10
233 PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH* J. C. Bowman Centre for Agricultural Strategy, University of Reading Refearch is a process for adding to thefund of world knowledge. The function of knowledge in agriculture is primarily to facilitate change and the sources of knowledge include many disciplines and organisa- tions. As a result of the Government White Paper in 1972 on ‘ A Framework for Government Research and Development’ a number of important alterations were made to the funding and organisation of State supported agricultural research. The extent to which the defects of the previous system have been overcome is asseued and some continuing deficiencies are revealed. Criticisms of the amount of effort devoted to priority determination and of who should be in- volved are examined. It is suggested that objectivesfor research must be clearly defined and that, in future, greater emphasis should be be placed on the ejicient use of resources. Introduction An essential feature of good research is a clear and widely accepted understanding of its purpose. This encourages the research worker to be more effective and makes easier the task of determining the resources to be devoted to the research and who should provide them. It also makes it much easier to judge the quality and effective- ness of research. It is always necessary, because of finite resources and generally boundless ideas for research, to determine which objectives should be pursued and which should be neglected. Not least because the resources in real terms in the State sector have declined in recent years, there is more effort being devoted to the determination of priorities. Some argue that the effort is excessiveand misdirected, that it lessens the volume of productive research and that scientists alone are able to determine their objectives and priorities and should be free to do so. These contentions need to be examined. Much has been written, in recent years, about the purposes and organisation of State sponsored research. Most of the changes in the arrangements for funding and organisation of State sponsored agricultural research have happened since the publication, in 1971, of the Government Green Paper (House of Commons, 1971) entitled, ‘A Framework for Government Research and Development’ which included thereports on ‘The organisationandmanagement ofGovernment RandD’ by Lord Rothschild and on ‘The future of the Research Council system’ by the Council for Scientific PoIicy under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Dainton. This was followed, in 1972, by the Government White Paper. This included the acceptance of the customer-contractor principle for the funding of research by Government Departments, the appointment of a Chief Scientist to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (M.A.F.F.), and the establishment of a joint consultative machinery, now called the Joint Consultative Organisation (J.C.O.) * I am most grateful to Professor A. H. Bunting, Mr. C. J. Doyle and Mr. C. J. Robbins for comments, suggestions and discussion on an earlier draft of this paper.

PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

233

PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH*

J . C. Bowman Centre for Agricultural Strategy, University of Reading

Refearch is a process for adding to the fund of world knowledge. The function of knowledge in agriculture is primarily to facilitate change and the sources of know ledge include many disciplines and organisa- tions. As a result of the Government White Paper in 1972 on ‘ A Framework for Government Research and Development’ a number of important alterations were made to the funding and organisation of State supported agricultural research. The extent to which the defects of the previous system have been overcome is asseued and some continuing deficiencies are revealed. Criticisms of the amount of effort devoted to priority determination and of who should be in- volved are examined. It is suggested that objectivesfor research must be clearly defined and that, in future, greater emphasis should be be placed on the ejicient use of resources.

Introduction An essential feature of good research is a clear and widely accepted understanding of its purpose. This encourages the research worker to be more effective and makes easier the task of determining the resources to be devoted to the research and who should provide them. It also makes it much easier to judge the quality and effective- ness of research. It is always necessary, because of finite resources and generally boundless ideas for research, to determine which objectives should be pursued and which should be neglected. Not least because the resources in real terms in the State sector have declined in recent years, there is more effort being devoted to the determination of priorities. Some argue that the effort is excessive and misdirected, that it lessens the volume of productive research and that scientists alone are able to determine their objectives and priorities and should be free to do so. These contentions need to be examined.

Much has been written, in recent years, about the purposes and organisation of State sponsored research. Most of the changes in the arrangements for funding and organisation of State sponsored agricultural research have happened since the publication, in 1971, of the Government Green Paper (House of Commons, 1971) entitled, ‘A Framework for Government Research and Development’ which included thereports on ‘The organisationandmanagement ofGovernment RandD’ by Lord Rothschild and on ‘The future of the Research Council system’ by the Council for Scientific PoIicy under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Dainton. This was followed, in 1972, by the Government White Paper. This included the acceptance of the customer-contractor principle for the funding of research by Government Departments, the appointment of a Chief Scientist to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (M.A.F.F.), and the establishment of a joint consultative machinery, now called the Joint Consultative Organisation (J.C.O.)

