Special oversight review of agricultural research and development


Material Information

Special oversight review of agricultural research and development report
Series Title:
Serial - House, Committee on Science and Technology ; no. 94-QQ
Physical Description:
xi, 137 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science and Technology. -- Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science and Technology. -- Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture -- Research -- United States   ( lcsh )
Agriculture and state -- United States   ( lcsh )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology and the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis (special oversight report no. 2) of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session ... August 1976.
General Note:
At head of title: Committee print.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025927595
oclc - 02587097
System ID:

Full Text






Serial QQ


4 \


Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 Price $1.60

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS FREY, Ja., Florida
MIKE McCORM1ACK, Washington BARRY M. GOLDWATER, Ja., California
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania

JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri, Chairman

JAMIES H. SCHEUER, New York GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania


Washington, D.C., August 31, 1976.
ChU,;,'))(;; Coml-m;Ite' on Science and Technology, U.S. IHouse of
lepresentati res, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHTIRMA N: Throughout a substantial part of the current Congress the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis have been engaged in an extensive review of agricultural research and development. Our inquiry was devoted to that part of the R. & D. effort which is food-related. The interest of our two Subcommittees arose from our concern that American agricultural research should be brought to bear on future United States and world food needs. This work has been designed to accomplish the purposes and functions of Special Oversight as assigned to the Committee on Science and Technology by the House of Representatives at the beginnuing of the 94th Congress.
On June 28, 1976. we issued a brief interim report which sketched the activities of the Subcommittees in agricultural research as well as our tentative conclusions, findings, and suggestions for further considerations.
The report we are now transmitting is the final report based on the Subcommittees* activities up to this time. It includes a number of recommendations which we believe are important and which we hope will prove of value to all parties, public and private, who have a genuine concern for the improvement of agricultural research and development.
We wish to acknowledge the assistance in the preparation of this report from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, and particularly from Carol Lee McBee who assisted in the research and collation of parts II through VII and Appendix E, and from Elaine Carlson, who was responsible for much of the other appendix material.
We wish to emphasize that this report does not conclude the Subcommittees' interest in agricultural research nor preclude further activities in this area in the future. We commend the report to the attention of all Members and of the appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis.
(If II)

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013



Letter of transmittal -------------------------------------------------- iii
Contents ------------------------------------------------ I ------------- v
Special oversight ----------------------------------------------------- ix
Abbreviations -------------------------------------------------------- Xi
Recommendations --------------------------------------------------- I
Improved policy formulation, man.,-.gement structure and coordination of research ------------------------------------------------ 1
Higher quality research ------------------------------------------ 4
Isolation and removal of research gips ----------------------------- 7
Communication among researchers, users of research, and consumers ------------------------------------------------------- 12
I. Scope of the hearings ------------------------------------------ 1 -a
The world food situation ---------------------------------- 15
The U. S. role --------------------------------------------- 16
Implications --------------------------------------------- 17
Defining the issues ---------------------------------------- 18
II. The role of agricultural research in increased food production-- 21
Defining agricultural research ------------------------------ 21
Limitations on agricultural science ------------------------- 22
The link between agricultural research and increased food
production --------------------------------------------- 99
III. Participants in the system for food-related agricultural research- 25 The USDA-State organizations involved in food-related agricultural research ---------------------------------------- 25
Agricultural Research Service -------------------------- 26
Economic Research Service ---------------------------- 27
Statistical Reporting Service --------------------------- ')s
Farmer Cooperative Service --------------------------- 29
Cooperative State Research Service -------------------- 29
State Agricultural Experiment Stations ----------------- 30
Other Federal organizations involved in food-related agricultural research ------------------------------------------- 31
Other universities and colleges with agricultural research
programs ------------------------------------------------ 32
Nonprofit organizations involved in food-related agricultural
research 3.-)
The Ford Foundation --------------------------------- 33
The Rockfeller Foundation ---------------------------- 33
The Midwest Research Institute ------------------------ 3.9
The W. K. Kellogg Foundation ------------------------- 34
The C. F. Kettering Foundation ------------------------ 34
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research ----------- 35
Private industry involvement in food-related agricultural
research ------------------------------------------------ 35
International organizations involved in food-related agricultural research -------------------------------------------- 36
Consultative group on international agricultural research- 36 International Rice Research Institute ------------------- 37
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture_ 37
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid
Tropics -------------------------------------------- 37
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center----- 37
International Center for Tropical Agriculture ----------- 37
International Potato Center ----------------------------- 38


III. Participants in the system for food-related agricultural researchContinued
International organizations involved in food-related agricultural research-Continued 'age
International Livestock Center for Africa ......--------------- .... 38
International Laboratory for Research on Animal Disease- 38 West Africa Rice IDevelopment Association -------------- 38
International Plant Genetics Resources Board- 38
Current Agricultural Research Information System- ... 39 IV. Goals and priorities for food-related agricultural research .... 41 The national and regional system ......-------------------------- 41
U.S. Department of Agriculture ------------------------ 44
Agricultural Resear'ch Service ------------------------- 45
(Cooperative St ate Research Service ------------------- 46
State Agricultural Experiment Stations ...... -------------------- 47
Some goals and priorities for private industry efforts.. ------- 47 National policy controls on food-related agricultural research. 49
Limiting or guiding research with the funding pro ess__ 49 Social goals as limits on the research process --- 50
The status of agricultural science as a limit to research
activities ------------------------------------------ 51
V. Other topics concerning the management of agricultural research _____-_53
Program reviews and peer review -------------------------- 53
Coordination of research efforts --------------------------- 5
Transfer of research results to users --------------------VI. The USDA response to earlier recommendations --------------The focus of the Pound Committee-------- _60 USDA-SAES management and organization ...------------ 60
The USDA response ---------------------------------- 61
Input from researchers ---------------------------61
Quality of administrators --------------------------61
Efficient use of funds ------------------------------ 62
Basic research in the USDA-SAES System ------------------ 62
The USDA response ------------------------------G
Competitive grants ---------------------------------63
Intramural basic research 3--------------------------63
Integration of applied and basic research ----------- 64
Quality of scientific personnel -------------------------64
The USDA response ----------------------------------- 65
Scientist evaluation------------------------------- 65
Scientist advancement 6----------------------------- 5
Staff improvement --------------------------------6
Planning and project review -------------------------------6
The USDA response ----------------------------------67
VII. Examination of current problems -------------------------------69
Improved policy formulation, management structure and coordination of research 9------------------------------------69
Policies ----------------------------------------------69
Management and coordination --------------------------70
Higher quality research -----------------------------------71
Competitive grants ------------------------------------71
Project and program reviews -------------------------- 3
Isolation and removal of research gap ---------------------- 73
Basic research-------------------------------------- 74
Energy and the environment 7---------------------------- 5
Nutrition ---------------------------------------------76
Small-scale agriculture 7------------------------------- 6
Climate and weather -------------------------------------47
Goernmen t regulations -------------------------------- 7s
Research strategies ------------------ 79
Communication among researchers, users of research and consumers ------------------------------------------------79
Communication within the research community 0---------Communication outside the research community 80---------


A. Chronology of major events affecting food-related agricultural 'Page
research ----------------------------------------------- 8
B. Examples of some on-going agricultural research projects-..-------91
Crop improvement research ------------------------------ 91
IDefensive reseatrch--------------------------------------- 92
Agriculture and energy research--------------------------- 93
Foreign programs---------------------------------------- 93
Marketing methods research----------------------------- 94
Pest management research -------------------------------- 94
Remote sensing research --------------------------------- 95
Selective examples of food-related research ------------------96
C. List of U.S. academic institutions involved in agricultural research ---------------------------------------------------i107
State Agricultural Experiment Stations ------------------- 105
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee Institute-------------------- 1W
Non-Land grant colleges--------------------------------- 106
D. Hearings particulars ----------------------------------------il
E. The funding and extent of performance of food-related agricultural research --------------------------------------------- 115
Public funds for food-related research total about 65 percent- 115
The Federal/State system performs over 50 percent of the
food-related research----------------------------------- 131
Interactions among food-research systems/organiza tions-_ 133 Qualifications of tables and figures ------------------------ 133
Specifics of funding-Federal agencies -----------------134


Research and development is conducted throughout the Federal Government. Most agencies and departments support research and development to further advances in those fields of science and technology which are related to their mission.

In the House of Representatives these research and development activities are reviewed individually by a number of standinor Committees having jurisdiction of the various programs, agencies, and departments. Beginning with the 94th Congress, the rules of the House provide that a continuing review of the entire Federal research and development effort be done. For this purpose the Committee on Science and Technology is charged with the function of Special Oversight in this area. Rule X, paragraph 3 (f) provides that "The Committee on Science and Technology shall have the function of reviewing and studying, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs, and Government activities dealing with or involving non-military research and development."" This Special Oversight function is to be performed in addition to the legislative and direct oversight function of the standing committees.
The review and the recommendations included in this report are made pursuant to this Special Oversight provision of the House rules.


AID Agency for International Development (Department of State)
ARI Agricultural Research Institute
ARPAC Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee
ARS Agricultural Research Service (Department of Agriculture)
BARR Board on Agriculture and Renwable Resources (Natonal Academy
of Sciences)
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CSRS Cooperative State Research Service (Department of Agriculture)
DOC Department of Commerce
DOD Department of Defense
DOI Department of the Interior
DOS Department of State
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration
ERS Economic Research Service (Department of Agriculture)
ESCOP Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (State
Agricultural Experiment Stations)
Fes Farmer Cooperative Service (Department of Agriculture)
FCST Federal Council on Science and Technology t National Science Foundation)
FDA Food and Drug Administration (Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare)
PS Forest Service (Department of Agriculture)
GAO General Accounting Office
HEW Department of Health. Education and Welfare
MAPS Management and Planning System (Agricultural Research Service,
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Laind Grant Colleges
NIH -National Institutes of Health (Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare)
NRC National Research Council
NSF National Science Foundation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
SAES State Agricultural Experiment Station(s)
SRS Statistical Reporting Service (Department of Agriculture)
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey (Department of the Interior)


The Subcommittees on Science, Research and Technology and on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis find that the U.S. agricultural research system has no present equal and has served the country well in helping it to meet domestic and international food needs. These successes are evidence that the system is basically sound; however, as in any other area of human activity, the Subcommittees believe that the present agricultural research system would benefit from innovations in its management structure and in the procedures used to coordinate its research efforts. The Subcommittees therefore believe that careful consideration should be given to the following courses of action:


Changes in the domestic agricultural situation and in the world food market have transformed both the politics of agriculture and the demands on agricultural research and development. The crucial role of agriculture in maintaining United States' leadership in world affairs demands productivity increases which are steady over the long term and not merely from one growing season to the next. The only means by which this goal will be achieved is through appropriate application of the results of agricultural science and technology.
This requires thorough, long-range planning, and the policy
and mechanisms to carry it out.
The agricultural research system in the United States is extremely complex, with many sources of support and a variety of performers. This diverse community, which shoulders much of the responsibility for the Nation's wellbeing, would benefit from guidance on critical policy issues related to the work it performs. Tradeoffs will always be, necessary to fulfill the objectives of agricultural research within the prevailing economic, social and political framework. To aid them in making good decisions, agricultural researchers need the guidance which only a national policy can provide.
Among other critical issues and questions the following need to be seriously examined, debated and subsequently presented in a coherent policy statement: What tradeoffs is this country willing to make between agricultural production, energy con('1)

sumption, materials availability, land use and environmental quality; between agricultural production, the survival of the independent family farm, and the preservation of rural life as it now exists; between agricultural product ion, improved nutrition and food safety? Within this framework, how can
agrricultural research best be conducted?

