Agricultural Biotechnology Strategies for National Competitiveness (1987) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3. Funding and Institutions
3. Funding and Institutions
Pages 51-89
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 51... ...
It also calls for greater use of peerreviewed, competitive grants to guide the growth of the agricultural biotechnology research system. In addition, it calls for greater integration of basic and applied research.
|
From page 52... ...
At the state level, the land-grant colleges of 1862 and 1890 and Tuskegee Institute support research, training, and extension programs in agriculture. The State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAESs)
|
From page 53... ...
The membership of these two advisory groups includes representatives from private companies, foundations, and non-land-grant universities, as well as the traditional federal and state agricultural agencies. Finally, the system includes federal and state legislative committees and executive institutions that may influence or have budget control over public agricultural research programs and policy.
|
From page 54... ...
Another analysis, known as the Pound Report, argued that public agricultural research had become highly insular and divorced from the frontiers of knowledge in the basic biological sciences (NRC, 1972~. This report and others that followed recommended strengthening support for the basic plant and animal sciences (Brown et al., 1975; NRC, 1975; OTA, 1977, 1981; Winrock International, 1982~.
|
From page 55... ...
One of these was a program to support high-priority research through a competitive grants program available to SAESs, all colleges and universities, other research institutions and organizations, federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and individuals. Authorization was made for appropriations up to $25 million for the program in 1978 with $5 million increases in the subsequent 3 years and a $10 million increase for 1982, for a total of $50 ganglion.
|
From page 56... ...
The report also stated that even a $70 million per year increase would provide funding assistance for only a small portion of the biotechnology programs needed to augment current agricultural research. Congress responded to this and other recommendations for increased support with appropriations in FY85 and FY86 of $20 million to increase the competitive grants program in agricultural biotechnology.
|
From page 57... ...
The development of genetically engineered animal growth hormones and plant herbicide-resistance traits were possible because of the years of fundamental research invested in trying to understand the basic biology of these systems. In addition to requiring a large initial investment to acquire basic knowledge, biotechnology research approaches shorten the time between discovery and technology development.
|
From page 58... ...
It is difficult for a small company to survive the long gestation period of basic research needed before a product is developed and profits can be realized. The private sector increasingly recognizes that its own progress in biotechnology development depends on the progress made in publicly supported basic research.
|
From page 59... ...
INSTITUTIONS THAT SUPPORT AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH To examine the type of institutions needed to advance agricultural biotechnology, this section looks at who is conducting and funding agricultural research. It then examines the types of institutional and funding changes needed to apply the tools of biotechnology to agriculture more rapidly.
|
From page 60... ...
In addition, the ARS maintains genetic stocks of farm animals and plant collections in clonal and seed repositories. Biotechnology research represents only a small part of the total agricultural research funded by USDA through ARS.
|
From page 61... ...
Funding for the competitive grants program increased from $16.4 million in 1984 to $51.7 million in 1985, but declined to $48.8 million in 1986. Of the 1985 funding, $19.2 million was for a component of the grants program to specifically support biotechnology research.
|
From page 62... ...
The agency also conducts some research involving biotechnologies, most of which is funded through the competitive grants program. Areas being investigated include research to use biotechnologies to advance genetics in forestry, such as gene identification and transfer to improve species; research to develop products by genetic engineering, in particular, to develop a microbe to create ligninase, an enzyme that helps digest wood waste; research to speed up screening for resistance to environmental stresses and diseases using somaclonal techniques and efforts to transfer genes to convey resistance to selected herbicides; and research on methods to enhance biological control agents that are essential to integrated pest management strategies.
|
From page 63... ...
. The large-scale use of the products of biotechnology in agriculture is still in the future, and thus far CES has not had to focus efforts on providing information and extension services for biotechnology applications.
|
From page 64... ...
However, the NSF contributes only 15 percent of the total federal support in the biological sciences, whereas NIH provides 75 percent (Intersociety Working Group, 1986~. On the other hand, within its 15 percent share of federal support, NSF funds over 50 percent of the total federal research effort in plant biology that is supported by competitive grants.
|
From page 65... ...
These programs include postdoctoral fellowships in plant biology, a summer course in plant molecular biology, and the Presidential Young Investigator Awards supporting outstanding young faculty scientists, several of whom are in plant biology. Initiatives in biotechnology include individual investigator awards, cross-disciplinary research and training programs, and proposals for several multidisciplinary biotechnology research centers.
|
From page 66... ...
These studies have spillover eRects on animal science that also contribute to agricultural biotechnology. NIGMS funds some research on plant systems that contributes important general information about life processes, such as energy production through photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation.
|
From page 67... ...
In this context, the Office of Naval Research funds basic research on animals, plants, and bacteria through competitive grants in its biology program (FY86 appropriation: $30 million)
|
From page 68... ...
These data are presented for comparison with other agencies listed previously, which support agricultural biotechnology research within the United States. State Support of Agricultural Research State governments contribute significant support to agricultural research.
|
From page 69... ...
State support for programs in agricultural biotechnology at universities and research stations is important because of the benefits biotechnology can bring to both the state and national economies.
|
From page 70... ...
Thus, much of industry depends on the public sector for necessary developments in basic and applied agricultural research. Private sector institutions conducting biotechnology research themselves fall into several general categories.
|
From page 71... ...