* I am most grateful to Professor A. H. Bunting, Mr. C. J. Doyle and Mr. C. J. Robbins for comments, suggestions and discussion on an earlier draft of this paper.

Page 2: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

234 J. C. BOWMAN

between M.A.F.F., the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (D.A.F.S.) and the Agricultural Research Council (A.R.C.). It is four years since these proposals were implemented. Some assessment of their consequences can be made.

This paper will discuss: (i) the purpose of agricultural research and the sources of knowledge. (ii) Some aspects of the organisation of State funded research.

(iii) The effectiveness of the J.C.O. in determining priorities for research. (iv) Some changes which may be expected in agricultural research priorities in

The private and industrially sponsored research is not discussed because the magnitude and problems are less well documented than for State research. Nevertheless they represent a very important contribution to the national agricultural research programme.

the next few years.

The functions and sources of knowledge in agriculture Research is a process with the objective of adding to the world pool of knowledge and is not necessarily related to the interests of any one group in the community. In agriculture, the knowledge which is used derives in part from the natural (sometimes referred to as pure) sciences, in part from the applied sciences, in part from the social sciences and in part from practical experience. Knowledge is used for the following main purposes (a) to improve the return on resources used in existing methods of production, processing, distribution, marketing and con- sumption; (b) to make the final product more acceptable to the final consumer in quality and price; (c) to make the existing methods of production, processing, distribution, marketing and use more acceptable on social, moral and ethical grounds to those persons involved directly and to the general public; (d) to facilitate change in existing processes to meet future needs and opportunities.

The volume, quality and cost of a product or service which is required must be determined in the national interest and not just in the interests of particular groups such as farmers, processors or even consumers. If the volume and quality re- quired are different from now, change is needed and change is likely to involve the better use of existing knowledge and maybe new knowledge. So, it can be argued that the purposes of research are related to the needs for change rather than to existing production, processing, etc. Thus some assessment, in so far as it is possible, of the ways in which circumstances and requirements will change is an integral part of the research process.

Having determined the general purposes of research, it is necessary to deter- mine the portion of the national resources to devote to the process. More specifi- cally, it is necessary to allocate the research resources to the different sciences and to the alternative objectives within them.

In agriculture, and one suspects in other industries, there is no necessary logical connection between the existing volume, or value, of output and the need for new knowledge. Indeed, if the existing volume, yield and quality are already economically satisfactory, it might be argued that there is less need for new knowl- edge than if they are not. The converse is very likely to be true; that if they are not economically satisfactory new knowledge is needed, provided the products themselves are required.

The sources of knowledge for agriculture are in many disciplines and organisa- tions. All the Research Councils, not just the Agricultural Research Council (A.R.C.), contribute relevant knowledge as do the Universities, the Meteorologi- cal Office, Government Departments, industry and research associations. So in considering the research priorities for agriculture, it is necessary to consider the national knowledge system and not only those with an ostensibly agricultural

Page 3: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 235

interest or title. The changes in funding and organisation in government spon- sored research, which have resulted from the publication of the Government White Paper (House of Commons, 1972), have to be assessed in terms of the extent to which they have made the national knowledge system more effective.

Agricultural research and the State The principal criticisms of the situation which existed before 1972 were that (a) the A.R.C. was remote from and unresponsive to the industry, from the other sectors of Government, including especially the M.A.F.F. and the D.A.F.S. and to an extent from the Universities; (b) the M.A.F.F. and to some extent the D.A.F.S. had an inadequate appreciation of research objectives and capabilities; and (c) the farmers and others in the input and processing industries did not fully understand the research process and its relevance to the commodities which they traded. To what extent has the situation improved in the past four years?

