitteebelievesthatthelackofaclearperceptionofthelogicofannualrequestsforproposalsacrossthe26programsispartlyresponsiblefortheNRI'sinabilitytoattractincreasedresearchbudgetsforitsprograms.Thecommitteebelievesthatamorelogicalpriority-settingprocessthatrelatesNRIprogramstoUSDAgoalsandemergingissuesinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemmightbeeffectiveindemonstratingtheimportanceofNRI-supportedresearchandleadtoincreasedresearchbudgets.

TheNRIwouldbemuchmoreeffectiveifmoreofitsprogramswereorganizedonthebasisofhighpriorityresearchissuesorproblemsratherthanbytraditionalsubdisciplines.ThatisnottosaythattheNRIshouldfocusexclusivelyon"applied"researchinfact,thecommitteeseesfundamentalresearchasanimportantemphasisoftheNRI(seediscussionof"applied"versus"fundamental"researchinchapter4)butsimplythattheNRIshouldorganizemoreofitsprogramsaroundresearchissuesorproblemsratherthansubdisciplines.Suchissue-organizedresearchwouldbemoreeasilyunderstoodbystakeholders,couldbemoreeffectivelyrelatedtotherestofUSDAresearchandtotheresearchagendasofotherfederalagencies,andwouldencouragemultidisciplinaryresearch.

ReorganizationshouldnotleadtotheeliminationofalltheNRIprogramsnoworganizedaroundsubdisciplines,however.Thehuman-resourcebuildingandfundamentaldiscipline-basedresearchthattheprogramsbuildwithinsubdisciplinesisessentialandshouldbe

maintained.AsMcGearyandSmith(1996)pointout,ahealthyR&Dportfolioshouldbedrivenbyamixtureofdisciplinaryresearchagendas,multidisciplinaryproblems,agencymissions,andemerginghigh-prioritynationalproblems.

Ashiftinpriority-settingalongthelinessuggestedmightleadtoachangeinthetypesofresearchsupportedbytheNRI.Forexample,pastNRIfundinghasfocusedextensivelyonpreharvestresearch,where73.5%ofthe$87.8millionwasspentin1997.Theexpansionofprivateresearchfundingandtheincreasingfundamentalknowledgeinpreharvest(seed)technologybeingaccumulatedbyindustrysuggestthattheNRIre-examinetheallocationofitsresources.

Thestop-startnatureofsomeNRIfundingcommitmentsoveritsshorthistory(figure5-2)indicatesthattheNRIhasbeenunabletosustainfundingsupportforsomehigh-riskareaswithlong-termpayoffsthetypesofresearchforwhichtheNRIisideallysuited.Thecommitteebelievesthatthereareuniqueopportunitiesformovingintolong-term,fundamentalresearchinpostharvesttechnologies,aswellasinthehealthandsafetyofthefoodandfibersystem,thatwillhelptoaddvaluetogeneticallyengineeredfoodandfiberproducts.Thecommitteebrieflydiscussessomeoftheseareaswithpotentialforhighpayoffsinthenextsection.

ResearchOpportunities

The1989NationalResearchCouncilreportInvestinginResearch:AProposaltoStrengthentheAgricultural,Food,andEnvironmentalSystemincludedadetailedlistofareasforfundamentalresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.Thecommitteereviewedthelistandfoundittobeasrelevantnowasitwas10yearsago.Theyearshaveonlyaddedtothelistofconcerns.Aspartofitsownstudy,thecommitteedevelopedlistincludedinappendixHandsummarizedintable5-3.Althoughthislistisnotasexhaustiveanddoesnotprovideasmuchdetailastheoneinthe1989report,itisgenerallyconsistentwiththe1989conclusions.

Thecommittee'slistreflectstheimpactsofrapidlyincreasingconsumerinterestsinhealth,nutritionalvalue,andsafety;theadventofbioengineering;globalizationoftheeconomy;increasedawarenessofenvironmentaldegradation;andthesocialconsequencesoftheindustrializationoftheagriculturalsector.Incomparisonwithattitudesof10yearsago,consumersandresearchersalikein2000haveheightenedconcernaboutallsubjects.Thecommittee'slistisintendedtobeanillustrative,notcomprehensive,exampleofhowsomeNRIprogramscouldbeorganizedaroundresearchissuesratherthansubdisciplines.IftheNRIadoptedthisapproach,alogicalwaytodevelopthelistofprogrammaticissueswouldbetohaveanadvisorycommitteeforeachdivisioncreateasimilarlistofemergingresearchissues(suchadvisorycommitteesarediscussedinchapter7).

SummaryFindings

OnthebasisofanalysisofdatasubmittedinvariousformsbyNRIstaff,thecommitteepresentsthefollowingfindingsregardingtherelationshipbetweenpriorityprocessesandfundingallocationswithintheNRI.

Priority-SettingProcess

·Thepriority-settingprocessusedbyNRIstaffseemsunstructured,isunevenlyadministratedacrossNRIdivisions,andisnotexplicitlylinkedtothegoalsandotherstrategicplanningelementsoftheREEMissionArea.Forexample,althoughsomeNRIdivisionsholduserworkshopsregularlytosolicitinputonresearchpriorities,otherdivisionshavenodiscernableorregularmechanismofexternalinput.

·Changesinprogramareasandprioritiesappeartohaveoccurredprimarilyinresponsetotheurgingofvocalstakeholdersratherthanastheresultofadeliberativepriority-settingprocess.

·MechanismsarenotwellestablishedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofNRI-fundedresearchastimepassesandprogressoccursortodelineatehowkeyresearchoutcomescorrelatewithguidingresearchgoals.TheprioritiesoftheNRIdonotappeartobelinkedcloselywiththeprioritiesofARSandERS,

perhapsbecausethepotentialcross-functionalnatureofpresentresearchprogramsisnotfullyappreciatedineithertheARSortheNRIadministration.

TABLE5-3Committee'sListofEmergingResearchIssuesDivision ResearchIssuesaPlantSystems Geneandgenomeinteractionsandbioinformatics

TransgenicplantsforimprovedproductionMechanismsofpest-plantandplantinteractionswithbeneficialorganismsDevelopmentoftheknowledgebasetofacilitateanewgenerationofbiologicallybasedmaterialsEngineeringofplantbiosyntheticandmetabolicpathways

AnimalSystems GeneandgenomeinteractionsandbioinformaticsFunctionalfoodsandnutrientresearchTransgenicandclonedanimalsAnimalreproductionAnimalnutritionAnimal-rangelandinteractionsAnimalhealthAnimalgrowthanddevelopmentConsumableanimalproductsImmunologyConstructionofnovelmicroorganismsGene-basedpharmaceuticalsandgenetherapyEvolutionofbiologicsystems

Waterquality

Environment Animal-wastehandlingEnvironmentalimpactsImpactofbiotechnologicmodificationsofplantsandanimalsonthemicrobialecologyofreasulting

foodproductsBioprocessengineeringBiodiversityWeatherandclimateinteractionsinagriculturalsystemsGlobalchangeandagricultureNitrogen-useefficiencyWildlifeinagriculturalsystemsSpaceresearch

(tablecontinuedonnextpage)

(tablecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

Division ResearchIssuesaMarkets,Trade,andPolicy

DevelopmentofaknowledgebasetoprepareforbiologicterrorismGlobalizationoftheeconomyIdentificationoftheeconomicandsocialconsequencesofenvironmentalregulationImprovementoffarmincomeandrisk-managementtoolsExaminationoftheimpactsofthechangingfarmandagribusinessstructureEvaluationoftradepoliciesandbarriersDevelopmentofeffectiveeconomicandruralcommunitydevelopmentprogramsAssesshowchangesinconsumerdemandaffecthealth,nutritionandfoodsafetyAnalysisofeconomicandsocialimpactsofconsolidatingresearchandextensionprogramsExaminationofcurrentandemerginginformationtechnologiesandcommunicationsystemsImprovedunderstandingofeconomicandsocialimpactsofbiotechnologyInvestmentinhumancapitaldevelopment

Nutrition,FoodQuality,and

Researchonnutrient-druginteractions

Health Assessmentandcharacterizationoftheimpacton

consumersofphytochemicalsubstancesNewandresurgentpathogensinfoodsPasteurizationandsterilizationoffoodsIdentificationandmodificationofallergensinfoodsProbioticdevelopment

EnhancingValueandUseof

Developmentofanalyticmicrotechnology

Agricultural,Food,and ImpactsoforganicfarmingForestProducts Bioprocessengineeringofagriculturalproducts

MetabolicpathwayanalysisandstructureSeeappendixHformore-detaileddiscussionofeachissue.

ResearchPriorities

·FundinghasbeenunevenlyallocatedamongNRIdivisionsfromthebeginning.Nosubstantialchangesintheproportionoffundingallocatedtoeachdivisionhaveoccurred,eventhoughthenatureoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchhaschangedsince1991.Fundingallocationsdonotappeartohavedistinguishedbetweentraditionalandemergingareasinthefood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesresearch.

·ThesubdivisionoftheNRI'ssixmainresearchareasintoexistingNRIprogramareasbyresearchcategoryintheabsenceofanoverallstrategicplancouldbepartlyresponsibleforalackofcriticalmassamongtheNRI'snatural

stakeholders,inasmuchastherecommendedincreasesinresearchfundingto$500milliondidnotmaterialize.

·Ashiftinpriority-settingmightleadtoachangeinthetypesofresearchsupportedbytheNRI.

·Ingeneral,programswithhigherandmorestablefundinghavebeenmoreconsistentintheiroperations,whereasotherdivisionsshowalargenumberofprogramstartsandstopsduringtheNRI'shistory.

·Severalshort-termchangesinprogramdirection(over4-to6-yeartimeframes)haveoccurredinresearchareasthatwouldotherwiseneedatleast8or10yearstohaveanimpact.Thatsuggestsalackoflong-termstrategicplanninginsomecases.

·Thelackofaclearperceptionofthelogicofannualrequestsforproposalsacrossthe26programsispartlyresponsiblefortheNRI'sinabilitytoattractincreasedresearchbudgetsfortheseprograms.Thecommitteebelievesthatamorelogicalpriority-settingprocessthatrelatesNRIprogramstoUSDAgoalsandemergingissuesinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemmightbeeffectiveindemonstratingtheimportanceofNRI-supportedresearchandleadtoincreasedresearchbudgets.

Overall,theprocessofNRIpriority-settingappearstobereactive,notactive.Changehascomeaboutbecausevocalgroupsadvocatedareasofscientificopportunity(NRIleadershipandprincipal-investigatorconstituency)ratherthanbecauseofclearmissionfocusandresearchstrategy.Systemstorelatetoallconstituenciesregularlytoshareinputandreviewmissionhavebeenadhoc.Thecommitteebelievesthatthereisampleroominthesixcongressionallymandateddivisionstoredefineaconsistentfocusforfundingandtoadjustthatfocusasthelong-termprioritiesofthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemschange.

Asamajor,peer-review-basedresearch-fundingmechanism,theNRIshouldhaveitsprogramsmorecloselylinkedtotheoverallgoals,planning,andevaluationproceduresofthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.ThelinkageshouldreflecttheNRI'smissionrelativetootherfundingmechanismsandprograms(see"Complementarity"inchapter4).IncludedintheNRI'sroleshouldbestrongemphasesonfundamentalandmultidisciplinaryresearchandmission-linkedandsingle-disciplineapproaches(see"ScientificObjectives"inchapter4).

6OrganizationalandFundingIssuesPreviouschaptershavesummarizedthecommittee'sassessmentofthequality,fairness,relevance,andresponsivenessoftheNRIcompetitivegrantsprogram;theprogram'spriority-settingprocessesandresearchpriorities;andtheprogram'soverallroleandscopewithinthenation'sresearchanddevelopmententerprise.IssuesdirectlyrelatedtotheNRI'sorganizationandfundinghavebeenraisedrepeatedlyduringthecommittee'sanalysisofthesesubjects.Forexample,manyrespondentstothecommittee'ssurveyindicatedthattheimpactoftheprogram,althoughimportant,hasbeenlimitedbyaninadequatebudgetandbyawardsthataretooshort,toofew,andtoosmall(seechapter3).Similarly,thecommitteefound(chapter4)thattheNRIistoosmalltotakeanactiveroleininteragencyresearchinitiatives.Thecommitteefound(chapter5)thattheNRI'sformalpriority-settingprocessneedsimprovementandthatorganizationalchangeswerewarranted.Andthecommitteefound(chapters4and5)thatmechanismsarenotwellestablishedtocoordinateNRIresearchgoalswiththoseofcomplementaryresearchorganizationsintheUSDepartmentofAgricultureandinotherfederalagencies.

ThosefindingssuggestthatorganizationalandfundingissuesplayanimportantroleinthenatureandcontentofchangesthatwillberequiredtomaketheNRIamoreeffectivepartofthenation'sresearcheffortsinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesarea.Inthefirsthalfofthischapter,thecommitteebrieflyconsidersseveralorganizationalissues,suchasthelocationoftheNRIinUSDAandissuesrelatedtoitsday-to-daygovernance.Inthesecondhalf,the

committeediscussesimportantissuesrelatedtoNRIfunding,includingthetotalbudgetfortheprogram,theaveragesizeandlengthofgrants,andthelimitonoverheadrates.

OrganizationalIssues

LocationinUSDA

USDA'sResearch,Education,andEconomicsmissionareacomprisesfouragenciestheAgriculturalResearchService(ARS),theEconomicsResearchService(ERS),theNationalAgriculturalStatisticsService,andtheCooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionService(CSREES)(figure6-1).CSREEScomprisesnineunits,includingtheCompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagementDivision(CRGAM).OtherCSREESunitsareresponsibleforallocatingformulafundsandspecialgrantstolandgrantinstitutions,agriculturalexperimentstations,andcooperativeextensionservices.TheNRIisoneoffouroperatingunitsinCRGAM(figure6-2).TheNRIthereforeistwoorganizationallevelsbelowUSDA'smainintramuralresearchorganizationsARSandERS.

ApreviousNationalResearchCouncilreport(NRC,1989)presentedfourcriteriatoevaluatethestrengthsandweaknessesofvariousoptionsforlocatinganexpandedcompetitivegrantsprograms(theNRI)withinUSDA.Inparticular,forsuchacompetitivegrantsprogramtobesuccessful,thelocationshould

·Ensuretheprogram'sopennesstohigh-qualityscienceandprovideitwithbroadappeal,visibility,andstatureinthescientificcommunity.

·Providetheprogramdirectorandchiefscientistswithdirectaccesstokeyhigh-levelpolicy-makersinUSDA.

·Developstrongrelationsbetweenthecompetitivegrantsprogramandtheresearchprogramsofotheragencies.

·Attractnationallyprominentscientistsandmanagerstopositionsofprogramleadershipandtoserviceonprogramadvisorycommitteesandpeer-reviewpanels.

Onthebasisoftheanalysespresentedinthepreviouschaptersandtheresultsofthecommittee'ssurvey(seeappendixC),thecommitteebelievesthatthelocationoftheNRIinUSDAhasseveralshortcomingswithrespecttothosecriteria.First,thelocationdoesnotprovidetheNRIwithbroadappeal,visibility,andstatureinthescientificcommunity.Second,thetwoorganizationallevelsbetweentheNRIandtheundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics(CSREESandCRGAM)canlimittheaccessofNRIleaderstosuchhigh-levelUSDApolicy-makers.Third,theNRI'slocation

Figure6-1OrganizationofResearchattheUSDepartmentofAgriculture

Figure6-2CompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagement

mightbepartlyresponsibleforthetendencyoftheNRItotakeasupportive,ratherthanleadership,roleininteractionswithotherfederalresearchagencies(seechapter4).Finally,thelocationoftheNRIasonecomponentofCRGAM,ratherthanonanorganizationallevelequivalenttoUSDA'stwomainresearchagencies,suggeststhatUSDAandCongressplaceahigherpriorityonformulafunds,specialgrants,andintramuralresearchthanonextramural,merit-basedpeer-reviewedresearch.ThecommitteebelievesstronglythatunlessextramuralcompetitiveresearchisgiventhesamestatureorganizationallyinUSDAthatformula-fundedresearchandintramuralresearchreceive,itmightremaindifficultfortheNRIprogramtoachieveitsmission.

NRIGovernance

ChiefScientist

ThescientificleadershipfortheNRIisprovidedbyachiefscientistwhofunctionsasthedirectoroftheNRI.Thechiefscientistholdsapart-time,apolitical,nonadvocacyposition.Candidatesaregenerallyrecruitedfromacademeandserve2-yearterms.Sincetheprogram'sinception,allchiefscientistshavebeenmembersoftheNationalAcademyofSciences.Thestatedresponsibilitiesofthechiefscientistareto

·Interactregularlyanddirectlywiththeundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics,theadministratorofCSREES,thedeputyadministratorofCRGAM,theBoardofDirectorsoftheNRI,andotheradministratorsandstaffscientistsofCSREES.

·EstablishpoliciesfortheNRIinconsultationwithNRIdivisionandprogramdirectorsandadministratorslistedabove.

·ServeastheprincipalcommunicatorfortheNRIwith

representativesoffederalandstateagencies,privateorganizations,andspecial-interest,academic,professional,andcommoditygroups.

·Interactwithdivisionandprogramdirectorsdaytoday.

·Overseethepeer-reviewprocessusedtoassessthemeritsofresearchproposalsreceivedforconsiderationbytheNRI.

·Providegeneralscientificleadershipresponsibilities,includingsupervisingthepreparationofprogramdescriptionsandrequestsforproposals;publicationsoftheNRI,suchasitsannualreport;andNRIHighlights.

·AllocateNRIappropriationstothepanelsaftermeritreviewiscompleted.

·ServeasamemberoftheNRIBoardofDirectors.

Inthecommittee'sview,thoseresponsibilitiesareequivalenttoafull-timeposition.Thisviewissharedbythefourformerchiefscientistswhowereinterviewedbythecommittee(seeappendixC).Itbecamecleartothecommitteethatthecurrentpart-time,revolvingchiefscientistcannotmeetthestrategic-planning,priority-settingandcommunicationneedsofaneffectiveNRI(seealsochapter5).Havingachiefscientistwhoservespart-timehampers

continuityinaccountabilityandleadershipandcounterssuccessfullong-rangeplanningandfollowupandconsistentstakeholderinvolvement.

BoardofDirectors

TheNRIBoardofDirectorsmeetsregularlyanddeterminespolicyfortheprogram.Theundersecretaryforresearch,educationandeconomicschairstheBoard,whichalsoincludestheadministratorsofCSREES,ARS,andERS;thedeputychiefforresearchoftheUSForestService;andtheNRIchiefscientist.TheNRIexecutiveofficeristhedeputyadministratorofCRGAM(figure6-2).TheNRIBoardofDirectorsprovidesadministrativeoversightoftheNRIprogramandcanbeusedtolinktheNRIwithUSDA'sotherresearchorganizations.

TheNRIBoardofDirectorsisnotresponsibleforprovidingguidanceonscientificortechnologicpriorities,providingaforumforstakeholderconcerns,ormeasuringresearchoutcomesandtheevaluationofNRIoperations.Thecommitteebelievesthatanexternaladvisoryboardofsometypeisnecessarytofulfilltheseresponsibilities(seediscussioninchapter7).

Organization

TheNRIhassixdivisions.Ideally,eachdivisionhasapermanentdirector,whooverseesalloperationsinvolvedintheapplication,review,andawardprocesses.In1998,threedivisiondirectorsweremanagingthesixdivisions(seefigure6-3).One,forexample,wasresponsibleforprogramareaswithinthePlantSystemsDivisionandtheMarkets,Trade,andRuralDevelopmentDivision,eventhoughthisdirectordidnothavesubstantivetraininginsocialscience(infact,thecommitteeobservedagenerallackofsocial-scienceexpertiseamongNRIstaffin1998).Programdirectorsprovidescientific

oversightofindividualresearchprogramsand,withrotatingpanelmanagersrecruitedfromtheresearchcommunity,areresponsibleforadministeringNRIreviewpanels.

ImplicitintheNRItableoforganizationisarangeofintellectualandadministrativetasksthatsustaintheintegrityofanycompetitivegrantsprocess.Theseincludeensuringcontinuityacrossprogramareas,regulatingworkloadinproposalhandling,anddeterminingawardamountsonthebasisofpanelrankingsofpriorities.Inrecentyears,theNRIstaffhasbeenstretchedtocoverthosetasks,increasingtheburdensofcommunicationandtimelinessonNRIstaffatalllevelsandontheall-importantscientistswhoserveasadhocreviewersandpanelmembers.

Figure6-3NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgramOrganization

FundingIssues

Fundinghasbeenarecurringthemethroughoutthecommittee'sstudy.Nearlyallsurveyrespondents,chiefscientists,andthosewhotestifiedbeforethecommitteeexpressedtheviewthatthetotalbudgetfortheprogramwasinadequateandthatawardsweretooshort,toofew,andtoosmall(appendixC).ThelowleveloffundinghaslimitedtheNRI'sabilitytotakealeadroleininteragencyinitiatives(seechapter4)andmighthavecontributedtotherecentdecisiontolocatethePlantGenomeResearchProjectintheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)ratherthanUSDA.Italsohasledtoasubstantialreductioninapplicationnumbersfrom1994to1998(seeappendixF).Inthefollowingsections,thecommitteebrieflydiscussesthreeimportantcomponentsoftheNRI'sfunding:thetotalbudgetfortheprogram,theaveragesizeandlengthofgrantsawardedbytheprogram,andthecongressionallymandatedlimitonoverheadrates.

TotalNRIFunding

WhentheNRIwasestablishedin1991,itsinitialfundinggoalsweredesignedtoensurethegrowthofadynamicresearchprogram.Theenablinglegislation,PublicLaw(PL)101-624,authorized$150millionfor1991,$275millionfor1992,$350millionfor1993,$400millionfor1994,and$500millionfor1995(PL101-624,101stCongress,FederalRegister).Theamountoffundingappropriated,however,hasneverapproachedthoseoptimisticgoals.NRIfundingfellshortintheveryfirstyear,whenfundingwasappropriatedatonly$73million.AlthoughnearlydoubletheamountfortheprecedingcompetitivegrantprogramsinUSDA($42.5millionin1990),the1991appropriationwasonlyabouthalftheauthorizedamount.Asaresult,theprogramfundedonlyfouroftherecommendedprogramdivisions(nowtitledPlants;Animals;Nutrition,FoodSafety,andHealth;andNaturalResourcesandEnvironment).Programsinthe

remainingtwodivisions(Markets,Trade,andRuralDevelopment;andEnhancingValueandUseofAgriculturalandForestProducts)andinstrengtheningawards(CareerEnhancement,Equipment,Seed,andStandardStrengthening)werenotinitiateduntil1992.

DespitetheintendedincreaseinNRIfundingfrom1991to1995,appropriationsremainedatornearthe$100millionlevelduringthatperiod(seetable6-2).Specialinitiativesor''earmarks",suchastheBARDProgramin1994and1995,cutintotheNRIbudgetandeffectivelydecreasedthetotalfundingavailabletothesixoriginalNRIdivisions.TheNRIbudgetremainedflatatapproximately$100millionuntilFY1999,whenthebudgetwasincreasedtonearly$120million(seetable6-2).

TheNRIhaslaboredundertheexpectationofa$500millionresearchportfolio,althoughfederalbudgetpressureshavemaintainedannualappropriationsfarbelowthisauthorizedlevel.NRIstafftestifiedthatsomeresearchershaveexpressedareluctancetosubmitproposalstotheNRIbecause

TABLE6-1NRIFundingLevels,1991-1998No. TotalAmount AverageGrant AverageGrant Average

Year Awards Awarded,$ Award,a$ Length,years Funding,$/year

1991 590 69,204,000 NAb NAb 52,5911992 777 92,138,350 126,998 NA NAb1993 790 91,814,480 124,846 2.1 59,4501994 833 96,631,441 137,256 2.35 58,4071995 783 93,796,282 127,773 2.13 59,9871996 739 87,801,344 125,620 2.14 58,7011997 712 87,315,733 133,379 2.6 51,3001998 699 88,106,761 136,065 2.2 61,848aExcludingresearchcareerenhancementawards,equipmentgrants,andseedgrants.bNotavailable.Source:NRIannualreportsfor1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,and1998.

ofacombinationoffactors:modestbudgetsizes,lowsuccessrate,smallawards,shortgrantduration,andthelow14%overheadcap(whichmanyinstitutionswillnotaccept).Therecentincreasetoa19%overheadrateisnotexpectedtochangethesituationsubstantially.

FailuretoobtaintheoriginallyproposedappropriationshasstuntedthedevelopmentoftheNRIandhaschallengeditseffectiveness,potentiallyreducingthedesirednumberofhigh-qualityresearchgrantswithsufficientsizeanddurationtoachieveresearchgoals.ThepracticalresulthasbeenthatalargepoolofUSscientistsmightnothavebeenfullyusedinresearchdirectedtoissuescriticaltothefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.ThecommitteeconcludesthatinadequatefundingoftheNRIhassignificantlylimiteditspotentialandplacedtheprogramatrisk.

SizeandLengthofGrants

Asshownintable6-1,thenumberofgrantsawardedinasingleyearhasrangedfrom590(in1991)to833(in1994).Between1993and1998,theaverageannualfundinglevelhasremainedrelativelyconstantatabout$60,000peryear.Overthesameperiod,theaveragegrantlengthremainedrelatively

TABLE6-2HistoryofFundingforFood,Fiber,andNatural-ResourcesResearchintheUSDA(inmillionsofdollars)

CREESYear Intramural FormulaFunds Competitive SpecialGrants

ARS FS ERSNALResearchExtensionGrants ResearchExtensionResearch1985491.4113.846.611.5 197.1 260.2 53.8 32.0 77.6 1.51986483.2113.644.110.8 189.0 260.2 48.8 30.2 78.9 1.61987511.4126.744.911.1 189.0 254.1 46.7 55.1 78.6 2.91988544.1132.548.312.2 201.8 260.8 45.4 51.8 80.2 4.11989569.4138.349.614.3 202.8 260.8 39.7 41.9 82.0 6.41990593.3150.951.014.7 202.8 265.1 42.5 73.1 86.4 8.21991631.0167.654.416.8 212.0 276.4 73.0 78.6 103.4 9.71992668.4180.558.717.8 220.3 288.5 97.5 87.1 110.0 10.61993668.0182.158.917.7 220.3 288.6 97.5 73.4 118.0 10.51994691.6192.555.318.3 225.9 298.1 112.2 72.9 117.4 12.11995752.0194.053.018.0 226.0 301.0 101.0 75.0 112.0 10.01996704.0178.053.019.0 217.0 296.0 94.0 75.0 107.0 11.01997697.0180.053.020.0 250.0 327.0 94.0 80.0 71.0 57.01998722.0188.071.620.0 221.0 295.0 97.0 65.0 104.0 86.01999795.0197.065.019.0 236.0 305.0 119.0 71.0 109.0 62.0aIncludesFundforRuralAmerica.Source:USDAOfficeofBudgetPolicyAnalysis

constantatabout2.2years.1

Asdiscussedinchapter4,NSF,theNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH),andtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)supportcompetitiveresearchprojectsinsomeofthesamebasicscienceandengineeringfieldsastheNRI,thatarecomplementarywithfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.ThemedianannualizedresearchawardforNSF'sBiologyDirectorateinFY1998was$90,000peryear(totalcostsincludingoverhead)withanaveragegrantdurationof2.9years.TheBiologyDirectorateestimatesthatforFY2000,itsmedianannualizedresearchawardwillbeapproximately$105,400withanaveragegrantdurationof3.0years(http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2000/00BIO.htm).Similarly,theDivisionofEnergyBiosciencesofDOE'sOfficeofBasicEnergySciencesaveragedcloseto$100,000peryearforgrantsawardedtypicallyfora3-yearduration(http://www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/fr99_07.html).Acomparisonofthosedatawithtable6-1showsthatontheaverageNRIresearchgrantsaremuchsmallerandshorterthangrantssupportingsimilartypesofresearchinNSF,NIH,andDOE.ContinuedunderfundingofNRIresearchgrantsrelativetothoseofotherfederalresearchagencieswilltendtodiscouragenewresearchersoutsidethetraditionalfoodandfibersystemfromapplyingforNRIgrantsoneoriginalgoalofestablishingtheNRI(to"seekthewidestpossibleparticipationofqualifiedscientists").ItmightalsocausehighlyqualifiedscientistswhohavereceivedNRIsupporttoapplyforresearchfundsfromothersourcesandpossiblytoredirecttheirresearchawayfromissuesimportanttothefoodandfibersystem.Thesharpdecrease(over20%)inthenumberofnewproposalsreceivedfrom1995to1998(appendixF)suggestthatthisisoccurring.2Suchtrendscouldleadtoadecreaseintheoverallqualityoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.Thelowfundinglevels

andshortgrantdurationsandtheireffectonthefunctioningoftheNRIwasaddressedina1995OfficeofTechnologyAssessmentreport,ChallengesforU.S.AgriculturalResearchPolicy(OTA1995):

Thus,onthecriticallyimportantissueoffundingofindividualawardsintermsofamountofawardanddurationtheprogramiswoefullyinadequate,especiallyincomparisontothecloselyrelatedcomparisonprogramsinNSFandNIH,andlittleimprovementhasbeenmadebetweenearlierCompetitiveResearchGrantsprogramandNRI.[P.34]

ThesmallgrantsofshortdurationhaveresultedinadwindlingenthusiasmforNRIgrantsinthefoodandfiberscientificcommunity,especiallyinviewofthesubstantialadministrativeburdenofproposalpreparation.Forexample,onecorporatescientistobservedthattheNRIprogramcouldactuallyhaveanadverseeffectonresearchproductivitybecause"thecosttothescientificenterprisenationallymayexceedthefundingreceived"owingtoadministrative

1FY1997wasanomalousinthattheaverageawardlengthwasgreaterandtheaverageannualawardamountlowerthaninotheryears.2TheincreaseinnewapplicationsthataccompaniedthebudgetincreaseinFY1999,however,suggeststhatthiseffectcanbereversedtosomeextentbyincreasesinfunding.

overheadofgrantpreparationandsubmissioncoupledwithlowfundinglevels.Atverylowfundingrates,theeffortexpendedbyscientistsinwritingunsuccessfulapplicationscanexceedthatofthescientistswhoreceiveresearchsupport.Somehavearguedthatsuchaprogramisanetburdenratherthananassettothescientificcommunityasawhole(Chubin,1998).

OverheadRates

WhenitestablishedtheNRIprogramin1991,Congressimposeda14%limitontheamountofindirectcoststhatcanbechargedasapercentageofthetotalaward.3The14%limitwasreplacedbya19%limit4inFY2000aspartoftheAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andEducationReformActof1998.Althoughtheincreasefrom14to19%reducesthegapbetweenoverheadratesonNRIgrantsandratesongrantsawardedbyotherfederalagencies,overheadratesformostacademicandprivate-sectorresearchinstitutionsaresignificantlyhigherthanthe19%limitcurrentlyallowed.AverageoverheadratesforNSF'sBiologyDirectorate,forexample,areapproximately45%ofthemodifiedtotaldirectcostsoftheawardnearlydoubletheNRIlimit.Thecommitteeisnotawareofanyotherfederalmerit/peer-reviewedresearchprogramwithsuchacongressionallymandatedlimitonoverheadrates.

Presumably,themotivationforsettingsuchalimitwastoincreasethepercentageofNRIresearchfundsspentonresearchactivities.However,suchamandatedcaponoverheadmayhaveanegativeeffectontheNRIprogrambecauseitcausessomeinstitutions(especiallythosefromoutsidethetraditionalapplicantcommunity)todiscouragetheirresearchersfromsubmittingproposalstotheprogram.Becausethecommitteedidnotaddressthisissueinitssurvey,itwasnotabletoestimatethemagnitudeofthiseffectontheNRIprogram.However,thecommitteeisawareofoneresearch

institutionthatprohibitsitsscientistsfromsubmittingproposalstotheNRIbecausethelowoverheadratesdonotcoverthetrueinstitutionalcostsassociatedwithsuchresearchandbecauseitsauditorsrequireconsistencyamongallincominggrants.Otherinstitutionsdiscouragetheirresearchersfromsubmittingproposalsbyrequiringthattheresearchers(ortheirdepartments)useotherfundstomakeupthedifferencebetweenmandatedlowoverheadratesandtheestablishedratesusedbyotherfederalagencies.Thisisespeciallyproblematicforsmallerinstitutionswhereresearchersdonothavetheflexibilitytobalancelow-overheadgrantsagainstothersourcesofunrestrictedfunds.Thesefactorsalsomayhaveadisproportionateimpactoninstitutions(ordepartments)fromoutsidethetraditionalfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcessystembecausetheydonothaveahistoricassociationwiththeUSDA,andhence,maybelesswillingtoacceptalowoverheadratethatisuniquetoUSDA-sponsoredresearch.

