|
01.381
THE
AGRICULTURAL
TECHNOLOGY
DELIVERY
SYSTEM
VOLUME 5
OVERALL STUDY
REPORT:
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
THE
AGRICULTURAL
TECHNOLOGY
DELIVERY
SYSTEM
VOLUME 5
OVERALL STUDY
REPORT:
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
A Study of the
Transfer of Agricultural
and Food-Related
Technologies
by
Irwin Feller,
Lynne Kaltreider,
Patrick Madden,
Dan Moore,
and Laura Sims
THE AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY SYSTEM:
A Study of the Transfer of Agricultural and
Food-Related Technologies
by
Irwin Feller, Lynne Kaltreider, Patrick Madden,
Dan Moore, and Laura Sims
Volume 5
Overall Study Report:
Findings and Recommendations
Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
December 1984
This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from
the Department of Agriculture, under Contract No. 53-32R6-1-55. The
contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade
names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the
U.S. Government.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . ... . ... vii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . ... . .... ix
PREFACE .. .. . . ... . . xi
Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION . . . .... .. ... ... 1
I. Overview . . . . .. . 1
II. Policy Focus . . . . 7
III. Conceptual Framework: Technology Delivery
and Open Systems . . .... . 12
IV. Relationship to Other Studies . .. 26
V. Methodology .............. . 28
VI. Organization of the Report ............ 33
2 ARTICULATION, COORDINATION, AND PERFORMANCE OF
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES:
THE PUBLIC SECTOR . . .... . 35
I. Problem Statement . . .... . 35
II. The Structure of the Agricultural Research System. 39
III. Planning, Setting Priorities, and
Coordinating Research . . 49
A. The ARS Planning Effort . .... 49
B. Relationships Between ARS and Other
Research Organizations . . ... 53
C. Cooperative State Research Service . .. 57
IV. Funding of Public Agricultural Research by
Other Federal Agencies . . ... 58
V. State-Level Planning for Agricultural Research 62
VI. State-Level Funding and Issues . ... 77
VII. Funding of Public Agricultural Research and the
Research Orientation of the Performers:
Interlocking Issues . . .... 86
3 LINKAGES BETWEEN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:
ISSUES IN ARTICULATION AND COORDINATION ...... 91
I. Overview . . .... . 91
II. Organizational Roles and Relations in the
Agricultural Technology Delivery System . 94
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Page
A. Case Studies . . . . 94
1. Artificial Insemination . . 94
2. Conservation Tillage . . .. 96
3. The Mechanical Tomato Harvester .... 98
B. State Vignettes. . . . ... 102
1. Alabama . . . ... 102
2. Michigan . . . ... 107
3. Nebraska . . . ... 112
III. ARS . . . . ..... 114
IV. Maintenance of Research-Transfer Links . .. 119
A. Overview . . . . ... 119
1. Multi-County Specialist . .. 122
2. County Agency Qua Applied Researcher 122
3. Consultants . . .... .123
B. The Role of Extension Specialists . .. 124
C. The Role of the County Agent . ... 126
4 ARTICULATION AND COORDINATION OF HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS IN AN AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION SYSTEM . . . ... 133
I. Overview . . . . ... 133
II. Support for and Performance of Human Nutrition
Research and Technology Transfer Activities 135
A. Funding . . . . ... 135
B. Organizational Structure . . .. 139
III. Coordination of Research Priorities in Human
Nutrition and Related Areas Among Federal
Agencies . . . .... 141
IV. Linkages Between Research and Transfer Activities
in Human Nutrition . . . ... 145
A. Linkages Through Market Interactions .... 145
B. Organizational Links . . ... 147
V. Integrating Human Nutrition Research and Education
Issues with the Agricultural Research and
Transfer Agenda . . . .... .152
5 INCORPORATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS INTO
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER PROGRAMS . . . ... 155
I. Overview . . . . ... ... 155
II. The Public Interest Group Perspectives . .. .158
III. Mechanisms for Reconciling Conflicts in Goals,
Priorities, and Beliefs . . ... .167
A. Lawsuits . . . . ... 167
B. Publications by Critics and
Professional Associations . ... 169
C. The Political Process ............ .170
D. Recruitment Policies . . ... .171
IV. Public Sector Responses to Concerns of Public
Interest Groups . . . .. 174
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Page
6 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS IN
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... .181
I. Overview . . ... . . 181
II. A Conceptual Framework . . .... 187
III. Case Studies . .... . . 193
(a) Round Hay Baler . . . .. 194
IV. Relationships in the Performance of Basic and
Applied Research . .... . . 199
A. Overview . . . ... 199
B. The Case of Biotechnology . . 200
V. Public Sector/Private Sector Relationships in the
Dissemination of Agricultural Technology . 209
A. Intermediaries . . . .. 209
B. Private Agricultural Consultants . ... 217
7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . .... 223
I. Overview . . .... . 223
II. Findings. . . ... . 226
A. Research--Issues of Planning and Coordination 226
B. Research/Technology Transfer Linkages .... .233
C. Public Sector/Private Sector Relationships 238
D. Human Nutrition Research and
Technology Transfer . . .... 244
E. External Environment . . ... 246
F. Organizational and Leadership Changes . 249
8 POLICY OPTIONS FOR USDA-S&E . . . .. 253
I. Overview . . .... . 253
II. Policy Options . .... . 261
A. Agricultural Research Service . ... 263
B. Cooperative State Research Service . .. .279
C. Federal Extension Service and the State
Cooperative Extension Services ...... 285
III. USDA Science and Education: Alternative Futures 294
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Interrelation of Study Segments and Study Products 2
2-1 Organization of Agricultural Research Institutions 43
2-2 Schematic of Agricultural Research System Including
Key Constituent Organizations . . . 44
2-3 Organizations Relevant to Research in the Poultry
Commodity Subsystem . . . .. 46
2-4 Schematic of State Agricultural Experiment Station 63
2-5 Schematic of State Government Decision Process(es)
Concerning Agricultural Research . .. 84
6-1 Simple Expanded Model of Public Sector Agricultural
R&D/Technology Transfer System . . 188
6-2 Simple Model of Private Sector Agricultural
R&D/Technology Transfer System . .... .189
6-3 Synthesis of "Product Cycle" and Organizational Role
Schematic of R&D/Technology Transfer Process: I 191
6-4 Synthesis of "Product Cycle" and Organizational Role
Schematic of R&D/Technology Transfer Process: II 192
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
2-1 Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Expenditures on
Production and PHTME, Total Agricultural Research,
1966-80 . . .... . . . 50
2-2 Food and Agriculture-Related Research, Extension and
Higher Education Conducted by Federal Agencies Other
Than USDA, FY 81, Excluding ACTION and AID .. 60
2-3 Percentage of Total State Agricultural Experiment
Station Research Funds by Source, FY 78 and FY 82 78
PREFACE
The American system of public and private development and transfer
of agricultural and food technologies is complex and varied. It also is
changing. To assist legislative, policy, and program leaders to ade-
quately understand and assess the agricultural technology delivery
system, the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Science and Education (USDA-
S&E) prepared a prospectus in June 1981 for a study of "The Transfer of
Agricultural and Food-Related Technologies." After a competitive award
process, the Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, The Pennsyl-
vania State University, was selected to perform the study. This volume
is one of five that constitute the final report of the study. It is the
"overall study report," which is to include the "overall purposes,
procedures, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and limitations of
the study," called for in the study prospectus.
The two principal objectives of the study were: (1) To describe
the ways in which formal and informal interaction among a variety of
organizations--public and private, federal and state, research and
extension--affected the level and rate of transfer of agricultural and
food-related technologies and their impacts; and (2) To identify criti-
cal issues and problems in the transfer of agricultural and food tech-
nologies, and to suggest policy alternatives and recommendations con-
cerning governmental and university strategies and roles to improve the
transfer and the socially beneficial impacts of agricultural, food, and
related technologies.
The study employed four mutually supportive approaches to identify
and describe the organizations, programs, processes, and factors that
link researchers, transfer agents, and users of agricultural and food
technologies. These four approaches were:
1. Document-based review of organizations and their linkages
(Volume 1).
2. Surveys of organizations and their linkages (Volume 2).
3. Review of previous case studies of the development and transfer
of technologies (Volume 3).
4. New case studies of organizational linkages in technology
development and transfer (Volume 4).
The findings from each approach are reported separately in volumes 1 to
4, respectively. Volume 5 summarizes the principal findings and conclu-
sions from these four project components and develops from them a set of
options for consideration by the Congress, USDA-S&E, and the state land-
grant university system of agricultural experiment stations and coopera-
tive extension services.
The study was designed as an interdisciplinary project involving
the techniques and perspectives of several disciplines. The senior mem-
bers of the study group were Dr. Irwin Feller (Principal Investigator),
Professor of Economics and Director, Institute for Policy Research and
Evaluation (IPRE); Dr. J. Patrick Madden, Professor of Agricultural
Economics and Senior Research Associate, IPRE; Dr. Dan E. Moore, Associ-
ate Professor of Rural Sociology Extension and Senior Research Associ-
ate, IPRE; Dr. Laura S. Sims, Associate Professor of Nutrition in Public
Health, and Senior Research Associate, IPRE; D. Lynne Kaltreider,
Research Assistant, IPRE; and Irene Johnston Petrick, Research Assis-
tant, IPRE (September 1981-August 1983).
xiii
In conducting the study as an interdisciplinary project, the mem-
bers of the research group brought to the study the analytical perspec-
tives of their disciplines on processes of research, technology trans-
fer, and assessment of social impacts, plus specific knowledge they had
gained from prior experience in agricultural research, cooperative
extension, and human nutrition programs. Most of the tasks in the
project involved the collaborative efforts of at least two members of
the team. Most important, the integration of findings and the develop-
ment of policy options presented in volume 5 represent the convergence
of several different perspectives.
Coexisting with this collaborative approach was a division of labor
in which individual members of the research team took lead responsibili-
ties for specific tasks. Lynne Kaltreider was the principal researcher
and author of volume 1, A Document-Based Review of Organizations and
Their Linkages. Irwin Feller, Lynne Kaltreider, Patrick Madden, and Dan
Moore conducted the nearly 300 interviews in the nine survey states, as
well as with USDA and other federal agencies, that are reported on in
volume 2, Surveys of Organizations and Their Linkages. Laura Sims
conducted the surveys and is the author of the chapter in volume 2 on
Research and Extension in Human Nutrition, Food Science, and Home
Economics. Irene Johnston Petrick was the principal researcher and
author of volume 3, Review of Previous Case Studies. Irwin Feller,
Patrick Madden, and Dan Moore were the principal authors of volume 4,
Case Studies of Organizational Linkages and Technology Transfer. They
were assisted in this task by Irene Johnston Petrick, Janet Hendrickson,
and Cathy Rusinko. Irwin Feller, Lynne Kaltreider, Patrick Madden, Dan
Moore, and Laura Sims collaborated on volume 5, Overall Study Report:
Findings and Recommendations.
The IPRE research team was the beneficiary of an expert Advisory
Panel. The members of the panel were Dr. Nancy Belck, Dean of Home
Economics, University of Tennessee; Dr. David Dyer, U.S. Senate Commit-
tee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; Dr. Gary Evans, Coordinator,
Natural Resources and Forestry, CSRS; Dr. J. D. Eveland, Innovation
Processes Research, National Science Foundation; Dr. C. Dennis Ignasias,
Director of Research and Grants Office, and subsequently Assistant Dean,
School of Agriculture Sciences, University of Maryland-Eastern Shore;
Dr. Patrick Jordan, Director, Experiment Station at Colorado State Uni-
versity, and subsequently Administrator, CSRS; Dr. Leo Lucas, Director
of Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska at Lincoln;
Lynn Maish, Program Analyst, Office of Budget and Program Analysis,
USDA; Dr. Arland W. Pauli, Product & Market Planning, Deere & Company;
Representative William Presnal, Bryan, Texas, and subsequently Vice
Chancellor for State Affairs, The Texas A&M University System; Dr. Paul
Putnam, Director, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and subse-
quently Area Director, Central Plains Area, National Animal Disease
Center, Ames, Iowa; Dr. Thomas N. Shiflet, Director of Ecological
Sciences, Soil Conservation Service; and Janet E. Tenney, Coordinator of
Nutrition Programs, Giant Foods, Inc. Also participating as members of
the panel were Dr. John Bottum, Deputy Administrator, ES; Dr. Denzil
Clegg, Associate Administrator, ES; Dr. Barbara Fontana, Executive
Secretary, National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory
Board, and subsequently Staff Director of Agriculture, National Gover-
nors' Association; Dr. Mitchell Geasler, Director of Cooperative
xv
Extension Service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University;
Dr. James Halpin, Director-At-Large, Southern Region, Experiment Station
Committee on Organization and Policy; James Hall, Technology Transfer
Staff, ARS; John Victor, Budget Division, ARS; and Dr. Gerald Welsh,
Research Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service.
The Advisory Panel met four times during the course of the study to
review progress towards fulfillment of tasks, to make recommendations
concerning selection of the sites and the technologies to be studied, to
assess the adequacy and accuracy of the descriptive and analytical
material, and to make detailed comments on the several drafts of each
volume. The Advisory Panel served as a first and demanding set of
reviewers of these volumes. We have benefitted greatly from their con-
structive criticism, advice, and support. We, of course, and not they,
are responsible for the findings and recommendations contained in the
several volumes.
We also benefitted from the advice of Dr. John Sink, Chairman,
Division of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, West Virginia University;
Dr. W. Henry Lambright, Director, Science and Technology Policy Center,
Syracuse Corporation; Dr. W. W. Shaner, Project Director, Farming
Systems R&D Methodology Project, Colorado State University; and
Dr. Edward Moe, retired from CSRS-USDA. Dr. Robert Yin, Case Study
Institute, Cosmos Corporation, helped us apply the case study methodol-
ogy to the systematic review of previous case studies and develop an
approach to the new case studies.
Presentations by the IPRE team of the study's findings and distri-
bution of preliminary drafts of volume 5 were made to senior USDA-S&E
officials in June 1984 and to a meeting of USDA-S&E officials and
program managers, State Cooperative Extension Service Directors, and
State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors, and other officials in
September 1984, and comments concerning the report were invited. Many
substantive comments were received and are incorporated in this final
report. In particular, this report contains a fuller discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of the several options for future strate-
gies for publicly-funded agricultural research and cooperative extension
than were contained in earlier drafts. It also should be noted that the
comments received as a result of the extensive review process served to
widen the range of assessments concerning the present state and future
direction of the traditional public sector organizations. The review
process and the interaction that the research team has had with the
several audiences before which it has presented its findings indicate
that differences exist, on the one hand, concerning the validity and
import of the study's findings, and on the other, concerning the feasi-
bility or effectiveness of the several options it presents. Although
this final report seeks to be responsive to the many comments generated
by earlier drafts, in the end it remains the product of the findings and
judgments of its authors. The report is presented, as it has been
received in the main, as a balanced account of the structure, trends, and
tensions within the complex agricultural technology delivery system.