Thei present isolation of agricultural science from the policymaking processes for the rest of the sciences should be changed. The principles embodied in our national science and technology policy cannot be adhered to nor effectively implemented under these circumstances, and this situation is detrimental to the country as a whole. Agricultural science must be treated as an equal partner with tlhe other sciences in the determination of priorities among the sciences and in the formulation of policies affecting the conduct of research and
and development.
To this end, exceptional agricultural scientists should be carefully considered for such positions as appointment to the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President, and membership on such bodies as the President's Committee on Science and Technology, the National Science Board, and the advisory panels of the Office of
Technlmology Assessment.
The Subcommittees are aware of the long history which underlies the relative isolation of agricultural science from the other sciences, and recognize that reversing the trend will not be an easy task. Increased respect for each other's disciplines and increased interaction and cooperation among the sciences are ends that will not be attained merely by the inclusion of a few agricultural scientists in the upper levels of government. However, the implementation of this recommendation
might well be a first important step in this direction.

Criticisms have been levelled at the Department of Agriculture which suggest to some that any new or increased Federal investment in agricultural research should be provided to departments or agencies other than USDA. These criticisms specifically relate to the types of research supporite(l, the quality of the research, and the overall interpretation of the mission of the USDA.


Certainly, the leadership role of the Department of Agriculture in supporting the bulk of the Federally funded agricultural research programs should be examined. This should be undertaken even though the record established by the existing system has been good and attempts to dismantle it
or seriously weaken it appear to be unjustifiable.
The USDA-State Agricultural Experiment Station system has the resource base necessary for the effective use of additional funds. Such resources include trained and knowledgeable personnel, systems of communication, facilities, and established programs with relatively stable sources of
This leadership role does carry with it major responsibilities such as initiating changes that are necessary to insure the larger interests of the Nation as a whole, as well as fostering interagency cooperation. A willingness to discuss alternative strategies and the elements of constructive criticism from within and outside the system is an important aspect of such
In addition, the role of the designated representative of the Department of Agriculture to the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology in bringing to the Council's attention problems and developments in agricultural research should be determined. The Department of Agriculture and all other agencies involved in foodrelated research should also be responsive to the suggestions of the Federal Coordinating Council relating to food
Better interagency coordination is a desirable goal, although it may be one very difficult to achieve. New approaches to this should be tried so that ways to link other agencies with the Extension Service and the Current Research Information
System may be determined.
The need and desirability of maintaining a strong, pluralistic system of support for agricultural research is clear, and the opinions expressed above should not be interpreted to the contrary. The Department of Agriculture must provide guidance to, not direct, the conduct of agricultural research
throughout the nation.
The Subcommittees were presented with evidence that, despite the close ties between the USDA and agricultural industries, there is a need for improved coordination and communication among the public and private research efforts.
This is an especially important area of concern both because of the crucial role of agriculture and agricultural research

ili (r I jjt J( )114r -((,I-jj I i I It _i () f t Ile T_.S all I at se
f t he 111111ted f I ill( Is av:i liable foi- t he zupjmrt () I' rescaich "llid
deN-clopilic-lit ill gelwl'al IS 'I ITS1,11t Of thO C1.11TOllt- (4-0110111lic,
T1 I e Pn,: i(leiit,*s Coiiimittee oil Scieiioe aiid Te(_]jj1()jOrN-, by Publi(- lia-w has been 111,41'llcte(l to considel. liced", 1*()I-, 1111provenicill" ill existill (r
fol- 11,111(11in(r ,Illd techilical 111f0i'lliatiOll Oil
a Govel'1111wilt-wi(le hasis, Ill(,-11ldllj(r (,()JIJ..N101-atioll of t1w :lppropriate role to be played by flic pl.1 vate sector ill t Ile
11,111oll of sucli fliforiiiation. The iice(ls of the ajrl1i( Iljtlll-aj r(IsezIrch collimimilty should be emisidered ns .ill 1111port-allt "Sj)('Ct of this stil(I N and of ativ others which inav be plaime(l
by otlier poliev groups within the, Federal Goveriiii1elit.
One made ill the colln4e' of the hearill(r," to 1111pl-Ove
Coor(lillat toll of public. aild private, agricultural rese:u-cli was to inclii(le industry part of t1w Current Iiiforlilation Svstelll. Propriet"Iry problei-ils. the difficulties involved ill i(] 'Iaifvillcr the 11111110rolls ilidlistries pel-fol-111111(r suell re'-Cal'Ch aii(l the di\ Proc dures
-erse reporting and cat-aloo-i
NN-16ch iiiav be iued bv Owse perrorlll('P M(IV pi-('( lude Hidustr _oiimig a full parti-ler with the USDA-SAES in such,
a venture. If is impossible for industry to include it '; oil(roilig rese-arcli efforts in such a system, howex-er, ii-itich 11112dit industry access to information oil tile till be gained by giving
current research which is being conducted by the publicly slip rted a(yricultural research system. The USDA -Iiollhl expFore the feasibility of this suggestion and detei-inin(I whether it may offer advantages ill the near future, pendintr the development of a more complete system for all Federally
funded rc.- (,Carch and development.

.Xunong the maiii, fiiidings reported in 1972. by the Committee on Research AAvisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture of the National Research Council, Nation:il Academy of Sciences (the "Pound Report"). one in particular has been frequently quoted: "that inuch of agricultural research is outmoded, pedestrian, and ii-lefficiei-It."' The USDA-SAES systeii-I has reSponded in various ways and de,(rives to tile recollullend(ati oils in the Pomid Report which were offet-ed to reineo]y thisallegatioii. (See part. V1 of this i-eport.)
Witliout doubt, there is necessarily a certain lead-time between enacting managerial chai-lors and detecting the effects of these cliall(res oil the perforiiiance of t1w systein. However, after a period of thre( or four years tbis- saine criticism of t1w present agricultural i-esearch
-v-tcill is evi(leiif in iiiuch of the tcstiliiojiy presented t.o the Subcomjmttoes.
Mca-'11 tile (pit-dity0f re'4e") rch is a (lifficult, solliet i ]-ties illl pos-zible, 1111(terta k Mg. 11is is c.,q)ecially true '\flieii the research covers a broad 1111110le froill tile verv basic to the most applied such as in the. case of afrriculture. Ill 0AIII'Vill(r OUt its 1eSponSil.)ility fol- eXalllinilltr tile state of sciciicc. aiid technology over the years, the Conimittee oil Science f. C it belie -es sollie
1111d Tecluiolon- has accuimilated knowleda(,, of and,


insight into problems of this type. Relying on this experiencel(e it is believed that a strengthening of certain elements of the existing a rlcultural research system will produce increases in the quality of the system's output. The following aspects are particularly important:


Although formula funding is necessary for the maintenance of a strong system of agricultural research; productive research efforts above and beyond this base are encouraged by open competition for research funds. There are three characteristics of such a program of competitive grants that norially are important for insuring the support of the highest
quality research:
First, the competition should be open to the widest variety of research institutions possible. This should include land-grant and non-land-grant public universities and colleges as well as private universities and colleges, private research institutes
and other research organizations.
Second, research grant proposals should be subject to peer review. In its report on the peer review system of the National Science Foundation, the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology stated that it was fair to infer from the testimony presented during the hearings "that witnesses agreed almost unanimously that appropriate peer review procedures would tend to select for funding those projects at the upper end of the quality scale, however high or low the upper end might be." Testimony presented by witnesses during the hearings on agricultural research and development leads to the conclusion that this inference probably also applies to agricultural research projects. It is further likely that other findings and recommendations made with regard to the NSF would be applicable to the USDA. Systematic methods of ensuring that competent reviewers are identified and used regardless of institutional affiliation or geographical location should be devised. Reviewers should be drawn from the same variety of institutions as those eligible for support under the competitive grants program, and no single reviewer should be overused in relation to his or her abilities. In reviewing proposals for research of a more "applied" nature, the opinions of individuals outside the research community should be soughte.g., farmers, consumers, industry representatives, and so forth-but care must be taken not to equate the quality of the
proposed research with its perceived applicability.
Third, broad guidelines concerning the areas of research to be supported by such a program should be provided, bit funds should not be earmarked either by the Congress or the USI)A for very specific areas of research. There should be sn;flicient flexibility in the system to ensure that if an area of research suddenly becomes "ripe" and increased support would lead to major advances, funds can be shifted and made available.

"Special reviews" of research programs or problem areas identified for imp)rovemenlt by the director of an experiment station and the "on-site reviews" initiated by the CSRS provide a means for encouraging the performance of high-quality research at the experiment stations and at the same time aid in improving the coordination of Federal-State and State-State agriTCultural research efforts. Both these functions merit
strengthening and an expansion of the reviews.
It is felt that one of the factors which has contributed most towards the effectiveness and success of these reviews is the utilization of highly qualified peer panels in the review proccess. Where appropriate, increased utilization of qualified scientists from outside the USDA-State Agricultural Experinment Station system should be encouraged. Increased cornmunication and understanding among researchers and research administrators within and outside the USDA-SAES
system should benefit both communities.

The complex, decentralized system which characterizes agricultural research in this country has the advantage of a builtin responsiveness to a wide range of problems and public needs, especially at the local level. The evidence indicates that local participation has contributed much to the overall
strength of the system.
However, there are also needs which may be more "national"
in scope or for which large capital investments need to be made in order to carry out a strong research program. In those cases where research might proftably be concentrated in a few laboratories best equipped to carry it out, this should be
Federal funding practices, while emphasizing national needs, must be carefully balanced so as not to push the State Agricultural Experiment Stations in directions which may impair their responsiveness to local needs. It may not necessarily be in the national interest for all research groups to shift their programs in the direction of broad, national research, particularly if resources valuable for the solution of other (and perhaps more local) problems are drained in the process.
Since tLe Federal government performs less than one-third of the food-related agricultural research and is dependent upon


State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the private sector for the remainder, any large national effort must necessarily require the participation of these components as well as
the Federal laboratories.
The hearings clearly suggested that the esteem in which the agricultural scientist is held by other scientists and society is not as high as it should be, either here or abroad. This may be in part due to the average or perceived quality of the research, to the "mundane" or "earthly" nature of the research, or to the fact that much of the research is applied rather than basic.
Whatever the causes, it is imperative that the successes of agricultural research and the accomplishments of individual researchers be made known to the broader scientific conmunity and to the public.
Little gain will be made in enhancing the esteem in which the agricultural scientist is generally held if his colleagues and employers do not fully acknowledge his achievements.
Ways to effect this should be fully explored. Furthermore it is necessary that the agricultural researcher be encouraged to advance professionally as a researcher, both in terms of rank
and pay.