SummaryFindings

Organization

·ThelocationofNRIasonecomponentofCRGAM,ratherthanonanorganizationallevelequivalenttoUSDA'stwomainresearchagencies,suggeststhatUSDAandCongressplaceahigherpriorityonformulafunds,specialgrants,andintramuralresearchthanonextramural,merit-basedpeer-reviewedcompetitiveresearch.ThecommitteebelievesstronglythatunlessextramuralcompetitiveresearchisgiventhesamestatureorganizationallywithinUSDAasformula-fundedandintramuralresearchreceive,itmightremaindifficultfortheNRIprogramtoachieveitsmission.

·TheresponsibilitiesoftheNRIchiefscientistareequivalenttoafull-timeposition.Thepart-time,revolvingchiefscientistcannotmeetthestrategic-planning,priority-settingandcommunicationneedsofaneffectiveNRI.Havingachiefscientistwhoservespart-timehamperscontinuityinaccountabilityandleadershipandcounterssuccessfullong-rangeplanningandfollowupandconsistentstakeholderinvolvement.

·TheNRIBoardofDirectorsprovidesnecessaryadministrativeoversightoftheNRIprogramandcanbeusedtolinktheNRIwithUSDA'sotherresearchorganizations.TheBoardofDirectorsisnotresponsibleforprovidingguidanceonscientificortechnologicpriorities,providingaforumforstakeholderconcerns,ormeasuringresearchoutcomesandtheevaluationofNRIoperations.Anexternaladvisoryboardofsometypeisnecessarytofulfillthoseresponsibilities.

·Inrecentyears,theNRIstaffhasbeenstretchedtocoveritsresponsibilities,increasingtheburdensofcommunicationandtimelinessonNRIstaffatalllevelsandontheall-importantscientists

whoserveasadhocreviewersandpanelmembers.

Funding

·InadequatefundingoftheNRIhassignificantlylimiteditspotentialandplacedtheprogramatrisk.

·NRIresearchgrantsaremuchsmallerandshorterthangrantssupportingsimilartypesofresearchinNSF,NIH,andDOE.ContinuedunderfundingofNRIresearchgrantsrelativetothoseofotherfederalresearchagencieswilltendtodiscouragenewresearchersoutsidethetraditionalfoodandfibersystemfromapplyingforNRIgrantsoneoriginalgoalofestablishingtheNRI.ItmightalsocausehighlyqualifiedscientistswhohavereceivedNRIsupporttoapplyforresearchfundsfromothersourcesandpossiblytoredirecttheirresearchawayfromissuesimportanttothefoodandfibersystem.Thiscouldleadtoadecreaseintheoverallqualityoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

·Congressimposeda14%overheadlimitontheNRIwhenitestablishedtheprogramin1991.The14%limitwasreplacedbya19%overheadlimitin

FY2000.ThereisnoclearreasonwhytheNRIistreateddifferentlyfromotherfederalpeer-reviewedresearchinthisregard.

7RecommendationsSincethelate1800s,thepubliclysupportedsystemoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchandeducationintheUnitedStateshasservedasamodelfordirectingscientificandfinancialresourcestoimprovesocietalwell-being.Payoffsfromthisresearchandeducationsystemhaveconsistentlybeenhigh.Moreover,theUSsystemhasbeenemulatedsuccessfullybymanyothercountries.Asweenterthe21stcentury,however,thistraditionalsystemhasevolvedtoincludeabroadersetofissuesthatcanbeaddressedthroughhigh-qualityfundamentalresearch,technologytransfer,outreach,andeducation.

Themodernsystemattemptstointegratefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesissuesandincreasedeconomicopportunitiestoenhancethequalityoflifeoffamiliesandcommunities.Fundamentalresearchisvitaltoprovidethedepthandbreadthofknowledgeneededforsolvingsocietalproblemsandcreatingnewopportunitiestoimprovethequalityoflife.Issueshighonmostagendasforfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchincludeasafe,nutritious,andaffordablefoodsupply;globalcompetitiveness;acleanerenvironment;andprudentconservationofnaturalresources.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram(NRI),althoughoperatingwellbelowitsintendedlevel,isaplatformonwhichare-energizednationalinitiativeforresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcescanbe

established.SubstantiveresearchcontributionshaveoriginatedintheNRI.TheNRIisfacingoperatingchallengeslargelyasaconsequenceofinadequatefunding,whichhaspreventeditfromcrossingathresholdtosustainabilityandgrowth.Butaftersome20yearsofmerit-basedpeerreviewintheUSDAandthe9-yearhistoryoftheNRI,theNRIisasuccessfultemplatetosupportasubstantialincreaseinpublicresearchinnationalfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

TheNRIoranequivalentmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearcheffortisneededtoleadandshapeournation'sresponsetothechallengesoffood,fiber,environment,energy,andarapidlygrowingglobalpopulationinthe21stcentury.Aknowledgebaseofinformationandtechnologyunprecedentedinthehistoryofthenaturalsciencesisneededtoday.ThecommitteemakesthefollowingrecommendationstostrengthentheNRIandtopermitthenationtomeetthechallengestothenational(andindeedglobal)food,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.

TheNRI'sMission

Asuccessfulgrantsprogramcontainselementsofvalue,relevance,quality,fairness,andflexibility.ThecommitteefoundthattheproposalstotheNRIandtheresearchconductedbyscientistswhoreceiveNRIgrantsareofhighquality.Thatfindingisbasedontheresultsofthecommittee'ssurveyofapplicants,awardees,administratorsoflandgrantinstitutions,andindustry;theviewsofformerchiefscientistsandindividualsfromfederalagencies;andthepersonalperspectivesofcommitteemembersandtheircolleagues.Throughconscientiousstewardship,theNRIhasbeensuccessfulingeneratingfundamentalandappliedresearchandfosteringthedevelopmentoffuturescientistswithstrongbackgroundsinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ThecommitteerecommendsthatamajoremphasisoftheNRIcontinuetobethesupportofhigh-riskresearchwithpotentiallong-termpayoffs.Muchofthisresearchwouldbeclassifiedasfundamentalinthetraditionaluseofthisterm.TheNRIalsoshouldcontinuetoemphasizetheimportanceofmultidisciplinaryresearch.

TheNRIprogramiscreditedwithimportantcontributionstofundamentalandappliedresearch.Thedistinctionbetweenfundamental(orbasic)andappliedresearchoftenisunclearinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessector,however.Insteadofclassifyingresearcharbitrarilyasfundamentalorapplied,itshouldbethoughtofasonacontinuumwithshort-,medium-,andlong-termobjectivesidentifiedinanyresearcharea.ThecommitteebelievesthatamajoremphasisoftheNRIshouldcontinuetobethesupportofhigh-riskresearchwithpotentiallong-termpayoffsthetypeofresearchthatisunlikelytobefundedthroughotherresearchprogramsinUSDA,otherfederalagencies,ortheprivatesector.ThecommitteealsoencouragestheNRItocontinuetoemphasizemultidisciplinaryresearchbecausetheproblemsinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemdemandmultidisciplinaryapproachesandcollaboration.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRIcontinuetoemphasizeitsmissionoftrainingandeducation.

ThetrainingandeducationofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralresearchersattributabletotheNRIprogramhavebeenvaluable.Althoughgrantshavebeensmallandofshortduration,trainingappearstohavebeenamajoruseofNRIfundsamonguniversityresearchers.StrengtheninggrantsprovidedbytheNRIprogramhavehadamajorimpactonthecareersandproductivityoffacultywhootherwisewouldnotreceivefederalgrantsupport.Furthermore,NRIstaffhavebeensuccessful,particularlyinviewoftheorganization'slimitedresources,inorganizingseveralvehiclestopromotepublicunderstandingofresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ResearchAccountability

Thecommitteerecommendscontinuingtheprocessofmerit-basedpeerreviewasthemosteffectivemethodofcompetitivelydistributingfundsforresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ThecommitteeviewstheNRIasamodelofmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinUSDA.Becauseitusesacompetitivereviewprocesstorankproposals,however,theNRIremainsoutsidethemainstreamUSDAcultureofformulafunding.Thesuccessfuloperationofthepeer-reviewsystemintheNRIaccountsforthehighqualityoftheprojectsfunded.Merit-basedpeerreviewhasbeenadoptedastheprincipalcriterionoffundingofextramuralresearchthroughoutthefederalgovernmentandincreasinglyinuniversities.Itisaconsistent,expertise-drivenmethodforallocatingresearchfundsfairlyandappropriately.Informationgatheredbythecommitteeindicatesthatstakeholdersinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemholdtheNRIpeer-reviewprocessinhighesteem.SomesurveyrespondentsindicatedthattheNRImerit-basedpeer-review

processwasasfairasandperhapsmoreresponsivethanthereviewprocessofotherfederalresearchagencies.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatamoreeffectiveperformance-trackingsystembeestablishedtoimproveresearchaccountability.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheNRIcouldimproveitsrecordbydocumentingthevalueofresearchthatitfunds.TheNRIdoesnotkeepadefinitiverecordofpatentsandpublicationsresultingfromNRIresearch.Noristherearunningevaluationoforiginalityandsignificanceofcurrentapplicationsandrenewals.Althoughthecommitteehasfoundbasedonitssurveysthatfundedapplicationsareofhighquality,theNRIlacksatrackingsystemofcriticalfactorsneededforself-evaluationoreffectivereportingofresearchaccomplishmentstooutsidegroups,whichwouldcreateafeedbacksystemtoestablishvalue.

Everyfederalresearchagencyfacesimportantchallengesinmeasuringoutcomesofresearchprojects,andtheNRIisnoexception.ThecommitteeconcludedthatthequalityofresearchsupportedbytheNRIishigh,butitwas

unabletoscrutinizeindividualprojectsextensivelybecauseoftheabsenceofatrackingsystemtailoredtotyingprojectstooutcomes.AstandardizedtrackingsystemneedstobeimplementedfortheNRIprogram.SuchasystemwouldbebeneficialbothfortrackingoutcomesandformakingtheNRI'sprogramsmoretransparenttostakeholders.TheNationalResearchCouncilhasrecentlyreleasedareport,EvaluatingFederalResearchPrograms,onaccountingforfederaloutcomesaspartoftheGovernmentPerformanceandResultsActmandate.TheNRIshouldusetherecommendationsinthatreport.

ThecommitteerecommendsimplementationofaninternalinformationsystemthatgeneratesdataoncurrentoperationsoftheNRI.

Thecommitteefounditdifficulttofollowyear-to-yearchangesinfundingareasandtogeneratenumberstomeasureeffortbyprojectandcategoryoutcome.Thecommittee'srequestsforinformationgeneratedmoreworkbytheNRIprofessionalstaffthanshouldhavebeenrequired.Thecommitteebelievesthatthoseproblemswereduetodeficienciesintheunderlyinginformationsystemitself.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRIWebsitebemorereadilyaccessibletoallowthelocationofresearchprojectsandresultswiththeuseofissue-orientedkeywordsandtechnicaltermsthatareaccessibleandunderstandabletoallstakeholders.

AnumberofrecommendationsreflectdirectlyontheNRI'sabilitytoreachbothtraditionalandnewstakeholders.Buttheneedsfortransparency,accesstothecurrentresearchagenda,anddocumentationofpastoutcomessuggestasubstantialexpansionincommunicationstrategy.AWebsitecouldbelinkedtonontechnicalsummaries,technicalabstracts,impactstatements,andpublications,andtoacatalogofcurrentandpastfundedprojects.Suchdataandcommunicationcouldbemaintainedfor10yearstobuildatimely,comprehensive,andsearchablerecordofresearchimpactsgenerated

byNRIfunding.

Priority-SettingandOrganization

Thecommitteehasconcludedthatthepriority-settingprocessoftheNRIneedssubstantialrevision.ThecommitteefoundthatpartsoftheprocessusedbytheNRIstaffseemunstructured,appeartobeunevenlyadministeredacrossNRIdivisions,andarenotexplicitlylinkedtothegoalsandotherstrategicplanningelementsoftheResearch,Education,andEconomicsMissionArea.Changesinprogramareasandprioritiesappeartohaveoccurredprimarilyinresponsetotheurgingofvocalstakeholdersratherthanastheresultofadeliberativepriority-settingprocess.MechanismsarenotwellestablishedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofNRI-fundedresearchastimepassesandprogressoccursortodelineatehowkeyresearchoutcomescorrelatewithguidingresearchgoals.TheprioritiesoftheNRIdonotappeartobelinkedcloselywiththeprioritiesoftheAgriculturalResearchService(ARS)andtheEconomic

ResearchService(ERS),perhapsbecausethepotentialcross-functionalnatureofpresentresearchprogramsisnotfullyappreciatedineithertheARSorNRIadministration.

Thecommitteebelievesthatanimprovedpriority-settingprocessshouldinvolveindependentinputfromscientistsandinformedmembersofthepublic.Thepriority-settingprocessalsoshouldallocatemoreoftheNRI'sfundsbyissue,notbyresearchcategory.ThecommitteebelievesthatchangesintheNRI'sorganizationneedtobemade.Mostimportant,USDAneedstofindawaytoenhancethepositionofextramuralresearchinUSDAandtoencourageNRIpriority-settingtoreflectnationalprioritiesmoreclearly.

Thecommitteeoffersthefollowingrecommendationstoimprovethepriority-settinginandtheoveralleffectivenessoftheNRI.Othersolutionsarepossible;ultimately,itwillbeuptoUSDA,andpossiblyCongress,todecidehowbesttoaddresstheseproblems.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatsixstandingscientific-researchreviewcommitteesbeassembledtoidentifycriticalissuesineachresearcharea.Thecommitteefurtherrecommendsthatthecurrent26programsbeeliminatedandreplacedwithanissue-basedagendaacrossthesixpurviewsofthecommittees.

SomeNRIdivisionshavebeenrelativelystableprogrammaticallysincetheirinception,whereasothershaveseenmanyprogramstartsandstops.ThesubdivisionoftheNRI'ssixmainresearchareasinto26programssolelybyresearch''category",intheabsenceofanoverallstrategicplan,mighthavebeenpartlyresponsibleforalackofcriticalmassamongtheNRI'snaturalstakeholders,particularlybecausetherecommendedincreasesinresearchfundingto$500milliondidnotmaterialize.

Severalshort-termchangesinprogramdirection(over4-to6-year

timeframes)haveoccurredinresearchareasthatwouldotherwiseneedabout810yearstohaveanimpact.Thestop-startnatureofsomeNRIfundingcommitmentsoveritsshorthistoryindicatesthattheNRIhasbeenunabletosustainfundingsupportforsomehigh-riskareaswithlong-termpayoffsthetypesofresearchforwhichtheNRIisideallysuited.Thelackofaclearperceptionofthelogicofannualrequestsforproposalsacrossall26programscouldbepartlyresponsiblefortheNRI'sinabilitytoattractincreasedresearchbudgetsforitsprograms.Amorelogicalpriority-settingprocessthatrelatestheNRI'sresearchprogramstoUSDAgoalsandemergingissuesinthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemmightbeeffectiveindemonstratingmoreclearlytheimportanceofNRI-supportedresearchandleadtoincreasedresearchbudgets.

ThesporadicdevelopmentoftheNRI's26programsreflectsneitheracoherentlong-termresearchagendanorthegenerationofclearandobservableoutcomes.Theissue-orienteddeliberationsoftheresearchreviewcommitteeswouldformthebasisofmanyannualrequestsforproposals.Thereviewcommitteesshouldincludescientistsfromtheentirefood,fiber,andnatural-

resourcessystem.Ashiftinpriority-settingmightcauseamajorchangeinthetypesofresearchsupportedbytheNRI.

Thecommitteerecommendsthattheresearchreviewcommitteesgivespecialconsiderationtoimportantproblemsperceivedbythepublicatlargesuchasalternativeenergy,healthfulnessoffood,foodsafety,andnutrition(issuesattheconsumerendofthefoodsystem),inadditiontothemoretraditionalemphasesonproductivity,ruraleconomies,andenvironmentalprotection.

Thelikelyoutcomewouldbeabetterdistributionofresearchfundsacrosstheentirefood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemandaresearchagendamorecloselyalignedwithpublicconcerns.TheNRIresearchagendawouldthusbecomemoreforward-lookingandissue-driven.

ThecommitteerecommendsthatacooperativeformalgoalandstrategyprocessbeinstitutedinthecontextoftheNRI'sroleinfederalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchprograms.

TheNRIgenerallycomplementsotherUSDAactivitiesanddoesnotduplicateotherfederalresearchefforts.TheNRIactivelyparticipatesincross-agencyfundingopportunitiestoensurecomplementarityofresearchefforts,butitclearlyfollowsratherthanleadsinsuchefforts.ApartfrommemorandaofunderstandingandinteragencycoordinationprovidedbytheNationalScienceandTechnologyCouncil,noprocessexistsforestablishingformalrelationshipswithotherfederalagenciesorforconsultingandusestakeholdergroups.ThecommitteebelievesthatbeingsmallerthanotheragencieslimitsthefundingthattheNRIcancontributetosuchcross-agencyinitiatives.

TheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH),theNationalScienceFoundation(NSF),theDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)andtheNRI

formthebackboneofthenation'smerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearcheffortinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.TheNRIisthenation'sonlymerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchprogramthatfocusesexplicitlyonchallengestoitssystemoffood,fiber,andnaturalresources.AcomprehensivestrategythatrequiredcoordinationamongcongressionalcommitteesparticularlythosewithjurisdictionoverUSDA,NSF,andNIHprogramsandbudgetswouldallowanexpandedNRIfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesagendatobecoordinatedwithcomplementaryworkfundedbyNIHandNSF.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRIandothercompetitiveUSDAresearchprogramsbemovedtoanewExtramuralCompetitiveResearchService(ECRS)thatwouldreporttotheundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics(figure7-1).

ThelocationoftheNRIasonecomponentoftheCompetitiveResearchGrantsandAwardsManagementDivision,ratherthanonanorganizationallevelequivalenttoUSDA'stwomainresearchagencies(ARSandERS),suggeststhatUSDAandCongressplaceahigherpriorityonformula

Figure7-1RecommendedOrganizationofUSDAResearch,Education,and

EconomicsMissionArea

funds,specialgrants,andintramuralresearchthanonextramural,merit-basedpeer-reviewedcompetitiveresearch.Thecommitteebelievesstronglythatunlessextramuralcompetitiveresearchisgiventhesamestatureorganizationallyasformula-fundedandintramuralresearchinUSDA,itwillremaindifficultfortheNRIprogramtoachieveitsmission.

ThecommitteebelievesthattheNRIhassufferedasaprograminanagencytheCooperativeStateResearch,Education,andExtensionService(CSREES)thatisalsoresponsiblefordefendingandallocatingformulafundsandspecialgrants.IntramuralresearchisrepresentedbyARSandERS,whichreportdirectlytotheundersecretaryforresearch,education,andeconomics,asdoesCSREES.Thecommitteestronglyrecommendsthatextramuralcompetitiveresearch,toachievecriticalmass,begivenanorganizationalstaturethatwouldallowittocompeteeffectivelyforresourceswithformulafundsandspecialgrantsandtoparticipatedirectlyinUSDA'shigh-levelpriority-settingprocess.

ThecommitteerecommendstheestablishmentofanExtramuralAdvisoryBoard(1214members)thatrepresentsNRIstakeholdersandhasanon-USDAchair.

FundinghasbeenunevenlyallocatedamongtheNRI'sdivisionssinceitsinitiation.Nosubstantialchangesintheproportionsoffundingallocatedtothedivisionshaveoccurred,eventhoughthenatureoffood,fiber,andnaturalresourceshaschangedsince1991.Fundingallocationsdonotappeartohavedistinguishedbetweentraditionalandemergingareasinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

ThecurrentNRIBoardofDirectorsprovidesnecessaryadministrativeoversightoftheNRIprogramandcanbeusedtolinktheNRIwithUSDA'sotherresearchorganizations.TheBoardofDirectorsisnotresponsibleforprovidingguidanceonscientificortechnologic

priorities,providingaforumforstakeholderconcerns,ormeasuringresearchoutcomesandevaluatingNRIoperations.Anexternaladvisoryboardofsometypeisnecessarytohandlethoseresponsibilities.

TheAdvisoryBoardwouldadviseandassistthechiefscientistinidentifyingfundamentalissuesandfuturestrategiestomeetthegreatestneeds.Itwouldrepresentscientistsandengineers,deansoflandgrantandnon-landgrantinstitutions,industryacrosstheentirefoodandfibersystem,commodityandfarmgroups,consumergroups,and1890colleges.ExofficiomemberswouldincludeselectprogrammanagersatNIHandNSFandtheNRIchiefscientist.Boardmemberswouldserve3-yeartermsonastaggered,rotatingbasiswithamaximumoftwoterms.Theboardwouldbeappointedbythesecretaryofagriculture.

Inthecommittee'sopinion,anexternalAdvisoryBoardiscriticaltothesuccessfulfunctioningoftheNRI.Stakeholdercontact,theadvocacyofextramuralresearchinsideandoutsideUSDA,measurementofresearchoutcomes,andcontinuingevaluationofNRIoperations(includingthepeer-reviewedproject-selectionsystem)wouldensurethoroughness,objectivity,andtransparency.Avisible,mandatedexternalAdvisoryBoardwouldbring

renewedenergyandfocustoanexpandedNRIeffortandwouldprovideCongresswithanobjectiveappraisalofNRIefforts.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatthepositionofchiefscientistbeafull-time,permanent5-yearposition,withtheoptionofone5-yearrenewal,chosenbythesecretaryofagriculturewiththeconsultation,recommendations,andadviceofthenewlycreatedExtramuralAdvisoryBoard.ThechiefscientistwouldbetheadministratorofECRS.

ThecurrentresponsibilitiesoftheNRIchiefscientistareequivalenttoafull-timeposition.Apart-timerevolvingchiefscientistcannotmeetthestrategic-planning,priority-setting,andcommunicationneedsofaneffectiveNRI.Althoughpastchiefscientistshavedoneexcellentwork,havingapart-timechiefscientistimpedescontinuityinaccountabilityandleadershipandcounterssuccessfullong-rangeplanningandfollowupandconsistentstakeholderinvolvement.

Thenecessarydutiesofthechiefscientist-administratorofECRS,inadditiontothosenowassignedwithintheNRI,wouldincludedirectingtheprogramanddevelopingadefinitivestrategicplanandadvocacyfortheNRIprogram.ThechiefscientistcouldalsotaketheleadinchangingthecultureoftheNRIfromaprogram-basedtoanissue-basedresearchagenda.Thefull-timechiefscientistwouldreportdirectlytotheundersecretaryandwouldplayamajorroleinsettingthenation'sfederalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchagenda.

Thecommitteerecommendsthateachofthesixmandatedareasofresearchemphasisbeledbyahalf-timeassociatechiefscientistwitha2-yearrotation.Eachassociatewouldbeascientistfromavisibleandproductiveoutsideresearchprogram(figure7-2).

Inrecentyears,theNRIstaffhasbeenstretchedtocoveritsresponsibilities,andthishasincreasedtheburdensofcommunication

andtimelinessonNRIstaffatalllevelsandonthescientistswhoserveasadhocreviewersandpanelmembers.TheproposedrotationwouldallowthechiefscientisttorecruitaflowofintellectualcapitalandwouldprovideamechanismforobtaininginputfromthepopulationofresearchersservedbytheNRI.Thefull-timechiefscientistplusthesixassociatechiefscientistswouldhavethetimeandresourcestocarryoutlong-termanalysesofresearchneedsinthecontextofissuesratherthanprograms,asisnowthecase.Thisrecommendationhighlightstheimportanceofestablishingandmaintainingascientificallybasedresearchagenda.Theassociatechiefscientistswouldcomplementthedivisiondirectors,programmanagers,andvolunteerpanelleaders.

AnumberoffactorscouldaccountforthefactthatUSDA'sresearchagendahasstruggledoverthelastdecade.Thecommitteeunderstandscurrentbudgetconstraintsandunderstandsthattheimplementationofsomeofitsrecommendationswouldincreasepersonnelandoperatingcosts.Webelievestrongly,however,thatsubstantialchangesareneededtoensurethe

Figure7-2RecommendedOrganizationofUSDAExtramuralCompetitiveResearchService

(NewNRI)

futuresuccessofmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

Funding

Thecommitteerecommendsthatgrantawardsbeimmediatelyincreasedtoanaverageof$100,000peryear(totalcosts)over3years.

NRIresearchgrantsaremuchsmallerandshorterthangrantssupportingsimilartypesofresearchatNSF,NIH,andDOE.ContinuedunderfundingofNRIresearchgrantsrelativetothoseofotherfederalresearchagencieswilltendtodiscouragenewresearchersoutsidethetraditionalfoodandfibersystemfromapplyingforNRIgrantsoneoriginalgoaloftheNRI.ItmightalsocausehighlyqualifiedscientistswhohavereceivedNRIsupporttoapplyforresearchfundsfromothersourcesandevenredirecttheirresearchawayfromissuesimportanttothefoodandfibersystem.Thatcouldleadtoadecreaseintheoverallqualityoffood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

TheproposedincreasewouldsolidifythestakeholderfoundationoftheNRIandprepareittoreceiveadditionalfunds.ThecommitteerecognizesthatwithoutanincreaseintheNRI'stotalbudget(asrecommendedstronglybythiscommittee),theincreaseinsizeanddurationofgrantswouldreducethenumberofgrantsandperhapscausehardshipamonginvestigatorswhohavedependedonNRIfundingtosustaintheirresearchprograms.However,continuedunderfundingofindividualresearchgrantswouldreducetheaggregateimpactoftheNRI'scompetitivefunding.Thenumberofcurrentproposalsislowerthaninthepast,andstakeholdersupportappearstobewaning.Anincreaseinthesizeanddurationofgrantswouldenablethescientificcommunitytoattackissuesinfood,fiber,

andnaturalresourcesbypreparingproposalsthatrequiremulti-investigatorandmultidisciplinaryteamsofresearchers.Increasedsizeanddurationofgrantswouldallowresearcherstocarryoutprojectsasplannedwithoutnarrowingtheirscopetofitashorterperiodandsmalleramount.Finally,increasedsizeanddurationofgrantswouldattractnew,creativeproposalsfromresearcherswhoarenowoutsidethetraditionalfoodandfibersystem.ThelatterwasoneofthekeyreasonsforinstitutingtheNRI,anditcontinuestobeaworthwhileobjective.Toachieveit,theNRImustproviderealisticfundinglevelstocontinuetoattractthebestandthebrighteststudentsandinvestigatorstofood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.

TheNRIshouldbenchmarkthefundinglevelanddurationofitsgrantstothoseoftheotherfederalmerit-basedpeer-reviewagenciesthatsupportresearch.NSFandNIHsupportcompetitiveresearchprojectsinsomeofthesamebasicscienceandengineeringareasastheNRI,thatcomplementfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.ThechallengeistokeepthebestintellectualcapitalengagedintheNRI'sscopeofissues.

ThecommitteerecommendsthattheNRI'soverheadlimitbeimmediatelyreplacedwithindirect-coststandardsthatareusedbyotherfederalresearchagencies.

WhenitestablishedtheNRIprogramin1991Congressimposeda14%limitontheamountofindirectcoststhatcanbechargedasapercentageofthetotalaward.1The14%limitwasreplacedbya19%limit2inFY2000aspartoftheAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andEducationReformActof1998.Althoughtheincreasefrom14%to19%reducesthegapbetweenoverheadratesonNRIgrantsandratesongrantsawardedbyotherfederalagencies,overheadratesformostacademicandprivate-sectorresearchinstitutionsaresignificantlyhigherthanthe19%limitcurrentlyallowed.AverageoverheadratesforNSF'sBiologyDirectorate,forexample,areapproximately45%ofthemodifiedtotaldirectcostsoftheawardnearlydoubletheNRIlimit.Thecommitteeisnotawareofanyotherfederalmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchprogramwithsuchacongressionallymandatedlimitonoverheadrates.

Presumably,themotivationforsettingsuchalimitwastoincreasethepercentageofNRIresearchfundsspentonresearchactivities.However,suchamandatedcaponoverheadmayhaveanegativeeffectontheNRIprogrambecauseitcausessomeinstitutions(especiallythosefromoutsidethetraditionalapplicantcommunity)todiscouragetheirresearchersfromsubmittingproposalstotheprogram.Becausethecommitteedidnotaddressthisissueinitssurvey,itwasnotabletoestimatethemagnitudeofthiseffectontheNRIprogram.However,thecommitteeisawareofoneresearchinstitutionthatprohibitsitsscientistsfromsubmittingproposalstotheNRIbecausethelowoverheadratesdonotcoverthetrueinstitutionalcostsassociatedwithsuchresearchandbecauseitsauditorsrequireconsistencyamongallincominggrants.Otherinstitutionsdiscouragetheirresearchersfromsubmittingproposalsbyrequiringthatthe

researchers(ortheirdepartments)useotherfundstomakeupthedifferencebetweenmandatedlowoverheadratesandtheestablishedratesusedbyotherfederalagencies.Thisisespeciallyproblematicforsmallerinstitutionswhereresearchersdonothavetheflexibilitytobalancelow-overheadgrantsagainstothersourcesofunrestrictedfunds.Thesefactorsalsomayhaveadisproportionateimpactoninstitutions(ordepartments)fromoutsidethetraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystembecausetheydonothaveahistoricassociationwiththeUSDA,andhence,maybelesswillingtoacceptalowoverheadratethatisuniquetoUSDA-sponsoredresearch.

ThecommitteebelievesthatCongresscouldhelpbroadenthescopeofNRIresearchersbeyondthetraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystemoneoftheoriginalgoalsoftheprogrambyallowingtheNRItousethesamenegotiatedoverheadratesusedbyotherfederalagencies.Thisaction,togetherwiththeincreasedgrantamountsrecommendedpreviously,wouldmaketheNRIamoreattractivesourceoffundingtoallinstitutionsandresearchers,andhencecouldencourageproposalsfromresearchersfromoutsidethetraditionalfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcessystem.

Thecommitteerecommendsthatby2005theNRIbudgetbeincreasedtoalevelequivalent(adjustedforinflation)tothe$550millionrecommendedbytheNRCin1989butonlyifrecommendedchangesinpriority-setting,documentation,andorganizationareputintoplace.

InadequatefundingoftheNRIhassignificantlylimiteditspotentialandplacedtheprogramatrisk.Asubstantialincreaseinfundingwillensurearobustpublicresearcheffortthatcansignificantlytransformthenation'sfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcessysteminresponsetocriticalneedsinagriculturalproductivity,environmentalhealth,andsocietalwell-being.

Inits1989reportInvestinginAgriculturalResearch,theNRCcalledforexpandingcompetitiveresearchwithintheUSDAandestablishingtheNRI,withaproposedfundingincreaseto$550millionwithinoneyear,ifpossible.Congressrespondedin1990byauthorizing$500millionfortheNRIby1995.Thecommitteestronglyre-affirmsthepreviousNRCrecommendation.Consideringinflationalone,$550millionin1989isequivalenttoapproximately$700millionincurrent(2000)dollars.Assumingconservativelythatfutureannualratesofinflationratewillberoughly3%,theequivalentsizeoftheNRIbudgetwouldbeapproximately$800millionin2005.Thecommitteebelievesthatattainingthislevelwouldbeanimportantstepinre-energizingthenationalfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesresearchcomplexwhichinturn,wouldresultinmajorbenefitstothenation.Afterreachingthisbudgetlevel,thefuturegrowthoftheNRIbudgetshouldbeevaluatedandcomparedwiththegrowthinthebudgetsofcomplementaryresearchprogramsinNSF,NIH,andDOE,assuggestedbythecommittee'searlierrecommendationtobenchmarktheamountandlengthofNRIgrantsagainstsuchresearchprograms.