From the study's inception, Dr. Claude Bennett, Extension Service,
served as project monitor. Currently an Evaluation Specialist, Program
Development, Evaluation and Management Systems, ES, Dr. Bennett was
formerly in USDA's Science and Education Administration, and in that
capacity led the team that prepared the USDA prospectus for the study.
Promoting compliance with the original focus of a contract, while
xvii
assisting a research group to follow questions and policy issues that
emerged during the course of a study, requires both a task orientation
and flexibility. It involves frequent interaction between a project
monitor and a research group, plus a shared commitment to high standards
of scholarly quality and academic independence. This relationship was
established between Dr. Bennett and the research team. We wish to
acknowledge our appreciation to him for sharing with us the experiences
of this project.
The research team wishes to acknowledge a special sense of appreci-
ation to the secretarial staff of the Institute for Policy Research and
Evaluation--Jan Walther, Elena DeLuca, and Marge Demey--for their
competency and good-naturedness during the course of the study. These
final volumes and the many interim volumes that were prepared for each
Advisory Panel meeting represent hours of labor on their part. Many of
these hours came after 5:00 p.m. and on weekends, as the staff often
took upon itself responsibilities for insuring that postal deadlines
were met. Mary Jane Johnson handled the arrangements for the Advisory
Panel meetings with efficiency and flair. Lee Carpenter performed with
great skill the formidable task of editing disparate prose styles,
redolent with Joycean tendencies, into readable tomes. Greta O'Toole,
Administrative Assistant, IPRE, was responsible for the financial
administration of the contract.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I. Overview
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Insti-
tute for Policy Research and Evaluation's study, "The Transfer of Agri-
cultural and Food-Related Technologies." The report is organized around
policy issues that are contained in the original USDA study prospectus,
that have been identified as topics for consideration in congressional
hearings scheduled for 1985 concerning the reauthorization of Title XIV
of the Food and Agricultural Act of 1977--the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended in
1981--and that emerge from the study's findings.
This report draws on the findings of the four separate study tasks
that form the overall project: (1) a document-based review of organiza-
tions and their linkages; (2) surveys of organizations and their
linkages; (3) a review of previous case studies of the development and
transfer of technologies; and (4) new case studies of organizational
linkages in the development and transfer of six agricultural technolo-
gies. The relationships among the study components are depicted in
Figure 1-1.
This report is responsive to the overall goal of the study pro-
spectus.
The prospective study will examine public and private influence on
and support of technology development and diffusion in agriculture,
food and related areas where the private sector and the consumer
are primary users of the technology.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I. Overview
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Insti-
tute for Policy Research and Evaluation's study, "The Transfer of Agri-
cultural and Food-Related Technologies." The report is organized around
policy issues that are contained in the original USDA study prospectus,
that have been identified as topics for consideration in congressional
hearings scheduled for 1985 concerning the reauthorization of Title XIV
of the Food and Agricultural Act of 1977--the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended in
1981--and that emerge from the study's findings.
This report draws on the findings of the four separate study tasks
that form the overall project: (1) a document-based review of organiza-
tions and their linkages; (2) surveys of organizations and their
linkages; (3) a review of previous case studies of the development and
transfer of technologies; and (4) new case studies of organizational
linkages in the development and transfer of six agricultural technolo-
gies. The relationships among the study components are depicted in
Figure 1-1.
This report is responsive to the overall goal of the study pro-
spectus.
The prospective study will examine public and private influence on
and support of technology development and diffusion in agriculture,
food and related areas where the private sector and the consumer
are primary users of the technology.
FIGURE 1-1
Interrelation of Study Segments and Study Products
Segment 1
Document-Based Review
O "Mapping out" of the
organizations involved in
agricultural, food, and
related technologies
Segment 2
Survey of Organizational Linkages
Organizational Role Analyses
o Interorganizational Linkages
Analytical Framework:
Technology Delivery System
(Open) Systems Planning Approach
4-
Segment 3
Case Study Review
Review, appraisal, analysis,
and synthesis of previous
studies of the transfer of
specific technologies or
technology clusters.
Segment 4
New Case Studies
" Technology/technology cluster
analysis through entire process
of development, diffusion, and
use.
* Identify developers, diffusers,
and users.
* Identify interrelationships
between actors in the system.
The study is intended as an aid to guiding food and agricultural
technology policies, including intergovernmental policy . The
study will delineate the roles, responsibilities, activities, and
relationships among the variety of organizations--public and pri-
vate, Federal and State, research and extension--involved in the
development and diffusion of food, agricultural and related tech-
nologies. The study should analyze how this complex operates in
relation to current theoretical understandings of technological
innovation and diffusion and the ways in which governments can
facilitate technology transfer.
This volume is a partial accounting of the full project. It draws
upon but does not repeat all of the other findings of this project con-
tained in volumes 1-4. Rather, this volume emphasizes those findings
most directly related to current and latent policy issues. In so doing,
the volume compresses its fuller discussion of the multiple influences
upon the organizations considered and its documentation of specific
statements.
This report constitutes one of several recent efforts to analyze
the performance and structure of American agricultural research and
technology transfer. Examination of the organization of public sector
agricultural research is a mini-industry. Congressional hearings,
executive branch analyses, National Academy of Sciences studies, Office
of Technology Assessment studies, and General Accounting Office reports
form one distinct set of examinations. A second set arises from the
principal public sector organizations themselves. The Agricultural
Research Service and the Extension Service have each recently produced
new statements of their missions--The Mission of the Agricultural
Program Analysis Staff, Joint Planning and Evaluation, Science and
Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1981), "The
Transfer of Agricultural, Food and Related Technologies: A Study Pro-
spectus," pp. 1-2.
Research Service and Challenge and Change--A Blueprint for the Future,
respectively. A joint USDA-NASULGC task force authored Extension in the
80s; NASULGC's Division of Agriculture has advanced major new initia-
tives in biotechnology--Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture: Issues
and Progress; and the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences
recently issued a report, Needs Assessment for the Food and Agricultural
Sciences. A third set emerges from recent empirical studies by
Hadwiger, Busch and Lacy, Evenson, Ruttan, Warner and Christenson, and
three USDA-funded studies--Lipman-Blumen and Schram, Rubenstein and
Geisler, and Wolek--that have added new analytical and empirical
perspectives to earlier historical and institutional presentations by
Bonnen, Cochrane, and Paarlberg.2
2Don Hadwiger (1982), The Politics of Agricultural Research
(Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press); Lawrence Busch and
William Lacy (1983), Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research
(Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press); Robert Evenson, Paul Waggoner, and
Vernon Ruttan (1979), "Economic Benefits from Research: An Example from
Agriculture," Science 205(14) (September), pp. 1101-1107; Robert Evenson
(1982), "Agriculture," in Government and Technical Progress, edited by
Richard Nelson (New York: Pergamon Press), pp. 233-282; Vernon Ruttan
(1982), Agricultural Research Policy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press); Paul Warner and James A. Christenson (1984),
The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment (Boulder and
London: Westview Press); Jean Lipman-Blumen and Susan Schram (1984),
The Paradox of Success (USDA-Science and Education, Washington, D.C.);
Albert Rubenstein and Elizabeth Geisler (1983), Evaluation of the Stra-
tegic Plan of ARS and its Relationship to Technology Transfer (Evanston,
Illinois: Northwestern University), Final Report; Frances Wolek (1984),
Technology Transfer and ARS (Villanova, Pennsylvania: Villanova Univer-
sity); James Bonnen (1962), "Some Observations on the Organizational
Nature of a Great Technological Payoff," Journal of Farm Economics 44
(December), pp. 1279-1294; Willard Cochrane (1979), The Development of
American Agriculture: An Historical Analysis (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press); Don Paarlberg (1981), "The Land-Grant
Colleges and the Structure Issue," American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 63 (February), pp. 129-134.
It is important to note how this study views this literature. The
first set typically begins by extolling the historical performance of
principal public sector organizations, but then focuses on the ways and
extent to which these organizations are seen as falling short of
3
attaining national goals. These reports advance explanations for this
shortfall in performance and contain recommendations for improving
intra- and interorganizational performances. This set is seen as
presenting the policy agenda towards which this study's conceptualiza-
tion of agricultural research and technology transfer and findings are
to be directed.
The second set mainly represents statements by public sector
organizations as to their missions, programs, and clientele. In some
cases, they constitute explicit statements of changes in program empha-
sis; in others they constitute implicit shifts in programmatic emphasis;
in yet others, they mainly reassert traditional roles within a changing
environment. These reports, the missions and priorities they advance,
and the strategies they reflect concerning organizational responses to
the critiques presented in the first set, are themselves treated as
"data." They are viewed as "indicators" of the propensities of the
"The food and agricultural industry in the United States is by far
the largest of all U.S. industries. Our agricultural success is
based largely on adoption of technology developed through research.
Indeed, the application of science to agriculture has significantly
helped make the United States a giant of industrial enterprise. Despite
its continued notable achievements, the food and agricultural research
establishment is facing new problems that are exerting strains on goal
fulfillment. Of prime concern among scientists are indications that new
technological developments may not be keeping pace with our needs" (U.S.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1981), An Assessment of the
United States Food and Agricultural Research System, Washington, D.C.,
p. 21).
various organizations to adapt to changing external environments and to
the directions of these changes, if any.
The third set represents a group of inquiries that overlap this
study. These inquiries represent a number of alternative disciplinary
and methodological perspectives. Some of the studies tend to be more
quantitative than this study, and as such, provide an independent check
on the findings and interpretations offered in this report. Others
(e.g., Lipman-Blumen and Schram; Rubenstein and Geisler) are contempora-
neous with this study, share a common methodology, being heavily rooted
in interviews with nonrandom sets of respondents, and explore in greater
depth than this study selected aspects of the total agricultural tech-
nology delivery system on which this study focuses. Thus, they not only
provide an independent check on this study's interpretations, but at the
same time also provide data and insights that enter significantly into
our analyses and recommendations.
It is our view that the findings in this study are consistent with
the major findings emerging from other current studies, and moreover,
that this study, in the main, provides an institutional and qualitative
complement to this other work. In addition, this study offers a unique
perspective because it integrates both organizational surveys and tech-
nological case histories. As such, it identifies issues concerning
Yet a fourth set exists--those appearing contemporaneously with
this study, which like this study focus on policy issues relating to the
capabilities of the traditional public sector system to reform itself in
response to a wide set of criticisms. Cf. Glenn Johnson and Sylvan
Wittwer, "Agricultural Technology Until 2030: Prospects, Priorities, and
Policies," Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Special Report 12, July 1984.
organizational roles and relationships that are not apparent in any of
the three sets of reports noted above, and at points offers a more
complex portrayal of interrelationships than are provided by principal
methodological reliance on mail or telephone surveys. Thus, although in
good measure the study restates well-known findings in agricultural
research and technology transfer--e.g., the fragmented links between
research on human nutrition and agricultural production, the competing
pressures upon ARS concerning its long-term "basic" or near-term
"applied" research agendas--the study places these issues in a broader
context that makes possible a fuller analysis of the need for and likely
consequences of alternative public policies.
II. Policy Focus
The principal objective of the report was to "identify critical
issues and problems in the transfer of agricultural, food and related
technologies and suggest alternatives and recommendations regarding
governmental roles and strategies for response to such issues and
problems."5
The policy setting for this study has been well described in
several other studies that have similarly examined aspects of agricul-
tural research and technology transfer.6 Agricultural output has more
5"The Transfer of Agricultural, Food and Related Technologies," op.
cit., p. 5.
6U.S. General Accounting Office (1983), Federal Agricultural
Research Funding: Issues and Concerns (October 20); Federal Agricul-
tural Research Facilities are Underused (January 14, 1983); Cooperative
Extension Service's Mission and Federal Role Need Congressional Clarifi-
cation (1981); OTA, An Assessment, op. cit.
than doubled since 1940 with a relatively constant supply of inputs.7
USDA-Economic Research Service data indicate that total factor produc-
tivity (output per unit of all inputs) increased by 2.0 percent annually
between 1939-1960, but at a rate of only 0.9 percent annually between
1960-1970. The Gollop-Jorgenson data, covering an overlapping period,
put the average annual rates of growth in agricultural productivity
between 1947-1973 at 1.7 percent, a rate of growth higher than all but 5
of 45 industrial sectors surveyed.8
The historic contribution of publicly-supported research and
cooperative extension activities to improvements in agricultural produc-
tivity also has been extensively documented, as have been the high rates
of social return on public investments in agricultural research and
extension, and the complementarity between investments in research and
9
extension. From the perspective of "social rate of return" criteria,
the issue has not been whether a satisfactory rate of return existed but
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1982),
Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Production and Efficiency
Statistics, 1980, Statistical Bulletin 679. See also B. R. Eddleman,
L. D. Teigen, and J. C. Purcell (1982), "Productivity in U. S. Food and
Agriculture: Implications for Research and Education," Southern Journal
of Agricultural Economics (December).
8Frank Gollop and Dale Jorgenson (1980), "U.S. Productivity Growth
by Industry, 1947-73," in New Developments in Productivity Measurement
and Analysis, edited by John Kendrick and Beatrice Vaccara (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press); National Bureau of Economic Research,
Studies in Income and Wealth 44, pp. 17-24, Table 1.30.
Evenson, Waggoner, and Ruttan, op. cit.; Bonnen, op. cit.
why, given the level of return, there has been an erosion in real terms
of public support of these activities.10
Clearly, social rate of return criteria alone do not shape percep-
tions of the performance of organizations that historically have formed
the core of the public sector's involvement in agricultural research and
technology transfer: the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Coopera-
tive State Research Service (CSRS), and Extension Service (ES) within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the state agricultural experi-
ment stations (SAES) and Cooperative Extension Services (CES) adminis-
tered through (1862 and 1890) land-grant universities.
Criticisms of public sector research have been made concerning
(a) its pedestrian and duplicative nature; (b) its inattentiveness to
the impacts that its pursuit of productivity-enhancing research has on
environmental quality, the size distribution of farms, and labor dis-
placement; (c) its purported selective orientation to the needs of
large-size producers; and (d) its redundancy to the activities of newly
emerging private sector capabilities. Criticisms of cooperative exten-
sion as they relate to agricultural and food-related research and tech-
nology transfer have centered mainly on (a) the purported diversion of
extension activities away from extension's traditional commitment to an
agricultural producer's orientation towards provision of a broad range
of social services; (b) the erosion of the technical cogency of
"If the USDA-state agricultural research system is efficient and
if it continues to achieve high rates of return, why does the political
process, motivated by organized producers and their legislative allies,
continue to undervalue, and to underinvest in, public sector agricul-
tural research?" (Vernon Ruttan (1982), Agricultural Research Policy
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 254-255).
extension-based services; and (c) extension's purported orientation
toward large-scale, capital-intensive farms rather than traditional
family-size farms.
To this "macro" set of criticisms may be added yet another set
concerning the "micro" workings of specific organizations--the exces-
sively large and underutilized number of laboratories operated by ARS;
the slow rate of completion and turnover of projects supported by Hatch
funds at state agricultural experiment stations; the equivocal commit-
ment and quality of evaluation efforts in extension. These criticisms
relate to the performance of the public agricultural research and tech-
nology transfer system. Dissatisfaction with performance, in turn,
leads to attention to the structure of the system, the characteristics
of the organizations, singly and collectively, that comprise the public
sector system.