As interest in agricultural research has intensified over the past year ,or so, many groups and organizations have produced reports and recommendations on areas of agricultural research which are, in their opinions, receiving "inadequate" attention. Depending on the composition of the group, the skeptic may view such a report to be self-serving or, at best, highly subjective.
Nonethless, reports prepared by groups with extremely diverse interests have shown remarkable agreement on the current research trends and gaps. Testimony supporting many of these findings, presented by witnesses from a wide spectrum encompassing both the public and private sectors, has been convincing on the point that measures must be taken to eliminate these problems and prevent others. The following areas are of special concern:

The Subcommittees repeatedly heard that the following areas of research need increased encouragement and support, either


through Ow v or fww ftl;l(k of. tIll-mi"ll a Iv1q-o(1) P e s tll,( 11 0/1 (/(*ct// P/'(P I 111ti-oo-ell fixatioll,
'111d 1-(relw l i(-- ifilPI'M A111 Wfit lw l N. ho .01.1011SI V 1111(1(,1. full( l('d III
Iml o) t1le lwvwlila I r I I I I I I 11 1 11 111 1 1 1 1, 1 f I i I I 'I I I I r
f( q. t I f I I C I,( I NN- I I I I I I v t Y I c I t e
t 1 1:, '()1- 111 S I I I r I i I i t ra I re 4c I I I s i i )e p v
froill liew or Of funds.
Collilll till wat 1()Il 1"roblelli" wcre found to exist. betweell ao-riCult Ill"11 su I e I I I I.-A s -IlId t I I e ba S (11 IV 0 1 1 FC 1, 1 collillitill It I 'i
excIIIIAlfied 1) y 1,(1C(1IVIII;4 S111)1mr.t. frolli t1w Natimi'll Scielice Folill(tation) NN-11ell tll(' Ileed for limn,
"basic" research. in acrricititure. This problem steii)s frmii ill(, fact that there is not a clear separati0ii, either in terms of stibstance, or definition, behN*een "b,"Isic" and 6- ijq)lled" researell.
'Po make thi point as clear as possible. it sl .oul(l be iiotk,(l t1l"It the terill ")):t -ic research" is beilig) ll zed here to llivall fillidamental, albeit purposeful, research, which is 71ece- Sarily 111 (rllrisk and often carried out at the, molecular or celliflar ]e\-eI.

(b) flesearch on energy-covsidc)-i) g am7 c? virowlwlif(lll q souiid agricultui al practices.-The interrelation,.ihips ajiloll(r food, enern-, mid the en6roiiiiieiit (,ire verv complex. culture itself may be defined as the process of conNertiii,)- t lie, SUIlls energy into food and other f tiels. A grieu It tire can zi 1<() 1w regarded as the science of living things-the. same things" which constitute parts of our natural enviromlielit. The inanner in which agriculture is conducted will Ilrectly affect and be affected by the availability of energy ai)d flie. need t.o consider the qtiality, of the environment. There is perhaps no one, more aware of these relationship).; I liiii t1le Aniefican farmer; but although tlie agricultural rese.-ii-ch systeni has responded somewhat to these factors, it has yet to demonstrate a. significant reorard for them. A thoroii(rh inte(yration of ener(rv and environment-al conceriis iiito the tagrictiltural. research s stem is vital for the asstirtmee of lon(r-terin agricultural productivity. Altermifives to current agrictiltin-al practices need to be developed either for iise in cojijiniction wit.-Ii. existing iiietlio(!s or in witicii)ation of ftittire, developiiieiJs in order to:i- tirc balance amom* agriculture einerry, and the eiivirmiment.

N oi?. Immov. m//i,;/;ov.--Ntitrition and
the s-iibs.eqiieiit education of the ptiblic on afl a-ZI)ects of limnan nutrition, is at, a primitive level. Altholl,(Th the Natioiial Institutes of Hetalth condtict a stibstaiiiial j)I*()Crl,,11II1 in nittrition rese.arcli, the bulk of tlii,4 etTort is less directed towar(lis primary liturian nutrient rc(Itiiieiiients (which


might prevent the occurrence of disease in nimany cases) than towards the relationships between specific nutrients (or lack thereof) and particular diseases. The USDA has not considered nutrition research a primary mission in the past. Today, in view of the vast amounts of money which the Federal Government is spending on domestic and international food programs, this matter should be re-examined.

(d) Research on high-yielding systems of agriculture and other types of research w ch wo uld benefit small-scale farm operatios.-It appears that insufficient effort is being expended on research which would enable the smaller farm units to remain competitive with large-scale production units. Three major aspects of this problem justify this concern. First, as stated throughout these observations, short-term prodJiction eaiciency should not be the supreme goal of agricultural research. Likewise, efficiency itself is not the supreme goal of societal organization. Not only is the human being an important "resource" which must be considered in the trade-offs of various types of agricultural research, but it is for human welfare and because of human labor that the system exists in the first place. It would be dangerous both in this country and abroad to embrace the most "economic" solution at any particular time in history at the expense of other social values.
Since the energy- and capital-intensive agriculture so widely practiced in the United States today trades off manpower for other resources, an economic argument might also be made that in the long-run the small family farm may be more efficient than the la rge-seale mechanized units we have today. This economic argument is less important than the larger social and philosophical questions, however-the many social advantages of family farms are of genuine significance. Second, such research is needed to advance the science of home gardening. The one Federal program specifically
addressing home gardening is within the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Department of the Interior. Considering the value of this activity for providing high-quality, low-cost food to millions of Americans, for educating numerous citizens in the science and the art of agricuture, and for instilling an increased respect for the sources of our country's abundant food supplies, the agricultural research community should recognize this opportunity to contribute actively to a larger effort.
Third, this type of agricultural research may provide one of the most effective means for solving the world food problem. Farms in many other countries. particularly in the less developed countries where food problems are most acute, are small by American standards. It is inconceivable that largescale, mechanized agricultural methods can be transferred to small farms abroad due to economic, social and techno-


logical barriers. This is true for many of the same reasons discussed above with regard to small-scale American farmers,
and also for reasons unique to the particular countries.
There are methods and techniques of small-scale, high-yielding agriculture which are available today both here and abroad. Some of these techniques are much more productive per unit of land than the large-scale U.S. agriculture, since other resources are traded off inll favor of the farmer's labor.
Thle transfer of such technology and the vigorous pursuit of other Inew technlologies for these purposes are essential for lmeetilng future U.S. and world( food needs and for redulcing
world tension.

(e) s&a(rch on clmat, weather prediction and modification, and related information systems.-Despite the increased sophistication and advanced techniques of modern agriculture, our food supply remains dependent on climate and weather.
These are the most influential factors in the production of food, yet the current level of research effort does not adequately reflect such dependence. Increased efforts are required to reduce the vulnerability of our agricultural system to
weather fluctuations and climatic changes.
Furthermore, climate and weather information must be made easily and readily available to the farmer so that he will be able to minimize undesirable effects of climate and weather and thus the risk of a poor crop. More extensive interaction between the Extension Service and the Weather Service might
be a logical first step in this direction.

(f) A complete inventory of 80dsoil and wivater resources to provide a data base for research and policyinaking.-The demands on land and water by agriculture, industry, housing and recreation require careful land-use planning in order to assure adequate food supplies in the future. Useful planning requires knowledge of what land and water resources are available and what the production potentials are in various
areas of the country.
Remote sensing, computers and other advanced technologies offer new opportunities for the completion of on-going inventories and the development of world-wide inventory systems.
Maximum coordination between the agencies involved in satellite technology, data gathering, and information dissemnination both in the U.S. and abroad is vital to the success of these

As (lis(nssed al)ove much of the basic research which is vital to the 1nItion s agricultural research sstem is "miissionori(, ed(A.' For this reason and others, major new investments


in this type of research can best be made through the existing
USDA-State Agyricultural Experiment Station system.
The basic research supported by the National Science Foundation, which is -less concerned with problem-solving and more concerned with development of knowledge for its own sake, is important to agriculture in that all technological advances depend on the solid foundation which such research provides.
The National Science Foundation should use funds that are specifically allocated to research on renewable resources in the Research Applied to National Needs program so as to best coordinate these efforts with those supported by the USI)A.
However, while it is not advocated that the NSF specifically allocate funds for basic research in agriculture, it is recommended that the NSF maintain strong programs in those
areas of science which are important to agriculture.
In its report accompanying the bill to authorize appropriations to the NSF for fiscal year 1977, the Committee on Science and Technology recommended that the NSF, through the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology, continually assess the role it should have and the degree of support it should provide in agriculture-related basic research. This role should be consistent with the maxim that basic research should not be concentrated within the National Science Foundation but that the bulk of agriculturally important basic research will be assumed by USDA; it further recognizes -that the NSF does have a balancing role in
the entire Federal research and development program.
The agricultural research effort in the U.S. has been strongly oriented to a "commodity strategy"; that is, one based on incremental but reasonably certain improvements in the production of specific commodities. Although this approach has served the country well and has produced some substantial improvements in agricultural productivity, a number of coinmodities may be rapidly approaching their limits insofar as substantial increases in yields within the existing technological framework are concerned. It now appears that significant increases in productivity will only be obtained through major
breakthroughs in agricultural research.
The USI)A is, in its own words, aware that "there would be better chances for achieving the big breakthrough" under a "functional-discipline" strategy. This strategy recognizes that the same basic knowledge in a. particular discipline, or the same basic functions, apply to a whole range of commodities or applications, frequently in a very similar manner. Such a.
strategy does, however, have a number of drawbacks and


NWneth11e's. the USI)A should undertake those risks which max' be associated with suchll a 'escarch strategy, especially in situations in which the prospects for significant l)roduct iilmprovelnelit aIpear marginal following a comnmodity -trateg,. It i iilmplortant to determine how widely such an approach might be ad(lopted by the agricultural research


Much of the funding available for agricultural research in both the public and private sectors is used for meeting the requirements for nutrient labelling, food and human safety, pollution p)reveition and so forth in order to meet standards set by law and by regulatory agencies. Such regulations are made with the best interests of the American people in mind.
and thm research done to satisfy these requirements is valuable
and deserves the emphasis which it is currently receiving.
However, in order to make the best use of the limited funds available for research, it is extremely important, as new scientific information is accumulated relevant to existing or potential regulatory actions, that these regulations be reevaluated in the context of the most recent and accurate scientific information. The Congress and the regulatory agencies need to be kept informed of such advance(s or chlianoes in existing knowledge which might affect decisionmakingo and
the revisions of regulations or statutes.

(Comlnunmication among the various organizations performing agricultural research is highly important for optimum expenditure of research funds and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of effort. Communication with the world outside agricultural research is also essential to the agricultural research scientist, and ways to improve these channels of communication-in both directions-must continually be sought. Such outside audiences include other scientists not directly involved in agricultural research, farmers and businessmen who are the users of agricultural research, and the general public which, is the ultimate consumer of the products of agricultural research.
The Cooperative Extension Servi(ce, an integral part of the africultural research system, has been very effective in promoting the communication between agricultural researchers, and industry, farmers and consumers. The Extension Service has been perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the total system, and it should be considered a potential model for other information dissemination schemes.
In addition, agricultural scientists communicate with the scientific coninunity at large through mutual participation in professional societies and through publication in scientific journals.


Numerous informal contacts among scientists also provide impIortant linkages.
In this final category of recommendations to improve the ability of the present agricultural research system to meet future U.S. and world food needs, the following should be carefully considered:



Efforts to bring together scientists from within and outside the agricultural research system and from a variety of disciplines related to agriculture should be encouraged and supported through the policies of the Federal agencies which fund agricultural research. Many of these interdisciplinary linkages evolve naturally, but funds to support such efforts
would hasten this process substantially.
Workshops, conferences, symposia, and research p projects involving a broad range of scientists can contribute to the growth of individual scientists and the reservoir of scientific knowledge. Additional investment in such activities by the Federal Government would be small in comparison to the potential benefits; hence the need for additional funds should
be determind and specified.