Toillustratethepotentialimpactofsuchabudgetincrease,thecommitteehasdonesomeroughcalculationstoestimatethenumber

ofNRIresearchawardsthatcouldbemadewithsuchabudget.If10%ofthebudgetisspenton"strengtheninggrants"3andadministrativecostsare4%ofthebudget,4approximately$700millionwouldbeavailableforcompetitiveresearchgrantsin2005.AssumingthatNRIaverageawardamountsarebenchmarkedagainstawardsmadebyotherfederalprogramssuchasNSF'sBiologyDirectorateandDOE'sEnergyBiologicalSciences(asrecommendedpreviously)andthattheseaverageawardsamountsincreaseatroughly3%peryearfromthecurrentannualizedamountof$100,000,theaverage3-yearNRIgrantwouldbeapproximately$350,000in2005.Thiswouldcorrespondtoapproximately2,000grantstobeawardedeachyearby2005(withatotalof6,000grantsbeingsupportedatanyonetimebecausethegrantswouldbeforthreeyears).IftheNRIweretoadoptan"issue-based"researchagenda(asrecommendedpreviously)thatincludesroughlythesamenumberofissuesaswereidentified

3CongressspecifiedintheFood,Agriculture,Cosnervation,andTradeAct(FACTA)thatresearchandeducationstrengtheninggrantsbeatleast10%ofNRI'sbudget.4CongressspecifiedinFACTAthatNRIadministrativecostsbelessthan4%ofNRI'sbudget.

bythecommitteeinitslistofemergingresearchissuesabout50issuesthiswouldcorrespondtoabout40grantsawardedeachyearforeachissue(includingnewsubmissions,renewals,andre-submissions).Thecommitteebelievesstronglythataneffectiveissue-basedresearchprograminthefood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesarearequiresthislevelofinvestment.

ThecommitteerecognizesthatthisrecommendationwouldrequireamajorincreaseinfundingfortheNRI.Toputtherecommendationincontext,however,itisusefultocomparetheestimatesgivenabovewithfundinglevelsforotherresearchprogramswithinUSDAandforotherfederalagencies.Forexample,inFY1999theUSDAAgriculturalResearchService'sbudgetwasnearly$800millionandUSDAformulafundstotaled$541million.NSF'sandNIH'sbudgetsforFY2000are$3.9billionand$17.9billion,respectively,andthebudgetforDOE'sOfficeofScienceforFY2000is$2.8billion,accordingtoa1999articleinScience.Giventhesedata,thecommitteedoesnotthinkitunreasonabletoexpectthatacompetitiveresearchprogramexplicitlyfocusedonhigh-priorityissuesinfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesessentialelementstofuturenationalsecurityandstabilitybefundedatapproximately$800millionby2005.Asstatedpreviously,thisfigureisessentiallyare-affirmationoftheNRC's1989recommendationtoincreasecompetitiveresearchfundingatUSDAto$550million.

Thecommitteebelievesthattherecommendedincreaseinfundingshouldtakeplaceincrementallyasthevariouschangesrecommendedearlierinthisreportareputintoplace.Theabilitytoutilizelargeamountsofnewfundingeffectivelywillbecompromisedunlessrecommendedchangestothepriority-settingprocessandNRI'sorganizationareimplemented.

Summary

ThecommitteefoundtheNRI'scurrentpeer-reviewedresearchtobeofhighqualityandvaluebutbelievesthatmuchcouldbedonetocharacterizethequalityandvaluemoreconcretelyandtocommunicatethatinformationtothestakeholdersintheNRIbetter.ThecommitteefoundtheNRIpriority-settingprocesstobelacking.Specificstructuralchangeswererecommendedtoremedythatdeficiency.

ThecommitteefoundthattheNRI'sresearchagendacomplementsotherUSDAactivitiesandthoseofotherfederalagencies,thestates,andtheprivatesector.However,thecurrentsize,structure,anddiffuseagendamakeeffectivecomplementaritydifficult.Thecommitteerecommendschangesinprocessandpriority-settingtohelpbuttressthisNRIresponsibility.

Finally,thecommitteesetforthcomprehensiveorganizationalandfundingchangessothattheNRC'svisionforfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearchcouldbeachieved.AcombinationofrestructuringandsubstantiallyincreasedfundingcouldprovideUSDAandthenationwiththecriticalfundamentalmerit-basedpeer-reviewedresearchbasethatwillberequiredtomeetthefood,fiber,andnatural-resourceschallengesofthe21stcentury.

Appendixes

AppendixASection1615oftheFood,Agriculture,ConservationandTradeActof1990

SEC.1615.NATIONALCOMPETITIVERESEARCHINITIATIVE.

(a)INITIATIVEESTABLISHED-Subsection(b)ofsection2ofPublicLaw89-106(7U.S.C.450i)isamended

(1)byinserting'COMPETITIVEGRANTS-(1)'after'(b)';and(2)bystrikingthethirdsentenceandallthatfollowsandinsertingthefollowingnewparagraphs:

'(2)HIGHPRIORITYRESEARCH-Forpurposesofthissubsection,theterm'highpriorityresearch'meansbasicandappliedresearchthatfocusesonbothnationalandregionalresearchneeds(andmethodstotransfersuchresearchtoonfarmorinmarketpractice)in

'(A)plantsystems,includingplantgenomestructureandfunction;molecularandcellulargeneticsandplantbiotechnology;plant-pestinteractionsandbiocontrolsystems;cropplantresponsetoenvironmentalstresses;unprovednutrientqualitiesofplantproducts;andnewfoodandindustrialusesofplantproducts;

'(B)animalsystems,includingaquaculture,cellularandmolecularbasisofanimalreproduction,growth,disease,andhealth;identificationofgenesresponsibleforimprovedproductiontraitsandresistancetodisease;improvednutritionalperformanceofanimals;andimprovednutrientqualitiesofanimalproducts,anduses,andthedevelopmentofnewandimprovedanimalhusbandryandproductionsystemsthattakeintoaccountproductionefficiencyandanimalwell-being,andanimalsystemsapplicabletoaquaculture;

'(C)nutrition,foodquality,andhealth,includingmicrobialcontaminantsandpesticidesresiduesrelatedtohumanhealth;linksbetweendietandhealth;bioavailabilityofnutrients;postharvestphysiologyandpractices;andimprovedprocessingtechnologies;

'(D)naturalresourcesandtheenvironment,includingfundamentalstructuresandfunctionsofecosystems;biologicalandphysicalbasesofsustainableproductionsystems;minimizingsoilandwaterlossesandsustainingsurfacewaterandgroundwaterquality;globalclimateeffectsonagriculture;forestry;andbiologicaldiversity;

'(E)engineering,products,andprocesses,includingnewusesandnewproductsfromtraditionalandnon-traditionalcrops,animals,byproducts,andnaturalresources;robotics,energyefficiency,computing,andexpertsystems;newhazardandriskassessmentandmitigationmeasures;andwaterqualityandmanagement;and

'(F)markets,trade,andpolicy,includingoptionalstrategiesforenteringandbeingcompetitiveinoverseasmarkets;newdecisiontoolsforonfarmandinmarketsystems;choicesandapplicationsoftechnology;technologyassessment;andnew

approachestoruraleconomicdevelopment.

'(3)TYPESOFGRANTS-Inadditiontomakingresearchgrantsunderparagraph(1),theSecretarymayconductaprogramtoimproveresearchcapabilitiesintheagricultural,food,andenvironmentalsciencesandawardthefollowingcategoriesofcompetitivegrants:

'(A)Grantsmaybeawardedtoasingleinvestigatororcoinvestigatorswithinthesamediscipline.

'(B)Grantsmaybeawardedtoteamsofresearchersfromdifferentareasofagriculturalresearchandscientificdisciplines.

'(C)Grantsmaybeawardedtomultidisciplinaryteamsthatareproposingresearchonlong-termappliedresearchproblems,withtechnologytransferamajorcomponentofallsuchgrantproposals.'(D)Grantsmaybeawardedtoaninstitutiontoallowfortheimprovementoftheresearch,development,technologytransfer,andeducationcapacityoftheinstitutionthroughtheacquisitionofspecialresearchequipmentandtheimprovementofagriculturaleducationandteaching.TheSecretaryshallusenotlessthan25percent,andnotmorethan40percent,ofthefundsmadeavailableforgrantsunderthissubparagraphtoprovidefellowshipstooutstandingpre-andpost-doctoralstudentsforresearchintheagriculturalsciences.

'(E)Grantsmaybeawardedtosingleinvestigatorsorcoinvestigatorswhoarebeginningtheirresearchcareersanddonothaveanextensiveresearchpublicationrecord.Tobeeligibleforagrantunderthissubparagraph,anindividualshallhavelessthan5yearsofpost-graduateresearchexperience.

'(F)Grantsmaybeawardedtoensurethatthefacultyofsmallandmid-sizedinstitutionswhohavenotpreviouslybeensuccessfulinobtainingcompetitivegrantsunderthissubsectionreceiveaportionofthegrants.

'(4)TERM-Thetermofacompetitivegrantmadeunderthissubsectionmaynotexceed5years.

'(5)DIRECTOR-TheSecretaryshallappointadirectorforthegrantprogramauthorizedbythissubsection.TheSecretary,actingthroughthedirector,shallberesponsiblefortheoveralldirectionofthegrantprogramandimplementationofgeneralpoliciesrespectingthemanagementandoperationofprograms

andactivitiesintheprogram.

'(6)PARTICIPATIONINGRANTPROCESS-Inseekingproposalsforgrantsunderthissubsectionandinperformingpeerreviewevaluationsofsuchproposals,theSecretaryshallseekthewidestparticipationofqualifiedscientistsintheFederalGovernment,collegesanduniversities,Stateagriculturalexperimentstations,andtheprivatesector.

'(7)CONSTRUCTIONPROHIBITED-Agrantmadeunderparagraph(1)maynotbeusedforanypurposeforwhichagrantmaybemadeundersubsection(d)orfortheplanning,repair,rehabilitation,acquisition,orconstructionofabuildingorfacility.

'(8)MATCHINGFUNDS-

'(A)Exceptasprovidedinsubparagraph(B),theSecretarymaynottaketheofferoravailabilityofmatchingfundsintoconsiderationinmakingagrantunderthissubsection.

'(B)Inthecaseofgrantsunderparagraph(3)(D),theamountprovidedunderthissubsectionmaynotexceed50percentofthecostthespecialresearchequipmentorotherequipmentacquired.

'(9)ANNUALREPORT-TheSecretaryshalltransmittoCongressanannualreportdescribingthepolicies,priorities,andoperationsofthegrantprogramauthorizedbythissubsectionduringtheprecedingfiscalyear.Thereportshall

'(A)includeadescriptionoftheprogressbeingmadetocomplywithsubsection(j);and

'(B)betransmittednotlaterthanJanuary1ofeachyear.

'(10)AUTHORIZATIONOFAPPROPRIATIONS-Thereareauthorizedtobeappropriatedtocarryoutthissubsection$150,000,000forfiscalyear1991,$275,000,000forfiscalyear1992,$350,000,000forfiscalyear1993,and$400,000,000forfiscalyear1994,and$500,000,000forfiscalyear1995,ofwhicheachfiscalyear

'(A)notlessthan10percentforfiscalyear1991,20percentforfiscalyear1992,and30percentforfiscalyear1993andeachfiscalyearthereaftershallbeavailabletomakegrantsforresearchtobeconductedbymultidisciplinaryteams;

'(B)notlessthan20percentshallbeavailabletomakegrantsforresearchtobeconductedbypersonsconductingmission-linkedsystemsresearch;

'(C)notlessthan10percentshallbeavailabletomakegrantsundersubparagraphs(D)and(F)ofparagraph(3)forawardinggrantsinresearchandeducationstrengtheningandresearchopportunity;

'(D)notmorethantwopercentmaybeusedforequipmentgrantsundersubparagraph(3)(D);and

'(E)notmorethanfourpercentmayberetainedbytheSecretarytopayadministrativecostsincurredbytheSecretaryincarryingoutthissubsection.'.

(b)ADMINISTRATIVEPROVISIONS-Suchsectionisfurtheramendedbyaddingattheendthefollowingnewsubsections:

'(j)EMPHASISONSUSTAINABLEAGRICULTURE-TheSecretaryofAgricultureshallensurethatgrantsmadeundersubsections(b)and(c)are,whereappropriate,consistentwiththedevelopmentofsystemsofsustainableagriculture.Forpurposesofthissection,theterm'sustainableagriculture'hasthemeaninggiventhatterminsection1404(17)oftheNationalAgriculturalResearch,Extension,andTeachingPolicyActof1977(7U.S.C.3103(17)).

'(k)REPORTS-TheSecretaryofAgricultureshallprepareandsubmittoCongressonJanuary1ofeachyearareportonawardsmadeundersubsections(b)and(c)duringthepreviousfiscalyear.

'(1)CONSULTATIONWITHTECHNOLOGYBOARD-TheSecretaryofAgriculturemayconsultwiththeAgriculturalScienceandTechnologyReviewBoardregardingthepolicies,priorities,andoperationofsubsections(b)and(c).'.

(c)STYLISTICAMENDMENTS-Suchsectionisfurtheramended

(1)bystriking'SEC.2.(a)'andinsertingthefollowing:

'SEC.2.COMPETITIVE,SPECIAL,ANDFACILITIESRESEARCHGRANTS.

'(a)ESTABLISHMENTOFGRANTPROGRAM-';

(2)insubsection(d),byinserting'FACILITIESGRANTS-'after'(d)';

(3)insubsection(e),byinserting'RECORDKEEPING-'after'(e)';

(4)insubsection(f),byinserting'LIMITSONOVERHEAD

COSTS-'after'(f)';

(5)insubsection(g),byinserting'AUTHORIZATIONOFAPPROPRIATIONS-'after'(g)';

(6)insubsection(h),byinserting'RULES-'after'(h)';and(7)insubsection(i),byinserting'APPLICATIONOFOTHERLAWS-'after'(i)'.

AppendixBSurveyontheUSDepartmentofAgriculture'sNationalResearchInitiative(NRI)CompetitiveGrantsProgram

1. AreyoufamiliarwiththeNRIprogram?

a)Yes,veryfamiliar

___________

b)Somewhatfamiliar

___________

c)Notfamiliar ___________(PleaseanswerQuestion8and

anyothersyouconsiderappropriate.)

Comments:

2. Inyourview,hastheprogramcontributedtothemissionofgenerating

fundamentalandappliedresearch,andfuturescientistsforagriculture?

a)Yes ___________ forthemostpart.

b)Yes ___________ butlessthanIexpected.

c)No ___________ itspromiseremainslargelyunfulfilled.

Comments;Examples:

3. IstheNRIpeerreviewprocessfair?

a) Yes __________

b) No __________

Comments:

4. asaNRIgrantrecipient/applicant,howdidthisaffectyourcareer?(Ifthisquestiondoesnotapplytoyou,butyouknowsomeonewhosecareerisorhasbeenaffected,pleasefillinthefollowing.)

Greatly SomeVeryLittle

a)Promotionimpact ______________________________

b)Tenureimpact ______________________________

c)Publication(s) ______________________________

d)Patent(s) ______________________________

e)Careerdevelopmentof

undergrad.students ______________________________

f) Careerdevelopmentof

yourgraduatestudents ______________________________

g)Careerdevelopmentofyour

post-doctoralfellows ______________________________

h)Abilitytopursue

independent

(curiosity-driven)research

______________________________

Other(comments):

5. HastheNRIenabledyouoryourinstitution/companytoobtainother

funds(leveraging)?

a)Yes __________

b)No __________

Comments;Examples:

6. HastheNRIcontributedtodevelopmentofhumanresourcesinfood

andagriculture?

a)Yes __________

b)No __________

Comments;Examples

7.HastheNRIprogramresultedinanymajorbenefitstotheU.S.foodandagriculturesystem?

a)Yes __________

b)No __________

Comments;Examples:

8.Aretheareasofcongressionallymandatedfundingappropriate?Theseareasare:plantsystems;animalsystems;nutrition,foodqualityandhealth;naturalresourcesandtheenvironment;processesforaddingvalueandnewproducts;andmarkets,tradeandpolicy.

a)Yes __________

b)No __________ (Pleaseexplaininthecommentsarea)

c)Whattwoareasofresearcharemostimportanttoyou,inorderof

priority(1=highest)?

Comments:

9. IftheNRIreceivedasignificantincreaseinappropriations,howshouldtheadditionalfundsbeused?Rankthefollowing(1=highest;5=

lowest).

a)Expandintonewareas __________

b)Increasesizeofawards __________

c)Increasedurationofawards __________

d)Increasenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear __________

e)Other __________

10.ShouldtheNRIcontinue?Markallthatapply.

VeryMuch

Some-what

NotMuch

a) IstheNRIcontinuance

importanttoyou ______________________________

b) IstheNRIcontinuanceimportant

toyourinstitution ______________________________

c) IstheNRI'scontinuanceimportant

fortheU.S.? ______________________________

d) IstheNRIanimportantpart

oftheUSDAresearchportfolio?

______________________________

e) Istheoverheadrate(now19%)

acceptable?adeterrent?

______________________________

(pleasecircleoneandthenrespond)

11.HowwouldyouimprovetheNRI?

Markallthatapply.

a) Changeprogramareas Yes__________No__________

b) Changeapplicationprocess Yes__________No__________

c) Changereviewprocess Yes__________No__________

If''yes",pleaseelaborateandgiveexamples:

AppendixCExternalViewsoftheNRI

ThecommitteesoughttogatherimpressionsandsystematicdataonthefunctioningoftheNRIfromknowledgeableconstituentgroupsthroughthreemechanisms:asurvey,interviewswithformerNRIchiefscientists,andformaltestimonyofNRIstakeholders.AsafirstcomprehensiveefforttoassessthefunctioningoftheNRI,surveys(seeappendixB)weremailedtodeansanddirectorsoflandgrantandnon-landgrantinstitutions,recipientsofNRIgrants,nonrecipientsintheapplicantpool,andrepresentativesofindustry.InOctober1998,thecommitteeconductedinterviewswithfourformerchiefscientists.Thecommitteealsoreceivedtestimonyfromawiderangeofstakeholders,includingprofessionalsocieties,nonprofitresearchinstitutes,industry,universities,experimentstations,farmorganizations,andfederalagencies.Thisappendixsummarizestheresultsofallthoseefforts.

SurveyResults

FourspecificgroupswereidentifiedbythecommitteeforitssurveyoftheNRI:recipientsofNRIgrants,nonrecipientsofNRIgrants,administratorsoflandgrantinstitutions,andindustry.TheNRIprovidedlistsofrecipientsandnonrecipientsofgrantsfor1995-1997.Namesandaddressesofadministratorsoflandgrantandnon-landgrantinstitutionsweresuppliedbytheNational

AssociationofStateUniversitiesandLandGrantColleges.Thecommitteedeterminedtheremainingcontacts,includingrepresentativesofmediumtolargecompanies.Thesurveywassenttoeverytenthnameonawardeeandnonrecipient(declinedatleasttwice)lists.

QuestionsformulatedbythecommitteeweremailedbytheNRItoawardeesandnonrecipientsinAugust1998(seeappendixB).TheNationalResearchCouncilstaffmailedthesurveytotheremaininggroups.Thosesurveyedwereaskedtoselectfromamongthegivenresponsesandwerealsoencouragedtoprovideadditionalwrittencomments.Replieswerecollatedbythestaff,andthecommitteereviewedtheresponses,evaluatedtheresults,andsummarizedrecommendationsfromthosesurveyed.AlthoughthesurveyisnotstatisticallyrepresentativeoftheNRIapplicantandawardeepopulations,thelargenumberofrespondentsisindicativeoftheviewsofthosewithexperiencewiththeNRI.

ResponseRatesandGeneralThemes

TableA21presentstheresponseratesofallsurveyedgroupsthatweretrackedinthesurvey(forexample,researchersatfederallaboratorieswereincludedamongNRIawardeesandnonrecipients,nottrackedasaseparategroup).Thesurveyhadaresponserateofatleast50%forthreeofthefourgroups,industrywastheexception.TableA2-2breaksdowntheresponseratesforrecipientsandnonrecipientsbyNRIprogramarea.

TABLEA21ResponseRatebyGroupSurveyed

GroupSurveyedNo.Sent

No.Received ResponseRate,%

Awardees 203 141 69.5Nonrecipients 102 51 50.0LandGrantInstitutions 85 60 70.6

Industry 142 37 26.1Total 532 289 54.3

TABLEA2-2ResponsesofAwardeesandNonrecipientsbyNRIResearchAreaResearcharea No.Awardees No.No-recipients

Sent Received Sent ReceivedNaturalResourcesandtheEnvironment 24 20 21 7Nutrition,FoodSafety,andHealth 13 10 9 5Animals 36 25 24 11Plants 46 29 12 6Markets,Trade,andRuralDevelopment 9 6 5 3EnhancingValueandUseofAgriculturalandForestProducts 16 9 7 4PestBiology,BiologicalControl,andIntegratedPestManagement 35 25 19 12AgriculturalSystemsResearch 3 2 3 2StrengtheningPrograms 20 14 2 1NSF/DOE/NASA/USDAJointProgramonTerrestrialEcologyandGlobalChange(TECO) 1 1Total 203 141 102 51

NearlyallrespondentsindicatedthattheNRIprogramhadcontributedtogeneratingfundamentalandappliedresearch,andtrainingfuturescientistsforagriculture(seequestion2).AlargemajorityofrespondentsindicatedthattheNRIhadcontributedtothedevelopmentofhumanresourcesinfoodandagriculture,specificallyincareerdevelopmentandpredoctoralandpostdoctoraltraining(seequestion6).Inaddition,anoverwhelmingpercentageofthosesurveyedinallfourtargetgroupsbelievedthattheNRIprogramhadresultedinmajorbenefitstotheUSfoodandagriculturesystem(seequestion7).VirtuallyallrespondentsviewedcontinuationoftheNRIprogramasessential(seequestion10).

AnoverwhelmingpercentageofNRIrecipientsandamajorityofnonrecipientsindicatedthattheNRIusesafairpeer-reviewprocesstoselectproposalsforfunding(seequestion3).Respondentswhohadreview-panelexperienceinothercompetitivegrantsprogramswereespeciallycomplimentaryoftheNRIprocess.Somenonrecipientsandadministratorsoflandgrantinstitutionscriticizedsomeelementsofthepeer-reviewprocess,includingpanelcomposition,thesingleyearlyapplication,thelongresponsetimes,andthelengthofpanelterms.

Mostofrespondentsbelievedthatthecongressionallymandatedprogramareasareappropriate(seequestion8).Afewrespondentsthattheareasoverlappedordidnotrepresenttheirresearchinterests.Severalrespondentsfavoredhigh-risk,high-rewardprojectsandsuggestedgreateremphasisoninterdisciplinaryproposals.

Questions9and11addressedimprovementsintheNRIprogram.Question9askedhowadditionalmoneyshouldbeusediftheNRIreceivedalarge

increaseinappropriations.Question11askedrespondentshowtheywouldimprovetheNRI.Themajorityresponsetoquestion9wastoincreasethesizeanddurationofawards,followedbyexpansionintonewareas.Inresponsetoquestion11,awardeesweregenerallysatisfiedwithprogramoperations.Theirresponsescenteredonrefiningthereviewprocess,theyrecommendedlessturnoveramongthereviewpanelsandmorerapidandmorefrequentreviews.Awardeesalsoexpressedconcernaboutreviewerscompetingforgrantsthemselvesintheirresearchareas.Nonrecipientsexpressedconcernsaboutthereviewprocess,especiallytheselectionofpanelmembersandreviewersandtheneedtoavoidan"oldboynetwork".Theyalsofavoredmorerapidandmorefrequentreviews.Severalrespondentssuggestedapreproposalprocesstoshortenevaluationtime.

Manyrespondentsexpressedtheviewthattotalfundingoftheprogramwasinsufficientandthatawardsweretooshort,toofew,andtoosmall(seequestion11).Thelowoverheadratewascitedbysomerespondentsbutwasnotamajorconcern.

Thesurveywaslimitedinscopeandstatisticalsignificance.Theresultsreflecttheviewsonlyoftherespondents.MostrespondentsclearlyhadapersonalinterestinthecontinuationandexpansionoftheNRI.However,thehighresponserate,thethoroughnessoftheresponses,andthenumeroussuggestionsforimprovementreflectthehighimportanceoftheNRItothesemembersoftheresearchcommunity.

DetailedSummaryofSurveyData

Thefollowingsectionssummarizethesurveyresultsforthegroupstrackedinthesurveyforeachofthe11surveyquestions.Foreachquestion(sometimeseachgroup),atabularsummaryofresponsesisfollowedbyanoverviewofthewrittencommentsprovidedbysome

respondents.Exceptwherenoted,narrativedescriptionsreferonlytowrittencommentsandthusreflecttheviewsofrespondentswhotookthetimetoprovidethem;thenarrativedescriptionsdonotnecessarilyreflectthegeneralviewsofallthosewhocompletedthesurvey.

1 AreyoufamiliarwiththeUSDA/NRIprogram?Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant Industry

Yes,veryfamiliar 117 44 47 6Yes,somewhatfamiliar 22 7 12 15Notfamiliar 2 1 15

NRIAwardees:Twenty-threeindicatedthattheyhadbeeninvolvedintheNRIactivitieseitheraspanelmembers,panelmanagers,oradhocreviewers.SomeawardeeshadbeendeniedNRIawardsinthepast.

Nonrecipients:Thisgroupincludedscientistswhoin1995-1997hadbeendeniedNRIawardsatleasttwice.ThenonrecipientincludedresearcherswhohadreceivedNRIgrantsinthepast.SixapplicantsindicatedthattheyparticipatedintheNRIprocessaspanelmembersorreviewers.

LandGrant:Onerespondentservedasareviewer,oneasapanelmanager,andoneasapanelmember.OneindicatedthathisuniversitywasabigsourceofreviewersfortheNRI.TworespondentswrotethatresearchersfromtheirinstitutionsappliedforNRIgrantsandsomeweresuccessfulinreceivingthem.Onepersonfeltthatbecauseofthewayfundswereallocatedandthemethodofevaluation,programactivitieswerewidelydispersedandfundedforashorttime;therefore,theNRIdoesnotnearlyreachthepotentialonewoulddemand."

Industry:OnlyafewrespondentsmadecommentsabouttheNRI.Threerespondentswerenotinterestedinlearningabouttheprogram,becauseoftheconfidentialityoftheirresearchorbecausetheapplicationandreviewprocesswastooslow.

2. Inyourview,hastheprogramcontributedtothemissionofgeneratingfundamentalandappliedresearch,andfuturescientistsforagriculture?

Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant IndustryYes,forthemostpart

111 30 33 12

Yes,butlessthanIexpected 22 13 24 8No,itspromiseremainslargelyunfulfilled 3 5

Awardees:Althoughsomerespondentscommentedthattheprogramfocusedtoomuchonfundamentalorappliedresearch,thegeneralconsensuswasthatdespitelimitedfunding,theNRIcontributedgreatlytofundamentalresearchandtothetrainingofscientists(graduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientists.)Inmanyinstancestheprogramprovidedfundstoinnovativeandvaluableresearchthatotherwisewouldnothavebeenperformed.ManyrespondentsconsideredtheNRIcrucialtoUSagriculture.Almostallcommentsindicatedthatmorefundingwouldmaketheprogrammoreeffective.

Nonrecipients:OnlyafewresearchersmadepositivecommentsabouttheNRI.Someindicatedthatbecauseoflowfundingmanyprogramareaswerenotadequatelyaddressed.Asaresult,manyresearcherswerediscouragedfromapplyingforNRIfunding.Somefeltthatonly"cutting-edge"and"politicallypopular"ideaswerefunded.Othersfeltthatreviewerswerenot"adventurous"andavoidedmoreinnovativeprojects.Severalcommentedthattherewastoolittleemphasisonappliedresearch;onestatedtheopposite.

LandGrant:RespondentsagreedthatNRIfundsweretoolow,which,incombinationwiththelowsuccessrate,discouragedmanyresearchersfromparticipatingintheprogram.ManyagreedthattheNRIwasgeneratingimportantfundamentalresearchandallowedtrainingofgraduatestudents.However,commentswerealsomadethatmorefundingshouldbeavailableforappliedresearch.Therewereonlyafewcommentsthatmoreawardsshouldbemadeto1890institutions.

Industry:Afewrespondentswrotethattheprogramwasunderfunded;twofeltthattheNRIwassuccessful,andonefeltthatitcontributedtoadvancedknowledgeaboutporkqualityandpost-mortemphysiology.

3. IstheNRIpeerreviewprocessfair?Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant Industry

Yes 125 39 49 16No 4 14 8

Awardees:AnumberofrespondentsindicatedthattheprocesswasfairerthanthatofNIHorNSF.ThosewhoservedonNRIpanelswrotehighlyaboutthefairnessandhonestyoftheprocess,inwhichthebest

scienceisawarded.Manyrespondentsconsideredreviewers'commentsappropriateandconstructive.Somefeltthatreviewersweretooconservativeintheirapproachestonewideas.Somefeltthatproposalswerereviewedbycompetitors;twohadbeenaskedtoreviewproposalswhiletheirownproposalswerebeingreviewedwithinthesamesections.CommentswerealsomadethattheNRIshouldensurecontinuityonthepanelstoavoidinconsistencyinevaluatinggrantsfromyeartoyear.Fourrespondentsmarkedboth"yes"and"no".

Nonrecipients:Mostofthecommentswerecriticalofthereviewersandpanelmembers.Someapplicantshadaperceptionthatpanelsdonotspendenoughtimetoreviewproposalsandrelytooheavilyonreviewers'comments.Sometimesthereviewerandtheapplicantcompeteforthesamemoney.Othersfeltthattherewastoomuchfavoritisminselectingpanelmembersandreviewersandthatthesegroupsrepresentedthe"oldboy"network;thereisalsofavoritisminfundingofsomeprogramareas.Manyexcellentproposalsdonotreceivefunding.Ontheotherhand,thosewhoservedonNRIpanelsattestedtothefairnessoftheprocesseachprojectreceivesalotofattentionandisdiscussedextensively.OnepanelmembermentionedthatprojectswerediscussedintheorderinwhichtheywerereceivedattheNRI,sotheearlier-arrivingproposalsreceivedbetterandfresherconsideration;thispersonrecommendednumberingprojectsrandomlyinsteadofsequentially.Tworespondentsmarkedboth"yes"and"no."

LandGrant:Amajorityofcommentsshowednegativeperceptionofthereviewprocess.Respondentsfeltthatpanelmemberswerebiasedagainstappliedresearchandsomecategoriesofapplicantsandinstitutions.Onepersonusedtheterm"oldboynetwork".Expertiseofreviewersandpanelmemberswasquestionedaswell.Somefeltthatabroader-basedreviewprocessshouldbeimplementedfortheinterdisciplinaryresearchandthatmoreunconventionalideasshouldbefunded.

Industry:Threecommentsweremadeinthissection:theprocessistoopoliticalandscientistsusedgrantreviewstoprepareforthenextgrant,theprocessisfair(onthebasisofdiscussionswithotherresearchers),andexpectationsarehigherthanrealityofneedsandabilitytodeliver.

4.HasyourcareerbeenaffectedbyapplyingfororreceivinganNRIgrant?(Ifthisquestiondoesnotapplytoyou,butyouknowsomeonewhosecareerisorhasbeenaffected,pleasefillinthefollowing.)

Awardees:GreatlySomeVeryLittle

Promotionimpact 65 43 17Tenureimpact 50 30 29Publication(s) 89 43 4Patent(s) 7 22 58Careerdevelopmentofundergrad.students 35 51 29Careerdevelopmentofyourgraduatestudents 84 21 15Careerdevelopmentofyourpostdoctoralfellows 71 19 17Abilitytopursueindependent(curiosity-driven)research 82 32 16

About50%ofrespondentsfeltthatNRIgrantscontributedtotheirpromotions.About60%indicatedthattheywereabletopursueindependentresearchthatledtopublications.ManyrespondentsemphasizedtheNRI'sroleincreatingresearchandtrainingprograms;formostofthem,NRIgrantswerecrucialinestablishingtheirresearch(oftencuriosity-driven)programsthatattractedmanygraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientist(60%ofrespondentsindicatedgreatNRIimpactinthisarea).Manyofthesegrantsallowedyoungresearcherstomanageanddirectresearchprojectsandpreparedthemtoruntheirownlaboratories.TheNRIisconsideredessentialtofundamentalandbasicresearch.Again,manycommentsweremadeabouttoolowfunding.