Criticism concerning structure strikes at one of the cardinal
features of the traditional system--its ability to adapt effectively to
changing conditions. As Evenson has observed in referring to findings
that research and extension activities have contributed to agricultural
productivity over long periods of time and that these activities have
yielded high rates of social return:
these research institutions have been productive over a long
period of time. They have had the capacity to be oriented to
clientele groups to produce research findings of value, and, at the
same time by investing in related scientific research in the
institutional framework of the experiment station, they have
managed to replenish invention and discovery potential.
these research and extension institutions were productive
over the whole of the past century. This sustained productivity
was attributed to a capacity for institutional change which in tury
was associated with a capacity to respond to clientele interests.
The contribution of existing public sector organizations to agri-
cultural productivity has rested on their combined capability to gener-
ate, convert, adopt, and disseminate research findings in a manner that
provides an incentive for the profit-oriented producer to incorporate
them into firm-specific production functions. Evenson's statement high-
lights the underlying common denominator to many of the criticisms of
the public sector. It is not that there is a documentable, dammed-up
supply of scientific findings which have not been satisfactorily applied
to agriculture, or that there are practical solutions "on the shelf" of
ARS or SAES researchers which are not reaching end users because of
imperfections in the technology delivery system. Rather, it is that the
current stock of knowledge from which annual gains in productivity have
been drawn is being depleted, that increased quantities of research are
12
needed if only to maintain existing levels of productivity, that new
advances in fundamental science, principally in biotechnology, offer
great promise for replenishing the stock of knowledge from which future
Evenson, "Agriculture," op. cit., p. 268.
12
"A review of aggregate farm productivity data indicates some
leveling off in total farm productivity since the mid-1960s, but an even
bigger concern for the future is that the past sources of productivity
growth have now been heavily exploited and that future growth rates may
decline severely." W. B. Sundquist (1984), "Agriculture's Productivity
and Technology Base," paper prepared for the AAAS Program on Knowledge
Base, for the 1985 Agricultural and Food Policy Conference, New York
City, p. 6. Also, Yao-chi Lu, Philip Cline, and LeRoy Quance (1979),
Prospects for Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture, USDA Economics,
Statistics, and Cooperative Service, Agriculture Economic Report No.
435.
productivity gains may be harvested,13 and, finally, that the public
institutions which historically have performed agricultural research
have in recent years not shown the capacity for institutional change
that would permit them to replenish their invention and discovery
potential.
It is important to note that this visible set of concerns relates
principally to the characteristics (and quality) of the research per-
formed under the auspices of ARS and the SAES system. It does not
address the set of issues concerning existing linkages between research
and technology transfer activities or those that can be projected to
emerge if agricultural research institutions were reformed along lines
advocated by their critics.
III. Conceptual Framework: Technology Delivery and Open Systems
The scope of the study is limited to technology; its limits are
determined by the concept of technology transfer employed. The study is
about agricultural, food, and related technologies. It focuses on
organizational relationships that affect research and technology trans-
fer activities related to agricultural production and to selected
14
aspects of human nutrition.4 The definition of technology that
13"The outlook for agricultural research and technology during the
remainder of this century and the first quarter of the next may be
outstanding. Science is providing us the basis on which to build new
technologies more powerful than any available before" (Ralph W. Hardy
(1983), "The Outlook for Agricultural Research and Technology" in
Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century, edited by John Rosenblum (New
York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 91-103; p. 91).
1For a related study that addresses renewable resources, see David
(Footnote Continued)
underlies the study encompasses, as defined in the USDA prospectus, the
"devices, techniques, knowledge, and skills by which people control and
utilize physical and biological phenomena including their own bodies."
This definition of technology--"hardware" and "software"; production
technique and production practice--is used throughout the study. This
definition is also in keeping with studies on sources of productivity
gains in agriculture, which have emphasized both the application of
specific new techniques, e.g., seeds, herbicides, and equipment, and the
application of new farm practices concerning the combination, use, and
timing of these technologies. This definition of technology is also in
keeping with the activities of both public sector and private sector
organizations as they seek to develop and disseminate new technologies.
However broad its definition of technology transfer, the study
cannot be and is not intended to be an examination of all the roles and
missions of the organizations surveyed. Most public sector organiza-
tions have multiple missions and therefore multiple roles. Colleges of
agriculture and state agricultural experiment stations are involved not
only in agricultural research but also in graduate education, which
depends on continuous research to remain intellectually vital. ARS has
a research agenda that on the one hand is intended to permit USDA to
occupy a lead role in agricultural science, but that also involves
applied research that assists other federal agencies in establishing
regulatory standards.
(Footnote Continued)
L. Rogers, E. Bartlett, and A. Dyer, "The State and Federal System of
Research and Extension for Private Forestland Management, Wood Utiliza-
tion, and Rangeland Management" (Colorado State University, forthcoming
1985).
Cooperative extension, even within its agricultural programs, has
goals that extend beyond facilitating the dissemination of new technolo-
gies to the improvement of agricultural productivity and soil conserva-
tion, and, in addition, has programs in home economics, community
development, and 4-H. Moreover, in seeking to contribute to the well-
being of agricultural producers, the services provided by cooperative
extension that do not directly relate to technology transfer may be as
important, if not more so, than those considered in this study.15
Economic advice on participation in government farm programs--at times
an activity of cooperative extension--may be important to farmers in
determining the profitability of their enterprises, indeed may be more
so than any single change in production practice--but this activity
extends beyond the domain of technology transfer as operationalized in
this study. As D. Gale Johnson noted in his 1981 Seaman Knapp Memorial
Lecture concerning the convergence over the past 20 years of average
family farm to nonfarm income:
The improvements in the average level of income and the reduction
in inequality have not been due to the efforts of the agricultural
research institutions or to the billions spent on U.S. farm pro-
grams. The improvement has occurred as a result of the greater
integration of rural and urban families. .
What role has extension's activities had in all this? The greater
integration of rural and urban societies has been the result of
improved communication, greater and lower cost flow of information,
and reductions in the cost of transportation in terms of time and
money. Extension service may well have had an important and
indirect role in improving the capacities of rural people to both
5Charles Beer (1983), "Extension Programs Technology Transfer
and More," paper presented to the American Society of Agronomy
Symposium, "Soil and Water Conservation in the 80's, Increasing
Challenges with Diminishing Resources."
acquire information about nonfarm opportunities and to effectively
utilize that information in making appropriate decisions.
The presence of multiple missions permeates any examination of
organizational roles and relationships in research and technology trans-
fer. It is not possible to consider organizations solely as components
in a technology delivery system if only because the statutory language
that authorizes the programs that these organizations operate or admin-
ister generally sets forth multiple missions. A common theme to this
and other overviews of public sector organizations is the multiple and
at times competing pressures upon them to meet different aspects of
their mandates. This is not a situation unique to agriculture; rather,
it is a general characteristic of public programs. A basic difference
exists between a study in which the unit of analysis is the global mis-
sions and roles of an organization, and one in which the unit of analy-
sis is a particular function or activity. This study is of the latter
type.
Central to comprehending the scope of the study is the definition
of technology transfer employed. The prospectus defines technology
transfer as "the diffusion (spread) of technology from its developers to
and among populations of potential users of the technology. This
includes technology's spread from researchers and technology developers
to: (a) individuals or groups who serve primarily to diffuse technology
and (b) individual or groups who are its ultimate users." The essence
16D. Gale Johnson, "Agricultural Productivity in the United States.
Some Sources of Remarkable Achievement," 1981 Seaman Knapp Lecture,
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
of this definition is used in the study, but in a somewhat broader con-
ceptualization.
In the extensive literature on technology transfer, the term is
used in various ways, but generally to denote processes or activities
more narrow than our conceptualization.7 This study employs the
concept and terms of an (integrated) technology delivery system to
encompass the set of activities--the introduction, diffusion, and dis-
semination of a technology--undertaken by public and private sector
organizations relevant to this study.18
The study conceives of a technology delivery system that includes
the following stages: (1) the delineation of research priorities,
(2) the performance of various types of research, (3) the conversion of
research findings into economically useful production practices and
The term "technology transfer" has a range of definitions and
uses. At the federal level, technology transfer frequently refers to
the utilization of research sponsored by mission agencies, or at times
has been synonymous with the concept of spin-offs, e.g., the transfer of
research findings from an initial application to a subsequent one.
". .. technology transfer programs can have at least four different
types of objectives--i.e., to improve research utilization, to develop
organizational capabilities, to serve spinoff functions from other R&D
activities, and to provide technical assistance. Depending upon the
nature of the objectives, different criteria should be applied in
assessing these programs, including impact, utilization, output and in-
put criteria" (U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology
(1978), Domestic Technology Transfer: Issues and Options, 95th
Congress, Second Session, Serial CCC, Volume I (November), p. 2).
8We speak of "encompassing" rather than extending, because we con-
sider the process of technological change to be an iterative, nonlinear
one, starting possibly at the point at which the end user defines his
needs or experiments with new production forms as well as with basic,
laboratory-based research, and because we consider the possibilities of
specific "stages" being omitted or merged to the point of indistinguish-
ability with other stages.
technologies, (4) the development of ancillary information on the use of
the practices and technologies to accord with site-specific production
settings, (5) the demonstration of new research findings and new tech-
nologies to an initial set of users, (6) the subsequent spread of the
new practices to a larger set of users, and (7) the iterative feedback
of changes in research activities, adaptive modifications, and conse-
quent changes in use patterns that follow from use of the technology.
Stages 1 and 2 are considered research activities; stages 3 through 6
constitute technology transfer as defined in this study; stage 7 is the
integration of research and technology transfer.
This system of activities corresponds to several stages that have
been variously identified in different accounts of the processes) of
technological change. "Stage" theories abound. To cite a few:
"Invention, innovation, diffusion" (Schumpeter); "recognition, idea
formulation, problem solving, solution, utilization and diffusion, pre-
19
commercial, commercial" (Myers and Marquis);9 "basic research, applied
research, development, testing evaluation, manufacturing/packaging,
marketing/dissemination" (National Science Foundation);20 "basic labora-
tory research; the identification of potential commercial applications;
the assessment of technical feasibility, applied research, the prepara-
tion of product specifications; construction of a prototype or pilot
S. Myers and D. G. Marquis (1969), Successful Industrial Innova-
tions: A Study of Factors Underlying Innovation in Selected Firms
(Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation).
20National Science Foundation, Productivity Improvement Research
Section (1983), The Process of Technological Innovation: Reviewing the
Literature (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation), p. 20.
plant; tooling and construction of manufacturing facilities; initial
manufacturing and marketing; reassessment of commercial potential;
licensing and so forth, leading to widespread imitation" (Congressional
Budget Office).21
These stages do not constitute a linear, unidirectional set of
sequences. Recent studies and literature reviews are quite clear in
treating the basic research/applied research/development/diffusion or
alternatively phrased sequences as only one of a possible set of rela-
tionships leading to the introduction and use of new techniques. As
Kelly and Kranzberg note in their review of theories of innovation:
As we reviewed the various theories and models, we began to realize
that in almost every major innovation of recent times, each func-
tional phase is linked in some way to the other. Every phase in
our block diagram has lines connecting it to and from every other
block in the diagram. Instead of a linear-sequential picture of a
neat flow chart with single lines going from one block to another22
we had a graphic portrayal of a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.
The relationship between science and technology also is complex.
Advances in science may both precede and be a necessary condition for
advances in technology. This relationship, however, is not automatic.
Technology can proceed without changes in science since technology
derives from a different knowledge base than does science. Improvements
in design, rules of operation, adjustment to changing conditions through
trial and error and through exploitation of a current knowledge base can
lead to sustained increases in productivity for considerable periods of
21Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office
(1981), Federal Support for R&D and Innovation (April), p. 7.
22Patrick Kelly and Melvin Kranzberg, eds. (1978), Technological
Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge (San Francisco: San
Francisco University Press), p. 13.
time. Furthermore, advances in technology may themselves push against
the limits of scientific knowledge and thus set the scientific agenda.
As Rosenberg has noted,
thus the normal situation in the past and to a considerable
degree also in the present is that technological knowledge has
preceded scientific knowledge technology has served as an
enormous repository of empirical knowledge to be scrutinized and
evaluated by the scientists. It is still far from unusual for
engineers in many industries to solve problems for which there is
no scientific explanation and for the engineering solution to
generate the subsequent scientific research that eventually pro-
vides the explanation. The sequence, of course, has been less
common in industries founded on scientific research, for example,
those based on electricity. The sequence by which technologi-
cal knowledge preceded scientific knowledge has by no means been
eliminated in the 20th century. Much of the work of the scientist
today involves systematizing and restructuring the knowledge and
the workable practical solutions and methods previously accumulated
by the technologies. Technology has shaped science in important
ways because it required some forms of knowledge first, and pro-
vided data that, in turn, became the explicanda of scientists, who
attempted to explain or codify them at a deeper level.
Just as engineering has led scientific knowledge in many areas of
technology, farmers qua inventors and adaptors of farm technology have
led both engineers and scientists in some areas. Prime examples are
found in the case studies of conservation tillage and the large round
hay baler (volume 4).
Central to the performance of the American agricultural research
and technology transfer system, as noted earlier, is the existence of
systematic linkages among these activities, reflected first in organiza-
tional and role specialization (e.g., researcher, extension specialist,
county agent), and then in intra- and interorganizational coordination
23Nathan Rosenberg (1981), "How Exogenous is Science?" in Inside
the Black Box (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 141-162;
p. 144.
(e.g., experiment station researchers and extension specialists within
colleges of agriculture; CSRS as a link between ARS and the state agri-
cultural experiment stations). This perspective is a restatement of the
historic uniqueness of research and technology transfer in American
agriculture, namely, that it has constituted an integrated technology
delivery system.
Open Systems
Although this report is couched in terms of a technology delivery
framework and is redolent with the concepts and phrases of economics,
its approach is analogous to the open systems planning approach pre-
sented in the Lipman-Blumen and Schram study. As noted by these
authors:
A fundamental tenet of systems theory is interdependency. That is,
each component of the wider system affects and is influenced by
every other component. A "problem" or a dysfunction in one part is
a "message" to the whole system. A systems perspective suggests
that difficulty in any one component is a problem for the whole
system. As in biological ecostructures, no unit is an "island" but
rather a reflection of the whole. Sub-units within any one organi-
zation, such as Extension, CSRS, or ARS (within USDA), may inter-
act, communicate, negotiate and establish territory. Adaptation is
the evolutionary response to environmental shifts, and likewise, in
systems 4a redefinition may occur to meet new environmental
inputs.