Amongst members of the European Community, the U.K. spends a proportion of its G.D.P. on R and D which is above the average but not as high as Germany. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries together account for about 4 per cent of the money allocated, in the U.K , for R and D (see Table 1). The U.K. spends propor-

Table 1 Appropriations for R and D for 1975 in the European Community

PER 10,yjo U.A. PER HEAD OF POPULATION IN U.A.

THE GDP PER TOTAL AGRICULTURE

Germany (B.R.D.) 12244 63.98 1.20 France 115.77 56.33 2.17 Italy 40.12 9-41 0-28 Netherlands 96.94 43.06 3.34 Belgi u m 72.06 34.74 1.53 Ireland 46.2.2 8.61 3.51 Denmark 61.56 33.21 3 *22 United Kingdom 118.27 35.64 1 *58 Europe 109.65 40.97 1.48 Source: Public Expenditure on Research and Development in the Community Countries 1974-

1975. Luxembourg May, 1976.

tionately less on basic research and rather more on applied R and-D than other countries and this difference has probably increased since the allocations of funds for R and D between research councils and government departments were changed in the years after 1972. It should be remembered that the definitions of basic and applied R and D are so imprecise that comparisons between countries and years are of limited value.

These statements do not necessarily imply that the U.K. has made the right decisions, but rather that on this subject decisions in the U.K. are different from those in other countries. The question still remains ‘Does the U.K. spend an appropriate amount on agricultural R and D?’ It is hard to find much open dis- cussion and debate of this matter. The criteria and techniques to be used to assist decision making are not particularly clear. Presumably the importance of agricul- ture to the whole economy, the comparative timeliness and promise of particular R and D fields and the benefits which are likely to accrue from alternative invest- ment in R and D are among the main criteria for decisions. Further deliberation is needed on who should analyse these factors, how the results should be com- municated to those responsible for making decisions and who should be respon- sible for determining the level of R and D funding.

Page 4: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

236 J. C . BOWMAN

A consequence of the 1972 Whte Paper is that the Chief Scientist’s Organisa- tion of M.A.F.F. and D.A.F.S. has a considerable and enhanced responsibility for answering some of these questions and for ensuring that adequate resources are available for agricultural R and D. At the same time, the A.R.C. through the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (A.B.R.C.) and the D.E.S., and the Universities through the U.G.C. and the D.E.S., have a responsibility to ensure that basic research needed to support agricultural R and D is adequately funded. I t is to be hoped that some of the discussion and consideration of these issues will be made public and debated with all interests in the industry.

The Government finance for R and D in the agricultural sector is channelled through three main sources as shown in Figure 1 ; the University Grants Commit- tee to the Universities; the D.E.S. to the A.R.C. to support its own Institutes and Units and a small amount of University research; and the M.A.F.F. (and, where appropriate, D.A.F.S. in Scotland) to support work in its own laboratories and to commission work mainly by the A.R.C. but also by others including Universities and agricultural development authorities such as the Eggs Authority and the Home Grown Cereals Authority. One consequence of the White Paper of 1972 was that by 1975-76 about 55 per cent of the finance which had previously been channelled through D.E.S. to the A.R.C. had been transferred to M.A.F.F. and D.A.F.S., as the agricultural customer department, so that they could commission research. In the words of the White Paper ‘No conditions will be placed on the use of the money transferred to customer Departments, but the expectation is that it will be spent to commission applied research work from the Research Councils’. Presumably this means that M.A.F.F. can use the additional finance to support research by organisations other than A.R.C. Institutes, though so far M.A.F.F. has shown little indication of wishing to do so. It will be interesting to see if Universities and agricultural development authorities can increase the number and value of research contracts which they attract from M.A.F.F. and D.A.F.S.

The transfer of funds from A,R.C. to M.A.F.F. may have at least one serious disadvantage. The possibility of undertaking research, whether basic or applied, along lines which are at variance with official policy, as determined by M.A.F.F., and effected through its research contracts is much reduced. This may inhibit initiative and innovation and reduce the quality of research to the detriment of the industry. However, 10 per cent of the money in contracts placed by M.A.F.F. is intended for basic research at the discretion of the research contractor.