The concern of the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee to involve a broad range of groups and organizations with interests in food supply and consumption in the formulation of priorities for agricultural research is encouraging. This concern was especially evident in ARPAC's having convened a National Working Conference on Research to Meet U.S. and World Food Needs in Kansas City,
Missouri on July 9-11, 1975.
The results of major conferences such as these may be valuable, but only if they are widely disseminated among the various individuals and agricultural research organizations and considered in terms of their applicability to and implications for current and future research programs. The use of these results is the only justification for such conferences,
and this use should be demonstrable.
At this time the followup on the Kansas City conference, which is being carried out by two committees appointed by the ARPAC co-chairmen, appears to be good. The degree to which those directly involved with the formulation of agricultural research policies use the results should be
observed and studied.



The involvement of individuals outside the agricultural research system will no doubt bring fresh insights into the needs of the users of agricultural research and the consumers of its products. Where possible and appropriate the agriculturial research community might extend invitations to selected representatives of farmers organizations and consumer groups to participate in meetings of their advisory committees. Such involvement is desirable both for maintaining a research system which is responsive to the needs of the community it serves and for promoting a better understanding within that community of the problems that can or cannot
be solved by agricult ural research.

The field of agricultural research and development was given high priority for Special Oversight by both the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis early in 1975. At the beginning of the 94th Congress which first charged the Committee on Science and Technology with the Special Oversight function, a joint effort of both Subcommittees to study this topic was begun.
This report of the two Subcommittees stems from the hearings held in June, September and October, 1975 and is based upon the oral and written testimony submitted during these hearings. Responses to the "Interim Report" on Agricultural Research and Development, published in June 1976. were used to supplement the hearing record and to refine the preliminary findings and tentative conclusions presented in that report. The national and international framework within wlich the Subcommittees conducted this Special Oversight review and the issues considered are outlined below.

After nearly two decades of increased food production during which many people took for granted the availability of sufficient food, stable or declining food prices, large grain stocks and large amounts of surplus food for food aid, the events of 1972 shocked many Americans into the awareness of the "World Food Problem." In 1972 world food production fell, and the decision of the Soviet Union to import massive amounts of grain to offset its losses and to cut back sharply on its usual exports of farm products was perhaps the single most important cause of the disturbances felt by Americans in that year. In 1972 Americans saw food prices rise sharply, food shortages develop, food aid shipments cut back, and grain stocks fall precipitously.
The Soviet purchases were not the only factor which produced this situation, however. Crop failures in other parts of the world, the decline in the Peruvian fish-catch, the U.S. farm policies of the late sixties, which held back crop production and eroded reserves, and the devaluation of the dollar are other commonly cited factors which also contributed to the disruptions felt in 1972.
Ever since Malthus published his "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798, there has been a fear "that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man." This fear has been heightened during times of temporary shortages such as those caused by natural disasters or war. Many view the present world food situation as a result of such temporary setbacks. Others believe that recent food shortages in various countries of the world are part of lon.r-term trends which could well lead to increasingly severe global food problems. The most extreme point of

view is that Malthuis' 1re1liet ion of doom is iiilllinenlt-a view which, fortunately, api)ears hii)hlv unlikely.
A number of leading authorities suggest that the "World Food Problem" is realIv onlle of certain developing nations. which implies that Americans should not be overly concerned about meeting domestic food needs in the future. In a sense this is true: it has been estimated, for example, that 94 percent of tike people who are undernourished live in developing countries. Furthermore, although two decades ago the developing countries were exporters of grain, by the early 1960's these countries had become net importers of grain-and the imiaIlnitude of these iili)orts has increased steadily since then. Increasing population, numIlerous problems of economics, and other factors all interact strongly and contribute to the existence and increase of hmgnrer throughout the developing world.
Recent events, however, have clearly demonstrated that Americans can no longer consider the U.S. independent from the problems of the rest the world, nor consider this country to be totally selfstuflicient. The oil embargo and the "energy crisis" highlighted the reality of our interdependence with other nations. Likewise. policymakers are now considering the implications of our dependence on other countries for important nonfuel materials such as aluminum, chromium, manganese, nickel, tin and many others. U.S. farmers, on he other hand, need foreign markets for their products.
'IThis interdepend(lence in many fields therefore requires that all nations, including, the U.S., rely on other nations for items essential for their individual economies or national security. It also implies that the internal problems of one country can have a great effect on many others. The increasing interdependence of all nations-both developed and developing-therefore necessitates viewing the world food situation as more than just an isolated problem.

The U.S. role in helping to meet future world food needs will depend on the American public's response to the demands of interdependence and on the policies that the Federal government pursues. There are many possible courses of action which could be pursued, but there are also several "non-solutions" which should be avoided. For example, mammoth shipments of U.S. farm products to other countries is not a solution: first, because the U.S. cannot produce enough food to take care of the needs of all its own people and the rest of
the world; and secondly, because the responsibility for deciding where the food will be sent nmay lead to the use of food as an instrument of policy. More food must le produced everywhere, but especially in the developing countries themselves.
It has now also become commonly accepted that these future world food requirements can no longer be met simply by bringing idle land
under cultivation. Although some estimates suggest that the world's cultivated area can be doubled, much of this land for p)otenlt ial cuiltivation is in the tropics. What limited experience is available has shown that once such lands are cleared for farming, their natural
fertility often deteriorates rapidly. Much of this land is also in those parts of Africa and Latin America where the population density is low and where the costs of bringing this land into production would


be ver-y highl. In short, with a few exceptions, most of the world'S, highly'productive, f annilands are al ready under ci iltivat ion.
Increased food production must be sought through increased productivity, and this means applying the results of scientific and technological research to all aspects of food production. Few of the developing countries have the individual capability in terms of capital or manpower to mount large research efforts. The principal contribution of the United States to the world food problem in the long run may, indeed will, have to be through a sharing of our reservoir of technology to help other countries increase their agricultural production.I
Previous experience has shown that there are numerous political, cultural, intellectual and economic barriers to effective technology transfer. U.S. support of and participation in the international agricultural research institutes has helped to overcome some of these barriers, as has our strong role in the extensive international programs conducted by the Food and Agricuiltural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. But it is also true that our current level of uncderstanding of agricultural production. systems is least in those areas where the need is the greatest-in the environmental and social climates of the developing nations.

As important as the humanitarian reasons are for a strong United States' role in helping to meet future world food needs, there are other equally important reasons for making such a commitment. One of these is that a hungry world is not likely to be a peaceful world, and for this reason the long-term productivity of the American farmer and his foreign counterparts may be the determining factor in our pursuit of international harmony and world peace.
The export of agricultural products is also a major contributor to the maintenance of a favorable U.S. balance of trade. A statistic which clearly brings this point home to any American who felt the effects of the oil embargo is that in 1974 the export of agricultural products was enough to pay for four-fifths of our oil imports that year. Because of the importance of U.S. agriculture, then, it would naturally be expected that an increase in U.S. agricultural productivity will have domestic and international economic implications;~ and that, in general, any new U.S. role in helping other countries to better meet their' own food needs will affect not only the economies of those other countries but the U.S. economy as well.
Some believe that the rest of the world has already become overly dependent on U.S. food supplies both in years of crop failures and in good crop years. As discussed above. these demands and pressures on the U.S. atgricutlt ural system are in turn felt by the American consumer. Because agricultural systems change very slowly, it is doubtful that this dependence (or perhaps over- depen dence) will quickly disappear. It is much more likely that for some time the U.S.
-will remain the major source of food for those countries unable to feed their own people.
Maximizing U.S. agricu ltural productivity is therefore a. highly desirable goal, and this will require a strong program of agricultural research and development and the rapid transfer of the results of

that R&D) to tlhe American farmer and to farmers in other countries. Thus one major question in any consideration of the world food situation and the U.S. role in it must he: "Is it sufficient to continue thei kind of agricultu ral research and development activity that worked well in the past or does the future require something more?"

It was within this framework that the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis joined in the search for knowledge and better understanding of the world's food system. The timin r of the Subcommittees' involvement with this topic, while principally determined by the newly-assigned Special Overtsight function, is significant in terms of the recent, high level of interest and activity in the subject of agricultural research and development and its relation to world food needs. Many other organizations and committees-both national and international, public and private-have been and continue to be involved in such undertakings.
The questions of "Why another group? What can these Subcommittees expect to contribute?" has legitimately been raised. In answering these questions the Subcommitttees rely primarily on the fact that the Committee on Science and Technology has long held broad responsibilities for examining the general state of science and technology, and in doing so has built up experience and some expertise in reviewing major programs having scientific content. Both Subcommittees wished to employ what knowledge they have accumulated in meeting these responsibilities in ways that would prove to be valuable for the Congressional committees and executive branch bodies involved in policy making for agricultural research.
Although the term "'agriculture" in common usage includes food, fiber, forestry and rural development, the two Subcommittees focused on the food question in these hearings. This inquiry was therefore undertaken in the spirit of broadening the information currently available about the agricultural research system in the United States, and particularly about those aspects of the system which directly relate to the production of food. The scope of the hearings included research and development relating to all food sources, whether plant or animal, and the application of research and development to all aspects of the food cycle, from production through processing, transportation, preparation and nutrition.
The hearings were not intended to focus only on the problems concerned with the governmental agricultural research establishment. Rather the Subcommittees attempted to achieve a balanced view of the entire system in hopes that recognition of the system's strengths would suggest ways to increase the overall effectiveness of national research programs in other areas of science and technology; and that this would also. perhaps. help other nations improve their own capabilities for increasing food productivity and nutrition.
One of the first witnesses during the hearings, Dr. Orville Bentley, cochairman of the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee, expressed the intent of the Subcommittees well in stating that "the system works, but it is incumbent upon us to make it work better."

(I :p. 52) 1 Building on the strengths of the system will help to make it work better; however, such an approach can only provide a partial solution. After an examination of the system, particularly through the hearings process, the Subcommittees hoped to add to the work of others in offering constructive recommendations for improving the system.
In background papers prepared for these hearing ,2 Leo V. Mayer of the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress noted that the findings and recommendations contained in previous reports on agricultural research can be categorized into four general areas of concern.3 The Subcommittees chose to structure the issues examined during these hearings along similar lines. The four categories are: (1) improved policy formulation, management structure, and coordination of research; (2) higher quality research; (3) isolation and removal of research gaps; (4) communication among researchers, users of agricultural research, and consumers.
Among the numerous questions considered under the category of improved policy formulation, management structure, and coordination of research were:
What are the national and international structures within
which agricultural research and development are being conducted?
Is a comprehensive formulation of a "national (or international) agTicultural research policy" necessary, desirable and/or
Are the goals of agricultural research sufficiently defined to
determine priorities throughout the system?
Are the resources available for agricultural research sufficient,
and are they being efficiently utilized?
What is the role and importance of the private sector in agricultural research, and is this research complementary or competitive with public sector research?

The maintenance of quality in research is a very important goal. Some of the issues surrounding the quality of ag'icultural research which were examined were the following:
Do the funding policies of the Federal agencies encourage highquality research?
What aspects of the acricifltural research system correlate with
the promotion and performance of high-quality research?
How does the broad scientific community perceive the quality
of agricultural research in general, and what criteria should be
used in forming such judgments of quality?
Is the quality of scientific personnel engaged in agricultural research sufficiently high and, if not, how can it be improved?
What steps can be taken to raise the status of those engared in
agricultural research?
I References are to volumes I and II of the printed hearing record.
2 U.s. ConZres., 1House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Science. Research and Technology and Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis. Agricultural Research and Development: Background Papers. (Committee print) 94th Cong., 1st sess. September 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 179 p.
'Mhid., p. 32.