Non-Recipients:GreatlySomeVeryLittle

Promotionimpact 14 12 16Tenureimpact 12 8 17

Publication(s) 18 11 15Patent(s) 2 3 24Careerdevelopmentofundergrad.Students 6 14 19Careerdevelopmentofyourgraduatestudents 19 18 8Careerdevelopmentofyourpostdoctoralfellows 17 9 14Abilitytopursueindependent(curiosity-driven)research 15 18 14

Thisgroupofrespondentsmadeveryfewcomments.AcoupleofresearchersexpressedtheopinionthattheNRIis"absolutenecessity"andthatreceivinganNRIawardwas"oneofthemostimportantmilestonesafaculty

membercanachieve."SomefeltthatNRIfundsallowedthemtoconductfundamentalresearchthatwouldn'thavebeenpossibleotherwise.However,otherswrotethatapplyingforNRIgrantsmeantnothingunlessfundswerereceivedandthatnotreceivingfundshadratheradverseeffectsontheircareers.

LandGrant:GreatlySomeVeryLittle

Promotionimpact 16 14 9Tenureimpact 15 12 10Publication(s) 20 13 6Patent(s) 9 24Careerdevelopmentofundergrad.Students 5 17 15Careerdevelopmentofgraduatestudents 18 16 5Careerdevelopmentofpostdoctoralfellows 13 21 6Abilitytopursueindependent(curiosity-driven)research 16 16 8

Veryfewcommentswereprovidedforthissection.OnerespondentfeltthatNRIfundswerenotsufficienttosupportgraduatestudents.AnotherfeltthattheNRIwasanadditionalimportantfundingsourceforthecollege.Onepersonwrotethattheshort-termnatureofgrantsdidnotcontributetoaneffectiveresearchprogram.AnotherprovidedanexampleofajuniorfacultymemberwhowentfromanNRIpostdoctoralpositiontoanassistantprofessorship;additionalfundsreceivedfromtheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)increasedtheresearcher'schanceofpromotionandtenure.

Industry:GreatlySomeVeryLittle

Promotionimpact 3 2 4Tenureimpact 2 2 4Publication(s) 3 2 5

Patent(s) 2 7Careerdevelopmentofundergrad.Students 3 6Careerdevelopmentofgraduatestudents 2 2 5Careerdevelopmentofpostdocfellows 3 2 5Abilitytopursueindependent(curiosity-driven)research 2 2 4

Mostofthecommentsindicatedthatthisquestionwasnotapplicable.Onepersonusedacolleague'scareertomarktheitems.

5. HastheNRIenabledyouoryourinstitution/companytoobtainotherresearchfunds(leveraging)?Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant Industry

Yes 78 16 43 2No 54 30 16 18

Awardees:ThosewhoreceivedfundswereabletocontinueresearchsupportedbyNRIgrantsortopursuenewprojects(insomeinstances,NRIgrantssupportedpilotprojectsthatledtobiggerprojectssupportedbyindustry).FundswerereceivedfromstateorfederaltheUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA),theNationalInstituteofHealth(NIH),NSF,ortheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)industry,commodityandgrowersgroups,andproducerorganizations.Veryexpensivecommercialcomputersoftwarewasdonatedtoonelaboratory.ExampleswerecitedinwhichNRIgrantshelpedinobtainingfundsfromAustraliaandJapantoconductinternationalcollaborativeresearchprojects.Inothercases,NRIgrantshelpedinobtainingtravelfundsforaninternationalconferenceorafellowshipabroadorhelpedinbuildastrongprogramthatledtoadditionalfacultyandfacilitiesfundedbystate.ManyrespondentsfeltthatreceivingNRIgrantsmadethemmorecompetitiveforotherfundingsources.Onlyafewcommentsweremadebythosewhodidnotreceivefundsfromothersources.Somewereintheprocessofapplyingforfundsandexpressedoptimism.SomepostdoctoralscientistsindicatedthattheirNRIgrantswerenotdesignedtocombinewithotherfunds.OnlyonepersonstatedthattheNRIplayedaminorroleforhimorherandhisorhercolleaguesintheirresearchprograms''andintheendcontributeslittletothem".

Nonrecipients:

Onlyafewcommentsweremadebythisgroup,mostlybyresearcherswhoreceivedfundsfromothersources.Thosesourcesincludedstateagencies,USDA,growersorganizations,andprivatecompanies.TherespondentsfeltthatreceivingNRIgrantsgreatlycontributedtotheirobtainingfundsfromothersources.SomesaidthattheNRIplayedamajorroleinbuildingprogramsandreputationsandthat,asthemainsupportofagriculturalresearch,NRIfundswereofmorevaluethanfundsfromothersources.Onepersoncommentedthatanestablishedresearchareadidnotattractmanydiversefundingsources.

LandGrant:Fundswerereceivedfromvarioussources:NSF,commoditygroups,industry,andasuniversitymatches.NRIfundingishighlyrecognizedbyotheragenciesandbuildsafoundationforotherfunding.Italsogivesagoodstartincompetingforgrantsandcontracts.

Industry:Ofthetworespondentswhoreceivedfunds,onlyoneprovideditssource:theNationalPorkProducersCouncil.

6. HastheNRIcontributedtodevelopmentofhumanresourcesinfoodandagriculture?

Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant IndustryYes 105 34 53 16No 10 5 5 1

Awardees:AvastmajorityofrespondentsagreedthatNRIgrantsallowedthemtoattractandsupportgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientists.TrainingthefuturegenerationofresearchersisoneofthegreatestattributesoftheNRI.Acoupleofrespondentslookedatthehuman-resourcesaspectfromadifferentangle.Forexample,oneresearcherworkingonaviraldiseaseofcattledevelopedananimalmodelofacloselyrelatedviraldiseaseofhumans;findingsoftheresearchimprovedmeatandmilkproductionandgaveinsightsintoahumandisease.Asimilarexamplewascitedbyanotherperson,whoseworkonanimaldiseaseledtoanimalmodelsapplicabletohumandisease,generatingproposalstoNIH.Otherexampleswerepatentedprocessesforstraindevelopment,currentlybeingtestedinthefield;ruraldevelopmenteffortscoordinatedwithcountyland-useplanning,developmentofanewfertilizerthatwillhaveanimpactonfoodstuffsproductionand,workonviraldiseasesthataffectagricultureinMontana.

Someofthosewhodidnotmarkanyanswerindicatedthattheyhadnoopinion.Onlyafewofrespondentswhomarked"no"madecomments.OnestatedthattheNRIprogramwastoosmallandhadverylittletrainingpotential.Anotherwrotethatbecauseofthenature

ofhisorherresearch(developmentofskeletalmuscle),nocontributiontohumanresourceswasmade.

Nonrecipients:MostoftherespondentswhomadecommentsagreedthattheNRIcontributedgreatlytotrainingofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientists,especiallyinfundamentalresearch.Onlyonepersoncommentedthatshort-termgrantsdiscouragedtrainingofgraduatestudents.Anotherpersonwrotethat"simplywritingorreviewingNRIproposalsdevelops'humanresources,'namelythePIs."

LandGrant:SupportandtrainingofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientistswerethemostcommonexamplesofanNRIcontribution.SomerespondentsfeltthattheNRIcontributionwasslightandcouldbeimprovedbyfundingmoreappliedormission-orientedproposals.

Industry:Onlyonerespondentindicatedtrainingofgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscientists.

7 HastheNRIprogramresultedinanymajorbenefitstotheU.S.foodandagriculturesystem?

Awardees:TherewasalmostcompleteagreementthattheNRIhasgreatlycontributedtotheUSfoodandagriculturesystem.ManyrespondentsmadegeneralstatementsforexamplethattheNRIplayedaveryimportantrole;thatimprovedhumanresourcesleddirectlytoprofessionaleffectivenessthatbenefitedfoodandagriculturalsystem,andthattheNRIgreatlyimprovedfundamentalknowledge.Somestatedthatitwasdifficulttoquantifythesebenefits,becauseresultsoffundamentalresearchdidnothaveimmediateapplicability.Otherscitedbenefitscomingdirectlyfromtheirresearchprojectssuchasnewplantspeciesthatrequiresmalleruseofpesticides,animalvaccines,andasaferfoodsupply.Otherslistedspecificexamples:patentsfordiagnosticsforspiderlambsyndromeandforbovineleukemiavirus,Bt-corn,andscreeningproceduresforE.coliO157andSalmonella.Severalrespondentswerenotsureabouttheanswerordidnothaveenoughinformationtorespond.Oneoftherespondentswhomarked

"no"commentedthatmajordirectbenefitswerecomingfromindustryresearch;anotherwrotethatNRIgrantsdidnotdirectlyorimmediatelyresultinmajorbenefits.

Nonrecipients:AboutadozenrespondentseitherdidnothavetheinformationorfeltthatitwastooearlytoevaluatetheNRI'simpactonUSagriculture.Anothergroupofrespondents,similarinsize,feltthattheNRIhadhadagreatimpactbyprovidingthebaseforthewholebiotechnologyindustry,developingexpertiseinplantmaterials,increasingthequalityandquantityoffundamentalandappliedagriculturalresearch,andtrainingyoungscientists.Morespecificexamplesincludedsuccessfullydealingwithmajorpathogensincattle,useof

bovinesomatotropin,andinvestigativeworkonthemechanismsbywhichagriculturalpollutantscancontaminatethelargerenvironmentwhichaffectedcongressionalactiononthetypesofpoliciesneededtominimizedamages,suchastheBufferStripInitiative(toslowrunoffflowandtrapsedimentfromthefieldbytheplacementofstripsofpermanentvegetation).

LandGrant:Althoughnospecificexampleswerecited,manycommentsweremadethattheNRIcontributedtoagriculturalbiotechnology,food-safetymanagement/environmentalissues,farming,animalhealth,andsoon.SomerespondentsfeltthattherewouldbenobasicresearchinagriculturewithouttheNRI.Otherssaidthatbecausetheprogramisrelativelyyoung,itwastooearlytoseetheeffects.Acommentwasalsomadethatnotmuchcouldbeexpectedfromanunderfundedprogram.

Industry:MostcommentswerefavorableaboutNRIcontributions.Generalexamplesincludedcontributionstoanimal-healthmonitoring,cornandsoybeanresearch,basicR&D,andporkandturkeyqualitythroughbetterunderstandingofmusclephysiology.Onepersonfeltthattheprogramwastooyoungtoevaluatetheresults.

8. Aretheareasofcongressionallymandatedfundingappropriate?Theseareasare:plantsystems;animalsystems;nutrition,foodqualityandhealth;naturalresourcesandtheenvironment;processesforaddingvalueandnewproducts;andmarkets,tradeandpolicy.

Whattwoareasofresearcharemostimportanttoyou,inorderofpriority(1=highest)?Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant

Rank1 Rank2 Rank1 Rank2 Rank1 Rank2PlantSystems

28 20 7 3 22 4AnimalSystems

20 10 10 1 14 5Nutrition,FoodQualityandHealth 14 16 3 11 6 7NaturalResourcesandtheEnvironment 12 17 6 8 11 3ProcessesforAddingValueandNewProducts 2 4 1 2 3Markets,TradeandPolicy 2 1 4 3

Awardees:Avastmajorityofrespondentsagreedthatthefundingareaswereappropriate.Manyofcommentsweremadeaboutinsufficientfunds.SomeindicatedthattheNRIshouldfocusmoreonlong-termbasicresearch.Manywouldliketoseebiggeremphasisontheirprogramareaswithincreasedfundsandnewsubareas.TherewerefewcommentsthattheMarkets,TradeandPolicy,areaandtheProcessesforAddingValueandNewProductsareawere"soft"andshouldnotbefundedbytheNRIbutlefttoindustryorcommerce.

Nonrecipients:Afewrespondentscommentedthatitwasnotalwaysclearwhattheprogramareascovered.Forexample,PlantSystemsandNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentcouldbecloselylinked,andentomologyresearchcouldbeunderbothPlantSystemsandAnimalSystems.Recommendationsweremadethat,forexample,PlantSystemsandAnimalSystemsbecomeoneprogramarea.Someresearcherscalledforrestoringdiscontinuedprogramareas,suchasforest/range/crop/aquaticecosystemsorforestrypestmanagement.Othersrecommendedcreatingnewareas,suchasfiberproduction.Onerespondentwrotethat"detailedprogramguidelinessimplydonotallowresearcherstospanaccessboundariesinaddressingsalientquestions...currentguidelinesaretootraditionalandnotreceptivetothe'systems'viewthatproducersmustemploy."Commentswerealsomadethatawardsaretoosmall.

LandGrant:OnlyafewrespondentsfeltthattheprogramareasshouldnotbedeterminedbyCongress.Somerespondentsmadespecificrecommendations,suchasincreasingfunding,movingValueAdded/NewProductsfromtheNRItocommodityorindustrygroups,addingGenomics,integratingPlantSystemswithAnimalSystems,movingMarkets,TradeandPolicytotheDepartmentofCommerce,

andchangingtheNRIfromadisciplinetoaproblem-orientedprogram.

Industry:Amajorityofrespondentsagreedthattheprogramareaswereappropriatebutunderfunded.

9.IftheNRIreceivedasignificantincreaseinappropriations,howshouldtheadditionalfundsbeused?Rankthefollowing(1=highest;5=lowest).

Awardees:Marked

Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank without1 2 3 4 5 rank

Expandintonewareas 16 14 28 42 16 2Increasesizeofawards 60 29 13 9 5 17Increasedurationofawards 25 47 30 11 2 11Increasenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear 21 17 29 30 13 7Other 5 7 4 2 21 4

Anoverwhelmingnumberofrespondentscalledforincreasesinthesizeanddurationofawards,inthenumberofawards(toomanyexcellentproposalsarenotawarded),andinthenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear(fromonetotwo;especiallyimportantwhensubmittingrevisedproposals).

Nonrecipients:Marked

Expandintonewareas 11 4 8 6 5 3Increasesizeofawards 12 6 7 10 4Increasedurationofawards 3 17 9 3 1 4Increasenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear 9 6 5 8 10 8

Other 6 1 1 2 6 10

Majorrecommendationsweretoincreasethenumberofawardsandtoincreasefunding.Othersincludedincreasingfundingforincreasingfundingforspecificareas,andawardingriskierresearchinitiatives.

LandGrant:Marked

Expandintonewareas 7 4 22 8 3 3Increasesizeofawards 21 12 6 5 1 4Increasedurationofawards 9 30 9 5 1 2Increasenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear 4 2 9 17 9 3Other 7 3 1 2 7 1

Inadditiontoincreasingthefundinganddurationofawards,manyrecommendationsweremadetoincreasethenumberofawards.Otherrecommendationsincludeddiversifyingthepoolofrecipients,expandingintonewareas(genomics,croppingsystems,andtropicalagriculturalproblems),reducingemphasisongrainandfibercropsandincreasingemphasisonplantfruitsandvegetables,funding"system-type"projects,changingorientationfromareastoproblems,andplacingemphasisoninterdisciplinaryresearch.

Industry:Marked

Expandintonewareas 3 2 5 9 3 1Increasesizeofawards 14 5 2 1 1 1Increasedurationofawards 2 11 6 3 1Increasenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear 3 4 8 8Other 1 3 5 1

Recommendationsweremadetoincreasethefunding,number,anddurationofawards.Othersincludedestablishingacategorydesignedtoencourageindustrycollaborativeefforts(earmarkingthepercentageoffundsforsuchproposals),expandingintoregionalresearchstations,focusingonfewerareas,focusingwithinthecurrentareas,andfocusingonmultidisciplinaryresearch.

10.ShouldtheNRIcontinue?Markallthatapply.

Awardees:VerymuchSomewhatNotmuch

IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyou? 127 10 1IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyourinstitution? 112 19 5IstheNRI'scontinuanceimportantfortheU.S.? 126 7IstheNRIanimportantpartoftheUSDAResearchportfolio? 120 4 1Istheoverheadrate(now19%)acceptable?(29markedwithoutranking) 40 22adeterrent?(3markedwithoutranking) 5 15 1

ThetableshowsthattheNRIprogramplaysacrucialroleforindividualresearchers,theiremployers,USDA,andUSagricultureasawhole.Mostofthecommentsfocusedontheoverheadrate.Althoughthetableshowthat19%rateisacceptabletomostrespondents,manyindicatedthatitwasnotacceptabletotheirinstitutions.Asoneresearchersummarized,"ItisgoodforPI,badforinstitution."Onecomplainedthatsomecollaboratorswereunabletoparticipateintheirresearch,becauseoflowoverhead.Anotherindicatedthatlowoverheadwas"theonlythingthatmakeslowawards'workable'."

Nonrecipients:VerymuchSomewhatNotmuch

IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyou 34 8 8IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyourinstitution? 37 10 3IstheNRI'scontinuanceimportantfortheU.S.? 37 10 2

IstheNRIanimportantpartoftheUSDAResearchportfolio? 39 8 2Istheoverheadrate(now19%)acceptable?(13markedwithoutranking) 11 9 1adeterrent?(1markedwithoutranking) 1 2

Mostofthecommentsrevolvedaroundtheoverheadrateandweresimilartothosemadebyawardees.SomerespondentsindicatedthattheirinstitutionsencouragedsendingapplicationstoNIHorNSFratherthantotheNRI.ThelowoverheadratecouldbeacceptabletoinstitutionsifNRIfundswerehigher.

LandGrant:Verymuch Somewhat

Notmuch

IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyou? 41 12 4IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyourinstitution? 43 7 7IstheNRI'scontinuanceimportantfortheU.S.? 49 6 1IstheNRIanimportantpartoftheUSDAResearchportfolio? 47 4 2Istheoverheadrate(now19%)acceptable?(11markedwithoutranking) 12 6 1adeterrent?(4markedwithoutranking) 3 5

Commentsdiscussedonlytheoverheadrate.Allagreedthat19%wasnotsufficientandthatfullratesshouldbeallowed.

Industry:Verymuch Somewhat

Notmuch

IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyou? 11 8 2IstheNRIcontinuanceimportanttoyourinstitution? 8 8 5IstheNRI'scontinuanceimportantfortheU.S.? 14 4 1IstheNRIanimportantpartoftheUSDAresearchportfolio? 15 3 2Istheoverheadrate(now19%)acceptable?(6markedwithoutranking) 2 3adeterrent? 1 1

Onerespondentwrotethat19%overheadratewas"inlinewithmostinstitutions",anotherthatitshouldnotincrease,andanotherthatthe"probablykeepsinstitutionsfrompushingresearcherstoohardto

applyforNRIgrantsforunwarrantedwork."

11.HowwouldyouimprovetheNRI?Markallthatapply.Change... Awardees Nonrecipients LandGrant Industry

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No...programareas 36 89 21 23 15 36 8 7...Applicationprocess 29 94 14 27 11 40 6 8...Reviewprocess 24 96 27 16 19 31 4 12

Awardees:Amajorityofrespondentsvotedagainstchangesinprogramareas,theapplicationprocess,orthereviewprocess.Manyrespondentsemphasizedagaintheimportanceofincreasingthesizeanddurationofawardsandthenumberofawardsandsubmissionsperyear.Recommendedchangesinthereviewprocessincludedcreatingmorepermanentreviewpanels(forexample,3-yeartermswithone-thirdofthepanelrotatingoffeachyear),morerapidandfrequentreviews,banningtheuseofreviewerscompetingforthesamefunds,andensuringthatqualifiedreviewersareusedintheprocess.Manyrepeatedrecommendationstochange(extend)theirownprogramareas.Somefeltthattheprogramshouldfocusmoreonbasicresearch,othersmoreonapplied.

Nonrecipients:Manyrespondentsemphasizedtheneedtochangethereviewprocess.Recommendedchangesincludedbetterselectionofpanelmembersandreviewerstoavoid''oldboys"networks,ensuringthatonlycompetentresearchersreviewproposals,ensuringthatalltypesofinstitutionsarerepresentedonpanels,limitingthenumberofUSDAresearchersinthedecision-makingprocess,andcreatingmorepermanentpanels.Recommendationswerealsomadeabouttheapplicationprocess.Researchersspendtoomuchtimeonwritingproposalsthatarenotfunded.Onerespondentrecommendedthatad

hocreviewsshouldbesenttoapplicantsbeforepanelsmeetandthatapplicantsshouldbeallowedtopreparearesponseforreviewbythepanelwiththereviewers'comments.Othersrecommendedscreeningpreproposals,shorteningturnaroundtime,andincreasingthenumberofsubmissiondatesperyear.Otherrecommendationsincludedexpandingoraddingprogramareas,developingabettermechanismforhandlingintegratedareas,andawardingmore"adventurous"proposals.Onerespondentsuggestedcreatinganexploratoryresearchprogramforideasthatarenotinlinewith"normal"fundingroutes.Manyrecommendationswerealsomadetoincreasethesize,duration,andnumberofawards.

LandGrant:Manycommentsmadebytheserespondentsonquestionwererepeatedhere.Inadditiontoincreasingfundingduration,andnumberofawards,recommendationsweremaderegardingthereviewprocess,suchasdiversifyingpanelsbyaddingconstituentgroups(users),addingscientistswhorepresentvariousgeographicareasandcoverabroaderspectrumofscience;andaddingarelevancereview.Somerecommendedexpandingprogramareastocustomerorcitizenconcernsandpriorities,tropicalandsubtropicalplantandanimalresearch,croppingsystems,foodsafetyandenvironment,andepidemiologicissues.Othersrecommendeddecreasingthenumberofprogramareasandfocusingonscience.Also,morefundingwasrecommendedforlandgrantuniversitiesandsmallinstitutions.Moreinnovativeprojectsshouldbefunded,andthefundingrateofappliedormission-relatedprojectsshouldbeimproved.

Industry:Recommendationsweremadetoincreasethesizeofawards,toimplementapreproposalscreeningprocess,tospecifytargetedresearchareas,toprovidealistofexperts("soundingboards")fordiscussingproposals,toexpandintomultipleproductsfromsingle-sourcefeedstocks,toplaceemphasisonnutrition,toconnectprogrammaticsupportfromtheNRItouniversitiesorprivatelaboratorieswithindustriallong-termneeds,toscreenprojectsformaintainingUScompetitiveness,toconsidersmallerlocalandregionalresearchorganizationsforawards,andtoseparateplant-scienceprogramsfromcommoditylobbies.

InterviewswithFormerChiefScientists

InOctober1998,thecommitteeconductedseparateinterviewswithfourformerchiefscientists:PaulStumpf,19891991;ArthurKelman,19921993;JamesCook,19941995;andRonaldPhillips,19961997.

ThecommitteeaskedabouttheirrolesandexperiencewiththeNRIandaboutrecommendationsforthefuture.Thechiefscientistsprovideddirectinsightintothe"nutsandbolts"oftheNRIanditsinteractionswithUSDAandotheragencies.EachofthemwasproudoftheNRIprogramandhadadeeppersonalcommitmenttoitsprinciplesandpractices.Thediscussionbelowsummarizestheiropinionsandadvice.Therewasgeneralagreementonallmajorissues,althoughtheyplaceddifferentemphasesonsomeissues.

MajorIssue

EachchiefscientiststronglybelievedthattheNRIsuffersfrominadequatefundingandthattheoriginaltargetforNRIfundingof$500millionperyearwouldprovidethenationwithvaluableresearch.Thatamountwouldallowadoublingofboththenumberoffundedgrantsandthesizeofgrants.Theinabilitytoreachtheoriginallevelandtheplateauofcurrentfundingwere

attributedtothelackofstrongUSDAsupport,theabsenceofastrongcommitmenttoUSDAbyCongress,andinadequateunderstandingoftheimportanceoffoodandfiberresearchduringaperiodofabundantfoodproductionintheUnitedStates.

RoleoftheChiefScientist

TheChiefScientisthasprimaryresponsibilityforthescientificoversightoftheNRIprograms,thestaff,andthereviewpanels.AsadministratoroftheNRI,thechiefscientistreportstotheundersecretaryofagricultureforresearch,education,andeconomics(before1994,itwastheassistantsecretaryforresearchandeducation);totheAdministratoroftheCooperativeStateResearch,EducationandExtensionService;andtotheUSDABoardofDirectorsoftheNRI,whichincludestheadministratorsoftheintramuralresearchagencies.Since1989,thechiefscientisthasbeenamemberoftheNationalAcademyofSciences(NAS)andhasusuallybeenselectedfrominstitutionsoutsideUSDA.Theformerchiefscientistsexpressedtheviewthatfreshleadershipisimportant,asisaneedforabalancebetweenexperienceandnewperspectives.Thechiefscientistmustberesistanttopoliticalpressuresandadvocatesofspecialinterests.AllformerNRIchiefscientistshavebeenplantbiologists,andonewasaUSDA/AgriculturalResearchService(ARS)scientist.ThechiefscientistusuallyrecommendsasuccessorafterconsultationwithNRIstaffandadministration.SomechiefscientistsbelievedthatthestaturethatcomeswithmembershipinNASfacilitatedinteractionswithotheragenciesandprovidedgreateraccesstoinfluentialpeopleduringtheirtenure.

Thechiefscientistpositionisahalf-timeposition.Itisadifficultjobforascientistwhomustmaintainanactiveresearchprogramatanotherinstitutionduringhisorhertenure.Thechiefscientistsnotedthatthepositionisequivalenttoafull-timejobandrequires

considerablestartuptime.Generally,thechiefscientistservesfor2years.ItwassuggestedthatthetermbelengthenedtoprovidetheNRIwiththebenefitofextendedexperience.However,itcouldbedifficulttofindscientistswhocancommandtheconfidenceoftheacademiccommunityandwhofeelabletospendsuchalongperiodinWashingtonaschiefscientistfortheNRI.

Thechiefscientistissupportedbyapermanentstaff,includingadeputyadministrator,whocanmakedecisionswhenthechiefscientistisnotpresent,hasgoodhistoricalinsight,andinteractseffectivelywithadministratorsinotheragencies.Thechiefscientistroleoftenincludesdevelopmentofjointprogramswithotheragencies,suchasNSFandDOE.Theformerchiefscientiststhoughtthatsuchcooperationwouldbeincreasinglyimportantasthescopeofresearchbyotheragenciesembracesfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.

Theinterfacewithspecial-interestgroupsisalargepartofthechiefscientist'sactivities.TheNRIresearchagendarangesfrombiotechnologyfarmingpractices,totropicalforestry,familyfarms,useofenergyinagricultureandforestry,foodsafety,andenvironmentalimpact.Allthoseareashaveurgent

researchneedsandexpectationsforsupportfromtheNRI.Tensionscanariseifresearchcommunitiesbelievethattheyarenotadequatelyrepresentedindecision-makingandthesharingofresources.

ProgramAreas

ThechiefscientistscitedseveralreasonsfortheincreaseinNRIprogramareas.Oneisthestronginterestofspecificcommodityorinterestgroupsinspecificresearchprograms.ItisofteneasiertoobtainmoneyfromCongressforanewprogramthantoobtainmoremoneyforanestablishedprogram.Insomecases,newprogramswerecreatedthroughadministrativedecisionsmadebyUSDAorCongress.Newprogramsreflectflexibilityintheresearchagenda.However,onceprogramareasareestablished,theyarevulnerabletopre-emptionbysmallerresearchcommunitiesthatdependontheNRIasfortheirprimarysourceofsupport.Thechiefscientistssuggestedthatasunsetclausewouldbeusefulfornewprograms.Ascienceadvisorycouncilcouldalsoreviewprogramareas.

FairnessinEvaluationofSubmittedApplications

Allchiefscientistsexpressedconfidenceinthepeer-reviewandevaluationprocess.Althoughthereviewprocessislongandthorough,panelmembersgenerallyviewitassatisfyingandfair.Thefundingrateislow,andfundinglevelsareoftenminimal.Butcomplaintsaboutunfairnessarefew.Scientists,panelmembers,andadministratorsgenerallyviewtheprocessasexceptionallyfair.Theformerchiefscientistsandtheparticipatingscientistsalsoemphasizedthatserviceonpanelsisagreatlearningexperience.Scientistswhoserveaspanelmanagersgainvaluableadministrativeexperienceinahigh-qualityresearch-evaluationprocess.

QualityofNRIResearch

Chiefscientistswereconvincedthatthepeer-reviewedcompetitive

processsubstantiallyenhancesthequalityofresearch.Theevaluationsarevaluableinthemselves,butthereisincreasedbenefitwhenscientistsprepareforcompetitivegrantreview.Untilthecreationofthecompetitivegrantsprogram,effectivecompetitivepeer-reviewedevaluationofgrantproposalswasnotamajorpartofthenation'sfundingofagriculturalresearchbyUSDA.Virtuallyallfoodandfiberresearchwasevaluated"inhouse",typicallybyCSRSreviewteams.Thatproceduredidnotprovidetheexpert-level,criticalreviewthatisneededtoassessthequalityofspecificprojectproposals.Thevalueofthereviewprocessinprovidingsuggestionsforimprovementinproposalsishigh.

TheNRIhasattractednewscientiststofood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.Theprogramisopentoalluniversities,researchinstitutes,andUSDAresearchlaboratories.Thus,itfostersincreasedeffortstoconduct

interdisciplinaryresearch.Furthermore,itincreasesthescientificscopebeyondpurelyagriculturaldisciplines.

USDAAdministrationandManagement

Theformerchiefscientistsbelieveditessentialthatthechiefscientistreportdirectlytotheundersecretaryofagricultureforresearch,education,andeconomics.Thatwasspecifiedintheoriginaljobdescription,butithasnotbeenconsistentlypracticed.Theundersecretaryisrarelyavailable,orthepositionmightbevacant.TheadministratorofCSREESalsohasoversightresponsibilityfortheNRI.However,NRIpolicydecisionsoftenrequirewidestakeholderinputandconsultationfromUSDAmanagement.SuchassistanceandguidancewereexpectedtocomefromtheBoardofDirectors,whichiscomposedofadministratorsoftheintramuralUSDAresearchagencies(suchasARS,theEconomicResearchService,andtheForestServiceFS).Theyareoftenunderpressure,however,toincreasefundingfortheirownagenciesandmightnotbewellinformedaboutNRIissues.

ThechiefscientistscitedalackofadvocacyfortheNRIinUSDA.TheNRIhashadan"orphan"status.IthasnotbeenfullyacceptedbyUSDAandisoftenperceivedascompetingwithintramuralprogramsforresearchfunds.CongresshasreinforcedtheperceptionwhenNRIfundingwastakenfromotherUSDAfundsandallocatedtootheruses.

EconomicEvaluationofNRIProgramAreas

Oneformerchiefscientistobservedthatagriculturaleconomistshavenotbeenadequatelyinvolvedintheprocessofevaluatingagriculturalresearch.TheeconomicaspectsofresearchmustbeintegratedintotheNRIevaluationprocessandmorebroadlyrelatedtobothbasicandappliedresearchinagriculture.

RelationshipwithCongress

ThechiefscientistsnotedtheabsenceofNRIadvocacyinCongress.Politicalsupportoftenisdirectedtomission-orientedresearch,despitetheimportantroleofbasicresearchintheNRI.Theoriginalbalanceof80%ofbasicresearchand20%ofmissionorientedhasbeenshiftedto60-40.

ThechiefscientistsbelievethatitisimportanttoraisetheresearchimageofUSDA,bothoutsideandwithintheagency.ThebroadscopeofUSDAhamperstheperceptionofitasascience-basedresearchagency.OneexampleistherecentlyfundedNSFprogramonplantgenomics.Congressallocatedfundsfortheplant-genomeprogramtoNSFeventhoughUSDAhasalongandsuccessfulhistoryofworkinplantgenomics.Earlier,USDAjoinedwithNSFtosupporttheArabidopsisgenomeprogram.USDAactivelypromotedworkontheplantgenomeformanyyearsandrecentlyledaninteragencygrouptoestablisha

nationalinitiativeontheplantgenome.However,CongressawardedthenewfundingtoNSF.

Testimony

Thecommitteedevotedafulldaytoreceivingtestimonyfrominterestedstakeholders.Thestakeholderwereinthefollowinggroups:

·Panel1professionalsocietiesandnonprofitresearchinstitutes:AgriculturalResearchInstitute;CouncilforAgriculturalScienceandTechnology;CoalitiononFundingAgriculturalResearchMissions;CouncilonFood,AgriculturalandResourceEconomics;FederationofAmericanSocietiesforExperimentalBiology;HenryA.WallaceInstituteforAlternativeAgriculture;andTri-SocietiesofAmerica.

·Panel2industry:Monsanto;PioneerHi-BredInternational,Inc;andGalaDesignLLC.

·Panel3universitiesandexperimentstations:USDAResearch,Education,andEconomicsMissionAreaAdvisoryBoard;andExperimentStationCommitteeonOrganizationandPolicy.

