Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 RESEARCH
Pages 69-86

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 69...
... In the 1960s the Green Revolution initiated the use of food crop hybrid varieties and improved management systems, dramatically increasing food grain production. Since then, however, much has been learned about the potential some of the modern produc tion practices have to degrade the natural resources on which food production ultimately relies.
From page 70...
... Beneficiaries of public agricultural research investments include those who use the research results in their production processes, such as farmers, input manufacturers, food and fiber processors, and consumers, who benefit through lower prices for food and agricultural products. A number of important social benefits, such as human health, environmental quality, improve ments in family life and community development, and public decision making are typically omit ted from the social rate of return on a research investment because of significant measurement difficulties.
From page 71...
... Adaptive research is needed to apply the findings of integrative research to actual production, processing, marketing, consumption, or environmental systems. This will result in development and testing of specific, practical solutions to existing food, agricul tural, or natural resource problems.
From page 72...
... The research continuum is not strictly linear. Feedback can and must occur, for example, when adaptive research indicates there is a critical gap in fundamental knowledge or when an integrative research result directly alters the value of disseminated research (Figure 4-1~.
From page 73...
... The data show that applied research accounts for more than one-half of the LGCA research conducted with formula funds, congressionally designated special research grants, state appropriations, and industry grants. On the other hand, LGCA research conducted with USDA-administered competitive grants and other federal agency grants is much more heavily weighted toward basic research (Ballenger and Kouadio, 1995~.
From page 74...
... Those faculty whose research appointments are wholly or partially funded by federal formula funds and/or their state matching funds, who also have extension or teaching appointments or both, automatically manifest an inherent linkage of research with ongoing extension and teaching activities. This close, structural linkage of individual researchers, and the experiment stations where they work, to extension and teaching responsibilities is a unique and valued feature of the LGCA-based agricultural research system.
From page 75...
... directing funds to research from other USDA budget categories, particularly as a means of reinvesting savings on agricultural subsidies; (b) transferring to competitive grants programs RESEARCH 75
From page 77...
... .................................................................................. a portion of thefunds currently distributed to experiment stations byfiormula and special grants; and (c)
From page 78...
... support for a much expanded competitive grants program for agricultural research. This committee concurs with the board's belief that competitive grants are the mechanism best suited to stimulate new fundamental research activities in specific areas of science and that they have unique advantages for food and agricultural systems research in relation to formula funds, special grants, and intramural research2: they are responsive and flexible, they attract a broad range of scientists from public and private institutions, and they cast a wide net that is, they capture proposals that produce new alliances, new initiatives, and new approaches.
From page 79...
... Although the NAS committee recognized the important role for federal laboratories in a balanced program of federal science and technology, this conclusion underpinned its recommendation that federal funding should generally favor academic institutions because of their flexibility and inherent quality control. Encouraging Participation and the Potentia/ for Success The committee also recognizes that as funds are redirected over time toward competitive grants programs, some experiment stations and colleges of agriculture will be at a disadvantage.
From page 80...
... Any modification of the formula will result in some state agricultural experiment stations losing and others gaining some formula funding. The committee therefore suggests that a range of alternative formulas, and their implications, be studied to identify the ideal way to revise outdated formulas.
From page 81...
... The committee recognizes the possibility that a few states may refuse to match the federal funds; it feels, nonetheless, that the time for this recommendation has arrived. If political processes within the states do not bring about a state match, and some 1890 institutions consequently lose their federal formula funds, it could mean the loss of 80 to 100 percent of these colleges' research funding base.
From page 82...
... federal legislation can have significant effects on such arrangements by, for example, providing tax incentives to support these activities. With these realities in mind, the committee concludes that public policy must be flexible enough to ensure that private resources can be used to leverage public support for agricultural research when that research is consistent with federal goals.
From page 83...
... This is true even for scientists who have experiment station appointments. A range of seldom-used alternative mechanisms does, however, exist, particularly in the design of competitive grants programs.
From page 84...
... In some cases, two or more mechanisms might be the best option, even within a program. For example, within the USDA competitive grants program, with sufficient resources, there may be room for chunk grants and performance-based funding of centers in addition to the current full resource-recovery competitive grants.
From page 85...
... Consequently, the committee strongly endorses · special divisions of competitive grants programs designated for inter- and multidisciplinary projects and the use of interdisciplinary peer-review panels and processes; · an emphasis on multi- and interdisciplinary programs by federally supported regional centers and multi-institution consortia (see Recommendation 3~; and · an emphasis on inter- and multidisciplinary projects and programs supported by combined federal formula funds for research and extension (see Recommendation 4~. CONCLUSIONS The past accomplishments of agricultural research conducted at the land grant university colleges of agriculture provide no rationale for maintaining the status quo in the face of new research needs and paradigms and a rapidly changing operating environ ment.
From page 86...
... Additionally, experiment station scientists and extension service specialists who are beneficiaries of formula funding should be encouraged to collaborate with and draw on the scientific resources and knowledge beyond the colleges of agriculture; formulas should be reconfigured to reflect the contemporary spectrum of food and agricultural research and extension issues and beneficiaries (Recommendation 11~; and, in the interest of equity and the importance of serving limited-resource producers and consumer groups, states should be required to match federal formula funds to 1890s in the same manner as required for 1862s (Recommendation 12~.


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.