In attempting to increase agricultural productivity either in the United States or abroad, it is necessary that crucial areas of research be emphasized in proportion to their potential contributions. In considering the existence of research "gaps" and how best they can be filled, the Subconimitt(s addressed the following questions, among others:
Is there any consensus within the agricultural research comnMunity on areas of research that are currently underfunded or
What are the most important underlying causes for the existence of research gaps" in agriculture?
What "non-agricultural" research activities are highly important to the agricultural research and development program! .
What impact-have the numerous regulations which affect agricultural food production and distribution had on the traditional
patterns and priorities of agricultural research?
What types of research are being carried on by the private
sector, and to what extent?
How much and what kinds of research being done in the United
States have relevance to agriculture in other countries and vice
One of the underlying causes of research gaps is poor communication 1 inkages among researchers both within and outside the agricultural research community, the users of that research, and the consumers of the foodstuffs which are the product of that research. Some of the questions considered in this regard were:
What can be done to improve communication among those involved in agricultural research and in other facets of agriculture
such as production, marketing and consumption?
What organizations should be involved in achieving expanded
communications about agricultural research and development activities, and what responsibilities should be assigned to those
Are there problems with technology transfer which are unique
to agriculture?
Is the agricultural research system responsive to new demands
placed upon it by users and consumers, and are the users and consumers aware of the potential and the limitations of
agricultural research?

Followin, a period of study on the subject of agricultural research, during which the issues outlined above were brought to light, the Subcommittees held eight days of hearings in Washington, D.C. and field hearings in three centers of agricultural research. As all these hearings were directed towards an examination of the agricultural research system as it relates to food, it is hoped that in the future additional special oversight hearings might be held on other aspects of agricultural research such as fiber, forestry, other renewable natural resources, and rural life.

In order to develop an accurate and precise picture of the agricultural research system in the United States, and of its potential ability to meet food nee(ls, it is necessary to define the exact, scope of such research. its limitations. and the way in which such efforts may be linked to increased or improved food production. The testimony of the witnesses and the extensive material submitted for the record by members of the research community provided ample basis for a discussion of these topics.

The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. MAr. Robert W. Long, appeared as one of the first witnesses in these hearings, and defined the scope of agricultural research for the Subcommittees:
Agricultural research deals with the discovery, combination, and synthesis of knowledge essential to the continuing efficient production and marketing and the effective use of food, fiber, forest resources, clothing, and shelter under changing economic, social, and political conditions in the United States and the world; it deals with the protection of producers and consumers and with the wise use of natural resources; it involves the elucidation of a broad spectrum of public policy alternatives and consequences for people on and off the farms; and it includes research designed to add to basic knowledge that will advance these aims. (I: p. 41)
THe went on to state that scientists of many disciplinary backgrounds including physical. biological. economic, social and political, would be involved in the agricultural research process. (I: p. 41) Long also suggested that many variables must be considered as part of the agricultural research process: "Climate: physiographic conditions: soil characteristics: water quality and availability: types of vegetation, livestock, and pests-including genetic variability within species." (I: p. 164)
Congressman Fred Richmond, a enlber of the House Agriculture Committee, testified that, not only does agricultural research have many facets, it also af ects a grrent many activities or processes in the daily lives of people:
Agricultural research affects the availability of food products, the cost of food, the nutritional quality of food, the availability of energy, the development of alternative energy sources for use in urban settings and contributes to the wholesomeness of the urban environment as well. ( II: p. 401)
The Subcommittees intended the hearings to focus on the foodrelated aspects of the agricultural research system. Chairman Symington explained this in his opening remarks at the second set of hearings and defined the elements he considered to be part of agricultural research:
It is our preliminary view that agricultural research should be directed both toward: securing an abundant supply of high quality, inexpensive and nutritious
7.-S39--76 3

food for the citizens of this country and for the rest of the world, and achieving the general improvement of the quality of rural and urban life.
Agricultural research is involved in all aspects of production, processing, packaging, transportation, storage, and distribution. Between thie appropriation or allocation of funds for agricultural research anld the achievement of its goals are dozens of institutions within which scientists are engaged in basic research, applied research. tchnolmogical developlent, and the exten ion of results. (II: P. 3

Tf e complexities of t1he agricultural research system, with 11its many1 faict-, its interlisplllary approach, and its Imany potential illipacts Jillzt be recognized in any iscussionlls of thallt system. Suggestions for il)IOvimeItllS. ,critical conlilienlts, or even lleaningful praise of suchl a system1l cannot be made u11less the 11Inatulre of agricultilural science is under tood in its entirety. In background papers prepared for the hearings by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, it was pointed out that:
Rese rch and development in the agricultural sciences involve changing growth processes in living orgnisms-spe tically plants and animals. Changes are diflicult to create and hard to control. The vast majority of potential improvements in one facet result in diminishment of some other feature of the plant or animal world. I)iethylstilbestrol (DES) is a good example. The gain in efficiency of feed fed to beef animals was eventually discountedd by the potential hazard to humans of cancerous sid(le effects. The lapsed time between discovery and recall was nearly two decades, however.'
Clearly, it must be considered that the responise-times to new trends or rapidly changing national priorities may well be system-lnimited in terms of the complexities of agricultural research. The Subcommittees attempted to keep such limitations in mind during the course of the hearings and in this subsequent analysis of the materials and testimony which had been received.


USDA witnesses provided much of the evidence which linked the advance of agricultural technology to any future increases in food production. Assistant Secretary Long, for instance, supplied the following statement for the record:
Major change in productivity will occur when new major technology is developed and adopted. It will also result from the accumulation of small incremental gains achieved over a period of years. . Estimating the availability and impact of major new technology is inexact at best. Some developments occur quickly, others came as the results of decades of systematic effort. (1: p. 184)
There have been some recent statements in the literature which indicate that the United States is not keeping up with the demand for new technology- needed to continue increases in food productivity. Faced with expanding populations, worldwide, this would seem a dangerous and highly unfortunate situation. One of these claims appeared in a recent issue of Science magazine:
that the trend in yields on [seven] experimental farms remained level in the decade of the 1960's can be explained by the absence of any breakthroughs in technology. The simple fact is that farmers are consuming technology faster than it is being produced by research.

Op. cit.. Mayer in TBackground Papers. p. 31.
2Thomnpon. Louis, Science, v. 188, n. 4188, 9 May 1975; p. 537.


A 1974 report of the TSI)A had also supported this idea. stating: . for the future, minor technologies will contribute a modest imrprovemnent in productivity, but major change will have to wait the discovery of new major technology.
In his testimliony Lon. discussed the possible reasois for the lowdown in tecinological developments after ihe specta,1ular ~nilcs>e in the first half of the 20th century Another factor needs to be recognized in the discussion of developing technology. As agricultural production becomes more sophisticated, dramatic breakthroughs are more difficult to achieve. Furthermore. an increasing proportion of research and development effort must be devoted to such thing as new varieties simply to maintain current levels of productivity. Therefore. unless there are significant increases in support for agricultural research a lower proportion of the available resources can be devoted to new or additional improvements in productivity. (I: p. 184)
A representative of the agricultural science com uiitvY. Dri. Svylvan AWittwer, chairman of the Board on Agriculture and enewable Resources (BARR) of the National Academy of Sciences. also expressed the urgent needs in agricultural research in order to meet the technological demands for the future:
There is the urgency for a reassessment of national and global priorities and strategies in agricultural research. We cannot abdicate this responsibility to others. This Nation is. and must remain, the center of action for meeting world food problems. We have gone through an environmental movement, and now have keen awareness of the importance of protection, preservation, and conservation of our nonrenewable resources. We are now in the midst of an energy crisis and worldwide inflation. Here food and energy have many linkages, including price. We have more people on the Earth, and the numbers are increasing more rapidly than ever before in history. There is little indication that in the immediate future this will change. Any progress in the reduction of birth rates will be more than compensated for by increased life spans. There is no acceptable alternative except to seek agricultural victory in food production. Our productive capacity reserves include not only land, water, energy and. fertilizer, and labor-saving equipment, but technology that can yet be created through agricultural research investments. (1: p. 21)
Dr. Sterling Wortman, of the Rockefeller Foundation. expressed his belief during the hearings that research was the key to the expanding world food problem. He suggested that the United States is faced with a "magnificent opportunity" to deal effectively with the problems of hunger and poverty, but noted that the Government must have the "will and the wisdom to act." (II: pp. 17-18)
In 1975 a conference of agricultural scientists. administrators, and policymakers met in Kansas City to discuss the research efforts required to meet United States and world food needs. The results of that conference were presented during the hearings. Although more detail on that conference is presented later in this report, the major theme is worthy of note here. It was that research is desperately needed in some key problem areas, including the field of human nutrition, crop production, use of natural resources and plant and animal disease and pest control. The conference participants felt that if these research needs were not met shortly, the United States could not provide the lead technology for its own food needs, mucl less the food needs of the rest of the world.
Dr. Karl Mattil, a professor of food production research with the Texas A. & M. University, felt that aspects of food research other than those normally clasified as productivity-related should be given

gt t'o cvlkllasm-Is in fiiture efforts to hIcrevase the supply of food(. hIIst attuliit lrclc thle 1o1lowving~ premise141
thiat foodl science and( engineering are probably thle most economical
app~t'esto incre'asim, food suplievs iii terins of utiliZation of nonrenewable rvs-tbrucs. mid huldWing thw linev on foodi prices. They moi~rt your careful evaluat hii :I 1A( I Ixrt I : 1). :')VA. representative of the private sector, Dr. Eichard Aldrichi, presidenqt o)f the( kricultura1 1i'k-searcli Institute, also expressed the opiinioni
t ha the .nl way to inisure increas-e(I food production wa trog YeseilCh efforts. lie indicated that the Unted States should take the lead in providingc the baSic resear'Ch efforts in relation to food, whilv developing countries couldl handle the more applied research necosSUI'-v to meet their iindividlual needs:
i elieve one oif the challeniges we face as a nation in meeting world food problems is in providing the linkage between so-called basic and applied researchi. 'Much of the latter, out of necessity likely will need to be done by tile develo~pinig nations themselves. (11 p 1. 2:14)
Thus, representatives from aill major segments of the agricultural research community seemed to agree that expanded and carefully directed research would be necessary in order to insure expanded foot production in the United States and the world.

111. PARTICIPANTS IN THEII~ SYSTEM FOR FOODRELATED AG~RIICUILTURAL RESEARCHThe agricultural research system in this Nation is highly complex, with many sources of support, including, major funding fromt tHie Federal Government. In order to examine the strength's and weakne-zses of the system as it exists today, it wvas necessai-v for the Sucommit .tees to explore in detail the, org-tnization, inanti,(einent and funding~ of food-related agricultural research in the United State-,. This chapter Is a comnpi ation of all the material testified to or submitted for the hearings record that bears on the organizational aspects of the national agricultural research system. as it relates to food.