·Panel4farmorganizations:AnimalAgricultureCoalition,AmericanFarmBureauFederation,AmericanSoybeanAssociation,NationalAssociationofWheatGrowers,NationalCornGrowersAssociation,andNationalCottonCouncil.

·Panel5federalagencies:USDAResearch,Education,andEconomicsMissionArea;OfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy;andOfficeofManagementandBudget.

Respondentswereaskedtocommentonthefourobjectivesofthestudy:

·ThequalityandvalueofNRIfundedresearch.

·NRIresearchprioritieswithinmajorprogramareas.

·ComplementarityofNRIprogramswithotherUSDAresearchprograms,thefederalagencies,stateandregionalprograms,andtheprivatesector.

·FuturechangesintheNRI.

QualityandValueofResearch

TestimonyfromallpanelsconsistentlycitedthehighqualityofNRIresearchandgenerationofnewtechnologies.AtransparentprocessforevaluatingNRIoutcomeswaslacking.ObserversindicatedthattheNRIwasnotaloneamongfederalresearchagenciesinthismeasurementproblem.

PanelistsconsideredtheNRIavital,effectivecomponentofUSDAresearch.TheNRIhasfilledgapsinfoodandfiberresearchandtrainedfuturegenerationsofscientists.Thepeer-reviewsystemwasconsideredthebestwaytoassessprojectsanddistributefunds.However,thefarmgroupscitedalackofNRIidentityintheoverallresearchagenda,limitedawarenessoftheresearch

fundedbytheNRI,andalossininteractionsbetweentheNRIandresearchusers.

RepresentativesofPioneer,Monsanto,andGalaDesignspokestronglyonbehalfofpubliclysupportedresearch.Eachindicatedthattheproductstheyweresellingoranticipatedsellingwerebasedonimportantcontributionsbypastpubliclyfundedresearch.

TheUSDArepresentativessuggestedthatlowfundingoftheNRI,comparedwithNIHandNSF,placedfoodandfiberresearchinalessfavoredpositionthanbiomedicalresearch.Theyalsocitedapublicperceptionthatthehighpayoffsfromfoodandfiberresearchinthepastobviatedhighlevelsofsupportinthefuture.ThereisacriticalneedtoincreasepublicawarenessofthebenefitsofNRI-supportedresearch.Andthereisaneedforaclearerunderstandingoftherolesofpubliclyandprivatelysupportedresearch.

Priority-Setting

Thepanelistsconsistentlycitedtheneedforimprovementsinpriority-settingforNRIresearch.Although,fundingisnow"category-driven",mostparticipantssupported"issuefunding",focusingonsolutionstospecificproblemsandissues.Thoseissueswouldbetranslatedintospecificrequestsforproposals.Suchproblem-focusedresearchwouldbemoreeasilyunderstoodbystakeholdersandmoreeffectivelyrelatedtotherestofUSDAresearchandtotheresearchagendasofotherfederalagencies.Manyparticipantsperceivedanabsenceofnationalgoalsforfood,fiber,andnatural-resourcesresearch.TheFoodAnimalIntegratedResearchof1995(FAIR'95)andtheCoalitionforResearchonPlantSystemsof1999(CROPS'99)priority-settinginitiativeswereuseful,buttheyfellshortofachievingnationalresearchpriorities.

Muchdiscussionalsocenteredonthedistributionoffundsbetween

basicandappliedresearch.Commoditygroupstendtofavorappliedresearch;whileprofessionalsocietiesemphasizebasicresearch.Strikinganeffectivebalanceisapersistentchallenge.

IndustryrepresentativescommentedthattheNRIprioritiesaretoobroadfortheavailablefunding.TheyfeltthatNRIprioritiesoveremphasizedcommodityapproachesandthatcommoditygroupshaveenormousinfluenceonfunding,asinthecaseofgenomics.Theindustrypanelrecommendedthatareasofinteresttofoodandfiberbiotechnologystakeholdersfundedbythepublicsectorincludesoilmanagementandcarbonsequestration;seedbiology(carbon,nitrogen,phosphorus,sulfur,andtrace-elementmobilizationanduse);bioticstresstolerance(plantmetabolismandheatandcoldresistance);pestmanagementandpathogens;analytictoolsforstudyinggrains;nutrition(understandingofplant-derivednutrients);molecularbreedingtools;andbioinformatics.

Atleasttwopanelistsnotedtherelativelylowfundingofsocial-scienceresearchbytheNRI,includinghowscientificdiscoveriesaffectthesocialandoperatingstructureofthefoodsystem.Thoseinterestedinsocialsciences

emphasizedasystemsapproachtoresearchinwhichsocial-scienceinvestigationwouldplayanimportantpart.

Thediscussionofsocialsciencesalsowaslinkedtomission-drivenresearch.SeveralpanelistsobservedthattheNRIlackedamissionorientationdespiteitsstatutorymandate.SomepointedoutthatstrongerobservanceofmissionwouldmovetheNRItowardappliedresearchandawayfrombasicresearch.OneparticipantobservedthattheNRIresearchnicheisnotcleareitherwithinUSDAorwithregardtotheoverallneedsofthefoodandfibersystem.

Theneedforinterdisciplinaryorintegratedresearchreceivedconsiderablediscussion,especiallyinlightoflimitationsattributabletothesmallgrantamounts.Oneparticipantquestionedwhetheradditionalfundswereneeded,because"goodresearcherstodayaregettinggoodfundingandareworkingat150%ofcapacity."Others,particularlyintheprofessionalsocietiesanduniversities,differed.

Finally,theconceptsofscientificallysoundresearchand"relevance"receivedlongdiscussion.Participantsrecommendedimplementingatwo-tierproposal-reviewprocess.Intier1,scientistsandindustryrepresentativeswouldjointlyreviewrelevance;tier2wouldbeascientificmeritreview.ItbecameclearduringthediscussionthatrelevancecouldreflectstakeholderunderstandingandinvolvementintheNRIprocess.Everyonewantedscientificallysoundresearch,butsomeweremoreinterestedinshort-termappliedresearchtohelpsolvecurrentproblems.

Stakeholders

Allparticipantsindicatedtheneedforincreasedtransparencyinthepriority-settingandgrantingprocessesoftheNRI.TheFAIR'95andCROPS'99initiativeswerecitedaswaysinwhichallstakeholderscanparticipateinpriority-setting.Again,stakeholdersclosesttothe

farmerhadamoreimmediateviewoftheirneeds,andthoseclosesttotheuniversitiesandscientificsocietieshadamorebasic,long-termapproach.Tobefair,thecommoditygroupsindicatedthattheyunderstoodtheimportanceofbasicresearch.Theywant,however,totelltheirmembershowabasic-researchconceptorideamightultimatelyresultinthesolutionofaproblemthattheirmembersexperience.SomecommoditygroupsindicatedincreasingdisenchantmentwiththeNRIbecauseofthelackoftransparencyandthesmallamountofavailablefunding.

UniversitypanelistsalsosuggestedevidenceofreducedinterestintheNRIbecauseofsmallgrantamounts,shortgrantduration,lowapprovalrates,andlowoverheadpercentage(14%).Awardees'institutionsmustmakeupthedifferencebetweentheoverheadpaidbythesponsorandthestandardoverheadratereceivedfromafederalsource.

AllparticipantsagreedthattheNRIisnotwellunderstoodbythosewhoarenotprincipalinvestigators.Itsprocessesaremurky,anditsrole,especiallyinresearchtraining,isunder-appreciated.Allparticipantsinsistedthatincreasedbasicresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresourcesisabsolutelyrequiredbut,theyfeltthatbetterpriority-settingandtheinvolvementofstakeholdersin

understandingthedirection,purposes,andoperationsoftheNRIwereessentialtoitsfuturesuccess.

Complementarity

Allthepanelistsindicatedthattheintegrationofresearchacrossdisciplines,institutions,andsectorsoftheeconomyisgreaterthanitwasadecadeago.TheneedforeffectiveNRIpartnershipsandthefederalresearchcommunityandotherUSDAagencieswasnotedrepeatedly.

InternalProcesses

Participantsrespondedfavorablyabouttheday-to-dayoperationsoftheNRI,althoughfeedbacktothosenotreceivingNRIgrantsmightbeimproved.

Shouldthepositionofchiefscientistbeafull-timepositionorcontinueasapart-timeposition?Theargumentsforfulltimewerebasedoncontinuity,priority-setting,andrelationshipswithstakeholders.Theargumentsagainstwerethe"burnoutnature"ofthejobandwhetherqualifiedscientistswouldbewillingtoserveformorethan2years.

CommitteemembersoftenaskedwhethertheNRIwouldthriveoutsidethe"USDAbudgetbox".TheparticipantsbelievedthatitwouldbepoliticallydifficulttoachieveandmighteliminateNRIfundingaltogetherifitwereattempted.

Funding

AlmosteveryparticipantvolunteeredthattheNRIwasdramaticallyunderfunded.Grantswereseenastooshort,toosmall,andwithtoolowanoverheadallowance.ThetransactioncostsofapplyingtotheNRIwereseenashigh,giventheoddsofreceivingagrantandtheamountofmoneyavailable.wasreferredtorepeatedly.Theoriginal

NationalResearchCouncilstudy(1989)thatrecommended$500millionfortheNRI.RepresentativesoffederalagenciesstronglysupportedincreasesinNRIfunds.Theyemphasized,however,thatlimitedfundingfortheNRIresultedfromthelimitedamountofmoneyavailableforallagriculturalprograms(suchasresearch,ruraldevelopment,soilconservation,andforestservice.)

Itwasnotthecommittee'sspecifictasktoinvestigatethelevelanddispositionoffundingfortheNRI,butthepanelistsofferedmanycommentsastowhyfoodandfiberresearch,asanareaofnationalneed,hasbeenchronicallyunderfundedduringaperiodofrisingresourcesforbothNSFandNIH.Thosediscussionsincludedlackofmoney,theinabilityofuserstoadvocatefoodandfiberresearch,internalcompetitionwithinUSDA,lackofsupportbyUSDAanduniversityresearcherperformers,thepaucityof"rural"orfoodsystem

representationinCongress,andcompetitionamongvariouscongressionalcommitteestocontrolfunds.

ChangesfortheFuture

ParticipantssuggestednumerouschangesfortheNRI.Thefirstwasmorefunding.Thesecondwasthedevelopmentofaconsistentandwell-understoodpriority-settingprocess.ThethirdwascoordinationofNRIresearchprioritieswiththoseofUSDAandotherfederalagencies.ParticipantsfoundtheideaofsettingupsixinstitutescoveringthesixNRIdivisionsappealing.Theinstituteswouldbeproblem-andissue-drivenratherthancategory-driven.Anotherprominentsuggestionwastofromanexternaladvisorycommitteetohelpinsettingprioritiesandrelatingtostakeholders;thisadvisorycommitteecouldreflectthereorientationoftheNRItowardaproblem-basedpriority-settingprocess.

Referencestothe"OregonInvests!"accountabilitysystempiquedinterest(GAO,1996).The"OregonInvests!"databasehasprovedtobeareliablesourceofinformationabouttheeconomic,social,andenvironmentalconsequencesofagriculturalresearchprograms.Byprovidingthataccountabilityineasilyandquicklyaccessibleforms,ithashelpedtostimulatestronglegislativesupportfortheresearchenterpriseoftheOregonAgriculturalExperimentStation.Participantstriggereddiscussionabouthowoneenumeratesandevaluatesresearchoutcomesthatareessentialtocontinuedsupport.

ThetestimonyhelpedthecommitteetounderstandthequalityofNRI-fundedresearch,theimportanceofmeasuringthatquality,andtheneedforeffectivepriority-settingtheNRI,andtheneedtoaddresshowNRIactivitiescomplementUSDAandotherfederalprograms.Thecommitteeheardthoughtful,feasiblesuggestionsforchange,particularlyinhowtheNRImightrelatemoreopenlyandreceptivelytocurrentandfuturestakeholders.

AppendixDOutlineforInterviews(June16,1998)withUSDAProfessionalStaffonInternalWorkingsoftheNRIProgram

Note1:

Summarymaterialfromthefirstcommitteemeetingwasusedtocraftvariousquestionsandstatementsofissuesthatshouldbetouchedonduringtheday-longinterviewdiscussionswithUSDAstaff.Theyareofferedhereasaframeworkofpossibleapproachestoconversations.

Note2:

ArecurrentthemetobeprobedintheinterviewsisthedifferencebetweenexpectationsraisedbythecreationofNRIandtheperceptionthatithasyettofulfillthemduetocongressionallimitsonbudget,lessthanfullparticipationbysegmentsoftheagriculturalresearchcommunity,andthedifficultyinchangingculturebothwithinanagencyandintheresearch-performinginstitutionsitsupports.

I.MainCategoriesofGuidingQuestions/Issues

A.FundingandOversight

·Whyhasthisprogrambeensopoorlyfunded(atonly10percentoforiginalplan)?

·PerceivedCongressional''neglect"toNRI:nationalcompetitivenessandnationalsecurity.

·HowdoestheNRIfitinwithothergrantprograms?

B.InternalProcesses

·IdentifyprioritieswithinNRIandexplorehowtheywereset.

·Integrityofthepeerreviewprocess.

·Concernabout"goodoldboy"perceptionofgrantrecipients.

·Identifytherealitiesofmultidisciplinaryresearch(includingsocialsciences).

·Concernaboutminimalindustryinvolvement.Questionofhowtocomplementpeerreviewprocesswithaspectsofindustryevaluation.

C.Impacts/MeasuresofSuccess

·IstheNRIbringinginnewyoungscientistsandfreshresearchideas?

·What'stheprocessofevaluatingretrospectivestudies?

II.IssuesArisingfromUSDAStaffAppearancebeforetheCommittee

A.WhatistheroleofpublicinputtoexistingresearchmechanismsandhowdoNRImechanismshelptosolveproblemseffectively?

B.Facedwiththecurrentfundinglimitations,howdoesNRIneed

tofocusthecurrentprogram?USDAseeksguidanceonoverallmanagement(or"portfolio")questionssuchasnumbervs.sizeofawards,programpriorities,andprogramcollaboration.

C.Whatqualifiesasperformancemeasuresofmission-focusedresearchthatisatthesametimehigh-risk,i.e.,projectstraditionallyfundedbytheNRI?

D.NRI'suniquechallengeistoadvancethebasicsciencethatwilladdressissuesnotevenidentifiedyet.How,then,doestheprogrameffectivelyredefineagriculturalscienceresearchinitiativestobeanticipatory?

FortheNRILeadership:

A.WhatarethereasonsbehindNRI'sstagnancy?Thetraditionalagriculturalsciencecommunitywasweanedonformulafundstobuildinstitutionalcapacity,notcompetitivegrantstosupportspecificprojects.Isthetraditionasignificantcontinuingbarriertoresearchconstituencyparticipation?Tocongressionalsupport?

B.WhoisanadvocateoftheNRIinCongress?WhoispoliticallyapositiveforcefortheNRIscientificsocieties,lobbyists,commoditygroups(re:theFarmBill)?

III.CommitteeQuestionsToUSDAStaff(duringApril29appearance)EmbellishedforFollowUpinInterviews

ForProgramStaff:

A.Aretheprogramandtheconstituencyinconflict?Istheconstituency'sreluctanceduetothesizeandlengthoftheawards,numberofawards,aperceivedlackofmissionclarity,orotherperceptions?Non-landgrantscientistsandscientistsinnontraditionalareasinagriculturearenotwellrepresentedwithintheconstituency.Publicperceptionofagricultureresearchanditsimportanceplayabigpart.HowcriticalistheperceptionthattheNRIisinsulatedanddisconnectedfromotheragriculturalscienceresearchprograms?

B.IsthequalityoftheNRIprogramanissue?Thestandardofqualityseemstorelyonthepeerreviewpanels,i.e.,successinlandingtopscientiststoserveonthepanels.Similarly,researchwithhighconsensuspeerrankingsmustbedeclinedeachyearduetolimitedfunds.Eachof26researchprogramareasisevaluatedbyoneofabout30panels(consistingofabout10scientists).LastyeartheNRIwasabletofund24%oftheproposalsreceived(thoughanother25%couldbefundedbasedonquality).

C.HowcanNRI'sdistinctcontributionorvalueaddedtotheUSDA'sagriculturalresearchportfoliobedetermined?SystematicdataonNRI'snicherelativetoNSF,NIH,andtheprivatesector,arelacking.ServicebythesamescientistsonNRI,NSF,orNIHreviewpanelsisonemeasure.Submissionofidenticalproposalstooneoranotheragencywouldsuggestnoperceptionofuniquenessinprogrammission.Vitalinformationwouldbetheagencyofchoice,i.e.,thesequenceofsubmissionbeforeandafterdecline.

D.HowmuchlatitudedoesNRIstaffenjoyinfocusingprogramthemesandsupport?IfCongressismicromanagingtheprogram,thoughitspecifiesbystatuteonlysixbroadareas,thenshouldmorediscretionbedelegatedtoUSDAstaff,alaNSFandNIH,torefinepriorities,setrequirementsformultiandsingledisciplinarywork,determinetheamountofmissionlinkedandfundamentalwork,aswell

asapercentageofwhattypesofinstitutionstofund?Continuityisimportantforsupportfromthescientificresearchcommunity,andfundingacrossthesixareashasbeenstablesince1992.Inacompetitiveprogram,atensionwillexistbetweenhowdirectiveofandhowresponsivetotheresearchcommunitytheprogramstaffcanbe.

E.ShouldtheNRIbemoreglobalasopposedtonationalinitsorientation?Otherissuestobeaddressedaregenomicsresearch,foodsafetyissues,andagricultureintheenvironment.Theroleoftechnologyinallofthisisakeyfactor,too.

F.Shouldthedistributionofprogramfundschangebytypeofperformer?Whyorwhynot?Since1991theoverallfundingprofilehasbeenlandgrants(70%),othercollegesanduniversities(16%),intramuralUSDAlabs(4-5%).NRIisuniqueinthatanyfederalagency,includingUSDA,canapplyforanaward.

IV.CommitteeIssuestoBePosedAsQuestions

Efficiency:

·WhatevidencecanyoucitethattheNRIprocessisadministrativelyefficient?

·Whatissacrificedinthenameofefficiency?(Isthisqualityoverrated?)

A.Responsiveness:

·Howdoyouknowthattheprogramisresponsivetoadvancesintheagriculturalknowledgebase?

·Whatfeedbackdoyougetfrompanelmembers,proposers,andotherstoindicateresponsiveness(orlackthereof)tocommunityconsensusonpriorities,fundingdecisions,etc.?

·Isfeedbackreceivedlargelywithinapanelcontext?Giveexamples.

B.Fairness:

·Fairnessisatthecoreofanypeerreviewprocess.Howdoyouensurethatproposalsaretreatedeven-handedly?

·Whatdoyoutellproposersaboutyourprocess?

·Howdopanelmembershelp/hinderperceptionsoffairness?

·Whatarethemostcommoncomplaintsabout"unfairness"?Dotheyrelatemoretoprocessortooutcome?

C.Overheadcalculation:

·Howmuchofadeterrentisthe14%overheadcap,i.e.,whatislostbyitsimpositionandenforcement?

·Whatcouldbedonewithnocapthatisprecludedatpresent?

·Isthecapalightningrodforothercriticisms/complaintsaboutprogrameffectiveness,lackofsubmission,congressionalindifference,etc.?

V.IssuesIdentifiedbytheCommitteeasRelevantforUSDAStaffElaboration(esp.ChiefScientists/PastDirectors)

A.Administrative

·prioritysetting(appliedvs.basic)

·internalmanagementperceptions

·feedback

B.Political

·politicalindependence

·legislativepressure

C.Niche/Portfolio

·perceptionsofconnectionsofprogramtoUSDA...etc.

·interagencyprocess

D.IndividualPerspective

·leadershipinfluence:whatdidyouinitiate,whatimpactdidyouhave?

·whydidyoutake/leavethejob?

·wouldyoudoitagain?

·perceptionoflengthofservice(2yearsvs.full-time/perm?).

AppendixECommitteeMembers'ExperiencewiththeNationalResearchInitiative,theNationalInstitutesofHealth,andtheNationalScienceFoundation

Onthebasisofinformationprovidedbycommitteemembers,thecommittee'sexperiencewiththeNRI,NIH,andNSFcanbesummarizedasfollows:

No.CommitteeMembersTypeofExperience/Activity NRI NIH NSFPanelmembera 7 4 3Grantrecipient 10 3 6Applicationturneddown 8 5 6Applicationpending 3 0 1Currentlyusinggrant 8 0 4Neverapplied 3 8 5aFourcommitteemembersindicatedparticipationinpanelsofotheragenciesorprograms(DepartmentofEnergy,NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology,SmallBusinessInnovationResearch,andBinationalAgriculturalResearchandDevelopmentFoudnation),andfourcommitteemembershavenotservedonanypanel.

Aseducators,sixcommitteememberssupervisedabout40NRIgrantapplications(whilenotonNRIgrants),ofwhich20weresuccessful.

AppendixFNRIApplicationsFunded

NewProposals RenewalsAwarded Awarded

Year No. No. % No. No. %Submitted Submited

1995 2,147 422 20 325 150 461996 1,969 380 19 345 149 431997 1,841 396 22 323 151 471998 1,688 401 24 335 157 471999 1,932 446 23 263 121 46

AppendixGNRIFundedContributionstoMajorScientificAdvancesinFood,Fiber,andNaturalResources

Ofthe3,070proposalssubmittedtotheNRIin19951997,745wereawardedwithatotalof$89,637,786(R.MichaelRoberts,NRI,Sept.1,1998,personalcommunication).

ThisappendixsummarizeswhatNRIstaffconsideredsomeleadingexamplesofNRI-fundedcontributionstomajorscientificadvancesinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.TheinformationpresentedherewassuppliedtothecommitteebytheNRIstaff.

NRIFundedResearchThatHasLedtoMajorScientificAdvances

BiologicallySafeProtectionofWheatfromTake-AllDiseasebyUsingSoilBacteria

Croprotationisthebest-knownpracticeavailabletofarmersformanagementofthesoilborneplantpathogensresponsibleforpotentiallydevastatingrootdiseases,wilts,stemrots,andblightsofcropplantsandforsuchcosmeticdiseasesascommonscabofpotato.Growingunrelatedcropsinarotationallowstime(about2yearsormore)forthesoilbornepathogensofacroptodieoutorbeeliminatedbytheirnaturalenemiesbeforethesamecropisplantedagaininthesamefield.However,scientistshaveknownthatsoil

microorganismscansuppresssoilbornepathogensaftermanyyearsofacropmonoculture(thatis,withoutcroprotation).Untilrecently,USagriculturehasnottakenadvantageofmicroorganismstoprotectcropsagainstharmfulpathogens.

DavidWeller,R.JamesCook,JosRaaijmakers,andLindaS.Thomashow(CRGO/NRIfundedscientists)havespentthelast2decadesstudyingthemicrobiologicbasisofthedeclineoftake-alldiseaseafter12-15yearsofwheatmonoculture.Take-allisthemostseriousrootdiseaseofwheatworldwidebecausemostoftheworld'smajorwheat-growingareas,lackingeconomicallysuitablebroad-leafcropsthatcouldbegrowninalternateyears,uselittleornocroprotation.Take-allisespeciallydevastatingwherewheatisplantedwithreducedtillingtoreducesoilerosion,andithasbeenknowntowipeoutentirefields.

Soilladenwithsomestrainsofroot-associatedPseudomonas,includingP.fluorescensandP.chlororaphis,appearstosuppressthefungalpathogen.Thesescientistshaveshownthatthosebacteriaproducenaturalantibiotics(mainly2,4-diacetylphloroglucinolandphenazine-1-carboxylate)thatstopthegrowthofthefungus.Theirresearchhasprovidedthefirstproofthattheabilityofsoilmicroorganismstoproduceantibioticsiscriticaltotheirsurvivalandactivityinsoilandthatantibiotic-producingsoilmicroorganismsconstituteoneofnature'smosteffectivemethodsformanagementofplantdiseases.Inadditiontotheknowledgeofhowtomanagethebeneficialbacteriathroughthecroppingsystem,thesestrainsofPseudomonascanbegrowninindustrialquantitiesinfermentorsandappliedasabiologicallysafeseedcoatingthatpreventstake-alldiseaseinwheat.

Threepatentshavebeenissued,twomorearepending,andtwolicenseagreementshavebeenissuedforuseofspecificstrainsinturf,

aswellaswheat.

In1997,Weller,Thomashow,Cook,andRaaijmakersreceivedtheRuthAllenAward;thisisthehighestawardforresearchgivenbytheAmericanPhytopathologicalSocietyandrecognizescontributionstosciencethathavechangedthedirectionofresearch.

CRGOandNRIAwardstoCookandcolleagues:

·1978;BiologicalStressonPlants;$120,000;3years.

·1989;PlantPathology/WeedScience;$100,000;2years.

·1991;PlantPathology/WeedScience;$120,000;2years.

·1991(1993renewal);PlantPathology;$100,000;2years.

·1994;SoilsandSoilBiology;$212,000;3years.

·1996;PlantPathology;$116,041;2years.

·1994(1997renewal);SoilsandSoilBiology;$255,000;3years.

Patents:

·4,456,684;June26,1984;D.WellerandR.J.Cook;MethodforscreeningbacteriaandapplicationthereofforfieldcontrolofdiseasescausedbyGaeumannomycesgraminis.

·5,955,298;September21,1999;L.S.Thomashow,M.Bangera,D.Weller,R.J.Cook;Sequencesforproductionof2,4-diacetylphloroglucinolandmethods.

·5,972,689;January24,1997;R.J.Cook,D.Weller,D.-S.Kim,L.S.Thomashow;MethodsandcompositionsforthesimultaneouscontroloftherootdiseasescausedbyGaeumannomycesgraminis,Rhizoctonia,andPythium.

·FiledNovember20,1997;J.Raaijmakers,L.S.Thomashow,D.Weller,R.J.Cook;Biocontrolagentsfortake-all.

·FiledDecember18,1998;Z.Huang,L.S.Thomashow,D.v.Mavrodi,J.Raaijmakers,D.Weller,R.J.Cook;Transgenicstrainsforbiocontrolofplantrootdiseases.

Publications:

·Raaijmakers,J.M.,D.M.Weller,andL.S.Thomashow.1997.FrequencyofantibioticproducingPseudomonasspp.innaturalenvironments.AppliedandEnvironmentalMicrobiology63(3):881887.

·Bonsall,R.F.,D.MWeller,and,L.S.Thomashow.1997.Quantificationof2,4-dacetylphloroglucinolproducedbyfluorescentPseudomonasspp.invitroandintherhizosphereofwheat.AppliedandEnvironmentalMicrobiology63(3):951955.

·Raaijmakers,J.M.,D.M.Weller,R.F.Bonsall,andL.S.Thomashow.1995.Primersandprobestodetectsoilpseudomonads

thatproduce2,4-diacetylphloroglucinolandphenazine-l-carboxylicacid.Phytopathology85:1191(abstract).

·Cook,R.J.,L.S.Thomashow,D.M.Weller,D.Fuyimoto,M.Mazzola,G.Bangera,andD.Kim.1995.Molecularmechanismsofdefensebyrhizobacteriaagainstrootdisease.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences92:41974201.

DecreasingMilkFeverinDairyCows:AMajorAdvance

Milkfeverisanimportantmetabolicdisorderofdairycowsrelatedtotheonsetoflactationwhencowsareunabletomaintainnormalbloodconcentrationsofcalcium.Serumcalciumoftendecreasestoapointthatdoesnotsupportnormalnerveandmusclefunction.Cowsthensuffersevereappetiteloss,generalizedweaknessorcollapse,and,ifleftuntreated,death.Thisdisorderaffectsabout6-8%ofallUSdairycowseachyear,directlycostingthedairyindustryupto$20million.

FY1993,USDAAgriculturalResearchServicescientistsJ.P.GoffandR.L.Horst,attheNationalAnimalDiseaseCenterinAmes,Iowa,receivedanNRIgranttodeterminewhetherthepotassium,sodium,orcalciumconcentrationintherationfedtocowsjustbeforecalvinginfluencestheirsusceptibilitytomilkfever.Atthetimeoftheaward,dietaryrecommendationsurgedrestrictingdietarycalcium.However,fieldreportssuggestedthatsucharegimenmightbeunnecessaryandpossiblyevendetrimental.

Theresearchersdemonstratedthatdietarycalciumisnotamajorriskfactorformilkfever.Dietshighinpotassiumorsodiumactuallyinducedmilkfeverbyincreasingbloodalkalinity.Cowsonhigh-potassiumdietshadlowerplasmaconcentrationsof1,25-dihydroxyvitaminD(importantforintestinalcalciumabsorption)andlowerplasmahydroxyproline(anindexoftheactivityofbonecalciumresorption).TheresultssuggestthatwhenthebloodpHishigh,thetissuesbecomeresistanttostimulationbyparathyroidhormone,acalcium-regulatinghormone.Thestimulationofbonecalciummobilizationandintestinalcalciumabsorptionisthendiminished,andnormalbloodcalciumconcentrationcannotbemaintained.Dietshighinsodiumarenotcommonlyfedtodrycows,butpotassiumisacationcommonlyfoundinhighamountsintheforagesincludedindry-cowrations.

Thisworkalsoindicatedthatthepartialsuccessofpreviouslyrecommendedlow-calciumdietswasdueprimarilytoareductionindietarypotassium,notcalcium.

Theexpectedbenefitstothedairyindustryareenormous.ThesefindingsprovideaneasilymanagedfeedingapproachtotheproblemofmilkfeverandalreadyarechanginghowUScowsarefedbeforecalving.Theresultsofthisresearchwilldecreasethelargeeconomiclossduetomilkfever.Additionaleconomicbenefitswillinclude

reductionsintheincidencesofotherimportantdairy-cattlediseases,suchasketosisandmastitis,forwhichcowswithmilkfeverareathigherrisk.

NRIAwardtoGoffandHorst:

1993;MilkFeverRiskFactors:DietaryCation-AnionDifferences;$80,000;3years.

Publications:

·Goff,J.P.,andR.L.Horst.1997.Effectsoftheadditionofpotassiumorsodium,butnotcalcium,toprepartumrationsonmilkfeverindairycows.JournalofDairyScience80:176186.

·Popularpresspublications:Becauseoftheenormousapplicabilityofthefindings,theresultshavebeenwidelydisseminatedinnumerousindustrypublications,includingHoard'sDairyman;DairyToday;andDairyHerdManagement.

Storage-ProteinModificationinPotato:TuberQualityandVaccineProduction

WithfundinginitiatedinthefirstyearoftheUSDACompetitiveResearchGrantsOffice,WilliamPark(initiallyatPurdueUniversity,thenatTexasA&MUniversity)isolatedandcharacterizedthegenesforthemajorpotatotuberprotein,patatin.Patatinaccountsforabout40%ofthetotalsolubleproteininpotatotubers,butundernormalconditionsitisnotpresentinlargeamountsinleaves,stems,orroots.Theworkledtothedevelopmentoftuber-specificexpressionvectorsthatcanbeusedasa''molecularpickuptruck"todirecttheexpressionofanyRNAorproteinspecificallytotheeconomicallyimportantpartoftheplant.Itshouldbenotedthatthepromoterswerenotpatentedandthusarefreelyavailableinthepublicdomain.

TheinitialstudiessetthestageforstudiesbyDr.Parkandothersthathaveadvancedunderstandingoffundamentalplantprocesses,suchasthekeyroleofsugarsinregulationofplantgeneexpressionandofthemechanismoforgan-specificgeneevolution.Inaddition,theresultingpotatotransformation-propagationsystemhasfoundpracticalapplicationin,forexample,improvingpotatocultivars,manipulationofcarbohydratemetabolism,andbeyondplantscienceproductionofpharmaceuticallyimportantproteins,suchasediblevaccines.Inthefirstinstance,WilliamR.Belknapandcolleagues,attheUSDAAgriculturalResearchService,Albany,California,areusingthepatatin-controlelementasoneofseveralpromotersastheyseektodevelopimprovedpotatocultivars.Preliminaryresultsofplantscurrentlyinfieldtrialsindicatethatthepatatin-controlelementcouldhaveuseindevelopingpotatoesresistanttobruisingdamage.