The role of M.A.F.F., D.A.F.S. and the J.C.O. The M.A.F.F. is in a commanding position in executing research, development and extension in its own Institutes and with its own staff. In its enhanced role as research customer representing the industry it can contract and determine the direction of a substantial proportion of the national agricultural research and development programme. In order to assist its relations with the A.R.C. and in partnership with D.A.F.S., the J.C.O. has been established which includes Industry, University and Industry Development Authority specialists as indi- viduals and not as representatives. There has been concern for many years that the M.A.F.F. functions of assisting the industry by means of research, development and extension would be improved if they were separated from the administrative, regulatory and fiscal policy functions of M.A.F.F. The concern is over the danger that Government policy, as a whole, may intrude to an unnecessary and un- desirable extent into the policy for research, development and extension and so prevent industry from progressing in certain directions. Some argue that such in- trusion is legitimate and essential. The extent to which this is a genuine concern, depends in part on the way in which M.A.F.F. consults the industry and indepen- dent organisations and is prepared to act according to the advice given from

Page 5: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Figure 1 Research and development in agriculture, fisheries and food Source: M.A.F.F., 1973. Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

I I I I I I I I

a 1 m 0 + I : I = I G I U I 0

I I I 1 I I I 1 I I

in 3 u

Page 6: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

238 J . C. BOWMAN

outside M.A.F.F. It can be seen that the effectiveness of the J.C.O. becomes of crucial significance.

The function of the J.C.O., which was established in 1973, was expressed as follows by M.A.F.F. (1973). ‘To integrate more closely all the work supported by public funds and to direct it towards the needs of the agricultural and food in- dustries and the Ministry’s responsibilities. Leading members of both the farming and food processing industries have a significant role to play in concert with research scientists, Ministry advisers and administrators and economists. They should be able to influence the decisions that have to be taken on priorities and on the programmes that should be carried out. . . . On it (the J.C.O.) are members of the farming and food industries, scientists, economists and members of the De- partments’ professional, technical and administrative services, chosen not as representatives of particular sectors but because of the contributions they can individually make. . . . The Organisation comprises five Advisory Boards covering Animals, Arable Crops and Forage, Horticulture, Food Science and Technology, Engineering and Building. . . . All the Boards are supported by specialist commit- tees which are responsible for considering in detail research and development within specialised fields. In addition the Boards have the power to set up ad hoc working parties for subjects that straddle more than one Board’. The structure is shown in Figure 1.

Since 1973 each Board has produced two reports and M.A.F.F., D.A.F.S. and the A.R.C. have responded collectively. I t is clear that a great many people on the committees have discussed the topics of importance for research and development, though perhaps within somewhat restricted subject areas and have assigned orders of priority. The Boards have attempted, in their Second Reports (M.A.F.F., 1975), to assign priorities on a rather broader basis and M.A.F.F., D.A.F.S. and the A.R.C. are now using the recommendations of the Boards to make changes in the balance of the national research and development programme. A number of criticisms have been expressed about this process and there is some real concern that the whole apparatus may be ineffective and unnecessary as well as cumber- some and tedious. It is appropriate to spell out the criticisms in detail. Firstly, the amount of money, staff time and paper devoted to the J.C.O. has been said to be excessive and to have decreased the efficiency of research, particularly at a time of severe financial stringency. Secondly, it is not clear whether the industry, in a broad sense, is sufficiently represented, articulate and aware of its needs to make an adequate contribution to the discussion. Thirdly, the Board have had little to say about areas of research which should be stopped and about the balance of priorities between major subject areas. Fourthly, the way in which Boards have expressed priority areas leaves the M.A.F.F. and D.A.F.S. with much to do to formulate suitable objectives for research contracts. This point was referred to by Lord Rothschild in his 1971 report (House of Commons, 1971) as follows. ‘He (the customer) should decide, with advice or on his own initiative, that an R and D programme is needed to achieve a specific objective.