Much of the agYricultural research in the 'Nation is conducted or adiMn1istered by five of thie six researi-o ao-eicies of tie USD A. d1ie W State Agricultural Experiment Stations N S) he1' school:4 (4,
forestry, and the 16 land-c'rant collCe5 of 1S90. (Se; Appefl(lix A for a chirolfloloai of leo-i'at ion and events in aqur~cfltural re'-earcli aild Appendix C for a listin-r of these academic institutions.) Asixth agency of the VS! )X. th.e Cooperative State Researc-h Service. has as its primiarv function the adiniinistiatioii of11 Federal fundIs for)I 'aalculura reearh a th Stte gricultural Experiment Statione-. tile schools of forestry, the Thn-l-(YI'ant Colle2'es. of 1 890. Tuske~yee I I1 tte. and private institutions. The five I -SI )A agencies perfol-ml~t) agricu Itural research are: The Agrriculturzil Rev. ear-cli S e, v ice AiS the Forest Service (FS) the FAanner Cooperative S,-ervic( ( o the(- Economic Research Service EBSE)S: and the Stat,istical REpoltn Service sirsS).
By far, the largest portion of the food-related r-,eca,'ci: by5hade' the ARS, which conduct-c basic, applied, and deeomna researchii the folloWiny areas : Soil. -water. and air resources: pest control: crops; livestock;: environmental quality ; food andl ntr-ijon : consumer services; rm-ral and international development : Food safety : hetalthi hazardIs related to agricultural processes,- and domestic and1 expo-rt Ilre~ T. AV. Edmuinster. the administrator of' the AIRS, noted that all of the above mentioned subject areas "are a part of the Department*- s missions." (II: pp. 68-69)
The Economic Research Service (EB-S) carries out a smaller 1uro"rai on research related to food p)rodulctionl and marketing. Rob1 ert Long observed:
ERS programs deal with food and fiber economnics and resource and1 developmient economics. Included are studies of foreign demand and competition and foreign deveiopwnient, the latter to aid agricultur-Al evel oineit in lower ,n(,-oiie countries. (1: p. 4G)
Tjje ERS is also concerned with natural resources as they inmpact on food production. Therefore, EPZS has condhlctedl -s-cli studies as : The


impact of elimination of pesticides and herbicides; the impact of energy shortages; and surveys of the United States to determine how mulch land is available for crops. The results of ERS research projects are widely used by the UISI)A. other government agencies, the Congress. farmers, industry. and the general public to gain inforiiato in on the national economy, as it refltes to agriculturIe, the internaSi(onal economy, and ( onl major comInod(ities.
The Statistical Reporting Servi'ce (SRS) gathers statistics on farm production, supply, farmn prices and other aspects of the agricultural and food systells. A very small portion of thile total SRS budget is
Iused fr rer act cities on the metlhodologies used in gathering such statistics. Since these data play such a vital role in the functions of food I)produiction, the reSeairch conducted by the SRS on statistical methodology is included iII this report as food-related.
The Farmer Cooperative Service (FCS) conducts or supports research activities in cooperative financing arrangements to improve the eflicienv of farm (opelralions. Add(itionallv. FCS has been concerned with studies of the following items: grain, livestock, fruits, vegetalles, farm suppil)ly efliciency, byproducts of cotton, cooperative (lev('lollent, dairy, alind transportation and distributionn of farm p~ro(huce.
) ["d"i "'C.
The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) within the USDA does not conduct any agricultural research but is responsible for much of the Federal grant money that goes to the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (see list. Appendix C) at the land-grant universities. Therefore, the CSRS has a significant impact on the food-related research that is conducted in the United States. The CSRS is also involved with the granting of funds to the 1(6 Colleges of 1890, and Tuskegee Institute. (See list, Appendix C.) Appl)roximately two-thirds of the research done by these colleges would be considered food-related.
The four USDA agencies which conduct food-related research, and the other (CSRS), which administers contracts for food-related research, are under two different assistant secretary level positions within the USDA. The ARS and the CSRS are under the Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research, and Education, while the ERS, SRS, and FCS are under the Director of Agricultural Economics.
The following sections describe more fully the organizational details of each of these agencies within the USI)A.

The Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Mr. T. W. Edminster, testified on September 24, 1975 about the specific programs and organizational aspects of that agency. Hie stated that the ARS is geographically decentralized into four regions and 27 areas and centers, a prograninmiatic division which allows for maximum contact with the needs and special prol)lems; of the various regions of thle United States:
ARS has laboratories and other experimental facilities in every basic physiographic region of the United States. This puts scientists and administrators in frequent and direct contact with users of research information and problems
Northeastern, North-central. Western, and Southern. Each has a deputy administrator.


where they occur, and also in day-to-day contact with our State experiment station colleagues. (II: p. 72)
The ARS in fiscal yearl 1975 supported 9,300 personnel who were involved in approximately 2,900 separate research projects at 145 locations. Edminster noted that the ARS programs were linked to the missions and goals of the USDA, and occurred in the areas of domestic and international programs.
The ARS has recently undergone a programmatic reorganization designed to improve that agency's response to national research needs in the field of agriculture. The main change was the introduction of a management and planning system (MAPS), which:.
provides a framework for setting goals and objectives, allocating resources, providing technical leadership and optimizing the opportunities [for] job satisfaction for our employees. (II: p. 69)
The program structure which evolved from this MAPS system (discussed in detail in part IV) includes the following elements (II: pp. 94-97)
National research programs: The ARS has 67 such programs, each of which is linked to the missions and goals of the USDA;
Special research programs: There are eight of these programs which were not fully explained in the testimony.
The administration of the MAPS system involves the following
staff elements of the ARS:
National program staff: Four assistant administrators 2 of the ARS and the Director of the International Programs Division in the ARS form this staff. Each of the national research programs are assigned to one of these people, who are responsible for planning, documenting, and coordinating the research. Each of the special research progrTamsn are also assigned to a member of the national program staff for administration.
Technical program staff: Approximately 250 of the top ARS research scientists have been assigned to assist the national program staff. In addition to their duties in the research area, these advisers have a responsibility to:
. promote and foster scientific excellence and technical advice to national program and analysis staffs for developing programs and conducting long-range planning and program assessment. They also . because they're in the field working closely with other research groups, provide a very excellent technical relationship with other research workers. (II: p. 70T)
Work reporting units: The research programs have been divided by location into appproximately 1,000 of these units. The reporting and detailed planning for individual research projects are accomplished on this level.
Perhaps the most important of the research functions performed Ev the Economic Research Service (ERS) relating to food would be:
-The development of national and worldwide estimates of current
food use and the distribution of food;
2The four assistant administrators are as follows: Livestock and Veterinary Sciences: Plant and Entomological Sciences; Soil, Water and Air Sciences; and Marketing, Nutrition, and Engineering Sciences.

-TdeT1 t i fi ,unong e0onoinic, forces.
,ItiOll ()f tll" ill i0l's) I iT)s
I ( I
instit lit T()Ve1,11l1lV'lT lmllcies 111(1 progrzl ills Nvilich C"111
affect f0ml
of sliort-forill fore(%ist" "In(l pr(Jectiolis
of Hie (I *- t i-ihut Imi () f foo(l for P-ol),ihle zmd f lit 11 re evvilts
-EN-.111lat Wil (of, thc 1w1,1,()rnlallce of the foc)d 6o(-tol. ill 111coting Hie
liveik .1ild (4 ,.onsulllvrs -Ink
die froals of so :Ich- oil rel,-Ite l ill at I
ldviit I I i (-,i t i i () f t I i e probable -1111(1 )1 (1 -4 1* t I I I T."', .I, IJ I Ist Inent S
in. t1le i,()()(I oclor -Ind e\-aluafion of fli(, ii ipict of czlicli adjustmellt:-4 ()I) ,ill o-"Illen't< of soc ct \- : and
-Dist ri hi it ion of (IC") 10111 ic illt,()rnmti0ii on a Imsis for ii,:4e hy
individual consuiiwr- and deci -:011111,Lkers ill flie fomt sodol.,

TI io E I Z S, i n 19 7 -). lia (I ,11 )prox i rll,l tv I v 1 .0 0 cl.)) p] ovees. o f Iv I I I cl I wero r(,F(,.u*(Awr,;. Most (4 t1use et-np1()N'VCS are in t1w
ton, D.C.. area. but a crood portion (about 20 ,ire loc,-ited ill
other State.--: 111d in fol'eiirll C01l1ltI'l( ,S.
The two I)road areas of foo(I and fiber econoinie! :md resource wid development econon6cs pro\-ide the core procri-aininatic cyonis for tlie ERS. Tli(,.- (, two areas are divi(ied into pro( rrams as shown below
-Food and fiber econonlies: (1) connt iodity economics; (2) li,,itional economic analysis: and (3) foreigil, demand and conipetition; and
-Resource, and development economics: (1) natural resource economics: (2) econornic development: and (3) foreign development.
Within each of the six divisions mentioned above there -uv ina
pTgmm areas headed by prograni leaders. "A_ prouraill area im-ly (.()]Itain a number of individual research topics, each of which will be headed by a project leader.

According to Assi4ant Secretary Long (1: p. 46), the St,itistic-d Reportintr Service, (SIZS) is concerned with the development of 1111portant sfi-itistical techniques used in gathering and eval iiatingr-st -it Isti cal data. Tn creneral, the primai-y function of the SMS is to collli)lle "timely sur ,eys to develop estimates of farm production and suppl.y. farm prices, and other aq)ects of the atrricultural and food syst('111. SRS also perfr.!-i!,.,, n.-searcli in st,-itisfic-al methodolog.Y. data, pr()0(1 11_ 1111r techniques, and mcl-bods of (ratberinCr and 4
3 COMMr)dity eeono111l(--:.. ('oll)nlodity programs and polley analysis: fihors, vrAils :11ii, feeds; oil crops: friiltQ, vegetables. ,we(-toners. and tobacco*, meat ankl.-Is: dalry: and poultry. NatioTial eeoiiom1(- aunly,4is: Agrleultiiral history: teelinoln.-Y aitd injiovatioii in the food and fiber sector : sfrivtiirP ind idjiistnient.s : inputs snrl fiii;inces transportatioTl : sector performnTICP Mefl mr(-, : eeonowle i rojeetlons and analytic: l sYstoins 1)ricinjz. polie!-, and program ;mi]N- k ewisnnier (,conoinies. ind demand amil : and (list ributlon atiWv k. Foreign &m.iml nnrl conwolition : eountrips 'Ind ngricultur,)] trade rmliv v
weather nnd climate Lat;n : Africa ind 'MiddIp 1-',nst Asia : Easzterri Furopp
.9orlet Uninri : (_0111TWITIJO Ain : eommoditie, : st,01sties interuritiorvil momv an(I finnnep and econorrile dvvvlopino' nt aiirf trade. Natuvil rf- sources econom1C,; : A-ricultiin-0 resmircolq and Pnvirnnins-tit : rtr:il rt-wirees and environniont : reso,1r(,o 111VOTItor v and usv rpzoure(, nrznn17AtJ(111 ntid control : risout-cp vro i-otlons nnd :4ystom, nnd res,)iirro T)rogr.qm otiirTiP,-; Eoonomie &V(1 01,MVTJ 11011."Iti1r, 1ndn.,,tr1:i1 loe"Ition : beflth and e(Neatton rerinnn] !,nril N, Aq : Sfirite and locA :overnniviit : fnri)me : Tnnnpower popul-ition : and rur.91 deV-1()prront indicators. development : Int('rymflonal training and tpchnic.il asslptqnce.
4 01)fprt. (T-orL,(* N.. wil 1 )N ver. ".A Lri-leoltiii-al 1! -v:1r(-)i : Aten. 'M,-,Tie-. ,Iiid
Institutions." The Con1xr(, :-i(,rrd Itesearch Service, Library of Pongres.q, July M5.


Although the SRS has a fairly larae effort in the area of data compilation which relates to food and food production. the only research it performs relates to the statistical methodologies utilize(f in data collection. It is estimated that approximatelv 1 to 111 percent of the SRS effort is devoted to such research activities and. therefore, can be considered food related.

Robert Long stated that the Farmer Cooperative Service (FCS) deals with "studies of financial. organizational. leAl, so ial, and economic aspects of cooperative activity in U.S. agriculture." (I: p. 46) Less than 100 employees perform the duties of the FCS in a central Washington office. No field offices are maintained by the FCS.