This systems approach is central to our findings and recommenda-
tions. We adopt this perspective because our study leads us to the con-
clusion that the concurrent revitalization of the ARS-SAES-CES segments
of the public agricultural research and technology transfer system
2Lipman-Blumen and Schram (1983), The Paradox of Success
(USDA-Science and Education), p. v.
central policy decisions relate to the optimal degree of competition
from other public and private organizations to the traditional roles of
the USDA-SAES-CES system in research and technology transfer. The con-
tent of these decisions, in turn, relates to issues concerning: (a) the
"uniqueness" of what the traditional system could do if its performance
were improved; and (b) conversely, the potential loss of overall
national effectiveness if agricultural R&D is significantly diminished
or allowed to atrophy.25 Such a deterioration--in terms of both the
return on the public investment in research and the rapid dissemination
of socially relevant knowledge--could occur if either the traditional
public sector system fails to adjust, or, in response to perceptions of
new scientific opportunities going unexploited because of ossification
in the traditional sector, the federal government substantially reduces
or rechannels its support for agricultural research and technology
transfer to other organizations, which while performing "better"
disciplinary-based agricultural research fail either to undertake the
problem-solving research needed in agriculture or to link research and
technology transfer activities.26
25
This perspective is not unique to our study; it appears with
increasing frequency in many current assessments of agricultural
research and extension. Cf. Emery Castle (1981), "How to Change
Agricultural Research and Extension To Make It A Better Investment," in
Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies (Oak Brook,
Illinois: The Farm Foundation), pp. 49-54.
26See Johnson and Wittwer, op. cit., for a fuller discussion of
these categories of agricultural research. See also, Robert Evenson
(1984), "Scientific Credibility and Applied Agricultural Research,"
paper presented at the 1984 AAAS Symposium Agricultural Research Policy.
For example, several studies have pointed to the "aging" of the
scientific personnel within ARS and have called for policies that
encourage the recruitment of new scientists, especially those with
training in basic as compared to applied (agricultural) scientific
disciplines. Intellectual replenishment and rejuvenation of its pool of
scientists is a generic need of scientific organizations--witness the
lamentations about the tenuring in of and aging of university faculties.
Thus, personnel policies that permit ARS to recruit scientists in order
to remain current with new scientific developments have merit from this
perspective alone. The issue of the scientific currency of personnel,
however, takes on more importance when viewed in terms of the interrela-
tionships among organizations in an open systems environment. For
example, based on interview responses, perceptions of the declining
"scientific quality" of ARS appear to be affecting the allocation of
federal dollars for agricultural research between ARS and other federal
agencies and the employment decisions that graduate students from
research-oriented, land-grant universities are making (or being encour-
aged to make). These decisions, in turn, impact on the type and quality
of research that the ARS is capable of performing.
Similarly, an "open systems technology perspective" raises the
question of the mission of cooperative extension in a different context
than is often presented. For many purposes, questions of whether
cooperative extension is defined as an "educational system" or a "tech-
nology transfer" system are, in the case of agricultural production at
least, largely moot. The same set of activities--demonstrations, field
tours, brochures on recommended practices--readily fits into either or
both classifications. In the larger context of a technology delivery
system, however, the two conceptualizations may lead to different
emphases on the skills and activities of extension specialists and agri-
cultural county agents and serve either to strengthen or to attenuate
the bonds between the "research" and the "transfer/extension" links in
the technology delivery system.
The study emphasizes the interdependency of units, first, within
the traditional, public sector in the context of competition (for
resources, prestige) with a newer set of public and private organiza-
tions that have advanced claims to perform many (but not all) of the
functions that they historically performed, and second, the "problems"
caused by apparent differences in the rate at which different components
within the traditional system adapt to the new environment. As each
part responds to the dominant set of external and internal influences
upon its activities, it may move towards or away from complementing the
activities of the organizations to which it is linked, formally or
informally, in constituting a technology delivery system. The overall
systems goal as each organization or set of organizations seeks to
respond to changing environments is to have these changes occur in a way
that at least maintains the performance capabilities of the system, and
more positively, serves to improve overall performance.
Improved articulation between stages, however, is not inherent in
all reforms, regardless of whether they are couched in the framework or
phraseology of "coordination," "planning," or "priority setting."
Alternatively, changes that occur in program emphases, recruitment, and
promotion criteria, organizational and physical arrangements, and opera-
tional emphases, in fact, may yield such articulation even in the
absence of formal pronouncements.
The links between the formal systems framework and those embedded
in the technology delivery framework offered here are best seen in
Ruttan's statement of agricultural research policy issues.
Although the evidence is not yet conclusive, it is hard for me to
escape the conclusion that the institutional changes introduced to
implement national science policy after World War II have contrib-
uted to the disarticulation rather than to the strengthening of the
linkages between advances in knowledge and technology development.
There is a critical need for the architects of national science
policy to give attention to the problem of how to institutionalize
more effective articulation between advances in knowledge and
advances in technology. And we must be particularly careful, in
those areas where articulation is effectively institutionalized,
that the re frms that are introduced do not lead to further disar-
ticulation.
A concept common to several disciplinary perspectives of an organi-
zation's relations to its external environment is that the organization
exchanges a bundle of goods and services for resources (revenues, appro-
priations), "policy space," and social influence. The ability of the
organization to obtain a flow of resources from the outside depends upon
a configuration of factors. These factors, in the case of public
organizations, include (1) legislative or constitutional mandates that
establish it as the principal or sole provider of a service and thus
entitle it to public revenues; (2) assessments of its performance that
make continued provision of resources a socially productive investment;
(3) political relationships that permit members of the organization or
its clientele to influence key executive or legislative decision makers;
(4) tradition, which in the absence of any crisis in performance of
other systematic forms of evaluation, provides a continued flow of
27
2Vernon Ruttan (1983), "Agricultural Research Policy Issues," The
B.Y. Morrison Memorial Lecture, HortScience 18(6), pp. 809-818;
pp. 811-812.
resources independent of other factors; and (5) nostalgia, which means
continuing of symbolic gestures to historically important, albeit
currently marginal, arrangements. At any particular time these differ-
ent factors coalesce to shape the perceptions of the external environ-
ment towards the organization and affect the terms on which it is will-
ing to conduct the exchange. The relative weights of these factors
often change slowly and imperceptibly until a flurry of external criti-
cism surfaces. Different interested parties are very likely to hold
different perceptions of the current relative weights of these factors.
Clearly, the historic declines in the agricultural and rural popu-
lations have served to reduce the political base for agricultural
research and extension in terms of its traditional agricultural clien-
tele. Interviews with university, state, and federal representatives,
as well as formal studies, indicate their awareness of the reduced
numbers of legislators on agricultural committees or appropriations
committees who have historic ties to the agricultural sector or to the
land-grant university, notwithstanding the continuing influence of key
legislators, and of the eroding political base for agricultural
28
progress.
The theme garnered from the interviews is that relative weights
have shifted towards increased emphasis on a performance-based assess-
ment of the traditional sector. Performance, in terms of the current
policy milieu, is primarily defined, not in terms of historic
28
See also, Susan Rose-Ackerman and Robert Evenson (1983),
Federalism, Reappointment and Innovation: The Case of Agricultural
Research and Extension, Yale University, Economic Growth Center, Center
Discussion Paper No. 432 (January); Hadwiger, op. cit.
contributions to productivity but in the "quality" of science in ARS and
SAES, and, to a lesser degree, the "relevance" of cooperative extension.
IV. Relationship to Other Studies
This study covers many of the same issues treated in other studies.
The most important feature of the aggregate of several concurrent
studies is that although they reflect a diversity of disciplinary per-
spectives--sociology, organizational theory, political science,
economics--the studies are largely congruent and mutually reinforcing.
They either report the same findings, or they advance findings concern-
ing behavioral aspects of components of the agricultural research and
technology transfer system that either underlie or are consistent with
analytical themes or findings contained in other studies. For example,
Busch and Lacy's study of agricultural scientists reports a bifurcation
in "criteria for problem choice according to the percentage of time a
scientist allocates to basic research":
Scientists devoted to basic research are more likely to consider
criteria that represent a commitment to scientific ideals, includ-
ing scientific curiosity and potential contribution of the research
to scientific theory.
In contrast, those with a lower percentage of their research time
devoted to basic problems are more likely to view client needs and
the utility of the research as important for their research pro-
gram.
Busch and Lacy end their analysis as follows: "There is, then, a
clear and strong relationship between a scientist's research orientation
and the criteria considered in developing a research agenda. It is
29Busch and Lacy, op. cit., p. 71.
likely as well that this orientation in turn affects the process,
products, and dissemination of the research."30 In our study this
surmise concerning the relationship between the research orientation of
agricultural scientists and the "dissemination" process becomes a major
focus.
There are several important differences, however, between this
study and others.
(a) It includes a larger array of public sector organizations
beyond the traditional USDA/land-grant university set than is
typical in other studies. More important, given the dollar
volume of support for agricultural research that other federal
systems provide relative to USDA, the study treats them as
"principals" rather than as "walk-ons," whose activities must
be taken into account by the traditional organizations and in
the formation of agricultural research and technology transfer
policies.
(b) It is rooted in a conceptualization of a technology delivery
system that includes the complete set of stages or activities
that link research, development, and diffusion.31
30Ibid.
31For example, Warner and Christenson's study of cooperative exten-
sion "focuses on the Extension organization as a whole, not on specific
components" (Warner and Christenson, 1984, op. cit., p. 40). In con-
trast, this study focuses on those components of extension in agricul-
ture and human nutrition that link research and technology transfer.
Extension is considered as a whole only to the extent that organization-
wide missions and roles shape the intra-organizational environment in
which this specific component is conducted. Similarly, in contrast to
Warner and Christenson's work, this study examines the "unique features"
(Footnote Continued)
(c) It focuses both on internal organizational processes for per-
forming specific activities (e.g., basic research, demonstra-
tion activities) and on how internal and external factors
affect the capability of the organization to link its activi-
ties with those of other organizations.
(d) It describes the activities of the private sector in both
research and technology transfer, and analyzes how these
activities affect traditional rationales for support of public
sector programs.
(e) It draws on quantitative and qualitative data to describe the
formal and informal roles, activities, and relationships among
organizations and historical case studies of the observed
roles performed by these organizations in the development and
transfer of a sample of agricultural technologies.
V. Methodology
This study employed a number of methodological approaches. (a) For
the review of previous case histories, a combination of snowballing and
computerized bibliographic searches was used to identify the relevant
literature, followed by use of the "case study method" developed by the
Case Study Institute, Cosmos Corporation, to systematically array the
findings from this literature about the themes of concern in this study.
(b) For preparation of the "maps" for the nine commodity and process
(Footnote Continued)
of a particular program, and seeks to provide "in-depth information of a
very specific nature" that they consider (correctly) not to be feasible
within more global examinations.
subsystems listed in the study prospectus, a combination of literature
reviews and snowballing techniques were employed to identify relevant
organizations and their linkages to other organizations. (c) For
the survey of organizational linkages, in-depth interviews were con-
ducted with representatives from various segments of public and private
sector organizations involved in research and technology transfer and
participant observations were made at several public meetings at which
representatives of these organizations discussed issues pertaining to
the scope of this study.32 (d) For the new case histories, library
research was combined with field research to document both the chrono-
logical history of the development of the sample technologies (center
pivot irrigation systems, the large round hay baler, the mechanical
tomato harvester, hybrid grain sorghum, artificial insemination, and
conservation tillage) and the roles of various organizations in this
development.
The materials reported on in each study segment have undergone
extensive review. The commodity and process research subsystem chapters
were sent to knowledgeable individuals within each field, and the chap-
ters reporting on interviews in the survey states and in federal organi-
zations were sent to a number of interviewees from each site to check
the accuracy of the factual components of the chapters.
32
3This survey has included field interviews with administrators,
researchers, and extension personnel in land-grant universities in nine
states (Alabama, California, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, South Caro-
lina, Texas, Utah, and Vermont), and with representatives from ARS, CSRS
and ES, Food and Nutrition Service, and other units within USDA, other
federal agencies including NSF, NIH, and DOE, public interest groups,
non-land-grant universities, foundations, biotechnology firms, farm
(Footnote Continued)
The criteria employed to select the nine survey states and the six
technologies are described in volumes 2 and 4, respectively. For
present purposes, issues of sampling frames are more important regarding
the representativeness of the individuals interviewed within each state
and the private sector than are the selection of states. At the federal
level, interviews were conducted with the officials and program leaders
responsible for administering research and cooperative extension pro-
grams within USDA and with program officials in other federal agencies.
At the state level, interviews were conducted with "decision makers"
within the research and extension organizations of 1862 and 1890 land-
grant colleges of agriculture, and with a varying number of researchers,
extension specialists, and county agents. Researchers and extension
specialists were selected principally on the extent to which their
activities overlapped with the academic boundaries or functional areas
relevant to the technologies covered in the case study segment of the
project. County agents were identified by cooperative extension
officials, and were selected on the basis of three criteria: involve-
ment in activities related to the commodity subsystems covered by the
study; involvement with the technologies covered in the case study
segment of the project; and location in a major agricultural county in
the state. During the state site visits, interviews also were conducted
with ARS researchers located at or nearby the land-grant campus.
Other than being successful in covering the "universe" of officials
responsible for administering agricultural research and cooperative
(Footnote Continued)
equipment manufacturers, the agricultural press, and equipment
distributors.
extension programs in each state, the site visits do not necessarily
constitute a representative sample of any of the other groups covered.
Such a sampling framework was not intended. Efforts to maintain strict
comparability among the site visits were further complicated by the
distance between land-grant and ARS locations in some states, and the
unavailability, because of schedule conflicts or distance, of individ-
uals who might have filled designated sampling slots.
Private sector organizations were selected for interviews on two
principal, overlapping criteria: involvement in the development of one
or more of the new case study technologies (e.g., the large round hay
baler--Deere, Sperry-New Holland, Vermeer; hybrid grain sorghum--DeKalb,
Pioneer Hi-Bred), or their combined visibility both in agricultural
research and in representing the views of the private sector concerning
the future course of agricultural research and technology policies
(e.g., Pioneer Hi-Bred, Monsanto, DuPont). This approach leads to a
concentration on those firms that are typically regarded as the "lead-
ers" in their respective product lines, and that have larger internal
R&D programs than other firms within their respective industries.
The objective of both the state site visit interviews and those
with the private sector was not to do representative sampling as pre-
ludes to testing hypotheses, but to discover the variety of interactions
that various individuals (and organizations) have with one another dur-
ing the technology delivery process. The interviews also help to iden-
tify those interactions the interviewees deemed most influential in the
future effectiveness of the combined public sector/private sector
system.
As noted earlier, wherever possible, summative statements from
these interviews and the case studies have been checked against other
more empirically-based research.33 The result is a "triangulation" of
findings. Reichardt and Cook's assessment of the use of qualitative and
quantitative methodological procedures is appropriate in this context:
Using qualitative and quantitative methods in tandem, or, indeed,
using any methods together, helps to correct for the inevitable
biases that are present in each method. With only one method, it
is impossible to separate the bias of the method from the under-
lying quantity or quality that one is trying to measure. But
several methods can be used together to triangulate upon the under-
lying "truth" separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
Whereas any two or more methods can be used for this purpose,
disparate methods which still converge on the same operations are
better than similar ones because the former are likely to share
fewer biases than the latter. Often qualitative and quantitative34
methods work well together because they are relatively disparate.