Note: Unspecific or unduly general objectives such as ‘We must find out all about the physiology of domestic farm animals’ or ‘We must be able to des- cribe engine knock in precise physio-chemical terms’ should be treated with caution, however admirable they may seem at first glance. More often than not they imply financial and scientific commitments of an open-end nature. These are rarely justifiable in an applied R and D programme’. The formulation of research objectives is an extremely difficult task if the incen-

tive and quality of the research are not to be impaired. Fifthly, and lastly, the Boards’ reports have been said to be written in such general terms that, coupled with the ability of research workers to describe their research programmes in various ways depending on the interests of the expected audience, what is done

Page 7: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 239

will continue, as before, to be largely determined by the research worker. This may be an over cynical view and does not take account of the research workers’ own interests in appreciating the relevance of their work to the industry. The extent of change in the national research programme, since the existence of the J.C.O., has not been very large but that is not surprising in view of the short time involved to implement a major change in organisation and in view of the fact that a period of severe financial stringency makes it extremely difficult to start new areas of research without stopping others. An important element in the problem is the great increase in the proportion of the money for research which is used for per- sonal costs.

Agricultural research and the Universities Consideration of the effects of the 1972 White Paper and of the contemporary restriction of finance leads one to the conclusion that a major re-appraisal of the respective roles of Universities, the A.R.C. and M.A.F.F. in agricultural research is necessary. The Universities, which have no extension or advisory function in England and Wales, have also taken a significant part in agricultural research. In Scotland, the Colleges of Agriculture, which are situated in the Universities, are also responsible for extension and development in addition to teaching and research. The reduced resources are making it extremely difficult for Universities to participate in agricultural research and they are tending to concentrate on teaching. The decrease in research will have an inevitable and detrimental effect on the quality of the teaching. To a much greater extent than the other Research Councils, the A.R.C. has used most of its finance for the development and support of research in its own Institutes and relatively little for University research and Units in Universities.

Though many of the Institutes are an integral part, or related in various ways to Universities, and a good deal of collaboration in research and teaching is found between them, an even closer integration may nevertheless be advantageous and beneficial to both parties. Given time and determination this could be achieved in spite of some substantial practical difficulties such as the separate career struc- tures and method of promotion assessment for the respective staff and the physical distance between Institutes and Universities.

As a result of the loss of more than half its direct source of money, the A.R.C. has become more concerned with the execution and management of research and quite clearly has less ability to control the research direction and policy. It has maintained the level of research support in the Universities even though reduc- tion in staff and resources, in its own Institutes, has been necessary. Nevertheless for the more applied aspects of agricultural research it seems that postgraduate students will find the resources they need to an increasing extent in the A.R.C. Institutes rather than in the Universities. This may, but not necessarily, have several detrimental effects. The postgraduate may be in danger of receiving a narrow education with a limited perspective of the purpose, benefits and inter- actions of research in the economy generally. The function of the Universities may be usurped so that their staff become involved principally as administrators and examiners of postgraduates. The stimulation of research on University staff 1s essential to their ability to teach at the required level and this may not derive from supervising postgraduates in research Institutes. All these dangers can be avoided by suitable arrangements between Universities and A.R.C. Institutes.

Agricultural output and research priorities Blaxter (1976) and the Centre for Agricultural Strategy (1976) have indicated that the yields per unit area or per animal on farms are not increasing as fast as they were immediately after the Second World War. At the time of maximum increase

Page 8: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

240 J. C. BOWMAN

in performance, yields were rising by about 3 per cent per year. Recently this figure has fallen to la to 2 per cent and for sugar beet is negative. Blaxter has shown, by extrapolation, that if present trends continue the change in performance on farms, by the year 2000, will be negligible. Similar observations have been made in other parts of the world. These figures apply to average farm yields and it is known that the top 10 per cent of farmers have average yields perhaps double that of all farmers and that experiment station yields may be four times the farm average. These facts are often used to argue that, with more and better extension work, the average farm performance can be raised substantially and that, given the resources, the experiment station performance can, in time, become the norm on the farm. Provided, continues the argument, the experiment station perfor- mance is increasing as a consequence of research then ‘the sky is the limit’ for farm performance. These arguments need to be examined more closely.