Fordevelopmentofediblevaccines,potatoesexpressingageneencodingtheEscherichiacoliheat-labileenterotoxinBsubunitwerefedtomiceandtohumans.Inboth,ingestionofthetransgenic

potatoestriggeredamucosalimmuneresponse.Asecondclinicalstudyisnowunderwaytotesttransgenicpotatoesthatexpressanotherdiarrhealantigen,theNorwalkviruscapsidprotein.Thework,byCharlesArntzenandcolleagues(BoyceThompsonInstitute)withsupportfromtheNationalInstituteofAllergyandInfectiousDiseases,offersanewstrategyindevelopmentofsafeandinexpensiveoralvaccinesagainsthumandiseases,suchasdiarrheaandotherdiseasesforwhichaprotectiveantigenhasbeendefined;tetanus,diphtheria,andhepatitisBareexamples.Thestrategyisbeingextendedtodiseasesofagriculturallyimportantanimals.AvianinfluenzavirusisunderinvestigationbyHughMason(alsoofBoyceThompsonInstitute)asamodelsystemfororalvaccinesforpoultry.

AwardstoPark:

·1981;RegulationofTuberProteinSynthesisinPotato;$90,000;2years;PurdueResearchFoundation.

·1983;RegulationofTuberProteinSynthesisinPotato;$80,000;1year;TexasA&MUniversity.

AwardtoMason:

1997;VaccinesforPoultryUsingAntigensProducedinTransgenicPlants;$100,000;2years.

Publications:

·MigneryG.A.,C.S.Pikaard,D.J.Hannapel,andW.D.Park.1984.IsolationandsequenceanalysisofcDNAsforthemajorpotatotuberprotein,patatin.NucleicAcidsResearch12:79878000.

·PikaardC.S.,J.S.Brusca,D.J.Hannapal,andW.D.Park.1987.Thetwoclassesofgenesforthemajorpotatotuberprotein,patatin,aredifferentiallyexpressedintubersandroots.NucleicAcidsResearch15:197994.

·BourqueJ.E.,J.C.Miller,andW.D.Park.1987.Useofaninvitrotuberizationsystemtostudytuberproteingeneexpression.InVitroCellularandDevelopmentalBiology23:3816.

·Wenzler,H.,G.Mignery,L.Fisher,andW.D.Park.1989.Sucrose-regulatedexpressionofachimericpotatotubergeneinleavesoftransgenictobaccoplants.PlantMolecularBiology13:34754.

·Haq,T.A.,H.S.Mason,J.D.Clements,andC.J.Arntzen.1995.Oralimmunizationwitharecombinantantigenproducedintransgenicplants.Science268:7146.

·Mason,H.S.,J.Ball,J.J.Shi,X.Jiang,M.K.Estes,andC.J.Arntzen.1996.ExpressionofNorwalkviruscapsidproteinintransgenictobaccoandpotatoanditsoralimmunogenicityinmice.

ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences93:53355340.

·Tacket,C.O.,H.S.Mason,G.Losonsky,J.D.Clements,M.M.Levine,andC.J.Arntzen.1998.Immunogenicityinhumansofarecombinantbacterialantigendeliveredinatransgenicpotato.Nat.Med.4:6079.

·Mason,H.S.,T.A.Haq,J.D.Clements,andC.J.Arntzen.1998.EdiblevaccineprotectsmiceagainstEscherichiacoliheat-labileenterotoxin(LT):potatoesexpressingasyntheticLT-Bgene.Vaccine16:133643.

EstablishingNutritionalRequirementsforVitaminB6andFolateinHumans

VitaminB6,folate,andvitaminB12functionbothascoenzymesandassubstratesintheone-carbonpathwaythatisrequiredforthesynthesisofnucleicacidsandthemethylationofDNA.EachcanbemarginalinthedietsoftheUSpopulation,anddirectlinkagestopublichealthhavebeenestablished.JesseGregoryandcolleagues,attheUniversityofFlorida,developedtechnologiestomeasurebioavailabity,metabolism,andmetabolicfunctionofvitaminB6andfolateinrodentsandhumans.TheyhaveprovidednewinformationonthebioavailabilityofdietaryfolateanddailyfolaterequirementsanddevelopedamorequantitativeunderstandingofthemetabolicrolesoffolateandvitaminB6.Majoraccomplishmentshaveincludedthefollowing:

·Developedmethodsbasedontheuseofnonradioactive-(stable-)isotopelabelingtoassessfolateabsorption,metabolism,andrateofturnoverinhumansandanimals.

·Developedmethodsbasedonstable-isotopelabelingtomeasurethenormalratesandeffectsoffolateandvitaminB6deficiencyonkeyreactionsinone-carbonmetabolisminhumans.

·Demonstratedthattherequirementforfolateinnonpregnantwomenisabouttwicethatpreviouslybelieved.Thisobservationwasamajorfactorinthedevelopmentofthemuchhigher1998recommendeddietaryallowanceforfolate.

·Demonstratedthatfolicacidaddedtocereal-grainfoods(breads,pasta,andrice)iseffectivelyabsorbed.ThedataprovedthattherecentlyadoptedfortificationprogramiseffectiveindeliveringavailablefolatetotheUSpopulation.

CRGOandNRIAwardstoGregory:

·1979;FoodCompositionandProcessingEffectsonVitaminB6Bioavailability;$100,000.

·1981;TheBioavailabilityofFolacininFoods;$100,000.

·1983;DeterminationofVitaminB6andFolacinBioavailabilityUsingIsotopicEnrichmentMethods;$135,000.

·1986;Stable-IsotopicandEnzymaticInvestigationofFolacinBioavailability;$120,000.

·1987;Stable-IsotopicandRadioisotopicInvestigationofFolateBioavailability;$175,988.

·1991;Stable-IsotopeInvestigationofFolateBioavailabilityandNutritionalStatus;$166,842.

·1992;FolateNutritionalStatusandInVivoKinetics;$222,521.

·1994;TheBioavailabilityofFolateinFoods;$227,618.

·1996;FolateandVitaminB6DependenceofOne-CarbonMetabolism;$198,586.

ProductionofCattleandSwineEmbryosinVitro,aPreludetoCloning

Researchinthe1960sand70sdevelopedproceduresfortest-tube(invitro)fertilization(IVF)ofeggsfromsomemammals,includingthemouseandhuman.TheachievementwasillustratedmostdramaticallybythebirthofthefirstIVFbaby,LouiseBrown,in1977.NealFirst'slaboratoryattheUniversityofWisconsinpursueddevelopmentoftheproceduresinlivestocktoallowimmatureeggs,obtainedfromovariescollectedfromtheslaughterhouse,toprovideavastsourceofembryos.Thegeneralapproachwasandcontinuestobecollectionofovariesfromtheslaughterhouse,transportationofovariestothelaboratory,aspirationoflargenumbersofoocytes(eggs)frommanyimmatureovarianfollicles,andfinallyinvitromaturationoftheoocytesinspecialculturemediumthatmimicstheconditionsinvolvedineggmaturationintheintactanimal.Therewereothertechnicaldifficultiestoovercome.Tissue-cultureconditionshadtobedevelopedthatallowedspermfromfrozensementofertilizethematuredoocytesandthatpermittedafertilizedeggtodevelopintoamulticelledembryo.Firstandcolleaguesdevelopedthebasicmethodstoproducehundredsofembryosfromslaughterhouse-derivedmaterial.Thespinofffromthisworkhasbeenenormous,includingthefollowing:

·Itpermittedthecloningofcattlebynucleartransferfromearly-cleavage-stageembryosandwasapreludetotheeventualdemonstrationofcloningbysomaticcellnucleartransfer.TheFirstlaboratoryholdsthefirstpatentinthisfield.

·Itledtoparalleldevelopmentsinembryomanipulationandcloninginswine.

·Itledtotheimprovementoftransgenictechniquesforcattle.

·Theavailabilityofmanyembryoshasallowedgeneexpressiontobestudiedduringearlydevelopmentoflivestock.

Forhisachievements,FirstwasawardedthevonHumboldtAwardforAgriculturein1987andtheWolfPrize(recognizedastheequivalentofaNobelPrizeinagriculture)in1997.

CRGOandNRIAwardstoFirst:

·1985;OntogenyandControlofDevelopmentofBovinePreimplantationEmbryos;$161,500.

·1988;CellularRegulationofMeioticStateinBovineOocytes;$144,000.

·1988;DevelopmentofPorcineEmbryosAfterMultiplicationbyNuclearTransplantation;$200,000.

·1990;CellularRegulationofMeioticStateinBovineOocytes;$70,000.

·1995;EffectofBovineEmbryonicStemCellOriginandCultureonPluripotencyandTotipotency;$120,000.

Patent:

4,994,384;February19,1991;R.S.Prather,F.Barnes,J.Robl,N.L.FirstandV.F.Simmon;Multiplyingbovineembryos.

CornfromCells,NotfromSeeds

WhentheCompetitiveResearchGrantsOfficewasformedin1978,agrantwasawardedtoRonaldL.Phillips,ofthefirstGeneticMechanismsProgramPanel,fortissuecultureofcorn.Phillipshadalreadydemonstratedthatwholecornplantscouldberegeneratedfromcellsintissueculture,andthistechnologyhadbeenquicklyadaptedtoothercereals.Mostimportant,Phillips'sCRGO-supportedresearcheventuallyallowednewgenestobeintroducedintocorn.Beforethisbreakthroughwasachieved,however,amajorproblemhadtobesolved.Phillipsrecognizedthattheplantsderivedfromtissueculturewerenotexactcopiesofeachother(clones),butthatvariationwasbeinginducedbythetissue-cultureprocedure.Ontheonehand,thisprovidedawayofproducingnewcornvarieties;ontheotherhand,itwasadrawbacktotheproductionoftransgenicplantsbecausethegenecouldnotbeintroducedintoastablegeneticbackground.ThevariabilitywasdueinparttotheactivationofmobilegeneticelementsduringtissuecultureandtoalterationsinthemethylationofDNA.Tocircumventtheproblem,Phillipsusedshortculturetimesandthencrossedtheresultingplantstoelitelines.

Geneticallyengineeredcorn,particularlyvarietiesthatareresistanttoinsectpredation,accountedformorethanone-thirdofthecropin1998,anditsuseisincreasing.Themostcommongenotypeusedby

industryforproducingtransgeniccropstracesbacktoPhillips'sresearchsupportedbyCRGO.Tissue-cultureregenerationtechnologyofcerealcropshasbeenamajortoolindevelopinggeneticallyengineeredplants.

CRGOandNRIgrantawardstoPhillips:

·1978;TissueCultureGeneticSystemsinCorn;$110,000;3years.

·1988;TissueCultureGeneticSystems.

·1992;MappingandIsolationofGenomicRegions:ControllingMaturityinMaize;2years.

CloningofChitinaseandItsPracticalApplicationAsaBiopesticide

KarlJ.Kramer,biochemistwiththeUSDAAgricultureResearchServiceGrainMarketingandProductionResearchCenter,Manhattan,Kansas,isolatedthegenethatcodesforthechitinaseenzymefromthetobaccohornwormManducasexta.KramerandcollaboratorsatKansasStateUniversityS.Muthukrishnan,LowellJohnson,andFrankWhitehaveclonedandincorporatedthegeneintotobaccoandriceplants.TheyhavedemonstratedthatcouplingthechitinasegenewiththebacteriumBacillusthuringiensisingeneticallyengineeredplantscanbeasafeandeffectivebiopesticidethatsubstantiallyreducesinsectgrowthandcurtailsfoliardamageinplants.Chitinaseworksbybreakingdownchitin,akeycomponentinmembranesofinsectskinandguttissue.Withoutthischitinmembrane,insectsrapidlysuccumbtomicrobialinfections.Thechitinasemustbeingested,soitposesaminimalthreattonontargetspeciesbecausetheseorganismswouldhavetochewonengineeredplants.Becausethesespeciesarenotleaffeeders,theyshouldnotevencontacttheenzyme.Also,chitinispeculiartoinsectsandotherinvertebratesandnotfoundinhigheranimals,soitisconsideredsafeforhumansandothermammals.KramerandcollaboratorshavereceivedcontinuousUSDAcompetitivegrantfundingsince1988tosupportthisresearchandhavepublishedatleast40papersinscientificjournalssincetheinceptionofthework.Mostrecently,theyhavepatentedtheonlyknowninsectchitinasegeneusedintransgenicplants.

Currently,NRIissupportingKramer'seffortstotransformotherplants,suchascorn,wheat,andsorghum.BiotechnologycompaniesincludingPioneer,Dekalb,andProdigeneareworkingwiththesescientiststodeveloppracticalapplications.

CRGOandNRIAwardstoKramer:

·1996;DevelopmentofInsectChitinolyticEnzymesasBiopesticides;

2years.

·1998;ImprovementofInsectChitinaseasaBiopesticideinTransgenicPlants;3years.

Patent:

5,866,788;February2,1999;K.J.Kramer,S.Muthukrishnan,H.K.Choi,L.Corpuz,andB.Gopalakrishnan;Recombinantchitinaseandusethereofasabiocide.

Publications:

·Kramer,K.J.,A.M.Christensen,T.D.Morgan,J.Schaefer,T.H.Czapla,andT.L.Hopkins.1991.Analysisofcockroachoothecaeandexuviaebysolid-state13C-NMRspectroscopy.InsectBiochemistry21:14956.

·Corpuz,L.,H.Choi,S.Muthukrishnan,andK.J.Kramer.1991.SequenceofthecDNAsandexpressionofthegenesencodingmethionine-richstorageproteinsofManducasexta.InsectBiochemistry21:265276.

·Christenson,A.M.,J.Schaefer,K.J.Kramer,T.D.Morgan,andT.L.Hopkins.1991.Detectionofcross-linksininsectcuticlebyREFORNMRJournaloftheAmericanChemicalSociety113:67996802.

·Hopkins,T.L.,andK.J.Kramer.1992.Insectcuticlesclerotization.AnnualReviewofEntomology37:273302.

·Kramer,K.J.,L.Corpuz,H.Choi,andS.Muthukrishnan.1993.SequenceofacDNAandexpressionofthegenesencodingepidermalandgutchitinasesofManducasexta.InsectBiochemistryandMolecularBiology23:691701.

·Gopalakrishnan,B.,S.Muthukrishnan,andK.J.Kramer.1995.BaculovirusmediatedexpressionofaManducasextachitinasegene:Propertiesoftherecombinantprotein.InsectBiochemistryandMolecularBiology25:255265.

·Zen,K.C.,H.K.Choi,K.Nandegama,S.Muthukrishnan,andK.J.Kramer.1996.Cloning,expressionandhormonalregulationofaninsectNacetylglucosaminidasegene.InsectBiochemistryandMolecularBiology26:435444.

·Wang,X.,X.Ding,B.Gopalakrishnan,T.D.Morgan,L.Johnson,F.

White,S.Muthukrishnan,andK.J.Kramer.1996.Characterizationofa46-kDainsectchitinasefromtransgenictobacco.InsectBiochemistryandMolecularBiology26:10551064.

·Choi,H.K.,K.Choi,K.J.Kramer,andS.Muthukrishnan.1997.Isolationandcharacterizationofagenomiccloneforthegeneofaninsectmoltingenzyme,chitinase.InsectBiochemistryandMolecularBiology27:3747.

AdditionalInformation:

AvirtualarticleinDiscoveryChannelOnlineisavailableathttp://www.discovery.com/news/archive/news990226/brief5.html?ct=36dafe7f.

DogsandInfectiousAbortioninCows:AMysterySolved

Neosporacaninumisaprotozoanparasitethatisamajorcauseofinfectiousabortionindairycattle.TheparasiteisfoundthroughouttheUnitedStatesandaroundtheworld.InCaliforniaalone,Neosporacaninumisdiagnosedin40%ofabortedfetusesandcostsdairyproducersatleast$35millionayear.This

parasitewasfirstdescribedabout10yearsago,butuntillastyearveterinarians,dairyfarmers,andresearcherswerefrustratedbythediseasebecauseitwasnotknownhowitwastransmitted.

Amajoradvancerecentlyoccurredinthebattletoprotectthedairyindustryfromthisparasite.AteamledbyNRI-supportedresearcherMiltonMcAllister,attheUniversityofWyoming,incollaborationwithresearchersatVirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversityandtheAgriculturalResearchService,demonstratedthatthedogisadefinitivehostofNeospora.Thisdiscoveryhaspavedthewayfordevelopmentofeffectivemethodsofdiseaseprevention.

UnravelingthemysteryofNeosporatransmissionbeganwitha2-yearseedgrantinwhichMcAllisterandcolleaguesdevelopedaprotocolthatwouldreliablyinduceformationoflargenumbersofencystedbradyzoitesofNeosporainthebrainsofmice,gerbils,andsheep.Thebestresultswereobtainedwithimmunosuppressedmicefromwhichbradyzoitescouldbepurified.

Neosporahasstructuralandgeneticsimilaritiestootherprotozoanspeciesthataretransmittedinthefecesofcarnivorousanimals,andresultsfromthe1994NRIseedgrantallowedtheresearchteamtoobtainasmallgrantfromtheAmericanVeterinaryMedicalFoundationtodeterminewhethercatsaredefinitivehosts;theresultswerenegative.However,asaresultofalaterawardfromtheNRI'sAnimalHealthandWell-BeingProgram,dogswereinducedtopasstheoocystsafterbeingfedthetissuesofmiceinfectedwithNeosporafrombothcanineandbovineisolates.

Scientificunderstandingofthisparasite'slifecyclenowpointstopracticalwaystodecreaseitsimpact.Dairycowsareusuallyfedrationsconsistingoffeedmixedinlargebatches.Feedisoftenpiledonthegroundinopenareasduringthisprocess.IfadogsheddingNeosporacontaminatesrationingredients,anentireherdcanbe

exposedtotheparasite.TheriskofNeosporaabortioncouldbegreatlyreducedbysimplymaintaininganimalfeedinafencedareaorclosedcontainer.Fencingcouldalsobeusedtopreventpregnantcowsfromeatingfeces-contaminatedpasture.Thus,relativelysimplemethodscanbeusedtosolveamultimillion-dollarproblem.

TheresearchteamsuccessfullycompleteditsstatedgoalofdiscoveringadefinitivehostforNeosporacaninum.Theinformationisbeingwidelydisseminatedinthepopularpress(Multiplepressreleases,ColoradoDairyNews,Hoard'sDairyman,ParasitologyToday,andsoon).Avaluable,newbovineisolateofNeosporathatwasalsoidentifiedisnowavailabletotheresearchcommunityforfurtherinvestigationstodiminishtheimpactofthisinfection.Furtherstudiesareneededtodeterminewhetheranimalsrelatedtodogs,suchasfoxesandcoyotes,alsotransmittheorganism.Vaccinedevelopmentwouldaidthedairyindustry,particularlyinmanagementsituationswhereeliminatingworking-dogandfamily-petaccesstopastureandfeedareasmightnotbepossible.

ThisresearchsuccesshighlightstheimportanceoftheNRI'sStrengtheningAwardsProgram.Competitionfortheseawardsisopentofacultyofsmalland

mediumacademicinstitutionsandatinstitutionsintheUSDAExperimentalProgramforStimulatingCompetitiveResearch.

NRIAwardstoMcAllister:

·1994;InductionofinfectiouscystsofNeosporacaninuminrodentsandfetallambs;$45,000;2yearSeedGrant.

·1996;DeterminationoftheDefinitiveHostofNeosporacaninum;$111,727;1yearStandardResearchGrant.

Publications:

·McAllister,M.M.,S.F.Parmley,L.M.Weiss,V.J.Welch,andA.M.McGuire.1996.Animmunohistochemicalmethodfordetectingbradyzoiteantigen(BAG5)inToxoplasmagondii-infectedtissuescross-reactswithaNeosporacaninumbradyzoiteantigen.JournalofParasitology82:354355.

·McAllister,M.M.,A.M.McGuire,W.R.Jolley,D.S.Lindsay,A.J.Trees,andR.H.Stobart.1996.Experimentalneosporosisinpregnantewesandtheiroffspring.VeterinaryPathology33:647655.

·McAllister,M.M.,E.M.Huffman,S.K.Hietala,P.A.Conrad,M.L.Anderson,andM.Salman.1996.Evidencesuggestingapointsourceexposureinanoutbreakofbovineabortionduetoneosporosis.JournalofVeterinaryDiagnosticInvestigation8:355357.

·McGuire,A.M.,M.M.McAllister,W.R.Jolley,andR.C.Anderson-Sprecher.1997.AprotocolfortheproductionofNeosporacaninumtissuecystsinmice.JournalofParasitology83:647651.

·McGuire,A.M.,M.M.McAllister,andW.R.Jolley.1997.SeparationandcryopreservationofNeosporacaninumtissuecystsfrommurinebrain.JournalofParasitology83:319321.

·Dubey,J.P.,M.C.Jenkins,D.S.Adams,M.M.McAllister,R.

Anderson-Sprecher,T.V.Baszler,O.C.H.Kwok,N.C.Lally,C.Bjorkman,andA.Uggla.1997.Antibodyresponsesofcowsduringanoutbreakofneosporosisevaluatedbyindirectfluorescentantibodytestanddifferentenzymelinkedimmunosorbentassays.JournalofParasitology83:10631069.

·McAllister,M.M.,J.P.Dubey,D.S.Lindsay,W.R.Jolley,R.A.Wills,andA.M.McGuire.1998.DogsaredefinitivehostsofNeosporacaninum.InternationalJournalforParasitology28:14731478.

·McAllister,M.M.,W.R.Jolley,R.A.Wills,D.S.Lindsay,A.M.McGuire,andJ.D.Tranas.1998.OralinoculationofcatswithtissuecystsofNeosporacaninum.AmericanJournalofVeterinaryResearch59:441444.

NRIFundedResearchwithHighPotentialforFutureScientificAdvances

AStepClosertoBioengineeringCold-TolerantPlants

MichaelThomashowandcolleaguesatMichiganStateUniversityusedNRIfundingfromthePlantResponsestotheEnvironmentProgramtocreateacold-tolerantstrainofArabidopsisthaliana(amodelplantorganism).Researchershaveknownaboutcold-tolerantgenesforcloseto30years,buttheyhadnotbeenabletobioengineeracold-tolerantplant,becauseofthenumberofgenesinvolved.Atleast25genesareassociatedwithcoldtolerance,andstabletransferofmanygenesisnotyetpossible.However,Thomashowwaspartoftheresearchteamsthatdiscoveredthattheexpressionofthesegenesisregulatedbyproteinsknownastranscriptionfactors.Intheory,transcriptionfactorscanbeusedtoenhancecoldtolerancebyturningonallthegenesinvolvedatonetime.ThomashowtriedtoinsertsuchatranscriptionfactorintoArabidopsisandfoundthat,indeed,coldtolerancewasenhanceddramatically.Althoughitistruethatthesamecold-tolerantgenesandasingletranscriptionfactormightnotworkinplantsotherthanArabidopsis,thisisafirststepinunderstandinghowtocontrolcoldtoleranceinplants.

NRIAwards(directlyrelatedtothisresearch):

·1988;PlantResponsestotheEnvironmentProgram;$140,000;2years.

·1996;PlantResponsestotheEnvironmentProgram;$243,393;3

years.

Publications(directlyrelatedtothisresearch):

·Jaglo-Ottosen,K.R.,S.J.Gilmour,D.G.Zarka,O.Schabenberger,andM.F.Thomashow.1998.ArabidopsisCBF1overexpressioninducesCORgenesandenhancesfreezingtolerance.Science280:104106.

·Gilmour,S.J.,D.G.Zarka,E.J.Stockinger,M.P.Salazar,J.M.Houghton,andM.F.Thomashow.1998.LowtemperatureregulationoftheArabidopsisCBFfamilyofAP2transcriptionalactivatorsasanearlystepincold-inducedCORgeneexpression.PlantJournal16:433442.

ReducingProcessingWasteandNegativeEnvironmentalImpactsbyWoodModification

Lignin,thecomplexpolymerthatcementscellulosefiberstogetherandprovidesstrengthandprotectionforgrowingtrees,isremovedwhenwoodisprocessedforcommercialpurposes.Theremovalprocessrequireschemicaltreatments,andthechemicalsandunseparatedfibersbecomeawasteproduct.RonaldSederoffandotherNRI-fundedscientistsatNorthCarolinaStateUniversityhavebeenworkingonmodifyinglignincompositioninloblollypine(acommerciallyimportanttimbersource)sothatitsmechanicalstrengthisreducedandprocessingefficiencyisincreased.Theseresearchersdiscoveredthatamutantthatproducesamodifiedligninexistsnaturallyinloblollypinepopulations.Themutantappearstochangethecompositionandstructureofligninbyblockingtheenzyme,cinnamylalcoholdehydrogenase.Theenzymeconvertscinnamylaldehydestocinnamylalcohols,whicharetheprecursorsofligninformation.Theseresearchersalsoshowedthatlaccasewasanotherimportantenzymeinvolvedinligninformation,providingyetanotherenzymethatcouldbeusedtomanipulateligninformationgenetically.

NRIGrants(directlyrelatedtothisresearch):

·1988;GeneticMechanisms/PlantScienceBio-Technology(joint);$66,000;2years.

·1991;PlantGrowthandDevelopmentProgram;$110,000;2years.

·1997;WoodUtilizationProgram;$111,000;2years.

Patent:

5,824,842;October20,1998.J.MacKay,D.O'Malley,R.Whetten,R.Sederoff.Methodsofprovidingandbreedingtreeshavingmoreeasilyextractableligninduetothepresenceofacinnamylalcohol

dehydrogenase(CAD)nullgene.

Publications(directlyrelatedtothisresearch):

·O'Malley,D.M.,S.Porter,andR.R.Sederoff.1992.PurificationandcharacterizationofCinnamylAlcoholDehydrogenaseinLoblollyPine.PlantPhysiology98:13641371.

·Bao,W.,D.M.O'Malley,R.Whetten,andR.R.Sederoff.1993.Alaccaseassociatedwithlignification.Science260:672674.

·O'Malley,D.,R.Whetten,R.Bao,C.L.,Chen,andR.R.Sederoff.1993.Theroleoflaccaseinlignification.ThePlantJournal4:751757.

·Whetten,R.andR.Sederoff.1995.Ligninbiosynthesis.PlantCell7:10011013.

BioengineeredSafeResistancetoGlyphosateHerbicide

Weedcontroloftenrequirestheuseofherbicidesthatcanharmcropplants.Glyphosate(Roundup)isacommonherbicidethatkillsgrasses,sedges,andbroad-leafplantsbyblockingthebiochemicalpathwaythatproducesessentialaminoacids(phenylalanine,tyrosine,andtryptophan).Onlyplants,fungi,andbacteriacanmaketheseessentialaminoacids.Animals(includinghumans)areinsensitivetoglyphosate,soitsuseisrelativelysafe.Plantresistancetoglyphosatehasalreadybeengeneticallyengineeredwithgeneticmaterialinthecellnucleus.However,thereisnowconcernovertheuseofsuchplantsbecausetheresistantgenescouldbespreadwiththereleaseofpollen.Thereleasecouldleadtoadecreaseintheoveralleffectivenessoftheherbicideagainstweedsandcreate''superweeds".HenryDaniellandcolleagues,atAuburnUniversity,withthesupportofNRIfundinghavefoundasolutiontotheproblembyusinggeneticmaterialinthechloroplasttogeneticallyengineerglyphosate-resistanttobacco.Chloroplastgeneticmaterialismaternallyinheritedandcannotbespreadbypolleninmostcrops(withrareexceptions,suchaspines).Chloroplast-derivedresistanceisalsomoreresistanttoglyphosatethannucleus-derivedresistance.Applicationofglyphosateaftercropemergenceisnowpossiblewithoutthefearofuncontrolledspreadoftheresistancegeneorherbicidedamagetothecrop.

NRIAwards(directlyrelatedtothisresearch):

·1993;PlantsDivision;$10,648;2yearSeedGrant.

·1995;ValueAddedProducts;$120,000;2years.

·1997;Non-FoodCharacterization/Process/ProductProgram;$219,438;3years.

·1998;PlantGenome;$160,000;2years.

Publication(directlyrelatedtothisresearch):

Daniell,H.,R.Datta,S.Varma,S.Gray,andS.B.Lee.1998.Containmentofherbicideresistancethroughgeneticengineeringofthechloroplastgenome.NatureBiotechnology16:345348.

EstablishmentoftheRoleofSteroidHormonesinPlantGrowthandDevelopment

Steroidhormonesarecrucialforembryonicdevelopmentandadulthomeostasisinanimals.Similarly,theinsectsteroidhormoneecdysonecontrolsmanydevelopmentalprocessesininsects.Inplants,manysteroidshavebeenidentified,butonlyoneclassofsteroids,collectivelycalledbrassinosteroids

(BRs),haswidedistributionthroughouttheplantkingdomanduniquegrowth-promotingpropertieswhenappliedexogenously.Usefulagriculturalapplicationsofthesecompoundshavebeenfound,suchasincreasingyieldandimprovingstressresistanceofseveralmajorcropplants.Despiteextensiveresearch,mostlyinthe1970sand1980s,definitiveproofthatBRsareessentialfornormalplantgrowthhadbeenlackinguntilrecently.

ItissurprisingthataclearroleofBRsinplantgrowthanddevelopmentcamefromgeneticstudiesonphotomorphogenesisinthemodelplantArabidopsis,ledbyJoanneChory,oftheSalkInstitute.AmutationintheDET2generesultedinplantsthatdonotrespondproperlytolight.Thegenewasclonedandshowntoencodeanenzyme(steroid5a-reductase)involvedinthebiosynthesisofBRs.ThemutantplantcanberescuedbyapplicationofBRs.TheidentificationofadditionalBR-deficientdwarfmutantsinArabidopsisandotherplantspeciesconfirmstheimportanceofthesesteroidsinplantdevelopment.

ThisworkisimportantbecauseitconfirmstheroleofBRsasamajorclassofplant-growthregulators.Previously,onlyauxins,gibberellins,abscisicacid,ethylene,andcytokininswereconsidered"real"hormones,andBRsreceivedlittleornoattentioninbotanytextbooksoringeneralreviewsofplantphysiologyanddevelopment.Now,becauseoftheworkofChoryandothers,BRsarereceivingagreatdealofinternationalattention.ItislikelythatgreaterunderstandingofthemolecularmechanismsofBRactioncouldhavepracticaleffectsonthegenerationoftransgeniccropplantsofmanyspecieswithalteredgrowthproperties(suchasstatureandyield).

NRIAwards:

·1993;MolecularandgeneticanalysisofarabidopsisDet2gene;3years.

·1996;MolecularandgeneticanalysisofarabidopsisDet2gene;3years.

Patents:

·FiledApril1996;Novelplantsteroid5a-reductase,DET2.

·FiledJune1997;Receptorkinase,Bin1.

Publications:

·Li,J.,P.Nagapal,V.Vitart,T.McMorris,andJ.Chory.1996.Aroleforbrassinosteroidsinlight-dependentdevelopmentofArabidopsis.Science272:398401.

·Li,J.,M.Biswas,A.Chao,D.Russell,andJ.Chory.1997.Conservationoffunctionbetweenmammalianandplantsteroid5a-reductases.PNAS94:35543559.

·Li,J.andJ.Chory.1997.Aputativeleucine-richrepeatreceptorkinaseinvolvedinbrassinosteroidsignaltransduction.Cell90:929938.

·Fujioka,S.,etal.1997.ArabidopsisDET2mutantisblockedearlyinbrassinosteroidbiosynthesis.PlantCell9:19511962.

ChoryhasbeencontinuouslyfundedbytheNRIsince1991.ShehasalsoreceivedfundingfromtheNationalInstitutesofHealth,theNationalScienceFoundation,theDepartmentofEnergy,andtheHowardHughesMedicalInstituteforstudiesonlight-regulatedgeneexpressionandlightsignaltransduction.

Signal-TransductionPathwayofthePlantHormoneEthylene

Thegaseousplanthormoneethylenehasprofoundeffectsonplantgrowthanddevelopment.Therearenumerousresponsestoethylenethroughoutthelifecycleoftheplant,includinginductionofripeninginclimactericfruits,promotionofseedgermination,promotionorinhibitionofflowering,abscissionofvariousorgans,andsenescence.WhileshewasapostdoctoralresearcherinEliotMeyerowitz'slaboratoryattheCaliforniaInstituteofTechnology,CarenChangclonedtheETR1genefromArabidopsis,whichwasshowntobeanethylenereceptorsharingthesame"two-component"feature(asensorandanassociatedresponseregulator)ofbacterialregulators.Itwasthefirstplanthormonereceptortobecloned.SincemovingtotheUniversityofMarylandin1994,Changhascontinuedtoworkonthemolecularandgeneticmechanismsofethylenesignaltransduction.Importantdiscoveriesincludethepreviouslyundescribedassociationofatwo-componentreceptor(ETR1)andtheMAPKsignalingcascadeandtherepressionofresponsesbythereceptorsintheabsenceofethylene(contrarytothetypicalsignalingparadigms

establishedinanimals).