The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) has the following functions, described by Robert Long:
The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) administers formula (Hatch and McIntire-Stennis Acts) and special grant programs (Public Law 89-106) in support of programs in State institutions. CSRS provides as.itance to the research administrators in coordinating research among the State institutions and between them and the Department of Agriculture. This assistance includes participation in long-range program development, at each institution, in regions, and nationwide. (I: pp. 46-47)
The CSRS functions are carried out by approximately S0 employees located in Washington. of which about 35 Ire scientific specialists.
Although the CSRS does not actually perform agricultural research. its impact on those who can carry out such research is significant. The CSRS has been delegated the authority of the Secretary of the USDA to administer Hatch Act fund~. which pr-ovi e a considerable amount of the fidin, for research at the Stalte- A. ltural Experiment Sta-,ate A(-iloif1ura! l ;ermn Stations and at other institutions (see section on "Funding" in Aupendix E).
As related by Dr. Thomas Ronningen. Associate Administrator of CSRS. the Hatch Act states that the Secretary of the USi)A shall:
'Furnish such advice and assistance as will best promote the purposes of this Act. including participation in coordination of research initiated under this Act by the State agricultural experiment stations, from time to time to indicate such lines of inquiry as to him seem most important. and to encourage and assist in the establishment and maintenance of cooperation by and between the several State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and between the stations and the United States Department of Agriculture." ( II : pp. 130-131)
As far as the activities of the CSRS go. the Service felt that ip previously much of their time had been devoted to assuring compliance with the legal requirements of the Hatch Act in their funding of research projects. However, this has changed, as noted by Rlonningen:
experience has shown that less time and resources are needed to insure compliance than in early years of the Hatch Act. Therefore, the agency now devotes the major part of its efforts to help improve total programs at client institutions and to help facilitate coordinative Federal-State and multistate research activities. (II: p. 134)

The CSRS necessarily maintains a great deal of information on existing research projects due to the nature of its functions. In 1966, a new system was instituted in the (SRS to track on-going research, the Current Research InfoIrmation Systemn. Ronningen stated that about 13 CSRS elmployees were involved in the mlaintenllance of this CollIp)llterized information systell.
The link between the CSRS and thle State Agricu ltural Experiment Stations is very strong. lonningen noted that the A(hllistrator of the ('SRS is a inelliber of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and that (5S officials participate in
all of the regular meetings of the four Regional Association of Experi1lelit Station I)irectors.

There are 55 State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES), of which 53 5 are under the management of the land-grant colleges of 1862. The Hatch Act of 1887 had provided for thile establishment, in each State or territory, of a department of the land-grant institution to be known as the State Agricultural Experiment Station. Although the SAES are not a part of the USI)A organizational structure, the cooperation between the ITSD)A and the SAES is extensive, as evidenced by the substantial interaction between the SAES and the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and other agencies. An SAES is typically part of a college of agriculture within a larger university structure. An important strength of the SAES system, as seen by Dr. Orville Bentley, a representative of the policy advisory mechanism of the USDA, is that there "is local direction of the program by the station director within the college of agriculture and the land-grant college." (1: p. 47) Dr. Bentley further observed:
The typical agricultural experiment station is one of three branches of a college of agriculture in the State land-grant university. It involves a wide array of biological, physical, and social science disciplines. The other two branches of the college are concerned with resident instruction and cooperative extension. The experiment station, the primary agricultural research organization of its State, is supported by funds from several sources-State taxes, Federal funds through the USDA and granting agencies, and grants from private industry and foundations. (1: p. 48)
The organizational structure of most SAES includes an administrative head who reports to the dean or vice president with the responsibility for that college. Departments within the college can be classified into fields of science, such as biochemistry, genetics, or agricultural economics, or into commodity-oriented topics, such as agronomy, animal science, and food science. Usually both types of departments will be found in the same college. A department head will typically be responsible for general program direction in the three
5 The Connecticut State Agricultural Experiment Station is not associated with a university. It was established under State initiative in 1875 prior to the legislation of 1887 which allowed for the formation of an SAES at each land-grant university in each State. Since Connecticut did have a land-grant university, this meant that the State acquired a second SAES under the auspices of that legislation. The SAES in Geneva. New York is also somewhat autonomous from the land-grant system. Although the director of the SAES does report to officials of Cornell University. which happens to be the land-grant university for New York State, this is not done under the terms of the Act of 1887.


areas of research, resident instruction, and extension. Dr. Orville IB ntlev, Co-chairman of the Agricultural Resetarch Policy Advisorv

Committee (ARPAC), noted that "the research function of the typical
experiment station is closely interim shed with resident instruction
and extension; in fact, the same scientst is often involved in at least
two of those functions." (I: p. 48)
Dr. Bentley observed that the input of scientific expertise from the
USI)A is also an integral part of the SAES research system since:
USDA researchers are located in many university departments and work cooperatively with those departments. These scientists often carry joint titles with the USDA and the university, and many have graduate students or teach seminars or advanced graduate courses. (I: p. 48)

In 1975-76 there were approximately 26.000 ) Irofessiona] workers
in the SAES and cooperating state institutions.


Nine other Federal organizations conduct, administer, or support
food-related agricultural research. The following chart outlines the
organizations, the specific agencies involved within the organizational
structure, and their research concerns. The research listed encompasses
both basic and applied research directly related to food, as well as
research more peripherally related to the topic. Detailed information
on these activities can be found in II: pp. 1011)-1132.


Organizations Agencies Program areas'research concerns

Department of State- Agency for International Devel- Reducing problems of food production in developing rations: opment: Economic and sector analysis and planning for agriculTechnical Assistance Bu- tural and rural development.
reau. Food crop production.
Water and tropical soils management.
Livestock production.
Network of international research centers. Low-cost nutritious foods.
Reaching the pre-school child (nutrition). National nutritional planning.
Bureau of International Coordinating budgets for Food and Agriculture Organization Organizational Affairs. and World Health Organization. Department of Coin- National Bureau of Standards... Preparing standard reference materials for fertilizers, leaf merce. analysis and oxygen permeation for food wrappings.
Performing studies to improve salmon productivity in hatcheries.
Making determinations of moisture in grains. Performing studies of the problems of development and clearance of new pesticides.
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Stuyding biological life sciences, chemistry, and economics Service. which relate to fisheries as a source of food.
Department of Defense- U.S. Army Natick Development Conducting research on nutrient effectiveness, processing'and Center and Letterman Army storage, and radiation preservation. Institute of Research.
Department of the U.S. Geological Survey:
I nterior. Topographic Division.
Earth Resources Observation
Systems Program,
Geologic Division,
Water Resources Division.
Fish and Wildlife Service------ Performing studies on fish disease prevention and control. National Park Service------ ___ Examining the causes, effects, and control of natural fires. Department of Health, National Institutes of Health---- Supporting projects in nutrition research: Education, and Food and Drug Administra- Food products
Welfare. tion: Biochemical and metabolism studies.
Division of Nutrition. Nutrition associated with diseased states.
Division of Consumer Nutrition education.


Org3ni 7 tinns Agencies Program areas research concerns

E n i o n e n I a I Pro- Cxplor!ng t ir, nn,, ibje ininact-, of iVrici,Itjral and food proc.
1PI-1 on :%ien y, e'lsin activ;tie, nn onwronmental quality
Food products ird-stry.
All-nite oeJ ria-7pinant.
Health and effects fo pesticides.
[UeCt Of Pf)IILJtarit,;,
Avriciltural pollotarit control.
Erp,:. '--e3' ") ?nJ B medical and Env ronniert.fl InvcticatinR plin! ciences and the -afety and Y.0;olesomene s
De ii.: 1- n e-t P- ,?arch. of irr;idiatpd fooi.k.
Admi-,i1r---tion S-I.ir energy. Fuels from blem3ss. Agricultural and industrial process
theat. Wind eqef y.
Ten---c 1 f Conducting research on fertilizer ,
Au!l),- ',
-e Llr;0orife for Biolog c;41, ;',P- FunfinQ projects involvinW
hitvictial, and Social Sciences. Agricultural c1 00S, Wowing or pro-,?siing plant or animal products, fcol hher, forest or fo h, or their pathogens. Nonagrirultur,-il species, a! ti-,e organism level, with some relevance to agriculture.
Biological pr ,ces-es at the uhct,,?,anism level, with some underlaying rei, ai, e to aZricul!ural matters. Directorate for Atmospheric, Investigating erivironniental forecasting.
Astronomical, Earth, and
Ocean S-ien-ps.
Directo(ate for Research Applied Supporting proiecfs on: 1:) National Needs. OrRanic farmin .
Alternative beef produ f!on sy-tems.
Pivironmentai contrc,! of effluents.
Weather modificatioll.
Analyses ct world grairi reserves.
Dire-torate for Scientific, Tech- Suppo.ting: rolgical, and International Research an t e constraints on aRr; culture. Affai rs. NAS study on woild tood and nutritionProjeel: in matheM311C31 dynarilic simulation modeling of agricultural production.

-r I i i, uz N- I V 1-- It S I TT E S A N 1) C 0 1 T, 1- C, I "; IV I TI I P, I C 17 LTTL P. L E F'S 111.k R C I I
1"M )(,RA --%IS

Th r, are at 1,-.t- t (me Inindred universities and cr)11('I res ollt.-Zide tllo, 1, L I itli,ttle 'Xperlillent Statiolin
llwi ('(d1it--es ( )f P 90 SAIStelli AN-hich have 1-1 -cnlvll c!''ol-ts
1,01atinu. to food and a(,-ricultllre. J11 soille ca- (,S the proirl"llils Inav bc,
qtlll -iliall. ill othet. cases the efforts are extensive and v well rival
the wo(ri-aill size (-it 0f tile SAFds-affiliatcd 11w
Anwr*(-(in A ; (wiwon (tif Filivel-sity A -cri-icillt ilr,) I A(InI1111<1 I-0 ()I-:
(AAT-AA) 1111d 'l-twk a survey of these i!l 1971). Thev
foill-I(I 11''It I v.,11-jetv ()f <)I1(r:ITl1z,!1 ional milts exi-iod, j!j,-jjj(j*TI(r S011-1*
(.011(,L') z of -(mw divi ;;Ons 01- dely'll-tim"It- ('1"
Ill vj( \v of his (,i ird ropm-till(r it' ]!(d
Iii) !Iate a 01*01allix"vional thome for tit(, agrictiltural iv-ea-ch
ill tli( <(, nradenlic Instiflit;011s.
The 'Natimial of State Col1r, (ind T-n;vor,-ities
Ill".1t'-d" ivcClItIv th"tt the non-1:111J (-rnmt ins" it tit 20-21-)
of -til tll(, (I,rj-j(-jjjtjlI-Zjj ill the 1-1111cii! Clearl.v.
fl w (.irmt riblitioll ().I* t It("-;(, acadenlic I 11- titlit iol',,- to tlic .I
Ill Ithe United "-;tates, ill terms (d, tr'll"wd 111,1111)(M'(1i,


A 1( 't rri IL\I, IR I's P( I I

Representatives ()f tliir, Rockefeller Foundation '-md tile 'Midwo, -zt
111- Iltllte testill(A at the hv,,r';n(,rs nn l'ood-f-clated

activities currently supported bv those oro-anizatimis. To suppleii1ent, that testiniony, information Nva obt:mled from tile 1"ol (l FomidatiOll, the Kellogcr FouiidatK..i, the C. F. Ketterin,,r Pouji(latioii midt the. Boyce Thompson Institute, selected I)e(,,atis(, of their siflOstantial In'Volvenient with teL support of food- refia ted research proci-ams:.