It is quite unreasonable to suppose that there are no ceilings to biological per- formance. For instance, a hen which will consistently lay more than one egg a day has not been observed and the maximum level of capture of solar radiant energy by photo-synthesis can be calculated. What is there to support a hypothesis that these limits can be exceeded ? None whatsoever is the answer and therefore some upper limit to farm performance is to be expected.

Second, the high levels of per unit or per animal achieved on experiment stations are attained without regard to the levels of input resources which would maximise profit. The farmer, by contrast, does not aim to maximise yield but does aim to attain that level of output which will maximise return on the resources used. Thus frequently it may not be in the farmer’s interest to use the level of input re- sources used on experiment stations. In a study in Australia (Davidson and Martin 1968) to compare the performance of crops and livestock on experiment stations to those on farms, it was found that the maximum differences were in years when the climate was favourable to yield, when the additional input resources on the experiment stations were effective in maximising yield. The least differences were in years when the climate was unfavourable to yield, when the extra inputs on the experiment stations were ineffective. The farmers appear to use that level of input resources which maximise yield and profit over several years and buffer the system against variations in climate.

Two factors may make the situation more difficult for the farmer in future. Firstly, the relative costs of some of the major inputs are changing and, in par- ticular, those of labour, fossil energy and land. This may mean that the relation- ship between maximum yield, irrespective of inputs, and the yield for maximum profit will change. Secondly, there is some indication that climate in the last ten years has been more variable than in the previous twenty years. Attempts to in- crease yield in a more variable climate may be more difficult and more expensive.

Taken together, the changes in cost of inputs and climate variation may also account for the lower increase in farm yields experienced in recent years. The effects of research may be just as great though they do not show in changes in farm performance. The conclusion must be that there is, as yet, no good argument for reducing the level of agricultural research but that the priorities and objectives may need to change. More cognisance needs to be taken of performance in relation to the level of the scarce and more expensive inputs and in relation to variations in growing and production conditions affected by climate. The objec- tive of trying to achieve greater and greater yield, if it means more intensive use of inputs or greater susceptibility to climate extremes, needs to be modified.

Concluding remarks An attempt has been made to show the importance, to several aspects of research activity, of clearly defining research objectives. Clear purposes are needed to

Page 9: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 241

determine the amount of money to be used, the type of organisation to administer the research programme, to determine priorities and to assess effectiveness.

In addition to the changes in organisation, which followed the 1972 White Paper on R and D, it is argued that still further changes should be contemplated with clear definitions of the respective roles of the Universities, the A.R.C. and the M.A.F.F. and D.A.F.S. The J.C.O. machinery for selecting priorities has been only partially effective and the problem of making decisions between major areas of research has been left to be decided largely by M.A.F.F., D.A.F.S. and the A.R.C. The J.C.O. is less effective than it could be because of the lack of long-term perspective studies of the future structure of the industry - a deficiency which, I believe, can be made good in part by the Centre for Agricultural Strategy.

Some would argue that to contemplate still further changes in organisation would be inappropriate until the consequences of the 1972 White Paper have taken effect and are seen to be effective, or not. Not least because the period of financial stringency may be prolonged and so make it even more important to make the best use of available resources, a consideration of the respective and inter-related roles ofthe Universities, the A.R.C. and the M.A.F.F. (and D.A.F.S.) is warranted. The following subjects are examples of what needs to be discussed and considered:

(i) the desirability of an independent, but statutorily established, R and D Authority for the industry, formed by taking existing elements of research development and extension from M.A.F.F., D.A.F.S. and the A.R.C. and with substantial industry control and finance;

(ii) the role of the A.R.C. as the guardian of basic and some aspects of applied research and its relationship with the Universities;

(iii) the role which the Universities can, and should, perform in agricultural teaching and research;

(iv) the need for a more detailed analysis of all aspects af food and agriculture in the national economy and for a good many years ahead to provide a background against which alternative research objectives can be judged.