Thisworkisimportantnotonlybecauseofthecloningofthefirstplanthormonereceptor,butbecauseithasmadetheethyleneresponsepathwayoneofthebestunderstoodsignalingpathwaysinplants.Itservesasamodelforthestudyofotherplanthormones.Italsoshowsthatplantsdonotnecessarilytransducesignalsinthesamewayasothereukaryotes.Becausenumerousphysiologicprocessesaremediatedbyethylene,themanipulationofethyleneresponseisvitaltothestorage,transport,diseaseprotection,appearance,andflavorofnumerousplantproducts.Theisolationofnewethylenesignalingcomponentswillleadtonewstrategiesformanipulatingavarietyofethyleneresponsesandthushelpustorefineourabilitytocontrolplantgrowthprocesses.

NRIAwards:

·1995;GeneticDissectionofEthyleneSignalTransductionBasedontheArabidopsisETR1Gene;3years.

·1998;ArabidopsisEthyleneSignalTransduction:NewInteractingComponents;3years.

Patents:

5,689,055;November,18.1997.E.M.Meyerwitz,C.Chang,AB.Bleecker.Plantshavingmodifiedresponsestoethylene.

Publications:

·Chang,C.andR.C.Stewart.1998.Thetwo-componentsystem:regulationofdiversesignalingpathwayinprokaryotesandeukaryotes.PlantPhysiology117:723731.

·Clark,K.L.,P.B.Larsen,X.Wang,andC.Chang.1998.AssociationoftheArabidopsisCTR1Raf-likekinasewiththeETR1andERSethylenereceptors.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences95:54015406.

·Chang,C.1996.TheethylenesignaltransductionpathwayinArabidopsis:anemergingparadigm?TrendsinBiochemicalScience21:129133.

ChanghasbeensupportedbytheNRIsince1995.TheNRIhasbeenhersolesourceoffederalsupportbeyondherpostdoctoralfellowship.

ImprovementsinPlantBiotechnologybyManipulationofGeneSilencing

Theabilitytouseplantsas"factories"toproducelargequantitiesofvaluableproteinsisoneofthemostexcitingandpotentiallyuseful

developmentstocomeoutofmoderbiotechnology.Transgenicplantsmightbeusedtoproducemedicallyorindustriallyvaluableproteinsinawaythatislessexpensive,moreenvironmentallyfriendly,andlessreliantontheuseofanimals.Inaddition,growingsuchtransgenicplantsmightprovideimprovedeconomicopportunitiesforfarmers.

Untilrecently,theabilitytouseplantstoproducelargequantitiesofproteinshasbeenhamperedbytheexistenceofaprocessinplantscalledgenesilencing,whichnormallyprotectstheplantsfromviralpathogens.Asthenameimplies,genesilencingstopstheproductionofproteinsthatwouldotherwisebeproducedatveryhighlevels,suchasviralproteinsorproteinsproducedby"transgenes"inplantsgrownasproteinfactories.

In1995,theNRIPlantPathologyProgramawarded$149,000toVickiVance,attheUniversityofSouthCarolina(award95-37303-1815),forherworkaimedatunderstandingtheseriousdiseasescausedbytheinteractionoftwovirusesinthesamehostplant(viralsynergism).Theawardwasrenewedfor$150,000in1997.In1995,theNRI'sPlantPathologyProgramalsomadeanawardtoJamesCarrington,atTexasA&M,for$219,000forhisworkontheintercellularmovementofpotyviruses(award95-37303-1867).UsingmaterialsgeneratedbyCarrington'sgroup,Vance'sgroupshowedthataproteinencodedbyoneviruspermittedawidevarietyofunrelatedvirusestoaccumulatetohighlevelsandcauseseriousdisease.Theyreasonedthattheviralproteinexertsthiseffectbyparalyzingthehostplant'sgene-silencingprocess(Prussetal.1997).PaperspublishedindependentlybyVance'sgroup,andCarrington'sgroup,andagroupinEngland(Anandalakshmietal.1998;KasschauandCarrington1998;Brignetietal.1998)providedexperimentaldatatoshowthatthiswasindeedthecase.

Becauseofthepracticalimplicationsofthiswork,VanceandhercolleagueattheUniversityofSouthCarolina,GailPruss,madeasuccessfulUSpatentapplicationthroughtheUniversityofSouthCarolina(application08/827,575,"Methodforenhancingexpressionofaforeignorendogenousgeneproductinplants").ThecoinventorslistedonthepatentapplicationwereLaszloMarton,Carrington,andWilliamDawson.Numerouscompanieshaveexpressedinterestinlicensingthepatent.

WorkaimedatunderstandinghowtheviralproteininterfereswithgenesilencingcontinuestobesupportedthroughtheNRI(award98-35301-6078madetoVancebytheNRI'sPlantGeneticMechanismsProgramandaward98-35303-6485madetoCarringtonbytheNRI'sPlantPathologyProgram).

NRIAwardstoVickiVance,UniversityofSouthCarolina:

·1995;MechanismsofPlantViralSynergism;4years.

·1998;AViralSuppressionofGeneSilencinginPlants;2years.

NRIAwardstoJamesCarrington,TexasA&MUniversity

·1995;IntercellularMovementofPotyviruses;2years.

·1998;HostResponsestoPotyviruses;3years.

Patent:

5,939,541;August17,1999;V.B.Vance,G.J.Pruss,W.O.Dawson,J.Carrington,M.Laszlo;Methodforenhancingexpressionofaforeignorendogenousgeneproductinplants.

Publications:

·Anandalakshmi,R.,G.P.Pruss,X.Ge,.,R.Marathe,A.Mallory,T.H.Smith,and,V.B.Vance.1998.Aviralsuppressorofgenesilencinginplants.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences95:1307913084.

·Brigneti,G.,O.Voinnet,W.X.Li,L.H.Ji,S.W.Ding,andD.C.Baulcombe.1998.ViralpathogenicitydeterminantsaresuppressoroftransgenesilencinginNicotianabenthamiana.TheEuropeanMolecularBiologyOrganizationJournal17:67396746.

·Kasschau,K.D.,andJ.CCarrington.1998.Acounterdefensivestrategyofplantviruses:suppressionofposttranscriptionalgenesilencing.Cell95:461470.

·Pruss,G.,X.Ge,X.M.Shi,J.C.Carrington,andV.B.Vance.1997.Plantviralsynergism:thepolyviralgenomeencodesabroad-rangepathogenicityenhancerthattransactivatesreplicationofheterologousviruses.PlantCell9:859868.

ANewBACLibraryVectorforTransferringLargeDNAInsertstoPlants

Numerouspotentialimprovementsinthecharacteristicsofagriculturallyvaluableplantsarepossiblethroughidentificationofadesiredtraitinanotherorganismanditsexpressioninacropplant.Thatisaccomplishedbylocatingthegenesresponsibleforthetraitandinsertingthemintothecropplant'schromosomes.Somedesirablegenes,suchasthosefordiseaseresistanceinplants,canoccurinclusters,creatingtheneedforareliablesystemfortransforminglargesegments(>100kb)ofDNAintoplants.TherelativelylargegenomesofplantsandtheabundanceofrepetitiveDNAsequencesinthemaddtotheneedforanimprovedtransformationsystem.

Toprovideasolutiontothoselong-standingproblemsinbasicplantbiology,CarolHamilton,whileatCornellUniversity,developedabinary-bacterialartificialchromosometechnology,calledBIBAC,tofacilitatethedevelopmentofnewelitevarietiesofagronomiccrops.BIBACtechnologynotonlyacceleratestheidentificationofagriculturallyimportantgenes,butalsomakesitpossibletointroducevaluabletraitsofinterestintoplantswithoutdraggingalongdeleterioustraitsacommonproblemforclassicalplantbreeders.ThesuccessoftheBIBACsystemwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutenhancingtheabilityofAgrobacteriumtumefacienstoeffectDNAtransfertotheplantchromosomes.Thatis,thisworkincludedbasicresearchthathasaffectedtheplant-transformationcommunity.SincethedevelopmentofBIBACtechnology,severalgroupshaverequestedthevirulencehelperplasmidsthatmadetechnologyasuccess,notbecausetheyneededBIBACtechnologyitself,butbecausetheywereinterestedinimprovingthetransformationefficiencyfortheirplantsystemofinterest.Ingeneral,thisisamorecommonproblemforagronomiccropsthanformodelplantsusedforbasicresearch.Thecriticalelementsofthenewtechnology,thebacterialstrainsandplasmids,havebeenrequestedbyhundredsofacademicandindustriallaboratoriesaroundthe

world.Inaddition,variouspartieshaveexpressedinterestinlicensingBIBACtechnology;thesequeriesaredirectedtotheCornellResearchFoundation.AUSpatenthasbeenissuedfortheBIBACvector,andforeignpatentsarepending.TheCenterforAdvancedTechnology/BiotechnologyatCornellUniversitysupportedtheconstructionandmaintainsaBIBACWebsiteinsupportofBIBACtechnology.

NRIAward:

1995;EvalustionandApplicatonofaNewBACLibraryVectorDesignedforTransferofLargeDNAInserts;3years.

Patent:

March31,1998;C.M.Hamilton;BinaryBACvector.

Publications:

·Hamilton,C.M.,A.Frary,Y.Xu,S.D.Tanksley,andH.B.Zhang.1999.ConstructionoftomatogenomicDNAlibrariesinabinary-BAC(BIBAC)vector.ThePlantJournal18(2):223229.

·Hamilton,C.M.1998.BIBACtechnology:progressandprospects.AgBiotechNewsandInformation10(1):23N-28N.

·Hamilton,C.M.1997.Abinary-BACsystemforplanttransformationwithhigh-molecular-weightDNA.Gene200:107-116.

·Hamilton,C.M.,A.Frary,C.LewisandS.D.Tanksley.1996.StabletransferofintacthighmolecularweightDNAintoplantchromosomes.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences93:9975-9979.

Hamiltonwasfundedin1995asanNRInewinvestigatoratCornell

UniversitywithadditionalsupportfromtheNationalScienceFoundationandtheDepartmentofEnergy.SheisnowemployedatParadigmGenetics,Inc.,inResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina.TheCenterforAdvancedTechnology/BiotechnologymaintainsaBIBACWebsiteatwww.bio.cornell.edu/biotechn/BIBAC/BIBAC,thatincludeshowtoobtainBIBACmaterials,generalinformation,restrictionmaps,andseveraldetailedprotocols.HamiltonrepliestoallBIBACcorrespondenceandcanbereachedatchamilton@paradigmgenetics.com.

AppendixHResearchNeedsinFood,Fiber,andNaturalResources

Chapter5ofthe1989NationalResearchCouncilreport,InvestinginResearch:AProposaltoStrengthentheAgricultural,Food,andEnvironmentalSystem(availableontheWebathttp://books.nap.edu/books/0309041279/html/index.html),providedadetailedlistofareasforfundamentalresearchinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.Thecommitteereviewedthelistandfoundittobeasrelevantnowasitwas10yearsago.Theyearshaveonlyaddedtothelistofconcerns.Aspartofthisstudy,thecommitteedevelopedthefollowinglistofresearchneedsinfood,fiber,andnaturalresources.Althoughthislistisnotasexhaustiveanddoesnotprovideasmuchdetailastheoneinthe1989report,itisgenerallyconsistentwiththe1989conclusions.

Plants

Geneandgenomeinteractionsandbioinformatics.Mechanismsofinteractionsofgenesandorganismswillbeidentifiedandwillprovidethebasisofimprovedgrowth,metabolism,development,behaviorandadaptation.Thisinformationwillhavemanyapplications,fromincreasedplantyieldtocleanupofenvironmentalpollution.

Transgenicplantsforimprovedproduction.Increasesinplantyield,diseasecontrol,droughttolerance,andmanyothercharacteristicswillbeobtainedbyconstructingtransgenicplants.Amajorresearcheffortwillberequiredtoidentifynewgeneswithusefulcharacteristics,andtoconstructandtesttransgenicplantsthatcarrythesegenes.

Mechanismsofpest-plantandbeneficial-plantinteractions.Majoradvancesintheunderstandingofdiseasemechanismsandindevelopmentofdisease-controlmeasureswillbestimulatedoverthenextfewyearsbyground-breakingbasicresearchnowunderway.Inaddition,therewillbeincreasedinterestinthedirectuseofmodifiedbeneficialorganismsandinidentifyingtherelevantgenesforbeneficialorganismsandtransferringthemintoplants.

Knowledgebaseforfacilitatinganewgenerationofbiologicallybasedmaterials.Thesewouldreplacesuchnaturalproductsaspetroleum,suchstructuralmaterialsassteel,andsynthetictextiles.Currenttrendsindicatethatitwillbepossiblesoontoreplacetheseenvironmentallysensitivecommoditieswithplant-producedmaterialsthatareenvironmentallysafeandrenewable.Itwillbeofgreatconsequencetotheplanetifmeanscanbedevisedwherebycommoditiesproducedbyhigherplantsarecoupledwithplantsthathavegreaterabilitytoreducethecarbondioxideloadintheatmosphere.

Engineeringofplantbiosyntheticandmetabolicpathways.Withtherapidlyexpandingpoolofgeneswithknownfunctions,itispossibletoconsidermakingradicalchangesinbiochemicalpathwaysbyintroducingnewgenesandmutatingexistinggenes.Itiswidelyexpectedthatresearchinthisfieldwillyieldmajorreturnsindevelopmentandproductionofpharmaceuticalsandimprovedplantdiseaseandpestresistance,yield,andothercharacteristics.

Animals

Geneandgenomeinteractionsandbioinformatics.Mechanismsofinteractionsofgenesandorganismswillbeunderstoodoverthenextseveralyearsandwillprovidethebasisofimprovedfarm-animalgrowth,metabolism,development,behavior,andadaptation.Thesefindingswillpermitassessmentoffuturediseasepotentialsinanimalsandhumansandwillallowdevelopmentofdietstoavoidthem.

FuturemajorprogressintheproductionoflivestockspeciesthatareimportanttotheUSeconomywillbeattainableonlyifweareabletomapanimalgenomes.Thisinformationwillprovidethebasisofregulatingvariousaspectsofanimalhealth,growthanddevelopment,metabolism,reproduction,andbehavior.Forexample,theabilitytoidentifyspecificmarkergenesassociatedwithorpredictiveofsuchtraitsasrateofgain,fecundity,milkproduction,eggproduction,andovulationratewouldenabletheselectionofsuperiorsiresanddamsinashortertimethanthemanyyearsnowrequired

throughregulargeneticapproaches.However,mappingthegenomeofjustonespeciesisatime-consumingandcostlyendeavor.UnlessadditionalfundsaremadeavailabletotheNRItoensuresupportforgenomemapping,itisunlikelythatthisaspectofanimalresearchwillbecarriedtocompletioninatimelymanner.

Nutritionresearch.Devisingwaystoapproachhumanandanimalnutritioninnovelwayswillbecomeincreasinglyimportant.Weneedresearchondevisingdeliverymechanismsandstudyingtheirefficacy.

Transgenicandclonedanimals.Theseapproacheswillgreatlyincreasetheefficiencyoffarm-animalproduction.Itisexpectedthatanimalswillfunctionasbioprocessreactorstofacilitatetheintroductionofimprovednutrientsintomeat,improvedandalteredmilkcomposition,andotherdevelopments.Researchwillprovidemanyadditionalavenuesforusingthebasicadvancesofferedbytheabilitytoclonefarmanimalsandproducetransgenicanimals.

AnimalReproduction.Thereisaneedtoexaminethebasicphysiologic,genetic,andmolecularmechanismsthatunderliereproductiveeventsthatultimatelydictateproductivityofeconomicallyimportantlivestockandaquaticspecies.Thereisalsoaneedtodevelopimprovedandnewmethodsofcloningsuperiorlivestock.

Reproductivefailurecontinuestobeamajorcauseofrevenuelosstolivestockproducers.Muchneedstobelearnedabouttheeffectsofdiseaseandenvironmentonthereproductivesystemofourlivestockspecies.Muchresearchisneededtoidentifytheunderlyingcausesofembryonicmortality,cysticovaries,inferiorspermquality,poorconceptionrate,abortion,andreducedhatchabilityinpoultry.Manyofthefutureresearchapproachestotheseproblemswillofnecessitybemolecular.

AnimalNutrition.Thereisaneedtoexaminethepotentialofgeneticallyengineeringrumenmicrobesthatusedietarynutrientseffectivelyforproductionofmeat,milk,andfiberandtoresearchtheeffectsofdietontheevolutionandsurvivalofpathogenicrumenandintestinalmicroorganisms.

Itisunlikelythatconventionalmethodsofresearchwillyieldprogressinanimalnutrition.Yet,thereisthepotentialforincreasingtheabilityoftheanimaltousefeedstuffsasasourceofenergyortousenutrientsthatnowremainundigested.Thiscanbeaccomplishedbyusinggeneticallyengineeredrumenorintestinalmicroorganismswithspecificdigestiveenzymes.Thisisachallengingsubjectthatisnotbeinginvestigated.Landareasnowavailableforgrazingorproductionofforagecropswilldecline,andlivestockmighthavetobefedfoodstuffsthatbytoday'sstandardsareconsideredtobeofpoorquality.However,appropriategeneticallyengineeredmicroorganismsthataredeemednonpathogenicwhenintroducedintolivestockspeciesmightenabletheseanimalstousepoorqualityfoodstuffsefficiently.Suchresearchwillrequireaconcertedeffortbyseverallaboratories,willtaketime,andwillbeexpensive.

Animal-RangelandInteractions.Westernlivestockproducersaregraduallyforcedoutofexistencebecauseofvariousrestrictionsimposedontheuseofriparianareasandwesternrangelands.Manycurrentenvironmentalissuestargetinglivestockproducersarenotbasedonsolidscientificevidence.Thereisadireneedforresearchtobeconductedtoprovidewell-controlleddataontheimpactofcattle,sheep,andhorsesonstreamqualityundervariousconditionsandonthevegetationandecologyofdesertandforestedrangelands.ThereisnoconcertedeffortintheNRItofundthistypeofresearch,whichultimatelywillaffecttheeconomyoftheelevenwesternstates.

AnimalHealth.TheUSresearchcommunitymustcontinuetoresearchtheorganismsthatnowlaywastetothehealthofourlivestockspecies.TheUSshouldbeattheforefrontofresearchonpotentialemergingdiseases,suchasBSE,thatareorcanbetransmittedtohumans.Weneedabetterunderstandingofvirologyasitpertainstoinfectionoflivestockbyforeignviruses;thisisessentialnotonlytodevelopappropriatevaccines,butalsotoidentifytheetiologyofviralinfectionsinhumans.

AnimalGrowthandDevelopment.Consumersofmeatandmeatproductsaredemandingalean,virtuallyfatfreeproduct.Thereisalsoagrowingdemandfororganicallygrownanimalproducts,suchasmeat,milk,andeggsfreeofhormoneresiduesandantibiotics.TheEuropeanmeatmarketisclosedtoAmericanbeefproducersbecauseofconcernabouthormonesinmeat.Toprovidethistypeofconsumableproduct,extensiveresearchwillberequiredtodefinetheunderlyingmechanismsofgrowthingeneralandthedevelopmentofmuscleandfatspecifically.Theidentificationofspecificmarkergenesthatareassociatedwithenhancedmeat,milkandeggproductioncanprovideanexcellentstartingpointforthisresearch.However,muscleandfatformationinvolvesinnumerablecomplexitieswhichareonlytangentiallyknown.Thisisanareaof

animalproductionthatcanhaveaseriouseffectonlivestockproducersandontheAmericaneconomyandshouldbesupportedbytheNRItoagreaterextentthanitisnow.

AquacultureandMariculture.Aquacultureandmaricultureconstitutethemostrapidlygrowingsectorofanimalagriculture;manynewspeciesareaddedeachyear.Abroadlyexpandedresearchprogramingenomics,nutrition,andreproductionofdomesticaquaticspeciesisessentialtothehealthandwell-beingofthesenewlyemergingindustries.

ConsumableAnimalProducts.Researchisneededtoimproveanddevelopmethodsofprocessing,packaging,andmarketingofanimalproductsfornationalandinternationalmarkets.

Immunology.Withtoday'sglobaltravel,diseasesareexchangedmorerapidlythanprophylacticdrugscanbedevised.Weneedmorebasicresearchonthe

immunologyofhumansandfarmanimals,particularlydedicatedtotreatmentofexoticdiseases.

Constructionofnovelmicroorganisms.Byusinggenesfromexistingmicroorganismsandsyntheticgenes,newandredesignedmicroorganismscanbeenvisionedinthenearfuture.Suchalteredorganismshavethepotentialformajorimpactinagriculturalsettings,forexample,rumenmicroorganismsincattle.

Gene-basedpharmaceuticalsandgenetherapy.Manyexperimentalapproaches,includingtheuseofantisenseRNAsandthetransientexpressionofintroducedgenes,willgreatlychangehowdiseaseandnutritionalproblemsareapproached.Agreatdealofresearchwillberequiredtodeliversuchapproachestothemarketplaceandtoundercovernewrationalesforexploitation.

Evolutionofbiologicsystems.Theseveralgenomeprojectsunderwayorexpectedwillyieldunprecedentedknowledgeapplicabletounderstandingtheevolutionaryhistoryofhumans,animals,plants,andmicroorganisms.Muchofthisinformationwillinturnhaveamajorimpactonagriculturalprocesses.

Nutrition,FoodSafety,andHealth

Researchonnutrient-druginteractions.Peoplearelivinglongerandusingalternativefoodsanddrugstoimprovequalityorlife.Weneedbetterinformationontheeffectsofexcessivenutrientanddruguse.

Impactonconsumersofphytochemicalsubstancespromotedasnutraceuticals.Thereisaneedtoisolateandcharacterizeatthemolecularleveltheactiveagentsintraditionalandalternativecropsandtoassesstheireffectsonspecifictargetedphysiologicresponsesandsideeffects.

Newandresurgentpathogensinfoods.Greaternumbersofmicrobial

food-contaminationproblemsarearising.Weneedtoknowmoreaboutthemicroorganismsinquestiontheirbiologyandmechanismsfortheircontrol.Informationisneededonthesourceofpathogensencounteredinproduction,harvesting,processing,anddistributionofplant,animal,andmarineproducts.

Pasteurizingandsterilizingoffoods.Newmethodsneedbedevelopedinfoodprocessingwithregardtoadvancedsterilizationtechniques.Opportunitiesforthewideruseofhigh-pressurepreservationandpulsedelectric-powerdischargesinfoodpreservationneedtobeassessed.Molecularmodificationsofandeffectsonqualityandhazardousmicroorganismsneedtobecarefullyassessed.

Identificationandmodificationofallergensinfoods.Rapid,simple,andcost-effectivetestsforthepresenceofknownandunidentifiedallergensinfoods

shouldbedeveloped.Itisalsonecessarytoevaluatemechanismsofallergenicityanddevelopmethodsofprocessingtoneutralizeallergenhazardsinfoods.

Probioticdevelopment.Withmoreantibioticsbecomingobsolete,weneedtodevelopmorenaturalantibioticstomaintainhomeostasis.

NaturalResourcesandtheEnvironment

Waterquality.Asincreasingnumbersofwatersuppliesbecomeunacceptableforhumanconsumptionorfoodprocessing,theneedforresearchtocharacterizecontaminantsandfacilitatetheirremovalisclear.

Animal-wastehandling.Concentrationofanimalproductionhasledtomajorproblemswithrespecttoodoremanationandthehandlingofwasteproducts.Majorresearcheffortsarewarranted.

Environmentalimpacts.Greatdevelopmentsareoccurringindevisingmethodstoamelioratetoxic-wastedepositsandotherenvironmentalinsults.ThesuccessofAmericanagricultureincomingdecadeswilldependonsolutionofcurrenttoxicproblemsandseeingthatagriculturalpracticesdonotproducenewenvironmentaldisasters.

Impactofenvironmentalandbiotechnologicmodificationsofplantsandanimalsonmicrobialecologyoffoodproducts.Therewillbeanincreasingneedtoevaluatethesafetyandqualityoffoodsthatcomefromgeneticallymodifiedorganismsincontrastwithtraditionalsources.

Bioprocessengineering.Modificationsofplants,animals,andmicroorganismsinthenextcenturycanbeexpectedtohavemajorramificationsfortheproductionofcommoditiesandforecologicconcerns,suchasreducingwasteproduction.Wepredictthatmajoradvancescanbemadeinbioengineeringoftheorganismsthatwedeal

withinagriculturalsettings

Biodiversity.Agricultureisoftencriticizedasbeingincompatiblewithbiodiversity.Yetbasicresearchinconservationbiologysuggeststhatlandscapediversitycanbeasimportantasspeciesdiversityinplantcommunitiesformaintainingdiversepopulationsofinsectsandvertebratesinageographicregion.Infact,agriculturalcommunitiescanbenefitdirectlyfromlandscapediversityinthatthisdiversityoftenincludesbeneficialorganismsthatpreyoncroppests,pollinatecrops,andprovideotherecosystemservicesforcroppedfieldsthathaveeconomicbenefit.Thedesignoflandscapesforexample,developmentandtestsoftheorythatpredictstheoptimalproportionofnativetocroppedhabitatorthebestpositionsofsuchhabitatwithinlandscapesisabasic-researchquestionthatisnotnowbeingadequatelyaddressed.

Soilbiodiversityisanothermajornewbranchofresearchthatrequiresadditionalsupport.Wehaveonlyrecentlyacquiredthemoleculartoolsforgaugingthecomplexityofthesoilbiologiccommunityandhavelearnedthatonly3%5%ofsoilmicrobialtaxahavebeenidentifiedanddescribed.Whatconstitutestheunknown95%?Doesitdifferamongecosystemsandmanagementpractices?Doesithavefunctionalsignificancefortheforest,rangeland,orcroppingsystemthatsupportsit?Thosearebasicquestionswithenormouspotentialimpactonthemanagementandprotectionofagriculturalresources.

Understandingbiodiversityalsorequiresanunderstandingofbasicpopulationgenetics,andmanyfundamentalquestionsinpopulationgeneticsthatarerelevanttoagriculturearebeinginsufficientlyaddressed.Howwillgeneflowinnativepopulationsretardoracceleratethemovementofgenesfromgeneticallymodifiedorganismsforexample,fromBtcornorglyphosate-resistantsoybeansintonativeplantpopulations?Willitmatterthatspecificgenesescape?Willtheypersist?Howlongwillittakenativepestpopulationstodevelopresistancetoengineeredtraitsinthegeneticallymodifiedorganisms?Answerstothosebasicecologicandevolutionaryquestionswillhelptodefinetheefficacyandsafetyofgeneticallymodifiedcrops.Answerstothemwillalsohelptodeterminestrategiesforprotectingnativeandcroppedcommunitiesfromcolonizationbyexoticorganismsingeneralanincreasinglyimportantthreattocropandforestproductivityinthisageofglobaltrade.

Weatherandclimateinteractionsinagriculturalsystems.Basicresearchincomingdecadeswilluncoveradditionalapproachestominimizingagriculturallossesduringweatherdisasters.Genesforincreasedcoldtoleranceinplantsarealreadyaffectinglossesfromcataclysmicfreezes,andmanyotherexamplescanbepredicted.

Globalchangeandagriculture.Agriculturebothaffectsandisaffectedbymanyoftheenvironmentalchangesthatfallundertheglobal-changerubric.Manyofthepracticalissuesthathaveemergedoverthelastdecadearebeingaddressedwithmission-orientedfundingfromanumberofagencies,includingtheUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA).Theseissuesrangefromevaluatingtheimpactofcontinent-scaletransportofatmosphericcontaminantsandgaugingtheeffectsofincreasedclimatevariabilityandchanginghydrologiccyclesoncropproductivitytoevaluatingthepotentialforagriculturalsoilstosequesteratmosphericCO2.Solutionsofthoseandthescoresofotherimportantglobalenvironmental-changeproblemsdependimplicitlyonathoroughunderstandingoftheprinciplesthatgovernthepatternsandprocessesaffectedbychange.Suchunderstandingisprovidedbybasicresearchinsuchtopicsassoilorganicmatter,environmentalplantphysiology,andenvironmentalmodeling.

SoilOrganicMatterDynamics.Croppedsoilstypicallylose40%60%oftheircarbonafter4060yearsofcultivation.Therecoveryofthecarbonandthepotentialstorageofadditionalcarbonhasbeenwidelytoutedasapotential

mitigatorofatmosphericCO2buildup.Butfundamentalmechanismsofcarbonstorageinsoilsforexample,therelativeimportanceofphysicalprotectionbyclaysandmicroaggregatesversuschemicalprotectionbyhumicandotherorganicsubstancesandthecontributionofrecalcitrantversusactivefractiontototalcarbonstoresindifferentecosystemsarepoorlyunderstood.Onlysincethe1993creationofthesmallNRISoilsProgramhasbasic,peer-reviewedsoil-carbonresearchhadanimportantsourceofpotentialsupportinUSDA.Basicsoilsresearchisingeneralpoorlysupportedatthenationallevel;soilcarbonisoneofmanycompetingneeds.

EnvironmentalPlantPhysiology.Responsesofplantstochangesinatmosphericandsoilchemistryarekeydeterminantstotheeffectsofglobalchangeonecosystems.Manyresponsesareinteractiveandrequireanecosystemcontextinwhichtounderstandthemsufficientlytosuggestmanagementsolutions.Butmanybasicecosysteminteractionsaretoopoorlyunderstoodtogaugetheeffectsofchange.Forexample,increasedCO2intheatmosphereleadstochangesinleafchemistryinmanytreespecies;dothesechangesaffectinsectherbivoryorleaf-litterdecompositionrates?Ifso,howwillthechangesaffectothertrophiclevelsandsoilnutrientavailability,andeventuallyplantsusceptibilitytoinsectoutbreaks,fire,anddrought?IstheresponseofforeststonitrogensaturationamelioratedbyincreasedCO2?IstheresponseofannualplantsbothcropsandweedstoincreasedCO2fundamentallydifferentfromthatofwoodyperennialplantsateithertheplantortheecosystemlevel?Answerstothosequestionsrequirefundamentalknowledgethatisbeinggainedveryslowlyviapoorlyfundedbasic-researchprogramsinagriculturalecosystems.

EnvironmentalModeling.Thecomplexityofecosystemsanddifferencesintheirresponsestoclimaticvariabilitysuggestthatprocess-based,quantitativemodelswilleventuallybethebestwayto

predicttheeffectsofhumanactivitiesonecosystemstructureandfunctionandtosuggestthelikelyeffectsofdifferentmanagementscenariosandthereforebest-managementsolutions.However,basicresearchintoquantitativemodelingisfundedasasmallpartoftheNRIAgriculturalSystemsprogram.Toeffectivelylinkexistingcropandforestmodelstomodelsofsoilbiogeochemistry,hydrologictransport,andatmosphericchemistryandthenlinkthesemodelstoeconomic,land-use,andothersocialmodelswillrequiresubstantivebasicresearchnotnowbudgetedfor.

Nitrogen-UseEfficiency.Theefficientuseofnitrogenincroppingsystemsisessentialforprotectingdownstreamecosystemsfromenvironmentalharmwhilemaintaininghighagriculturalproductivityincroppedfields.Nitrogenlimitscropgrowth,butonly50%60%ofnitrogenappliedtocropsistakenupbythem.Mostoftheremainderislosttogroundwaterandsurfacewaterasnitrateortotheatmosphereasdinitrogenorthegreenhousegasnitrousoxide.The

environmentalandeconomicconsequencescanbelarge:anincreasingproportionofdrinkingwater,especiallyinruralareas,exceedsEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhealthstandardsfornitratecontamination,andnitrateinsurfacewatereventuallymakesitswaytocoastalareas,whereithasbeenlinkedtounwantedeffectshypoxiczonesthatcandepresssuchpopulationsasshrimpintheGulfofMexico,outbreaksofsuchtoxicalgaeasthoseinChesapeakeBay,andsoon.