33
3A further methodological observation: At several key points in
the overall analysis, what are presented as perceptions or informed
judgments are statements that could in fact be transformed into
empirically-based propositions. Changes in the background of state
legislators and their "awareness" of the agricultural missions of land-
grant universities, number of agronomists or agricultural engineers
employed by seed or equipment firms or distributors, "attitudes" of the
non-USDA/nonagricultural scientific communities towards the "quality" of
both science and research administration within ARS, CSRS, ES, and the
land-grant counterparts are amenable to quantification and to hypothesis
testing.
Such quantification was beyond the scope of the study but is cer-
tainly desirable. This quantification, per se, however, would not
necessarily affect the context or outcome of pending decisions concern-
ing agricultural and food technology policies. As emphasized throughout
this report, an underlying concern to many specific questions is not how
well traditional organizations have performed over the past decade or
so, but how probable it is that these organizations can adapt themselves
to perform effectively under new external conditions. On this, the past
and present, however precisely measured, remain imperfect guides, inde-
terminately superior to judgment and venturesomeness.
34
3Charles Reichardt and Thomas Cook (1979), "Beyond Qualitative
Versus Quantitative Methods," in Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in
Evaluation Research, edited by Thomas Cook and Charles Reichardt
(Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications), pp. 7-33; p. 21.
VI. Organization of the Report
Shifting policy agendas create special conditions for a multi-year
study. Approximately four years have elapsed between the original
conceptualization of the study prospectus and the submission of this
report. The process of policy formation involves a recomputation of the
criticality of issues over time. Issues that were very important at the
time the study prospectus was released, e.g., the quality of long-range
planning conducted by ARS and the SAES, have become less salient.
Whether or not those at whom the criticisms were directed have initiated
appropriate changes has become more important. Other issues, however,
are essentially structural: that is, they relate to the basic justifica-
tions for public sector involvement in agricultural research and tech-
nology transfer. In particular, the question of the relative roles of
the public sector and the private sector in agricultural research and
technology transfer is more important today than it was approximately
five years ago.
The volume is organized around five major policy themes. In high-
lighting five themes from among the many issues covered by the study, we
have sought to balance adherence to the study prospectus with an assess-
ment of the issues likely to shape the near-term debates concerning the
general roles of the public sector and the role of specific public
sector organizations. In the main, these themes capture the current
policy debate and the questions set forth in the study prospectus. The
themes are as follows: chapter 2--articulation, coordination, and over-
sight of research priorities and performance; chapter 3--articulation
and coordination of public sector linkages between research and tech-
nology transfer; chapter 4--articulation and coordination of human
nutrition research and technology transfer programs in an agricultural
production system; chapter 5--organizational arrangements and incentives
for assessing the environmental and social impacts of agricultural
research and technology transfer; and chapter 6--relationships between
the public and private sectors in agricultural research and technology
transfer. A summary of the study's principal findings is presented in
chapter 7. Recommendations for future strategies for USDA-S&E are
presented in chapter 8.
CHAPTER 2
ARTICULATION, COORDINATION, AND PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES: THE PUBLIC SECTOR
I. Problem Statement
The U.S. public agricultural research system has played a major
role in increasing this nation's agricultural productivity. Supporters
and critics alike acknowledge the system's historic record in yielding a
"handsome rate of return."' But herein lies an anomaly: this acknowl-
edged success is frequently attributed largely to the system's diversity
and decentralization; yet, it is this very decentralization that has
created an impression that the system is "uncoordinated, duplicative,
and lacking a good basis for establishing research priorities.2 Some
quotes will illustrate. On the positive side:
The State, Federal, and private performers of agricultural science
and education programs are made up of a loosely knit network of
organizations, that allows for quick responses to local, State, and
National clientele needs.
as a model for the administration of a government-supported
applied R&D program, the agricultural system is quite instructive.
Emery N. Castle (1982), Statement before the Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, House Committee
on Science and Technology, during hearings on "The Nation's Long-Term
Agriculture Research Needs," July 29.
2Ibid., p. 3.
Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences (1983), FY 1985
Priorities for Research, Extension and Higher Education, A Report to the
Secretary of Agriculture.
CHAPTER 2
ARTICULATION, COORDINATION, AND PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES: THE PUBLIC SECTOR
I. Problem Statement
The U.S. public agricultural research system has played a major
role in increasing this nation's agricultural productivity. Supporters
and critics alike acknowledge the system's historic record in yielding a
"handsome rate of return."' But herein lies an anomaly: this acknowl-
edged success is frequently attributed largely to the system's diversity
and decentralization; yet, it is this very decentralization that has
created an impression that the system is "uncoordinated, duplicative,
and lacking a good basis for establishing research priorities.2 Some
quotes will illustrate. On the positive side:
The State, Federal, and private performers of agricultural science
and education programs are made up of a loosely knit network of
organizations, that allows for quick responses to local, State, and
National clientele needs.
as a model for the administration of a government-supported
applied R&D program, the agricultural system is quite instructive.
Emery N. Castle (1982), Statement before the Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, House Committee
on Science and Technology, during hearings on "The Nation's Long-Term
Agriculture Research Needs," July 29.
2Ibid., p. 3.
Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences (1983), FY 1985
Priorities for Research, Extension and Higher Education, A Report to the
Secretary of Agriculture.
It is highly decentralized, and specific resource allocation
decisions are made at state and county levels.
the system traditionally has been decentralized, that is,
project leaders, department heads, and deans within the universi-
ties could exercise considerable autonomy, as could their counter-
parts within USDA. Decentralization also has enabled information
to flow into the system at many different levels.
And on the negative:
The complexity of the research situation led to the conclusion that
it [the system] was out of control, duplicating research, and
unaccountab e. Hearings tended to fortify rather than refute this
conclusion.
Critics have frequently called for more formal planning by the
principal public organizations, citing little evidence of planning in
the system as it currently operates. A 1981 GAO report entitled, "Long-
Range Planning Can Improve the Efficiency of Agricultural Research and
Development," noted that
The U.S. agricultural research and development system does not
perform national long-range planning which would7meet or satisfy
generally accepted definitions of such planning.
In congressional hearings in 1982 on "The Nation's Long-Term Agricul-
tural Research Needs," OTA's representative concurred:
No satisfactory long-term process exists for evaluating research
activities, research opportunities, and development of research
priorities within the food and agricultural system. Decisions are
Richard R. Nelson and Richard N. Langlois (1983), "Industrial
Innovation Policy: Lessons from American History," Science 219
(February 18), p. 817.
Castle, op. cit., p. 2.
OTA, op. cit., p. 140.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1981), "Long-Range Planning Can
Improve the Efficiency of Agricultural Research and Development"
(CED-81-141).
made on an ad hoc basis with little coordination among USDA, SAES,
and other agencies conducting food and agricultural research.
The OTA's Assessment was especially critical vis-a-vis the lack of
planning:
With the present structure of USDA, there is some question as to
whether USDA has a national research program or merely a series of
local and regional activities. Consequently, USDA and SAES appear
to be working on seemingly indistinguishable problems. Many
people, including Congress, have voiced concern that little, if
any, overall planning and coordination of research exist, especi-
ally at top levels of administration. They question whether
national issues are receiving adequate attention.9 Further, there
seems to be much duplication and vying for funds.
OTA characterized the food and agricultural research system as being in
"disarray," and in need of "some degree of relatedness among the
research participants," specifically USDA and SAES.10
Other observers of the system acknowledge the appeal of coordina-
tion or planning for such a large decentralized system but are wary of
anything that suggests centralization or control. They question both
the wisdom and the sheer feasibility of long-range planning and central-
ization of national agricultural research priorities in particular and
of the agricultural research system in general.
if this [a central control group] were to happen the decen-
tralized system no longer would be decentralized. I believe this
would destroy a very large part of the creativity of the system--
the freedom of the individual researcher to pursue promising ideas
and the opportunity of the users of research to register their
thoughts and their needs at different points within the system.
8Michael J. Phillips (1982), Statement before the Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, House Committee
on Science and Technology, during hearings on "The Nation's Long-Term
Agriculture Research Needs," July 27, p. 3.
Phillips, ibid, p. 15.
OTA, op. cit., p. 4.
I have very little confidence in the effectiveness of centralized
research priorities, for I have engaged in such activities and know
the inevitable result is compromise that makes little scientific
sense. In my view, coordination and joint planning at the
national and regional levels should be modest in scale and the
expectati ns of what they can accomplish should be lowered appro-
priately.
Still others, often individuals within the system, argue that more
coordination and planning exist in the system than critics recognize:
Each institution/agency has specific roles interaction among
"performers" grows out of program linkages and coordination
developed through cooperative planning and shared institutional
processes. This informal set of linkages provides for articulation
among scientists and promotes developments that have helped estab-
lish a system-wide approachln research, extension, and higher
education (emphasis added).
The conflicting perceptions of the system are clear, and the
tensions obvious. The basic issue becomes one of reconciling these
varying perceptions into some consensus about what has made the system
work in the past and what is needed to maintain its productivity in the
future.
The focus of this chapter is the articulation, coordination, and
oversight of public agricultural research priorities and performance.
The discussion centers primarily about the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), the state agricultural experiment stations (SAES), and the
Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), the primary organizational
units of the traditional public agricultural research system. The
material is presented under three major headings: (1) the structure of
the agricultural research system, (2) planning, setting priorities, and
Castle, op. cit., pp. 2-4.
12Joint Council, op. cit., p. 13.
coordinating research, and (3) the funding of agricultural research and
the research orientation of the research performers, viewed as inter-
locking issues.
The major features of the U.S. public agricultural research system
are (1) the openness of the system and the appearance of new research
organizations that both complement and compete with the traditional
ones; (2) the complexity of the research agenda-setting process at all
levels; (3) a general trend toward planning, particularly noticeable in
ARS but in several states as well; (4) the diversity of the system
across states, in organizational structure, research-setting procedures,
internal state support for agricultural research, and countervailing
pressures/influences on the system; (5) the decline in the federal
government's contribution to agricultural research, relative to that of
the states and the private sector; (6) the influences of university and
college priorities and standards of performance on the activities of
state agricultural experiment stations; (7) the mission orientation of
ARS and the SAES in general in contrast to that of other performers of
agricultural research; (8) the changing orientation of ARS and some uni-
versities toward more basic research, and the implications this orienta-
tion has for the technology transfer role of ARS and of extension spe-
cialists and agents; and finally, (9) the changing set of contractual
and programmatic activities of the SAES system in response to the
increased role of the private sector in agricultural research.
II. The Structure of the Agricultural Research System
Most recent studies of the agricultural research system have
focused on three principal organizations/components--two in the public
sector and one in the private sector: (1) the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (USDA), (2) the state agricultural experiment stations (SAES),
and (3) industry--plus a fourth, catch-all "all-other" classification.
This study does not recount the structural details of these various
components of the system since they are described elsewhere. Rather,
this discussion is presented at a "middle level" of abstraction. Its
descriptions are more detailed in some respects than those presented in
several of the recent general surveys of agricultural research (the 1976
Congressional Oversight Hearings; the 1981 OTA Assessment; Hadwiger,
1982), and less formal in certain areas (e.g., delineation of the
research agenda-setting process) than similar discussions in other
recent works (Huston, 1980; Busch and Lacy, 1983). The study looks at
the internal organization of research performers (e.g., ARS) only to the
extent that changes in their organization indicate changes in research
direction or internal procedures for ordering priorities and for estab-
lishing quality control.
This study documents the extent of the agricultural technology
delivery system's complexity and diversity. The system is complex in
the sense that the patterns of organizational cooperation and involve-
ment are complicated, varying from one setting to another. One mani-
festation of the system's complexity is seen in the listing of organiza-
tions that fund and/or perform some aspect of research, development, or
technology transfer. Specifically, the following categories of
organizations were found to be involved in agricultural technology
delivery activities.
1. Public Sector
a. federal level--the Congress and various executive
agencies, most notably USDA, and most specifically the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
b. state agencies and organizations--the land-grant univer-
sities (1862 and 1890) and Tuskegee Institute, state agri-
cultural experiment stations, the Cooperative Extension
Service (CES), non-land-grant public colleges and univer-
sities, state government, and state departments of agri-
culture
c. local agencies and organizations
d. agency groups
2. Private Sector
a. commodity industries, e.g., cotton, dairy, beef, vegeta-
bles, grains, and poultry
b. support firms and cooperatives--firms that provide support
services or products to specific industries
c. trade, commodity, and industry organizations
3. Third Sector
a. scientific associations
b. nonprofit institutions
1. foundations--funders of agricultural research and
extension projects
2. private universities
c. coordinating, advisory, lobbying, and educational
organizations
Our primary interest in structure is, first, the system's complex-
ity and its decentralization, and second, how recognition of this
complexity affects the context within which public policies are con-
sidered. The structure of the system is one of the determinants of its
performance; one's perception of that structure shapes the policy ques-
tions and issues that are raised. In general, the more complex the
depiction of the system, the larger the number of possible organizations
and/or roles for specific organizations, the larger the number of
possible interrelationships, and the less the perceived likelihood of a
tightly linked, highly coordinated, centralized system. Similarly, the
fewer and simpler the conceptualization of the system, the fewer the
potential interrelationships and the greater the perceived likelihood of
implementing a centralized planning model.
This point is illustrated graphically by the different conceptuali-
zations of the U.S. agricultural research system provided in Figures 2-1
and 2-2. Figure 2-1, taken from Hadwiger's (1982) study of the
organization and politics of agricultural research, visually portrays
agricultural research as primarily a federal enterprise involving the
states via formula grants to land-grant universities.
Contrast this schematic with Figure 2-2 presented here as a general
statement that an agricultural research system exists. Several features
of Figure 2-2 warrant attention. Unlike Figure 2-1, which suggests a
hierarchical relationship between the federal and state components of
the public sector, this schematic visually suggests a horizontal rela-
tionship between these major components of the system. The connecting
lines show points of direct contact between the federal and state
sectors, as well as other common points of contact. Figure 2-2 also
depicts other research organizations (identified using a snowballing
technique in our surveys) not directly connected to the main public
sector research system (e.g., non-land-grant colleges), other organiza-
tions that may affect research priorities (e.g., scientific associations
and public interest groups), and the channels by which these groups may
have such an influence. Figure 2-2 also provides examples of organiza-
tions that speak on behalf of both agricultural research and the
research capabilities of their respective members and how they relate to
FIGURE 2-1
Organization of Agricultural Research Institutions
Agricultural
Research
-Grant University
of Agriculture
(College of)
I Home Economics
Agricultural State
Experiment Extension
Station Service
Academic
Departments
Source: D. Hadwiger (1982), The Politics of Agricultural Research, p. 13.
FIGURE 2-2
Schematic of Agricultural Research System Including Key Constituent Organizations
Public Interest Scientific Commodity Groups Industry
Groups Associations National/State
---_---r---------------------I--i----y-I--
SII I I I | NISARC
SI I -
U U
d a
I- -t -
s C eatch .1 .
_____ -pe-tive "
-~-- Sinith-Lever 4-
--------------------------
---I--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------J
I ______
--I. -1-------- ----I
dI OSa I d03 D I lI
ajnI jn0Twy AMf
|39,nsvN- -
mc
.,.o
cm
t- n
ml
0+<
C A
H
- J
I
the public agricultural research system. One example: NISARC (the
National Industry-State Agricultural Research Council), which has
members from both industry and state agricultural experiment stations,
serves as a bridge between public sector and private sector agricultural
research activities.