The last topic is particularly important because relatively little has been done in this country to predict the consequences of research findings for the industry and to predict the structure and composition of the industry. Much research is of a long-term nature with application 5 to I5 years after execution. A forward assess- ment of the change in industry and the consequent needs for new knowledge might change research priorities and even make some research redundant. This is not forecasting the future - a very unproductive activity - so much as setting limits to the changes which are likely to occur.

A major change in attitude amongst research workers away from maximum yield as an objective and toward an efficient use of resources, coupled with pro- duction systems well buffered against climatic variation, is to be encouraged.

References Blaxter, K. L. (‘1976). The Use of Resources, h i m . Prod. 23, 267-297. Centre for Agricultural Strategy (1976). Lund for Agriculture, C.A.S. Report NO. I , Reading:

University of Reading. Davidson, B. R. and Martin, B. R. (1968). The Adoption of New Techniques by the Farmer.

ExDerimental Research and Farm Production. Aaric. Econ. Res. Rp t . No. 7. Univ. of w. . - Australia Press.

House of Commons (1971). A Framework for Government Research and Development ( C m d

House of Commons (1972). Framework for Government Research and Development (Cmnd

M.A.F.F. (1973). Report on Research and Development. London: H.M.S.O. M.A.F.F. (1975). Second ReDorts of the Boards of the Joint Consultative Organisation for Re-

4814). London: H.M.S.O.

5046). London: H.M.S.O.

search and Developmeni in Agriculture and Food. London: H.M.S.O. -

Page 10: PRIORITIES IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

242 J. C. BOWMAN

Resume PRIORITl?S DANS LA RECHERCHE AGRICOLE

La recherche est une activitt destinke h ajouter au fond des con- naissances universelles. Dans 1 ’agriculture, les connaissances ont pour fonction essentielle de faciliter le changement, et les sources de cette connaissance comprennent de nombreuses disciplines et organisat ions.

A la suite du Livre blancpublik en 1972par legouvernement sous le titre ‘Cadre de travail pour les activitb oficielles de recherche et dtveloppement ’, plusieurs modifications importantes ont ktt apportkes au financement et a l’organisation des travaux de recherche agricole soutenus par 1’Etat.

Cet article examine l’ktendue dans laquelle les ddfauts du prdckdent systime ont ktk corrigks et, ce faisant, il revile la persistance de certaines lacunes. I1 examine les critiques faites d l’kgard de la somme d’efforts consacrke d la ddfinition des prioritks ainsi que sur le choix des responsables.

I1 conclut a la ndcessitk de dkfinir avec clartP les objectifs de la recherche et recommande qu’h l’avenir une plus haute importance soit rkservde h l’utilisation efficace des ressources.

Zusarnrnenfassung

PRIORITATEN IN DER LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHEN FORSCHUNG Forschung ist ein Prozess, zur Fiille des Weltwissens beizutragen. Die Funktion des Wissens in der Landwirtschaft besteht primar darin, Veranderungen zu ermoglichen, und die Wissemquellen beinhalten viele Disziplinen und Organisationen. Als ein Ergebnis des Weissen Papiers der Regierung im Jahre 1972 iiber ‘Ein Rahmenwerk fur die Forschung und Entwicklung der Regierung’ wurden zahlreiche wichtige Veranderungen bezuglich der Mittelvergabe und Organisa- tion der durch den Staat unterstiitzten landwirtschaftlichen Forschung vorgenommen. Das Ausmass, in dem die Mangelder friiheren Systeme beseitigt worden sind, wirdabgeschatzt, und einige der noch bestehen- den Mange1 werden aufgezeigt. Die Kritik beziiglich der Hohe der Bemiihung, die der Festlegung der Prioritaten gewidmet wird, und der Frage, wer daran teilnehmen sollte, wird gepriift. Es wird vorge- schlagen, dass die Ziele fur die Forschung klar definiert werden und dass in Zukunft mehr Gewicht auf den wirksamen Gebrauch von Resourcen gelegt werden sollte.