Improvingnitrogen-useefficiencyonthefieldscalehasbeenanelusivegoal;efficiencyhaschangedlittlesinceitwasfirstmeasuredinthe1950s.Changesintillagepractices,theapplicationofsite-specificfarmingmethods,theintroductionofnutrientcatchcropsinthecroppedfieldorofriparianvegetationdownstream,andincreasesintheefficiencyofplantnitrogenuptakeintherhizospherealldependonabetterfundamentalunderstandingoftheecologicinteractionamongcrops,soilorganisms,andthesetofphysicalandchemicalconditionsthatdefinetheplant-soilenvironment.Opportunitiesforpeer-reviewed,competitivefundingofbasic,integratedresearchincropecosystemsarelargelylackingoutsidethesmallNRIprogramsinNaturalResourcesandEnvironment.

Wildlifeinagriculturalsystems.Theconflictofexpandedagriculturalproductivityandthedesireforenvironmentalpreservation,includingthatofwildlife,necessitatesfurtherresearchtodevisenewmethodsandapproaches.

Space.Agricultureandagriculturalresearchwillplayamajorpartinspaceexplorationbecauseofobviousneedsforfood,fiber,andwastedisposal.Engineeredmicrobiallinesandbioprocessingwillhavelargecontributionstomakeandneedtobestudiednowinthecontextofspaceflight.

EnhancingValueandUseofAgriculturalandForestProducts

Developmentofmicrotechnologyforseparationandanalysisofbiologicmoleculesusingmicrofabricationandnanotechnology.Thesefieldsareprogressingextremelyrapidlyandpromisetoaffectapproachestouseofagriculturalandforestproductsinnewways.

Impactsoforganicfarming.Thesafetyandqualityoforganicallyproducedproductsneedtobecomparedwiththoseofconventionallyproducedcommoditiesandcharacterizedatthemolecularlevel.

Bioprocessengineeringforagriculturalproducts.Integratedresearchisneededtocombinemolecular-biologytechniquesfortailoringplantstothegenerationofspecificvalue-addedproductswithpostharvestprocessingstepsthatwillenablecost-effectiverecoveryoftheproductsinappropriatelylocatedandsizedbioprocessingplants.

Metabolicpathwayanalysis.Structure-functionstudiesofproteinsthataregeneratedbygenesdiscoveredinthePlantGenomeProjectshouldbeundertaken.

Markets,Trade,andRuralDevelopment

Knowledgebasetoprepareforbiologicterrorismordeliberateattemptstodegradethebiosphereoragroecosystems.Thereisagreatneedtoexpandourknowledgebaseforinstance,onpathogenicmicroorganismstoforestallattemptsatbiologicterrorism.

Globalizationoftheeconomy.GreaterbroadeningofeconomieshasmajoreffectsonUSagriculture.Thereisaneedforincreasedresearchtoexplorethebasesandramificationsofthisincreasingtrend.

Economicandsocialconsequencesofenvironmentalregulation.Studiesshouldassessthebenefitsandcostsofgovernmentregulationsthataffectagriculturalproductionandtheenvironment,designandevaluatealternativepoliciesandinstitutionstomitigatenegativeenvironmentalimpactsofproductionagriculture,anddevelopmorequantitativeandqualitativetoolsforassessingnonmarketgoods.

Risk-managementtoolsandfinancialmanagement.Studiesshouldassesswaystomeasureandmanageriskinanew,globalized,verticallycoordinatedfoodsystem;analyzespecificrisk-managementstrategies,instruments,andportfolios;andassistfarmersandlendersinadoptingimprovedfinancialaccountingandreportingsystems.

Impactsofthechangingfarmandagribusinessstructure.Studiesshouldanalyzetheforcesdrivingstructuralchangeandconcentrationandtheireffectsontheeconomicperformanceofverticallycoordinatedfarmingandagribusiness;determinetheeffectsofverticalcoordinationonmarketaccess,bargainingpower,concentration,locationofproduction,financialarrangements,ruralcommunities,andtheenvironment;andanalyzetherelationshipbetweenvalue-added

agriculturalcommoditiesandnew-productdevelopment,producerprofitability,risk,andmarketaccess.

Evaluatetradepoliciesandbarriers.Studiesshouldassessthebenefits,costsandotherimplicationsoftradepolicies,governmentregulation,andinstitutionalbarrierstointernationaltrade;evaluatetherelationshipsamongtrade,naturalresources,andtheenvironment;andenhanceunderstandingoftheeconomicimpactsandconsequencesoftrade.

Economicandruralcommunitydevelopmentprograms.Studiesshouldcreateimprovedinformationtoassistlocalgovernmentsincost-effectively

meetingdemandsforpublicservices,financingpublicprograms,providinginfrastructureneeds,anddesigningincentivesforprivate-sectorinitiativesandinvolvement;improveunderstandingoftherolesofhumancapital,socialcapital,andlife-longlearninginruraleconomicdevelopment;andascertaintheimpactsofgovernmentprogramsonruralpoverty.

Effectsofchangesinconsumerdemandonhealth,nutrition,andfoodsafety.Studiesshouldassessthebenefitsandcostsofpublicpoliciesandgovernmentregulationsthataffecthealth,nutrition,andfoodsafety;assessconsumerpreferencesanddemandsandtheirimplicationsforproductionandmarketingpracticesinthefoodsystem;andincreasemultidisciplinaryanalysisoffood-scienceissues.

Economicandsocialimpactsofconsolidatingresearchandextensionprograms.Studiesshouldassessopportunitiesforregionalizationofresearchandextensionprograms,changetherewardsystemsforagriculturalresearchtovaluemultidisciplinaryandappliedworkmorehighly,andachievegreatercoordinationamongresearchandextension,includinginvolvementbystakeholdersinpriority-setting,planning,andprogramevaluation.

Informationtechnologiesandcommunicationsystems.Studiesshouldascertainthebenefitsandcostsofpublicversusprivateinformationandtheimplicationsfordeliverysystemsforagriculturalresearchresultsandeducation,redesignthedeliverysystemsoftheCooperativeExtensionServiceformoreeffectiveandtimelyperformance,andevaluatethevalueanduseofprecisiontechnologyandinformationinagriculturalproduction.

Economicandsocialimpactsofbiotechnology:Studiesshouldanalyzehowbiotechnologyaffectsfarmsize,productionefficiency,competitiveness,tradepotential,andotherelementsofeconomicperformanceinagriculture;evaluatethepublic-versusprivate-sector

rolesinthedevelopmentofbiotechnology;andenhancethepublic'sunderstandingofthebenefitsandrisksassociatedwithbiotechnology.

Developmentofhumancapital.Studiesshouldplacegreateremphasisinundergraduatecurriculaandpubliceducationonunderstandingtheglobaleconomy,renewtheemphasisoncompetitivenessasakeyeconomicconceptinagricultureandagribusinesscurricula,usemore''real-life"andexperientiallearningintheclassroom.

AppendixIGrantPerformanceFollow-OnforQualityEvaluation

(Examplesofwhatcouldbecollected)

ProjectTitleDateofinitiationoftheNRIgrantAdditionalsupportinconjunctionwithorasaresultofthisgrant

·Agency(forexample,DepartmentofEnergy,NationalInstitutesofHealth,NationalScienceFoundation,StateAgriculturalExperimentStations)

·PrivateSector

·Other

PresentationsresultingfromresearchfundedbyNRIgrant

·Referredjournalcitations

·Otherarticles

·Theses

·CitationIndex/CitationRecord

NewsreleasesonfindingsofresearchfundedbygrantDisclosuresforpatents

·Patentspending

·PatentsresultingfromNRIgrant

·Licenses

Interactionswithotherscientistsinprivatesector,universities,governmentTestimonials

Transferoffindingstopossibleapplication

ReferencesAlston,J.M.,andP.G.Pardey.1996.MakingSciencePay:TheEconomicsofAgriculturalR&DPolicy.Washington,D.C:AEIPress.

Baldwin,W.,andP.McCardle.1996.PeerreviewatNIHinthe21stcentury.FASEBJournal10(December1996):15631568.

Barry,P.J.1997.Ratesofreturntopublicinvestmentinagriculturalresearchandeducation.CHOICESFourthQuarter.

CED(CommitteeforEconomicDevelopment).1998.America'sBasicResearch:ProsperityThroughDiscovery.

Chubin,D.1994.Grantspeerreviewintheoryandpractice.EvaluationReview18(Vol.1,February):2030.

Chubin,D.1998.LookingBackward,ThenForwardatAmericanResearchUniversities.Pp.375384inA.H.Teichetal.,eds.,AAASScienceandTechnologyPolicyYearbook.WashingtonDC:AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience

Chubin,D.,andE.J.Hackett.1990.PeerlessScience:PeerReviewandU.S.SciencePolicy.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Daily,G.,P.Dasgupta,B.BolinP.Crosson,J.duGerny,P.Ehrlich,C.Folke,A.M.Jansson,B.O.Jansson,N.Kautsky,A.Kinzig,S.Levin,K.-G.Maler,P.Pinstrup-Andersen,D.Siniscalco,B.Walker.1998.Foodproduction,populationgrowth,andtheenvironment.Science281:12911292.

Fuglie,K.,N.Ballenger,K.Day,C.Klotz,M.Ollinger,J.Reilly,U.Vasavada,andJ.Yee.1995.Agriculturalresearchanddevelopment:publicandprivateinvestmentsunderalternativemarketsandinstitutions.AgriculturalEconomicReportNo.735.Economic

ResearchService,USDepartmentofAgriculture.

Kelman,A.,andR.J.Cook,1996.Theroleofacompetitiveresearchgrantsprogramforagriculture,food,andnaturalresources.BioScience46:533540.

Klotz,C.,K.Fuglie,andC.Pray.1995.Private-sectoragriculturalresearchexpendituresintheUnitedStates,196092.AgriculturalEconomicsReportNo.9525,EconomicResearchService,USDepartmentofAgriculture.

Kostoff,R.1996.ThePrinciplesandPracticesofPeerReview.ScienceandEngineeringEthics3:1934.

Kostoff,R.1997a.PeerReview:TheAppropriateGPRAMetricforResearch.Science277:651652.

Kostoff,R.1997b.ResearchProgramPeerReview:Principles,Practices,Protocols.(http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/index.html).

Lipton,K.L.,W.Edmondson,A.Manchester.1998.Thefoodandfibersystem:ContributingtotheU.S.andworldeconomies.EconomicResearchService,USDepartmentofAgriculture,AgriculturalInformationBulletinNo.742.Washington,DC,July1998.Availableonline:<http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aib742/index.htm>

MacIlwain,C.1998.Plantscientistswantfocusonthebestandbrightest.Nature394:210211.

May,R.1998.Thescientificinvestmentsofnations.Science281:4951.

McGeary,M.,andP.M.Smith.1996.TheR&DPortfolio:AConceptforAllocatingScienceandTechnologyFunds.Science274:14841485.

Metzger,N.,andR.N.Zare.1999.InterdisciplinaryResearch:From

BelieftoReality.Science283:10961097.

Mowery,D.C.,N.Rosenberg.1989.TechnologyandtheEconomicPursuitofGrowth.Cambridge:CambridgePress.

NationalScienceFoundation.1999.SurveyofFederalFundsForResearchAndDevelopment:FiscalYears1996,1997,1998.WashingtonDC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.

Nature.1998.GeneticRevolutionOverdueattheUSDA[editorial].Nature394:207.

NRC(NationalResearchCouncil).1972.ReportoftheCommitteeonResearchAdvisorytotheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.

NationalResearchCouncil.1989.InvestinginResearch:AProposaltoStrengthentheAgricultural,FoodandEnvironmentalSystem.NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC.

NationalResearchCouncil.1994.InvestingintheNationalResearchInitiative:AnUpdateoftheCompetitiveGrantsProgramoftheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC.

NationalResearchCouncil.1995.AllocatingFederalFundsforScienceandTechnology.NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC.

NationalResearchCouncil.1998.AssessingtheValueofResearchintheChemicalSciences.NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC.

NationalResearchCouncil.1999.EvaluatingFederalResearchPrograms.NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC.

PublicLaw101624,101stCongress,FederalRegister.

Science.1998a.TheBiocomplexWorldofRitaColwell.281:19441947.

Science.1998b.1999Budget:OneStepForward,TwoBack.282:392393.

Science.1999.2000Budget:ThankstoNIH,R&DEndsUpWith5%Boost.286:1836.

USCongress,OfficeforTechnologyAssessment.1977.OrganizingandFinancingBasicResearchtoIncreaseFoodProduction.Washington,DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.

USCongress,OfficeforTechnologyAssessment.1991.FederallyFundedResearch:DecisionsforaDecade.Washington,DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.

USCongress,OfficeforTechnologyAssessment.1995.ChallengesforU.S.AgriculturalResearchPolicy.Washington,DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.

USDepartmentofAgriculture.1997.NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgramApplicationKit.July1997.Washington,DC:USDepartmentofAgriculture.

USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram,personalcommunication,June26,1998.

USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram,personalcommunication,September1,1998.

USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalResearchInitiativeCompetitiveGrantsProgram,personalcommunication,March23,1999.

USGeneralAccountingOffice.1996.AgriculturalResearch:InformationonResearchSystemandUSDA'sPrioritySetting,GAO/RCED96-92.P.44andApp.V.Washington,DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.

USGeneralAccountingOffice.1999.Peerreviewpracticesatfederalscienceagenciesvary.GAO/RCED99-99.Washington,DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice.

USHouseofRepresentatives,CommitteeonScience.1998.UnlockingOurFuture:TowardaNewNationalSciencePolicy[online].Available

online:http://www.house.gov/science_policy_report.htm>.[September24].

AbouttheAuthorsThomasN.UrbanistheformerchairmanandCEOofPioneerHi-BredInternational,Inc.,andcurrentlychairmanoftheBoardofTrustees,CarnegieInstitutionofWashington.Mr.UrbanjoinedPioneerin1960andbecamepresidentin1979andchairman,president,andCEOin1984.In1992,hewasnamedIowaBusinessLeaderoftheYear.OnleavingPioneerin1995,Mr.UrbanbecameavisitingprofessorattheGraduateSchoolofBusinessAdministration,HarvardUniversity.Hehasservedonnumerousadvisorycommittees,includingtheWorldAgricultureDevelopmentFoundation,President-electClinton'stransitionteam,andtheCouncilonForeignRelations.Mr.UrbanhasalsoservedonNationalAcademiesgroups,includingtheWorkingGrouponNewAlliancesandPartnerships:EnhancingtheUtilizationofScientificandEngineeringAdvancesandtheGovernment-University-IndustryRoundtable.HeisamemberoftheNationalResearchCouncil'sBoardonAgricultureandNaturalResources.Mr.UrbanreceivedhisMBAdegreefromtheHarvardGraduateSchoolofBusinessandhisBAfromHarvardUniversity.

PeterJ.BarryisprofessorofagriculturalfinanceanddirectoroftheCenterforFarmandRuralBusinessFinanceattheUniversityofIllinois,Urbana.HeisapastpresidentandafellowoftheAmericanAgriculturalEconomics

Association.Dr.BarryisalsothepastchairoftheESCOPSocialSciencesSubcommitteeandthecurrentchairoftheCouncilonFood,AgriculturalandResourceEconomics(C-FARE).HehasbeenaprofessoratTexasA&MUniversityandtheUniversityofGuelph;editoroftheAmericanJournalofAgriculturalEconomics;andconsultingeditorfortheEuropeanReviewofAgriculturalEconomics.Dr.BarryreceivedhisPhD,MS,andBSdegreesinagriculturaleconomicsfromtheUniversityofIllinois.

FrancisF.BustaisprofessorandformerheadoftheDepartmentofFoodScienceandNutritionattheUniversityofMinnesota,St.Paul.Heisaconsultantto3M,theInternationalConsortiumofFoodQualityProfessionals,Inc.,andtheProctorandGambleCompany.Heisalong-timememberoftheInternationalCommissiononMicrobiologicalSpecificationsforFood.Hisresearchinterestsincludeenvironmentalstressonmicroorganisms,influenceoffoodsystemsongrowthandsurvivalofmicroorganisms,thermalprocessing,generalmicrobiologicaspectsoffoodprocessingandpreservation,probioticcontrolofsporeformersandcancer,andhazard-analysiscriticalcontrolpointapproachestoqualitymanagement.Dr.BustastudiedfoodscienceattheUniversityofIllinois,wherehereceivedhisPhDdegree;anddairyindustriesandbacteriologyattheUniversityofMinnesota,wherehereceivedhisMSandBAdegrees.

Mary-DellChiltonisseniorstaffscientistatNovartisSeedsinResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina.SheearnedherPhDinchemistryontheUrbanacampusoftheUniversityofIllinoisin1967.AfterpostdoctoralstudiesandvariousresearchappointmentsattheUniversityofWashington,shejoinedthefacultyofWashingtonUniversity,inSt.Louis,in1979.Herresearchgroupincollaborationwithothersproducedthefirsttransgenictobaccoplantsin1982.ShejoinedCiba-Geigyin1983asexecutivedirectorofagricultural

biotechnology.SheheldadministrativepositionsatCibafor11years,andshehasreturnedtoactiveengagementinbenchresearchatCiba,nowNovartisthroughmerger.HerhonorsincludetheRankPrizeinNutrition(1986),electiontotheNationalAcademyofSciences(1985),theDavidGotliebMedal(1986),theHendricksMedal(1987),andelectiontotheAmericanAcademyofartsandSciences(1993).ShewasawardedthedegreeofDoctorHonorisCausabytheUniversityofLouvainin1983.SheisafellowoftheAmericanAcademyofMicrobiology(1994)andhasservedontheNorthCarolinaBoardofScienceandTechnologysince1986.Hercurrentresearchisdirectedtoimprovingthetechnologyforintroducingnewgenesintocropplants.

DarylE.ChubinisseniorpolicyofficerintheNationalScienceBoardOfficeoftheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)inArlington,Virginia.WhileatNSF,hehasalsoservedasdirectoroftheResearch,Evaluation,andCommunicationDivision.In1997,hewasondetailasassistantdirectorforsocialandbehavioralsciencesandeducationattheWhiteHouseOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy.Dr.Chubin'sprofessionalinterestshavefocusedonthesocialand

politicaldimensionsofscienceandtechnologyasrelatedtoeducation,humanresources,interdisciplinaryteamwork,massmedia,andpublicpolicy.Hehastaughtatfiveuniversities,servedonthestaffofthecongressionalOfficeofTechnologyAssessment,isafoundingmemberoftheSocietyforSocialStudiesofScience,andispresidentoftheCommissiononProfessionalsinScienceandTechnologyandchair-electoftheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience(AAAS)SectiononSocietalImpactsofScienceandTechnology.Dr.ChubinreceivedhisPhDinsociologyfromLoyolaUniversityinChicago.

RobertJ.CollierisprofessorintheDepartmentofAnimalSciencesattheUniversityofArizonainTucson.HewaspreviouslyseniorfellowanddairyresearchdirectoratMonsantoCompanyinSt.Louis,Missouri.HisresponsibilitiesincludeddirectingallpreclinicalandclinicaldairyresearchrequiredforcommercialapprovalofbovinesomatrotropinintheUnitedStatesandCanadafortheAnimalSciencesDivisionofMonsantoanddirectingthediscoveryresearchprogramfornovelproductsforthedairyindustry.Hisresearchinterestsfocusonnutritionalphysiology,thephysiologyoflactation,andtheeffectsofenvironmentondairycattleandtheirendocrinesystems.Dr.ColliercompletedanNationalInstitutesofHealthpostdoctoralfellowshipatMichiganStateUniversity.HereceivedhisPhDinphysiologyfromtheUniversityofIllinoisandhisMSandBSdegreesfromEasternIllinoisUniversity.

NoelT.KeenisdistinguishedprofessorintheDepartmentofPlantPathologyattheUniversityofCalifornia,Riverside(UCR).HeisalsodirectoroftheUCRBiotechnologyCenter.Dr.Keen'sresearchhasbeenkeyinunderstandingthemolecularandbiochemicalbasisofvirulence,pathogenicity,resistance,andgene-for-generelationshipsinplant-pathogeninteractions.Histeam'sresearchpioneeredtheisolationandcharacterizationofarace-specificelicitorofresistance

encodedbyasingleavirulencegene.Dr.KeenwaselectedtotheNationalAcademyofSciencesin1997.HeservesasaneditorforPlantPhysiologyandtheJournalofBacteriology.Dr.KeenstudiedplantpathologyattheUniversityofWisconsin,wherehereceivedhisPhDdegree.HereceivedhisMSandBSdegreesfromIowaStateUniversity.

MichaelR.LadischisprofessorintheAgriculturalandBiologicalEngineeringDepartmentandDirectoroftheLaboratoryofRenewableResourcesEngineeringatPurdueUniversity.Hisresearchaddressesfundamentaltopicsinseparationsandreactionkineticswithcurrentprojectsinbioseparations,kineticsofbiochemicalreactions,chemicalreactionengineering,andbiomassconversion.Dr.LadischhasservedasamemberofUSdelegationsandadvisorypanelstoreviewbiotechnologyprogramsinRussia,Thailand,China,andJapan.HechairedtheNationalResearchCouncilCommitteeonBioprocessEngineering.Heisaformerchairandlong-rangeprogramcoordinatoroftheBiotechnologyDivisionoftheAmericanChemicalSociety.Dr.Ladisch

receivedhisPhDandMSdegreesinchemicalengineeringfromPurdueUniversityandhisBSdegreefromDrexelUniversity.Dr.LadischwaselectedtotheNationalAcademyofEngineeringin1999.

G.PhilipRobertsonisprofessorintheDepartmentofCropandSoilSciencesandtheW.K.KelloggBiologicalStationatMichiganStateUniversity,HickoryCorners.Dr.Robertson'sprimaryresearchinterestsincludenitrogenavailabilityinmanagedandnaturalecosystems,particularlyagriculturalsystems;trace-gasfluxesfromagriculturallandscapes,inparticularnitrousoxideandmethane;spatialvariabilityofsoilresourcesanditsrelationshiptocommunitystructureandproductivity;andthefunctionalsignificanceofsoilmicrobialdiversity.HedirectstheNationalScienceFoundationLong-TermEcologicalResearchsiteinrow-cropagricultureandrecentlyservedasdirectoroftheUSDepartmentofAgricultureFundforRuralAmericaEnvironmentProgram.Dr.RobertsonreceivedhisPhDinecologyandevolutionarybiologyfromIndianaUniversityandhisBAfromHampshireCollege.

RonaldR.SederoffisdistinguishedprofessorandEdwinF.CongerProfessorofForestryatNorthCarolinaStateUniversity.HeisalsoanassociatememberoftheDepartmentofGeneticsandtheDepartmentofBiochemistryanddirectoroftheForestBiotechnologyGroupattheuniversity.Dr.Sederoffsresearchinterestsfocusonthemoleculargeneticsofforesttreestoacceleratebreeding.Hisresearchgroupwasthefirsttotransferageneintoaconifer.Theyhavealsodevelopedmethodsforgenomicmappingofindividualtrees,appliedthosemethodstocomplex-traitanalysis,anduseddevelopmentalspecializationinwoodformationtoinvestigatethebiochemicalandgeneticbasisofcellwallbiosynthesis.Dr.SederoffreceivedhisPhD,MA,andBAdegreesinzoologyfromtheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.HecompletedpostdoctoralstudiesattheInstitutedeBiologieMoleculaireandasabbaticalinforestgeneticswiththeUS

ForestServiceatBerkeley.Dr.SederoffwaselectedtotheNationalAcademyofSciencesin1995.

WilliamW.SimpkinsisassociateprofessorofgeologyintheDepartmentofGeologicalandAtmosphericSciencesatIowaStateUniversity,Ames.Dr.Simpkins'sresearchinterestsareinthehydrogeologyoftill,agriculturalwaterquality,hydrogeologyofriparianzonesandbufferstrips,andisotopehydrology.HeistheassociateeditorofGroundWater.Dr.SimpkinshasbeenaresearchgeologistwiththeBureauofEconomicGeologyoftheUniversityofTexasatAustinwherehestudiedthegeomorphologyandhydrologyofhigh-levelnuclear-wastedisposalinsaltintheTexasPanhandle.HealsoworkedasresearchliaisonbetweentheBureauofEconomicGeologyandtheUSDepartmentofEnergySaltRespositoryProjectOfficeinColumbus,Ohio.Dr.Simpkins'seducationalbackgroundincludesstudiesattheUniversityofWisconsin,wherehereceivedhisPhDdegreeingeologyandgeophysicsandtwoMSdegreesoneingeologyandgeophysics,theotherinwater-resources

management.HereceivedhisBAdegreeingeologyfromAugustanaCollegeinIllinois.

RobertE.SmithispresidentofRESmithConsulting,Inc.,inNewport,Vermont.HehasbeenpresidentoftheInstituteofFoodTechnologists,seniorvicepresidentforcorporateresearchatNabisco,Inc.,andseniorvicepresidentforresearchanddevelopmentatDelMonteCorporation.Hisresearchfocusesonthenutritionalqualityofhumanandpetfoods,particularlyproteinandaminoacidrequirementsandinterrelationships.Dr.SmithreceivedhisPhDdegreeinanimalscience,withanemphasisonnutritionandbiochemistry,fromtheUniversityofIllinois.HereceivedhisMSandBSdegreesinanimalandpoultrynutritionfromMcGillUniversity.

FredrickStormshakisdistinguishedprofessoratOregonStateUniversity.HeholdsjointappointmentsintheDepartmentofBiochemistry/BiophysicsandtheCollegeofVeterinaryMedicine.HehasbeeninterimheadoftheDepartmentofAnimalScienceandassociatedirectoroftheOregonAgriculturalExperimentStation.Dr.Stormshak'sresearchinterestsfocusonvariousaspectsofuterineandovarianfunctionindomesticanimals.Hislaboratorycontributedinitialdatademonstratingthatovarianhormonesincattleandsheepactlocallytoregulateuterinevascularfunction.Hewasoneofthefirstresearcherstoquantifyuterineestrogenreceptorsinsheepandminkandtoconductresearchonhormonalregulationofuterinesteroid-receptorsynthesisinthesespecies.Dr.StormshakispastpresidentoftheSocietyfortheStudyofReproduction.HeearnedhisPhDdegreefromtheUniversityofWisconsinatMadisonandhisMSandBSdegreesindairysciencefromWashingtonStateUniversity.

AnneK.VidaverisprofessorandheadoftheDepartmentofPlantPathologyattheUniversityofNebraska,Lincoln.ShealsoservesasdirectoroftheCenterforBiotechnologyattheuniversity.Dr.

Vidaver'sresearchinterestsfocusonbiology,genetics,andcontrolofphytopathogenicbacteria;applicationsofendophyticbacteria;andresearch-policyissues,especiallyinthebiologicsciences.Dr.VidaverisassociateeditoroftheWorldJournalofMicrobiologyandBiotechnologyandspecialreviewerforPlantDiseaseandPhytopathology.SheisapastmemberoftheNationalResearchCouncilBoardonAgricultureandNaturalResourcesandoftheUSDepartmentofAgricultureNationalAgriculturalResearch,Extension,Education,andEconomicsAdvisoryBoard.Dr.VidaverstudiedbacteriologyatIndianaUniversity,whereshereceivedherPhDandMSdegrees.ShereceivedherBAdegreeinbiologyfromRussellSageCollege.

RecentPublicationsoftheBoardOnAgricultureandNaturalResources

PolicyandResources

GeneticallyModifiedPest-ProtectedPlants:ScienceandRegulation(2000)TheUseofDrugsinFoodAnimals:BenefitsandRisks(1999)EnsuringSafeFood:FromProductiontoConsumption(1998)Agriculture'sRoleinK-12Education(1998)DesigninganAgriculturalGenomeProgram(1998)BrucellosisintheGreaterYellowstoneArea(1997)ForestedLandscapesinPerspective:ProspectsandOpportunitiesforSustainableManagementofAmerica'sNonfederalForests(1997)PrecisionAgricultureinthe21stCentury:GeospatialandInformationTechnologiesinCropManagement(1997)WoodinOurFuture:TheRoleofLife-CycleAnalysis(1997)CollegesofAgricultureattheLandGrantUniversities:PublicServiceandPublicPolicy(1996)EcologicallyBasedPestManagement:NewSolutionsforaNewCentury(1996)CollegesofAgricultureattheLandGrantUniversities:AProfile(1995)InvestingintheNationalResearchInitiative:AnUpdateoftheCompetitiveGrantsProgramintheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(1994)RangelandHealth:NewMethodstoClassify,Inventory,andMonitorRangelands(1994)SoilandWaterQuality:AnAgendaforAgriculture(1993)ManagingGlobalGeneticResources:AgriculturalCropIssuesandPolicies(1993)

SiteVisitReportoftheScientificCounciltothePlantGeneExpressionCenter,Feb.2426,1993(1993)PesticidesintheDietsofInfantsandChildren(1993)ManagingGlobalGeneticResources:Livestock(1993)SustainableAgricultureandtheEnvironmentintheHumidTropics(1993)AgricultureandtheUndergraduate:Proceedings(1992)WaterTransfersintheWest.Efficiency,Equity,andtheEnvironment(1992)ManagingGlobalGeneticResources:ForestTrees(1991)ManagingGlobalGeneticResources:TheU.S.NationalPlantGermplasmSystem(1991)SustainableAgricultureResearchandEducationintheField:AProceedings(1991)SiteVisitReport,ScientificCounciltothePlantGeneExpressionCenter,August3031,1991(1992)TowardSustainability:APlanforCollaborativeResearchonAgricultureandNaturalResourceManagement(1991)WildHorsePopulations:FieldStudiesinGeneticsandFertility(1991)

National Research Initiative: A Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and...

Documents

FANCJ Localization by Mismatch Repair Is Vital - Cancer Research

COMPASS Colloquium July 2014 - University of Auckland · COMPASS Colloquium July 2014 Barry Milne COMPASS Research Centre . University of Auckland . New Zealand . . 1 . The University

A Visual Compass based on SLAM - cms.brookes.ac.ukcms.brookes.ac.uk/research/visiongroup/talks/montiel/ICRA06Final.pdf · A Visual Compass based on SLAM ... (if the distortion is

COMPASS HOUSING SERVICES - Compass Annual Report2017.compassannualreport.org/.../11/Compass-Housing... · Compass Housing Services Co Limited (Compass) is an enterprising and socially

COMPASS Research Centre - University of Auckland · kland land Colloquium Outline 10.00 Introduction –Peter Davis 10.15 Current research-funded projects The COMPASS “social laboratory”

Part Two Magnetic Compass & Gyro Compass. Passage One Magnetic Compass

COMPASS Final Report: Lunar Communications Terminal (LCT) · Steven R. Oleson and Melissa L. McGuire Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio COMPASS Final Report: Lunar Communications

The Work Programme of COMPASS Research Centre · COMPASS Research Centre 6th Wellington Colloquium Statistics NZ, Conference Room 3 August 2012. The University of Auckland New Zealand

The Glenmore ComPASS Research Study Draft vengineering.ok.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/Glenmore_CompASS_Final_Dra… · The Glenmore ComPASS Research Study ... UBC Okanagan Sustainable

PowerPoint Presentation€¦ · Idea: “compass” > “a”? -> True “compass“ > “b”? -> True “compass” > “c”? -> True “compass” > “d”? -> False

APT Compass Security V2.0 delivery · Compass Security AG Ivan Bütler, Compass Security

“The research compass”: An introduction to research in ... · Guide 56: “The research compass”: An introduction to research in medical education 1 Abstract This AMEE Guide

Compass · ANROWS Compass (Research to policy and practice papers) are concise papers that summarise key findings of research on violence against women and their children, including

Compass A Design Research Project

Washington State Vital Statistics and Induced …...Washington State Vital Statistics 2006 Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Report staff: Joe Campo, Manager, Research

Summary of a Workshop on Information Technology Research for Federal Statistics (Compass Series)

‘The research compass’: An introduction to research in medical … · 2011. 8. 31. · 2011; 33: 695–709 AMEE GUIDE ‘The research compass’: An introduction to research in

ACT Research Report Series · Validity Evidence for ACT Compass® Placement Tests Introduction ACT Compass assessments measure students’ skills in reading, writing, and mathematics

Materials science is vital to nuclear power research N · Materials science is vital to nuclear power research N uclear energy represents the single largest non-carbon emitting base

Magnetic Compass + Compass safe · PDF fileMagnetic Compass + Compass safe distance ... compass card is free to rotate when the compass or ... magnetic condition in which the equipment