Figure 2-3 provides yet another conceptualization of the system,
this time using the perspective of a specific commodity--poultry. The
U.S. agricultural research system has traditionally been commodity-
directed, and despite a certain current trend toward interdisciplinary
thrusts like integrated pest management (IPM) and integrated reproduc-
tion management (IRM), the system remains largely commodity-related.
(Witness the continued reporting of agricultural funding by commodities
in the Current Research Information System (CRIS)). The organizations
in the poultry industry relevant to research (and by implication to
technology transfer as well) are divided in Figure 2-3 into nine groups
or subsectors, each a division of one of the three major sectors as
follows:
Public Private Third
1. federal 1. poultry industry 1. scientific societies
2. state 2. related/support 2. nonprofit organizations
3. agency groups firms 3. coordinating, advisory,
3. trade, farm lobbying, and educa-
commodity, and tional organizations
industry assns.
Not all of the organizations on the schematic conduct poultry-related
research. Some fund research relevant to poultry. Others lobby on
behalf of funding for poultry research. Still others provide support
services to the industry, such as animal health products or broiler/egg
equipment.
FIGURE 2-3
Organizations Relevant to Research in the Poultry Commodity Subsystems
AACAN*
ASSr. S
'gCo COMU
uT SALt
IINSTI TUTION$.
I INCL rIN6
29SESAR&,"Au I
~ I~bl rlA
1116oADVISONVI S.ICIETIRI C ASSOCAI $I F -
- C~oORINAARfATIRE. A&I NC -U116~o --- N' -, I wum~f~sasI F ..
LOIM IA L uR1 I NCA Ir N GL T -
1.I1. ANNRICAN ASS. IOF
011"KC AS CCO SCIiIN AVIAN PAIUOI~ LK0 SitM fj AiAkfiWIES
ASSN. INCLUDINL
FURL IIL JURAL FLGNR
INTEREST C ILCANIMAL
ATT AT SaIIMTE
54K I g I I S
ITqAARLTIRII IfIvq
MIICIALI UUI tCIIP
0* I STATE a SEVC
TUIEMAEIJ ~ ~ ~ i UMILSSE IIRIILIIR LMRIOIES1.1
D 1 AwlO S I -
LU
MAT A". PRODUCT
R-IlAI6AAR ACSEI S~:hISW I REIOAL F ICUIREAII
$TAT I PART I I
1.161 ESITfRI lIMT. L AS., RT
ATE P IP O~U
TATE IN au si s
It(ll C. OCERASI IlUMSY
cat 18r62 Mw I US" IICE
IOU* SAS IT", CIEI Ou~ l
fi rlf uNrrVIENS11/ts RIS LL, -I .....L
oo= ;rlAAXT I. I&ALY
ANN RIC ILAM&Iwkou ruol
roNuGAN.
SIA I CACvlc (roro
LAlo ur l
RE V.
IIAM C MOPIALT SW "
Figure 2-3 is included here to illustrate that (1) the system can
be viewed from more than one perspective, and (2) an entirely different
perspective (in this case, a commodity orientation) produces a concep-
tualization equally as complex as Figure 2-2. Moreover, as described in
volume 1, the organizational linkages among and within these sectors
vary by commodity subsystem, such as dairy, cotton, vegetables. Also,
despite the different perspectives, both Figures 2-2 and 2-3 highlight
the interrelationship between the public and private sectors and among
different levels, i.e., national, state, and local. The important point
here is that each of the separate institutions shown on Figures 2-2 and
2-3 interacts in a myriad of formal and informal ways with organizations
of its type and with institutions belonging to other groups. Formal
ways include, for example, cooperative agreements between USDA and state
agricultural experiment stations, and regional research projects sup-
ported by Hatch funds. Informal ways include, for example, the common
membership of industry, USDA, and SAES researchers in professional
scientific associations, or their common appearances at scientific
symposiums. These relationships are conducted by single institutions
and by organizations representing categories of associated organiza-
tions.
The direct implications of the system's complexity for the focus of
this chapter relate to the number of different influences on the
research administrator and to the number of different channels for
transmitting these influences, as well as to the increasing difficulties
of coordination. Complex, however, does not mean "indescribable" and
therefore immune from analysis or accountability, nor- does it mean
"unplanned" or "uncoordinated," requiring (or susceptible to) detailed,
centralized control. Although many interests and influences may affect
the conduct and performance of agricultural research, not all interests
and influences are equally important. Moreover, central tendencies can
be identified in the structure of agricultural research, with respect to
both current characteristics and emerging trends. Most important,
beneath the organizational structure lies a decision-making calculus
that is invariably based on a "balanced" response to contending
13
pressures. In a stylized sense, these are marked at the polarities by
the need to satisfy individual and institutional goals concerning
scientific creativity and by the desire to meet the needs of the client
groups for solutions to specific problems.
13In significant ways, the structure of America's agricultural
research system corresponds more as an organizational counterpart to the
"market" economy than to any of the "static" schematics presented above.
The research system moves over time in response to changes in consumer
demands and to competition among different "firms" to supply specific
products. As in the market model, the system is not necessarily at any
time in equilibrium, producing the optimal quantities of the desired
bundle of outputs at the socially minimum feasible costs. Rather, at
any point in time, (changing) consumer demands combined with intra-
organizational incentives to maintain needed levels of support and/or to
grow, induce a producer to move towards (changing) socially desired out-
comes. The decentralized, iterative character of this approach will, in
general, provide a more socially adaptive and efficient allocation of
resources than that obtainable through a more centralized and/or planned
decision-making system.
To continue the analogy, the several characteristics of agricul-
tural research that have been subject to criticism can likewise be
viewed as an expression of the limitations of a market system. First,
it may be perceived to be oligopolistic (e.g., the Agricultural Research
Service, state agricultural experiment stations), and able to erect
barriers to entry from potentially more efficient performers. Second,
its responsiveness to "consumer demand" may reflect the initial distri-
bution of income (and political influence) among and within different
commodity groups so that the outcomes of research have differential
benefits (environmental or social impacts). Third, it may ignore
externalities, being concerned only with those benefits or costs that
are captured or borne by the direct producers or consumers of research.
III. Planning, Setting Priorities, and Coordinating Research
The public agricultural research system might plan for one of three
reasons: (1) to avoid duplication (e.g., between ARS and SAES, and/or
between USDA and other federal agencies conducting agricultural
research); (2) to cover long-term interdisciplinary research needs not
likely to be tackled otherwise; and (3) to set some absolute level of
public investment in agricultural research. OTA's rationale for
planning is phrased somewhat differently:
Planning must be done to determine the size of the budget to carry
out the research mission. Planning must be done to clarify where
specific areas of research responsibility lie, to-lommunicate what
is being done, and to determine what needs exist.
A. The ARS Planning Effort
ARS's research budget (total funds) in 1982 was $420.0 million, a
207 percent increase in total expenditures in absolute dollars over the
1966 figure. In real terms, however, ARS funds have barely kept pace
with inflation.15 Table 2-1 shows ARS expenditures for production
research, post-harvest technology and marketing economics research, and
total research for the period 1966-1980. Research emphases changed
somewhat during this period as the share of research expenditures for
14
OTA, op. cit., p. 139.
15Between 1967-1982, federal support for USDA research agencies,
primarily ARS, the Forest Service and the Economic Research Service,
increased by 0.5 percent per year in constant (1967) dollars (B. R.
Eddleman (1984), "Funding of Agricultural Research: Recent Trends,
Current and Prospective Issues," paper presented at the Governor's
Conference on Agricultural Innovation, Little Rock, Arkansas, p. 2).
III. Planning, Setting Priorities, and Coordinating Research
The public agricultural research system might plan for one of three
reasons: (1) to avoid duplication (e.g., between ARS and SAES, and/or
between USDA and other federal agencies conducting agricultural
research); (2) to cover long-term interdisciplinary research needs not
likely to be tackled otherwise; and (3) to set some absolute level of
public investment in agricultural research. OTA's rationale for
planning is phrased somewhat differently:
Planning must be done to determine the size of the budget to carry
out the research mission. Planning must be done to clarify where
specific areas of research responsibility lie, to-lommunicate what
is being done, and to determine what needs exist.
A. The ARS Planning Effort
ARS's research budget (total funds) in 1982 was $420.0 million, a
207 percent increase in total expenditures in absolute dollars over the
1966 figure. In real terms, however, ARS funds have barely kept pace
with inflation.15 Table 2-1 shows ARS expenditures for production
research, post-harvest technology and marketing economics research, and
total research for the period 1966-1980. Research emphases changed
somewhat during this period as the share of research expenditures for
14
OTA, op. cit., p. 139.
15Between 1967-1982, federal support for USDA research agencies,
primarily ARS, the Forest Service and the Economic Research Service,
increased by 0.5 percent per year in constant (1967) dollars (B. R.
Eddleman (1984), "Funding of Agricultural Research: Recent Trends,
Current and Prospective Issues," paper presented at the Governor's
Conference on Agricultural Innovation, Little Rock, Arkansas, p. 2).
TABLE 2-1
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Expenditures on
Production and PHTME, Total Agricultural Research, 1966-80
(in thousands of dollars)
Total
Production PHTMEa Agricultural
Year Research Research Research
1966 $ 85,214 $ 46,211 $-136,761
1967 90,055 49,356 145,716
1968 88,642 46,331 142,405
1969 91,181 47,570 146,801
1970 98,828 53,560 161,113
1971 106,396 59,240 176,076
1972 117,850 63,315 192,617
1973 122,354 66,310 200,322
1974 124,831 69,010 206,995
1975 137,235 72,335 224,096
1976 159,503 76,734 252,514
1977 190,045 84,070 292,956
1978 212,373 90,685 323,147
1979 227,363 91,615 338,032
1980 243,291 95,225 360,347
Source: Compiled from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Science and Education Administration, Inventory of
Agricultural Research FY 1966-81, Vol. II. Reproduced
in Agricultural Postharvest Technology & Marketing
Economics Research, Office of Technology Assessment,
April 1983, p. 102.
apostharvest technology and marketing economics research.
production research increased from 62 percent in 1966 to 68 percent in
1980, and the share for post-harvest research declined from 34 percent
in 1966 to 26 percent in 1980.
ARS released its Agricultural Research Service Program Plan in
January 1983. The debate that has arisen concerning the research
directions contained in this plan, and congressional restrictions upon
its implementation are of obvious importance to the behavior and perfor-
mance of the agricultural research system. The type of research that
ARS proposes to conduct and the type of research it is permitted to per-
form under varying degrees of congressional control have implications
not only for ARS, but also for the agendas of other research performers
in both the public and private sectors. This latter influence follows
from the interrelationships among the organizations involved in agricul-
tural research.
The Six-Year Program Plan released in 1983 was the product of a
strategic planning process initiated by ARS. The objective of the
process was to develop an integrated set of research activities built
about a more explicitly defined set of ARS research priorities. In a
formal sense, the process represents a shift to a more centralized
determination of research priorities and as such represents ARS's
response to earlier congressional and GAO criticisms of its internal
inability to formulate long-range research plans. The process also may
be seen as a means of establishing a clearer agency-wide determination
of research activities while maintaining the decentralized character of
these activities. The tendency in such an arrangement is to increase
the weight of agency-wide research priorities relative to those of
specific laboratories or individual scientists.
The new plan represents a major change in the role of ARS's
National Program Staff (NPS). In the past, NPS officials were scien-
tific leaders who (nominally, at least) gave direction to individual
scientists on methodology and scientific importance. NPS is now cast
more in the role of a science administrator, providing broad direction
on research objectives and occasional scientific review.1 Research
leaders at ARS facilities or area administrators provide more direct
project direction. It is believed that the new system still will permit
ARS scientists a high degree of research autonomy, particularly in terms
of their choice of specific projects, but that the research will be more
responsive overall to broad planning goals.
Formally, ARS's strategic planning system involves six stages:
problem identification, review, evaluation, planning, development, and
priorities. Each stage provides for the involvement of researchers and
users, although with varying degrees of collaboration. Individual ARS
researchers interact with the new system in two ways: (1) through the
annual progress and plans report submitted by each researcher, and
(2) via the individual CRIS research project proposals.
It is perceived that while ARS traditionally emphasized basic
research, it has tended over the years toward a more applied orien-
tation, in part to meet political expectations.17 With the release of
J6effrey Fox (1984), "USDA Struggles to Reform Its Research,"
Science 225 (September 21), pp. 1376-1378.
17National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (1972),
Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture; also Science for Agriculture, Report of a Workshop on
Critical Issues in American Agricultural Research (1982), Jointly
(Footnote Continued)
its new plan, ARS is trying to reestablish its basic orientation.
Despite ARS's repeated recognition of the need to engage in both funda-
mental and applied research, the overall tone of the plan, certainly in
terms of incremental shifts in organizational activities, is toward
basic research. For crops, the plan notes: "The need for more emphasis
on basic research permeates all aspects of crop productivity."18 For
livestock, it states: "As described in crop production, we have reached
the limits in many instances, and further progress requires research
ranging from fundamental studies of intricate life processes to the
development of totally new ways to increase efficiency and produc-
tivity."19
B. Relationships Between ARS and Other Research Organizations
The changes in ARS's research priority planning are too new to
determine how they will affect relationships between ARS and the state
agricultural experiment stations, particularly those at which ARS
personnel are located. At the level of establishing program priorities,
under ARS's new Six-Year Plan, USDA, the various states, and industry no
longer "coordinate and cooperate," but simply maintain liaison. This is
a substantive change. NPS officials, however, do not expect dramatic
(Footnote Continued)
Sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, United States of
America, held at the Winrock International Conference Center, Morrilton,
Arkansas.
18Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of
Agriculture (1983), Agricultural Research Service Program Plan,
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1429, p. 27.
Ibid., p. 36.
changes to occur in current ARS-SAES relationships; rather they suggest
that any difficulties in attaining the Six-Year Plan will reflect the
surfacing of already existing interorganizational difficulties.
NPS does express a concern that too much apparent likeness exists
between ARS and state experiment station scientists. It is difficult to
determine whether this concern relates to "duplication" of research, a
drift to a state-specific research agenda on the part of ARS scientists,
or the attenuation of organizational allegiance on the part of ARS
scientists who, so it is suggested, begin to identify themselves
(particularly in their publications) more as members of the university
than of ARS.
In ARS's view, the strategic planning endeavor has produced a
coherent ARS research agenda in keeping with the agency's stated
mission. But the move by ARS to a more formalized internal research
planning system has raised anew questions of the character of
collaboration between ARS and the land-grant universities. The SAES
system has criticized its limited involvement in the determination of
ARS's research priorities. According to Lipman-Blumen and Schram
(1983), "Interviewees in CSRS and SAES insist that they were not
consulted during the design stage of ARS's Strategic Plan."20
Enmeshed in this endeavor during the 1981-82 period, ARS gave
little attention to how its newly defined research domain and research
management procedures relate to those of CSRS and the state agricultural
experiment stations. The need to address interorganizational
20Lipman-Blumen and Schram, op. cit.
relationships was recognized by ARS representatives who, in their
interactions with other organizations during 1983, frequently described
the Six-Year Plan as a document for discussion, not as a fixed set of
activities. This new view of itself as a coherently and efficiently
managed research organization at times has produced, as a side
consequence, a sense of frustration within ARS in attempting to achieve
coordination with its more loosely coordinated counterparts in the state
agricultural experiment stations.