, combined federal and state support of the traditional agricultural research system accounts for $1.9 billion (USDA, 1986) , and the balance of about $100 million represents grants from federal agencies such as NSF, NIH, and DOE for agriculturally related research to universities outside the land-grant system.
|
From page 72... ...
248 33.3 State Agricultural Experiment Stations1,145,957 59.4 Forests schools28,534 1 .5 Colleges of 1890/Tuskegee Institute23,019 1.2 Schools of veterinary medicine56,410 2.9 Other cooperating institutions29,722 1.5 Small Business Innovation Research Grants2,101 0.1 Total1,927,991 100.0 a FY85. Columns may not add due to rounding.
|
From page 73... ...
Equipment and materials to carry on research in biotechnology are generally more expensive than those for other areas of agricultural research. Hence, biotechnology research probably requires more than the average $173,000 per scientist per year.
|
From page 74... ...
74 Cal Ct 3 ._ so ~0 V)
|
From page 75... ...
Another survey of private industry by the Committee on Biotechnology of the Division of Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges found a range of from $80,000 to $500,000 per principal (Ph.D.) scientist in agricultural biotechnology R&D, with an overall average of $160,967 (NASULGC, 1985~.
|
From page 76... ...
A peer and merit review process must be used to assess and guide the development of the agricultural biotechnology research system. Implementation of these review processes will vary depending on the activity under review, for exa~nple, competitive research grants, appropriated formula funds, or agricultural extension.
|
From page 77... ...
Funding for Agricultural Biotechnology Current expenditures for biotechnology research in the agricultural research system cannot be documented or compared with any precision, because few analyses of biotechnology research support were done until very recently. In addition, there is no widely accepted definition of biotechnology, which makes it Biscuit to establish clear-cut criteria for classifying such research.
|
From page 78... ...
However, a larger percentage of the grant support provided to SAESs and veterinary colleges by the USDA competitive grants program and federal agencies other than the USDA goes for biotechnology research. In fact, 12.5 percent of support from other federal agencies and 23.9 percent of USDA competitive grant support to SAESs funded biotechnology research (Table 3-7~.
|
From page 79... ...
Funding by non-USDA federal agencies may include some agriculturally related biotechnology research. SOURCE: Government Accounting Office, 1986.
|
From page 80... ...
How do you define what other variables are involved in calculating the true costs? The Agrobacterium Ti plasmid is one of the earliest biotechnology success stories in plant research and is a classic example of how happenstance combines with years of effort to provide a useful research tool.
|
From page 81... ...
~O Greater emphasis is needed on agricultural biotechnology within both the USDA and the NSF to maintain the nation's competitive position in agriculture, technology, and world markets. Given the current average cost of $173,000 per year to support a research scientist at an SAKS and a projected demand for 3,000 active scientists working in biotechnology research related to agriculture (see Chapter 4)
|
From page 82... ...
Cooperative extension provides a feedback mechanism to let researchers know whether the technologies they develop are appropriate to the needs of their clientele. Because of federal budget cuts in formula funding for both research and extension, the research programs
|
From page 83... ...
Integration in agricultural research should be promoted and supported. Universities need to establish graduate programs that cut across departmental lines; recognize and reward faculty contributions to cooperative research programs; promote collaborative projects and exchanges between researchers in land-grant universities, non-land-grant schools, industry, and government laboratories; and recruit faculty to create interdisciplinary research teams that can attract competitive funding.
|
From page 84... ...
NEW APPROACHES TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY Several steps could be taken to encourage the integration of research. Federal and state governments should support the establishment of collaborative research centers, promote interdisciplinary conferences and seminars, support sabbaticals for government scientists and other exchange and retraining programs with universities and industrial laboratories, and provide funding for interdisciplinary project grants.
|
From page 85... ...
They bring together academic and industrial researchers to attack specific scientific problems in a multidisciplinary setting. Examples of this approach initiated in biotechnology include MIT's Biotechnology Process Engineering Center and Cornell's Biotechnology Research Program.
|
From page 86... ...
Just as biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and fields of medicine have successfully joined forces to solve medical problems, integration of these scientific disciplines for agricultural research must be promoted and supported by appropriate recognition and reward through university, industry, and government channels. First, universities should establish graduate programs that cut across departmental lines; recognize and reward faculty contributions to cooperative research programs; promote collaborative projects and exchanges between researchers in land-grant universities, non-land-grant universities, industry, and government laboratories; and recruit faculty to create interdisciplinary research programs that can attract competitive funding.
|
From page 87... ...
This is because it is not always clear where innovation applicable to agricultural biotechnology might arise. However, some existing research program funds should be redirected within USDA to heighten the priority given to biotechnology.
|
From page 88... ...
Because public sector investment provides skilled manpower and the knowledge base for innovation, industry should act as an advocate for publicly supported training and research programs in agricultural biotechnology. Industry can also support biotechnology research through direct grants and contracts to universities, cooperative agreements with federal laboratories, and education to inform the general pub kc about the impacts of agricultural biotechnology.
|
From page 89... ...
Other foundations should address equally important experiments in technology transfer and extension for agricultural biotechnology.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.