The quest for competitiveness

Decisions made in the 109th Congress could help build the 'seed stock' for a brighter agricultural future. All we need is a new research approach and the funding to back it up.

By Sara Wyant

Imagine American agriculture 20 years from now: A steady flow of innovations become available at your farm gate, designed to improve your productivity, lessen production costs, enhance the environment, and provide a leg up on foreign competitors. You'll be growing more nutritious foods, with higher quality proteins and vitamins, to feed the specialized needs of the growing global population. More efficient biobased materials and processing systems will be available to produce new fuel sources and decrease our nation's dependence on foreign oil. The food supply will be much safer than it is today, with advances in food storage, handling and effective vigilance against bioterrorism.

Is all of this really possible? Yes, according to a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Research, Economics and Education Task Force. This vision is possible with a renewed commitment to research. But we're not talking about just any kind of research. It needs to be research that's freed from the traditional political ties and formulas that earmark funds for home state advantages rather than national priorities. It needs to be merit-based, peer-reviewed research that attracts the most creative scientific minds to the field.

"Agricultural research is terribly important to the future of our country," says William Danforth, who chaired the Task Force along with a cross section of university and private sector representatives. "It just hasn't grown in the last 40 years and there isn't as much confidence in agricultural research as there should be."

Different research approaches

With a background in medicine and education, Danforth was more familiar with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) than the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). "Ag research differs from medical research in many ways but I thought a lot could be learned from comparing the approaches," he recalls. Danforth currently serves as Chancellor Emeritus and Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Washington University and is Board chairman of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, both in St. Louis.

The Task Force found that one of the big differences between the three entities was the willingness to award competitive grants to a broad array of potential researchers. The NIH invests about 85 percent of its funds in competitive grants; the NSF invests about 95 percent. At USDA, this type of investment is slightly below 10 percent.

There's also a big gap in the amount of research and development funding invested by the federal government in each agency. As the following table indicates, USDA experienced little funding growth over the last decade, while NIH funding almost doubled. The NSF also grew substantially. Of course, part of the NSF funding increase can be attributed in part to agricultural research that Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) shepherded through that agency.

Little progress over 30 years

This Task Force, created as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, is not the first to highlight concerns about agricultural research in this country or to call for more competitive grants at USDA. In 1972, a National Academy of Sciences panel called for "research, policy and programs sufficient to challenging the best efforts and minds of America."

While recognizing that there were many excellent programs, the panel also noted that "much of agricultural research is outmoded, pedestrian and inefficient. Bold moves are called for in reshaping administrative philosophies and organizations, in establishing goals and missions, in training and management of research scientists, and in allocation of resources.

"It is not sufficient for the programs of agricultural research to be directed only to the pressing needs of the hour. There must be information generated with which the pressing needs of future generations will be met," noted the NAS reviewers.

Among other recommendations, the NAS panel called for a greatly increased level of competitive grants. Similar recommendations were made as part of reports issued in 1989, in 2000 and 2003.

So how many changes have been implemented over the last 30 years? USDA implemented a competitive grant program but it still represents a very small portion of their budget and is focused on shorter-term research.

"We are alarmed that so little progress has been made. We are convinced that, for the good of the nation, action must be taken now," noted the Task Force.

New model requires more than money

"Clearly, money is essential, but it is not enough," the Task Force reported. They called for a new model that embraces competitive, peer-reviewed science as one of the fundamental planks of their proposal. Their report recommends creation of a National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Not surprisingly, it would be modeled after the NIH and NSF, and funded at $1 billion over a five-year period. The Institute would be led by a scientist who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The director would report to the Secretary of Agriculture but be kept separate and managed differently from existing programs.

In an effort to avoid the types of political turf wars that have stalled previous reform proposals, the NIFA would be directed to "supplement and enhance" rather than replace the existing research programs at USDA. Yet critics of this approach say this Congress, which will be increasingly focused on deficit reduction, will have a hard time funding new initiatives without fixing old problems or transferring existing dollars.

Several farm organizations and commodity groups recently wrote President Bush, asking him to endorse the Task Force's recommendations in his Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. They include the: American Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. The American Farm Bureau Federation is also expected to join in this request. The National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research also supports the NIFA concept.

Several of the Task Force's recommendations are included in S. 3009, a bill introduced by Senator "Kit" Bond, along with Senators Bennett (R-Utah), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

"New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world," noted Bond when introducing this measure. Their bill would structure the research arm somewhat differently, by creating a Division of Food and Agricultural Science within the National Science Foundation.

Regardless of the final structure, supporters of the NIFA concept believe that the timing is right to finally make fundamental changes in the way agricultural research is structured and funded in this country.

"It's certainly not a sexy issue but it will pay dividends," emphasized agricultural lobbyist Bill Lesher. "We need to think of this as the seed corn of the future. By investing today, we can create the building blocks for a better agricultural future."

------SIDEBAR------

More on the USDA Research, Economics and Education Task Force

Task Force Chairman Dr. William H. Danforth, was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenberg, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University. The full report of the task force can be found at: www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/00000000/NATIONAL.doc.