ARS officials point to the difficulties of identifying "representa-
tive" land-grant scientists to participate with them and feel caught in
cross-fires between contending groups within the land-grant system as to
which one should be designated as the "official" representative, or
between manifest, if muted, cleavages among experiment stations in their
capability to engage in basic agricultural research. Moreover, ARS
personnel point to the asymmetrical nature of the land-grant university
complaint. State experiment stations seek input into the determination
of ARS research priorities, but seem unwilling (or organizationally
unable) to permit comparable involvement of ARS personnel in the deter-
mination of state or regional research priorities.21
To continue this debate, experiment station representatives impli-
citly respond that USDA, if not ARS, has a "voice" in shaping state
research priorities, both directly through CSRS's approval of state pro-
jects carried out under Hatch funds and indirectly through the findings
of CSRS reviews of state programs. This response serves figuratively to
21This discussion, of course, bears upon the role of CSRS as a
coordinating unit between ARS and SAES.
throw the ball back into USDA's court, and it highlights the question of
the character of the linkages between staff scientists in ARS and CSRS.
While this administrative exchange is going on, communications be-
tween ARS and land-grant scientists are seen as open and productive,
particularly at the laboratory level where ARS scientists are located on
land-grant campuses. The state site visits pointed repeatedly to mutual
assessment of beneficial relationships between ARS and land-grant uni-
versity researchers. University interviewees reported benefits in each
of the university's missions--graduate training, extension, and
research--by having scientists with a regional or national perspective
close at hand. ARS scientists reported their exposure to graduate stu-
dents, researchers, and extension specialists, as well as potential
users of their research as beneficial.
ARS's new strategic plan is not expected to change relationships
between ARS and the private sector. But ARS's mission statement and
strategic plan do help set the scope for ARS activities and as such
implicitly define a relationship to the private sector and to the
states. ARS's relationships with industry are in a state of transition,
reflecting both the expanded investments that segments of the agricul-
tural chemical and seeds industries are making towards research and the
Reagan Administration's strictures on the quantity of applied, post-
harvest technology R&D that ARS is permitted to conduct. ARS is simul-
taneously under pressure to take on a more basic research orientation by
both the Administration's guidelines and the preferences of firms that
have their own R&D capabilities, and to work more closely with industry,
but to draw back from R&D areas it formerly undertook after consultation
with industry.
C. Cooperative State Research Service
CSRS's formal mandate includes several functions--administering the
dollars appropriated by Congress for research in land-grant institu-
tions, representing within USDA the requests of state agricultural
experiment stations for these research dollars, conducting reviews of
research programs at land-grant universities, and representing USDA on
regional research projects supported by Hatch appropriations. The
duality of its functions often places CSRS in a difficult position. It
is both a monitor of federal funds, seeing that these are expended in
compliance with the Hatch Act, and an advocate within USDA for the
experiment stations. CSRS works with the experiment stations in helping
to develop a consensus about research priorities. It then conveys these
priorities to USDA officials who make final budget recommendations in
conjunction with budget requests from ARS and ES. CSRS conveys to the
experiment stations USDA decisions concerning research priorities, but
in keeping with its coordination and administrative function, CSRS does
not designate funding priorities by area. The individual stations
retain the autonomy to make their own final decisions concerning
internal station research priorities.
In addition, CSRS is expected to serve in a leadership role, both
to bring "national needs" to the attention of the experiment stations
and as an external evaluator of the scientific quality of the research
conducted at the experiment stations. The state interviews revealed a
fairly general perception that CSRS's role as a scientific leader had
waned in recent years, but general optimism existed that with new
leadership at CSRS might come a renewed leadership role for the agency.
CSRS' site reviews of experiment stations' programs continue to be
seen at the state level as the agency's most important contribution to
the states. These reviews are not only valuable to the stations as an
outside objective evaluation, but the results can be used internally by
the experiment stations in their dealings with their university adminis-
trators and at the state legislative level to support requests for
strengthening particular programs or reducing the emphasis on others as
well. Land-grant researchers and administrators expressed concern that
budget and personnel constraints within CSRS have severely limited the
number of these reviews in recent years.
CSRS also plays a coordinating role--both on regional research
committees and in coordinating ESCOP's budget request for the experiment
stations with ARS's budget request before these requests are presented
to Science and Education administrators in USDA.
IV. Funding of Public Agricultural Research by Other Federal Agencies
Although the major federal-level public sector performer of agri-
cultural research in the United States is the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture, at least 8 other federal departments and 16 individual agencies
support agriculture-related research, extension, and teaching programs.
The principal source of data on non-USDA funding of agricultural
research was found in a 1982 USDA report entitled, Inventory of
Research, Extension, and Higher Education Related to Food and Agricul-
ture Conducted by Federal Agencies Other Than USDA for Fiscal Year 1981.
According to these data, non-USDA federal departments and independent
agencies allocated $629 million to agriculture-related research in 1981.
When ACTION and AID funds are excluded, the figure drops to $521 million
(Table 2-2). This compares to $840 million provided for research by
agencies within USDA in FY 1981.
The major non-USDA funding sources in 1981 were Health and Human
Services, more specifically the National Institutes of Health ($173.4
million), the Department of the Interior ($93.9 million), the Department
of Commerce ($72.4 million), the Department of Energy ($36.5 million),
NASA ($25 million), and the National Science Foundation ($24.5 million).
A difficulty arises in comparing these figures with expenditures
for research by USDA agencies, however, because of the noncomparability
of the research activities subsumed within these figures for various
agencies.22 The $173.4 million spent by NIH was divided into $148.5
million for biomedical and behavioral nutrition research and research
training, and $30 million for biomedical research and development
(excluding the nutrition program). This latter program is classified as
being related to the USDA-S&E component of production and protection, an
area that accounted for almost 60 percent of USDA-S&E expenditures in
1981 ($370.3 million of $627.8 million).
About 64 percent of the non-USDA funded research in FY 1981 was
conducted via contracts and grants with universities and other institu-
tions. The other 36 percent was performed in federal facilities. Some
of the funding agencies, e.g., the National Science Foundation, sponsor
all extramural work; others, e.g., the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine
within Health and Human Services, conduct some of their own research and
22Debate exists concerning the relevance of the research
represented by these data. According to some, much of this research is
of secondary or tertiary value to agriculture, and is spread unevenly
across the agricultural spectrum.
TABLE 2-2
Food and Agriculture-Related Research, Extension and
Higher Education Conducted by Federal Agencies
Other Than USDA, FY 81, Excluding ACTION and AID
Research
Program Area (mil. $) (%)
I. Natural Resources 187.4 (36.0)
II. Production and
Protection 100.9 (19.4)
III. Processing, Marketing,
and Distribution 63.1 (12.1)
IV. People and Communities 168.0 (32.2)
V. Agricultural Policy 1.4 ( 0.3)
Total 520.8 100.0
Source: USDA, Inventory of Research, Extension, and
Higher Education Related to Food and Agricul-
ture Conducted by Federal Agencies Other Than
USDA, FY81, March 1982.
contract for the rest; still others, like the Fish and Wildlife Service
in the Department of the Interior, conduct more than 90 percent of their
own research.
The existence of multiple federal sources of support for research
related to agriculture has been variously interpreted. In one respect,
it reflects the inherent difficulties of administratively separating
into different agencies the responsibilities for funding the broad
categories of research--disciplinary, subject-matter, and problem-
23
solving--that comprise agricultural research.23 Multiple agency sources
of funding, say for biochemistry, reflect simply another example of the
pluralistic character of federal support for research in general. In
another respect, it serves to widen the flexibility that agricultural
researchers have in pursuing research agendas via competitively awarded
programs that extend beyond those in force within more centrally managed
research organizations. And, in yet one more positive respect, multiple
sources of funding may serve, albeit circuitously, to move researchers
from disciplinary-oriented research to subject matter and
problem-focused research relevant to agriculture.
The principal offset to all of the above, however, which underlies
the concern expressed by some but not all interviewees, is that research
programs administered outside of USDA inherently tend to emphasize
disciplinary orientations, and to either not develop or attenuate
concern for subject matter and problem-solving research, critical
elements in the mission orientation of an organization.
23ohnson and Wittwer, op. cit., p.6.
Johnson and Wittwer, op. cit., p.6.
V. State-Level Planning for Agricultural Research24
Figure 2-4 is a stylized depiction of the organization of a state
agricultural experiment station, realizing that these stations are a
25
heterogeneous group of institutions.25 More fundamentally, the
depiction is predicated on the placement of the SAES within the
university. Because of this, countervailing tugs between the outwardly
directed "state-wide service" perspective and the inwardly directed
"institutional-academic" perspective are endemic to the behavior of an
experiment station. The research agendas of state agricultural experi-
ment stations are the outcomes of several state-specific influences,
including the level of state funding (section V), the importance of
agriculture to the state, the scientific norms of the station's
researchers, and the ethic or creed of the university where the station
is located. All land-grant institutions voice the same formal three-
part mission--teaching, extension, and research--but differences are
found in the emphasis given to each of these activities at various
24
2The technology transfer activities of experiment stations are
considered in chapter 3.
25
2Reviewers of this report have noted that although Figure 2-4
represents the most common "college-based" organizational model for
agricultural research and cooperative extension at land-grant
universities, it does not capture newer organizational forms, such as
those appearing in Colorado, Nebraska, and Florida, which are based on
"university-wide" institutes of food and/or agriculture and/or natural
resources. This latter development is seen as an organizationally more
effective means for facilitating interdisciplinary research, for linking
research and cooperative extension personnel and programs, and perhaps
of increasing importance in the near future for decoupling a
university's commitment to agriculturally-related activities to
undergraduate enrollments from agriculture.
63
FIGURE 2-4
Schematic of State Agricultural
Experiment Station
USD Other State Government
SFederal
Agencies
CSRS Competitive I
Grants I
I I I
University
i President 1
University Promotion I
I-
and Tenure Committee
College- College of Agriculture/ I
Research A Home Economics
Advisory Dean (Director SAES)
Committee
I Director Director (or Assoc.
E Extension Director) SAES
S---I- J-- Aponmn
----I Dept. Dept. Dept. Dept.
Commodity Users I modi Industry Scientific
Groups -- Check-off Associations
R: Faculty Research Appointment
ES: Extension Specialist
R/ES: Joint Appointment
institutions, and in the emphasis given to agriculture in general. As
noted in a recent speech by Russell Mawby:
The modern land-grant university is a complex, sophisticated,
multifaceted institution. In earlier days, agriculture was recog-
nized as the moving force behind its creation and was dominant in
its structure. That is no longer the case. As other units of the
university have grown, agriculture has been passed by in relative
scope and scale. In too few institutions today do people in
positions of key responsibility--members of boards of governors,
chancellors and presidents, provosts, vice-presidents--have an
understanding of agriculture, its significance and its problems.
Each institution defines for itself the "league" that it currently plays
in or to which it aspires. This ethic permeates (but does not monopo-
lize) the activities of the experiment station. These aspirations and
expectations in turn affect performance standards for individual
researchers, the commitment of the organization's resources, and the
general parameters within which individual administrators, faculty
members, department heads, extension specialists, and county agents
operate. Therefore, each state agricultural experiment station must be
examined in the context of the land-grant university of which it is a
part.
The diversity across states is illustrated in volume 2 in the
accounts of the organization, priority-setting mechanisms, funding, and
research orientation for the nine states comprising the study sample.
The range of these differences can be seen here in a summary assessment
of the research priority-setting context for four of those land-grant
institutions.
2Russell G. Mawby (1984), "Agriculture Colleges Must Take the Lead
in Ending Ignorance About Farming," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
May 9, p. 72.
The institution in one of the survey states sees itself as an
international university in which researchers are expected to function
at the frontiers of their fields. This ethic, frequently associated
only with basic research outside of agriculture, spills over into the
attitudes of the state's experiment station researchers. Extension
specialists, who have joint research-extension appointments, are at
times pulled along by this research ethic, which can affect their choice
of projects. The research orientation of experiment station researchers
and extension specialists at this institution has created a gap in the
applied/demonstration portion of the R&D continuum. County agents have
moved to fill this gap, taking on quasi-research responsibilities on a
scale well beyond those found for county agents elsewhere. Signifi-
cantly, however, the agricultural research and extension system at this
university may be said to be responding to the stated needs of producers
in the state, given the diversified character and R&D-intensiveness of
the state's agriculture.
The land-grant university in another of the nine states voices the
same general commitments to teaching; to research, both basic and
applied; and to public service; but the dominant ethic, as expressed in
interviews, is service to the state's agriculture. Although agricul-
tural research administrators there speak of the need for balanced
research programs involving both basic and applied dimensions, the
emphasis is on direct service. This attitude also is seen in the role
of extension specialists. Although they have joint appointments and
thus, as in the first state, are nominally integrated into the research
segment of the college of agriculture, they evidence far less commitment
to research and indeed at times come close to serving as de facto
consultants and troubleshooters to individual farms or food processing
firms.
In a third state, agriculture is judged preeminent within the
structure of the university, and commitment to the state's producers and
other clientele groups is strong. Instead of having a college of agri-
culture, the university's agricultural programs are administered through
an institute, which is higher in the administrative structure than a
college. The dean of the experiment station (and the director of exten-
sion) have positions parallel to those of deans of the various colleges.
This university depends heavily on joint appointments and on housing
research and extension personnel together at district centers throughout
the state. It is considered important in this university to have exten-
sion information built on a good "scientific base," a goal more easily
accomplished because of the high degree of resonance between research
and extension activities. The agricultural research program is insti-
tutionally flexible and adaptable, and the philosophy is one of openness
to change. Ad hoc interdisciplinary research/extension teams or task
forces are used to approach problems.
In a fourth state, agriculture also is a high priority item within
the university. The administration of this land-grant university
remains supportive of agriculture because of its continued importance to
the state's economy. Key administrators in this college of agriculture
point out that the college's ability to attract state support is proba-
bly related to the university's internal commitment to the college and
to the agricultural community in the state in general. The service
commitment is strong in this state as well; it is balanced, however,
with a pride in the "world class" reputation of some of its faculty
members and in their ability to publish regularly in peer-refereed
journals. The college has sponsored several international interdisci-
plinary seminars in recent years. A particularly distinctive character-
istic at this university (in all colleges) is the low barriers to inter-
disciplinary, interdepartmental, and intercollege cooperation. Joint
appointments are considered a key structural vehicle in creating and
maintaining this environment.
The following individuals or units within the land-grant university
were identified during the site visits as influencing research priori-
ties at the state agricultural experiment stations in the survey states:
the university president (or chief administrative officer), the dean of
the college of agriculture, the director of the state agricultural
experiment station (this may be the dean; in cases where the dean is the
station's director, an associate director usually is responsible for
daily administration of the station); department heads, researchers,
extension specialists or agents, and commodity advisory committees
organized at the departmental and/or college level.
The various mechanisms for shaping research priorities at state
agricultural experiment stations, e.g., departmental advisory commit-
tees, informal contact with commodity committees, association by faculty
with their scientific and professional associations, contacts with users
and county agents via the extension system, do not identify specific
decision rules or selection criteria. Instead, the number of influences
points more to the "balancing" act that occurs between and among com-
peting objectives, such as between (a) commodities, (b) faculty and
experiment station objectives, (c) disciplines, and (d) research orien-
27
tation.2
The complexity of a state's agriculture will necessarily influence
the complexity of the station's mission and priorities. Some tradeoffs
will be necessary, as for example, who shall be served? The research
done for the commodity mappings (in volume 1) suggests a correlation
between the stations allocating the largest number of scientist years to
a particular commodity and those states' national rankings in production
and value of that commodity. This fits with information from the
experiment station director in one of the nine survey states who indi-
cated that the selection of research priorities areas at that experiment
station are based on the following: (1) perceived need for research in
that area, (2) magnitude of the state's production acreage in that crop
or animal, and (3) the dollar value of the production of that commodity
28
or animal.2
In a stylized formulation, initiation of a research program begins
with the interests of individual researchers operating within the frame-
work of experiment station guidelines concerning the permissible use of
Hatch funds. Individual researchers initiate projects that integrate
27
A more detailed discussion of the organization and
priority-setting processes in the experiment stations can be found in
Keith Huston (1980), "Priority Setting Processes in the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations," OTA, An Assessment of the United
States Food and Agricultural Research System, op. cit., Volume II,
Commissioned Papers, Part B.
28
2Ruttan and others, however, have found that the parity or
congruence between the economic importance of a commodity and public R&D
expenditures by commodity are only moderately correlated on a national
basis (Ruttan, op. cit., pp. 812-817).
their own professional research curiosity with the suggestions of
department heads, experiment station directors, and deans, who presuma-
bly are aware of state-level needs for research. Commodity advisory
committees may interact directly with researchers or may be consulted at
the departmental or college level.
The interplay this permits between these different individuals
comes in many different forms. Given the strong research credentials of
individual faculty, their demonstrated ties to state commodity groups,
and a university tradition of "grassroots" or faculty autonomy, indi-
vidual researchers may exercise dominant influences on research agendas,
with higher level administrators serving largely to monitor compliance
with administrative requirements, and serving possibly as intermediaries
to foster interdisciplinary or regional projects. The questions
addressed by the researchers may reflect the organic extension of an
ongoing line of research or a new venture.
Research problems also are identified by peer groups of scientists
organized into scientific associations. By bestowing recognition in
terms of publication of papers, invitations to deliver papers at profes-
sional meetings, and general reputations, scientific associations serve
to acknowledge, and to rank, the professional attainments of research-
ers.
The influences of department heads, experiment station directors,
and deans on the research agendas of faculty in decentralized academic
settings occur largely through annual promotion and/or salary increases,
rewarding those researchers whose work meets the university's norms.
These norms themselves are a mix of scientific quality and relevance to
29
the state's agricultural needs.29 The mix clearly varies across land-
grant universities. Thus a department head, dean, or experiment station
director disenchanted with the applied, commodity-specific orientation
of a tenured member of a department of entomology has limited control,
other than salary increments, over the agenda of such an individual. A
dean, aware, for example, that the seed industry has newly developed
research capabilities to generate seed varieties, may have limited
powers to redirect the activities of tenured members of a department of
plant genetics, but may seek in future appointments to recruit faculty
with strong research commitments to plant genetics.
Alternatively, research agendas may be more centrally determined.
Deans, but more usually experiment station directors and department
heads, may meet with members of the station to review individual plans
of work. This review might be based upon considerations of the scien-
tific and/or economic merits of the proposed research. The basis of
these judgments may be the advice that these administrators have
received from advisory committees; from reactions by key state legisla-
tors to the research program of the department, experiment station or
college; from the scientific associations to which they belong; or from
contacts with USDA and/or Congress. The reviews may be informal or
highly structured, involving in some states formal scoring models on the
relative emphasis to be given to research problem areas.3
29
2Charles Hess (1981), "Politics and Agriculture--How The
University Sees It." Presented to the 1981 California Plant and Soil
Conference, January 28-30, Sacramento, California.
30
3C. Richard Shumway (1977), "Models and Methods Used to Allocate
(Footnote Continued)
Experiment station administrators speak constantly of the need to
maintain a balance between basic and applied work, although in general,
the basic/applied dichotomy is viewed as an intrinsically invidious one
by experiment station personnel. Research administrators prefer to
speak of mission-oriented research, which involves dimensions of both
basic and applied research. Indeed, in their view, it is the intrinsic
linkages of these phases of research (and technology transfer) within
the state experiment stations that has contributed to the research-based
productivity of American agriculture and to the unique contribution of
the agricultural experiment station model in particular. (It is for
this reason, too, that they reject as unrealistic proposals to have
USDA-ARS serve as the "national" performer of basic research, leaving
the state stations to address "applied problems.") Research administra-
tors at the state level claim that the two goals of (1) finding solu-
tions to state problems and (2) commitment to basic research are rou-
tinely balanced within experiment stations, and that the necessity of
finding solutions to state problems is as inherent in the concept of a
university-based agricultural experiment station as is a commitment to
basic research.
The term "balance" relates to having a portfolio of research
projects at agricultural experiment stations, i.e., some basic and some
applied. It is not always clear, however, what the unit of account is
or who is responsible for achieving this balance--the individual
(Footnote Continued)
Resources in Agricultural Research: A Critical Review," in Resource
Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural
Research, edited by Thomas Arndt, Dana Dalrymple, and Vernon Ruttan
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 436-460.
researcher, the department, or the experiment station. Although
uniformity exists in the general way in which experiment stations define
their complex research missions, it is evident from the Busch and Lacy
study (1983) that the locus of research activity--in terms of scientific
or economic orientation--differs markedly among scientists and among
institutions. In addition, although the concept of balance remains, the
shift towards basic research is now predominant in planning at many
31
experiment stations (as well as in ARS as previously discussed).3
Central administrators have various levers to influence the
research agendas of individual researchers; the extent to which they use
them, and whether these levers are denoted in terms of positive or nega-
tive inducements, depend greatly on institution-specific assessments as
to how far individual researchers and/or departments are deviating from
desired college or experiment station performance standards, and on the
traditions of the university concerning the locus of power. An example
of a positive inducement would be control of a new pool of funds by
31
A recent ESCOP publication entitled, Research 1984, also
expresses this new outlook. "Substantial opportunity exists in
agricultural research to develop both new knowledge and new technology
as well as to exploit advances made in other sectors. The state
agricultural experiment stations offer a favorable institutional system
to develop and link fundamental knowledge to ongoing applied research
programs, to technology development, and to knowledge transfer avenues.
Clientele input and feedback as well as continuing scientist evaluation,
assure program balance and aid prioritization of opportunities" (ESCOP,
The Cooperative State Research Service (1984), p. 13).
With regard to biotechnology in particular, ESCOP argues that the
SAES have an advantage in that they have an existing infrastructure "to
guide and exploit research in biotechnology. This system supplies
scientific expertise in the requisite antecedent areas of science as
well as interrelated programs of applied research, site specificity, and
technology transfer capabilities" ibidd., p. 14).
central administrators to encourage research in a specific area. Thus,
for example, a state appropriation of $1.5 million for research on inte-
grated pest management provided the University of California's central
research administration with a means for encouraging interdisciplinary
research.
Another illustration of changes in the means by which research
priorities are established in state experiment stations is the move in
some states towards more formalized multi-year research plans. At Texas
A&M, for example, a research plan has been developed based upon experi-
ment station researchers' identification of key scientific issues
related to the sustainability of Texas agriculture. This plan then was
reviewed by representatives of principal commodity groups in the state.
After revision, the plan serves as a stationwide master agenda against
which the work plans of individual researchers are reviewed for scien-
tific and economic merit.
The functioning of the five-year research planning process in Texas
has many facets. For example, it is seen as a means of helping a uni-
versity scientist bridge gaps between the need for applied research or
research questions of an immediate nature, and the need for a more basic
or long-range research thrust. It is the contention of our respondents
that by having scientists systematically develop a long-range program of
research needs and then present it to industry for its reaction, indus-
try will be educated about long-run research needs and the need to plan
for such programs. Industry representatives also can be informed as to
how these long-run thrusts can enhance day-to-day capability for answer-
ing their short-run, "fire-fighting" type questions. The overall thrust
is towards long-range targeted research that permits the researcher to
plunge as deeply as necessary into basic research questions. At the
same time, this research is seen as "targeted" at the practical problems
of the state's agriculture. The five-year plan functions as a modified
management-by-objectives arrangement. Each year every scientist sets
forth within the context of the five-year planning priorities a yearly
plan of work including planned "deliverables." This way the scientists
know where they fit within the system, and their supervisors can more
effectively evaluate individual performance.
A drawback to the planning approach, in the view of some respon-
dents, is its potential limitation of research flexibility. Although it
does provide a general framework within which external funding can be
sought, research interests of potential external sponsors beyond the
five-year plan cannot always be accommodated. Some of the researchers
interviewed in Texas felt that, in fact, the plan did reduce somewhat
their latitude to undertake projects in response to ad hoc offers of
support by industry. From the point of view of researchers, their own
flexibility too may be limited; however, from the point of view of a
long-range plan of research, the five-year planning process helps con-
strain the desire of some faculty to do research on subjects for which
external funds are available.32
It should be noted that multi-year research plans are not necessar-
ily perceived as constraining. Michigan, for example, also is operating
32
32In some respects, this trend toward planning also constitutes a
response to those criticisms of the land-grant system that stress its
"facile accommodation" to short-term industry research needs. As the
example above suggests, planning is a means of openly integrating
scientific and economic factors in a long-term perspective.
under a five-year plan, but no indications of constraint were forthcom-
ing during the site visit. The purported purpose of Michigan's
multi-year research plan is to help direct the research program in
long-range directions (read, basic) rather than short-range responses to
a series of temporary industry needs (read, immediate/applied).
Another source of influence on the research agendas of individual
researchers or departments is feedback from users. This information on
user needs comes variously from users themselves, who may communicate
directly to researchers; from extension specialists via the direct
interaction that specialists have with producers; or from extension
agents via the traditional chain of communication from county extension
agents to extension specialists to researchers. Examples of all these
patterns can be found; they vary in frequency within given institutions
and, consequently, can be expected to show considerable variation across
33
the states.
Another trend in planning is across state lines within regions.
Vermont provided a good example of this. In order to avoid duplication
or at least minimize same, and to more efficiently allocate the region's
limited resources, the deans of the colleges of agriculture in the
New England land-grant universities are trying to rationalize their
resources across the region. For example, the deans of the other New
England land-grant universities have expressed reluctance to start any
33The importance of this "user-driven" or "grassroots" model of
research priority setting is itself a matter of debate. Examples can
readily be garnered of the efficacy of the conventionally described
agent-specialist-researcher model. More systematic studies of
influences on researchers' agendas, e.g., Busch and Lacy (1983),
however, have found the traditional model of limited importance.
new dairy research programs in their institutions since a strong program
is already in place at the University of Vermont.
It was noted above that one reason for planning is to generate
research on interdisciplinary issues that otherwise might not be
addressed. Officials at the University of Vermont suggested that
interdisciplinary projects are gaining more favor, not only as a result
of planning initiatives but also indirectly as a function of decreased
budgets and a cut in travel allowances. The rationale was that when
researchers are less able to meet with disciplinary colleagues at
scientific association meetings, they are more likely to communicate
with colleagues at their own institutions, colleagues not necessarily in
their own disciplines, and that this opening of communications across
discipline lines tends to foster an environment for initiating
interdisciplinary projects.
Another issue that surfaced in several states with regard to plan-
ning agricultural research is the difficulty of changing institutions
overnight to adapt to a state's changing economy amid the constraints of
the disciplinary training of scientists, tenure systems, and limited
budgets. A combination of administrative persuasion, both subtle and
direct, as well as college committees to identify new research initia-
tives, were seen as means to induce change. In reviewing proposals for
funding by the experiment station, several of the stations use commit-
tees that include representatives from other departments. This approach
is followed both to insure that other departments know what is being
proposed and to identify to researchers the potential gains of involving
scientists from other departments. One experiment station administrator
acknowledged, however, that the best any administrator can do in a uni-
versity setting is to "stir the basket."
Overall, increased use of planning and the formulation of station-
wide research objectives were evident in the nine survey states. The
variations among experiment stations in the locus of decision making are
too wide to permit strong statements. Still it appears, as with the
determination of research priorities within ARS, that the direction is
toward increased centralization.
VI. State-Level Funding and Issues
The diversity across states in the organizational structure of
their agricultural research, research-setting procedures, and counter-
vailing pressures/influences on the agricultural research system were
highlighted in an earlier section. In this section, two of the other
major features of the state public agricultural research system are
examined: (1) the diversity across states in internal state support for
agricultural research, and (2) the increasing importance of state
appropriations in the budgets of state agricultural experiment stations.
Table 2-3 indicates the principal sources of funds for agricultural
research at SAES in 1978-1982. State appropriations constitute the
largest single source of funds for state agricultural experiment
stations in each year--56.7 percent in 1978 and 54.8 percent in 1982--
and collectively, state governments represent a major source of
financial support for agricultural research. State appropriations are
followed in importance by Hatch formula and Hatch regional funds, other
federal funds (from agencies other than USDA), product sales, and
industry.
TABLE 2-3
Percentage of Total State Agricultural Experiment
Funds by Source, FY 78 and FY 82
Station Research
1978 1982
Source
(mil. $) (%) (mil. $) (%)
Total CSRS1 119,107 18.3 166,828 17.5
[Hatch Formula and
Hatch Regional] [105,057] [16.2] [134,635] [14.1]
USDA Grants, Contracts3 14,772 2.3 30,979 3.3
Other Federal4 53,028 8.2 77,763 8.2
State Appropriations5 367,851 56.7 522,213 54.8
Product Sales6 39,542 6.1 58,467 6.1
Industry7 33,589 5.2 57,007 6.0
Other8 21,004 3.2 39,040 4.1
Total Funds9 648,893 100.0 952,297 100.0
Source: Inventory of Agricultural Research FY 1982, Volume II, Coopera-
tive State Research Service, Science and Education, USDA,
Washington, D.C., forthcoming, Table IV-E, Summary by Station.
1Federal appropriations to CSRS including Hatch formula, Hatch regional,
McIntire-Stennis, special grants, and other.
2Formula grant funds received by SAES made under provisions of the Hatch
Act as percentage of total funds in support of research.
3Obligations of funds received by SAES from contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements with research-performing agencies of USDA.
4Contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with federal agencies other
than USDA (Column 14/Column 19).
5Obligations of funds received from state appropriations.
6Obligations of funds received from sales of products.
7Obligations of funds received from industry expended in support of
research.
8Obligations from any other non-federal sources.
Includes all obligations in support of research projects.
|
RSS
HIDE