Tlie For(], FOtmdcaL-!o,L fo-li ic-(! oil ""ri-icuIttire, In the (Ievel opiiio- coulAi-les ;j. 111ve hia pl-o, vaill re: s 1)1.0duction tecllnolooy; policy anJ plammilg: e(lhicatilom-ll instittite- : coilimunity developi-fient; and e Jension. A Fomi.1ation. spoke.s',)an. Dr. Lowell S. -1 lai-din. noted that:
For the ---_uits are made dil-et4l' to
rarely do we P-,iid On agvicult; Iral res".ar"11 proje(-t whi('111 Is carried I- oxellisil-ely ill the IStttes. ill-4iflitiol"", are s')II10tillies involved. in the execution of the re,4eareh and trainin- in overseas locations. (11 1145)
The potentift'l impact of the Fowidation's stippoi-t for foreil, 11 ivsea-I-(-,h could be sio-nitictant fo,,- tke Avorld food sitiiatimi. Additkonallv. Hardin believes that benefits could acerue to U.S. tio-rictilturttl S.I ientists since the del, elopement of professional competence zmd Mistittitional capacity in overseas locations has made it ilpo --:sible to coiidu, -t collaborative internatiolnid agricit'i"hiral research of a (111ality v-I-iiI(_AI previously Was il-11possible." (11 : 1). 1146)

The Foniidatioll PI'GIde.m funds for re-lie auspices of three separate procrnams: Conquest of search under 4LI 1 Whunger, qualitv o--'-' em-ironment, and equal opportunity. Un(loL. the conqueA of jitinger pro-ri-am. Nvlii(,Ii perforiiis the portiwi of
agricultural research (Yrants and aid to U.S. are plox-lded
so that foreign students may study agricultural sciences and perform research useful to their homelands. The Foundation also provides extensive support to international acri-icultural centers through the Consultative Group on International A(Yricultural Research (CGIAR) as. part of this progrrani. Recently, the Foundation established the International Food Polic X 'to carry out research and
y Research Institute
current policy analysis on problenis affecting, the productioll. co])sumption, availabilitv. and equitable distribution of food throii(rhout the world, but partickilarly in the developing natimis."
Altboucrli the emphas-is is on international aa-icultm-al rese-arch needs, the Foundati n does provide support for domest 10 -ic re; earcli
()ie(.tS oil peS4- 111_11,1 )Cjjlejjt
pr -eSe, r(-11. Ilitroren fjXj1-;o,,j Qtudies. m-1
t It I%- k,
examination oie cooq)erati -es to fm-ther the a(Irrictiltiii-id

THE MIDIVEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE istitlite is a nonprofit res(- rch orcrariizaThe MIdwest Research. Ii a
on Walk ed in Kansas Citv. Missouri. The Institute performs coiifnict research for and flier pul)lic and private
r TIo(-k(,f(,IIvr Foun(!ation. The Pre ;Wpnt's Revivw and Annual Itt-port. V47,7 New York. 1). 15-.

groups. Past work has inclIuded : he develoI)nent of soluble, edible film for f(X)( pack ing ; research on environmental pollution problems relatilg to aIgricuIltural activities; water (1uaity stuieS ; research on toxic substances, including pesticides; economic studies of market expansion, transportation and distribution of agricultural products, an 1 poduct diversilicat ion, and technology assessments of developIllPts 111 agnericlfr.
In the past year the Midwest Research Institute sponsored a series of public forumis called "Mid-continent Perspectives" which allowed indust ry leaders to discuss the major problem areas confronting their particullar segments of the food system. The results of these seminars have been published and widely distributed to increase public awareness of critical issues relating to the food system.

The W. K. Kellogg Foundation is located in Battle Creek, Michigan. Projects related to food research are sponsored both domestically and internationally in such areas as: reindeer husbandry in Lapland; livestock and alfalfa production improvements for American Indians; irrigation efficiency studies for Navajo Indians; establishment of the Norwegian Food Research Institute for food science programs; and a program in Australia to provide a forum for decisionmakers in agricultural policy.
The funds utilized by the foundation are entirely internally generated. The Annual Report for 1975 stated that:
A grant-making organization, the Foundation does not operate programs. It provides financial assistance to organizations and institutions that have identified and analyzed problems and have designed constructive action programs focused on practical solutions.'

The C. F. Kettering Foundation supports food-related research in nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis at its own Yellow Springs laboratory in Ohio. The nitrogen fixation research activities are intended to develop new, synthetic systems capable of fixing nitrogen with less stringent requirements. The goal of the photosynthesis research is to improve the efficiency of photosynthesis processes and to improve the relationship between photosynthetic and nitrogen-fixation processes.
The mandate of the Foundation is to involve itself in problems of societal importance. It was established in 1950 and had not been particularly agriculturally oriented in the past. In recent years, the Foundation has concentrated its research efforts on more mission-oriented, unidirectional research. Although the efforts of the Foundation are presently funded entirely from endowment funds, the Foundation has recently made some efforts to obtain funding in the form of grants from various agencies and hopes to achieve some success in this area in the coming years.
A small program of extramural funding from the Foundation is utilized by U.S. universities to study the relationship between agriculture and climate. The Foundation also supported a research symposium
7 W. K. Kellogg Foundation. 1975 Annual Report. Battle Creek, Michigan. p. 41.

on "Crop Productivity-PResearch Imperatives" recently. In the fall of 1976 it will sponsor a conference in Spain on nitrogen fixation, and it intends to support similar conferences on a continuing basis every other year.

The Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research is a nonprofit institute located in Yonkers, N.Y. The program at Boyce Thompson Institute concentrates almost exclusively on food-related research and is supported approximately half from endowment funds and half from grants. The Boyce Thompson Institute is not a grant-making organization.
The Boyce Thompson Institute has four separate program areas or divisions: Environmental Biology: Cell Physiology and Virology; Physiology or Parasitism and Forest Biology; and Biological Chemicals. The research of the institute focuses on the areas of crop productivity, disease and parasite control, environmental effects on plants, seed physiology, and development of specific chemicals for pest and weed control.
The purpose of the Boyce Thompson Institute is "to learn through research how to improve the productivity of plants so they can better serve the needs of people everywhere." 8
It was difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of private industry involvement in food-related agricultural research during the testimony portion of the hearings. Dr. Richard J. Aldrich, a representative of the Agricultural Research Institute (ARI), apppeared but noted that:
... the Agricultural Research Institute is not a research funding and a research managing organization. It is simply an association of organizations that are doing research. We are not underwriting research.... ARI was established to provide for communications on research matters between managers of research in the private sector and the public sector and between the private sector and the Agricultural Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The ARI still serves a very important primary role in these areas. But it is not research supporting of and in itself. (II: p. 257)
The ARI had 150 members at the time of the hearings, of which 99 were private industries and associations. Aldrich did feel that the private sector portion of ARI membership "tends to emphasize foods, feeds, machinery and agricultural chemicals," (II: p. 229) so that at least the major portion of these 99 could be considered as involved in food-related research efforts. That organization had conducted a survev of industry efforts in agricultural research in 1967. The report indicated that a list of 825 organizations deemed "large enough to be capable of significant activity in agricultural research and development" had been compiled by the ARI. Of the surveys sent out to these private organizations, only 1252 responses were received.
s Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc. 52d Annual Report, 1975. Yonkers, New York. p. 2.

(IT: p. 11 :1) 7 ) Ta I de iii t I mt re mrt (IT: 1). 111 11 sted t I I(,, t ype o f research ilitercst- repm-ted h.. io-- c \I'll() 11.1d lv.,- pmidcd. -kJ*I)I-()Ximately two-third- to thrv(-foiiilh- ()f* the re- pwidill(r ()j,(rajllZjjtjojIS Could be (-()1I--:,IdcIvd dii-c(liv ijiv(6-cd \\-itli ()I- related to food. This lilight 111(licth, th,11 1 111,111 1. 00 (if' Ilolllvspm l -o- .11v m chldcd) or as few ws 200 orgailizations ire involved in fo(O-related reseat-ch efforts in the private iii(lu-1 rY sector. 'Fhe ART sui-vvY In 19G7 had coilelli(led Olaf nm(flik. 50 pi-ecent of the -,I (ri-I (,ult ural re.-carch capabilltv in the IT,,', (,(I t IS vpiv- ( iitvd by private indtist ry, aiid Idi-i(L-11, tho presh!vIlt of, ARL noted that -altlimigh tlli ,- d,'tta 11,1', not hecil updatNI. I thiiik it is fail- to a!- silwe th.it the rviti t Imi,1 Ilip likel.v is 1*0111(dily today Nvhat it Avas 10 years ago." (11: 1). 2'10) Adol ph 1 (111 rilig t! le
4 midatimi lit d cmiducted ,urvcv *11 1973 NvIi1c',i .'ational Scielive Fo It a I
ide116fie,d 1215 COMP*111lie's lit tho pl-iA-1tC floo(l ill(J1IL -l-%' (-Ctoj' W111(.11, w0re cWI(ljj( -t-jlj(r ,1trilificant iv.c varch. ( 11 : 1). 265)
Industry iiivolvemvi-It iji research efforts in food Or food-related arezis is frequently oriented toward product ililprovellient with tlle 111telit of reducing cw-ts. But the diversity of research efforts undertakeii 1) v private, ill(11141-y is (11xviliplified b the statement of Clausi, (11 Fe 1)11(1 4ellt a tive of a large food conipany, who noted that:
600 of our mx o seienti,,ts an(i teelinically trained People in olir or,-,Inization worldwide are enga-ed in ,cietitific Nvork W the arv;i.-4 ()f ki,,ic re,,var,-h on food and nutrie0s, new product and process development, witritional i,11provement of our products. proce." improvement of our pro(-(-,, es, quality assurance, and compliance with government regulations. (11 : 1). 263)
Althou(ji a complete pictm-e of private, ijidiistry support for foodrelated research could not be obtained. the, few statements made diiring the hearings and presented abow indicate that the kvel of effort is relativ(,1v Illgh, and that the results of such research could have a significaTit impact on the ability of the United States to mvet future food needs.

In addition to the many foreign iiiiiversities and institutions illvolved in aaricultural research efforts there are a number of or(ranizattions which play all ii-ilportant. role in Such research progralils, either through the granting of extensive funds, the management of such grants, or the actual conduct, of research in foreicrii couliti-10s. A brief otitline of the major orglallizatimis involved is p j'-ese lite d )lere.

This (rroup. CGIAR. is aii iiite.iji-iti0iial coiisortium which was organized in 1971 Nvith the primary gofll of illcr( :Ll-ijlg food-crop pl-odliction in the ANorld t-brotigh. researell. CGIAR is co -;pollsored
by the World Baiik. the Uiiited Natiolls Development ('111d
the Food wid Agriculture Orgaiiization (KNO) of tll(' Vilited Nitations. I'll 197'.) flie "110111) lvi(I a total members1iij) of :1"I (rovernilientsincluding Ow Vriit vd St:ttc --iliterll,-It jimial or.Lrallizat imis. "Ifid pI-lvatv foundations. Since, the tiwo of its folindill(r tll(, nimil)er of re :earcll project supported by CGIAR has increased, from, 4 to 12. The main

support from (GIAR goes to international agricultural centers. Ti, tSe are treated individually below. In 1976 operation of the newest f these centers, the International Center for Agricultural Resea nlh i Dry Areas (ICARI)A), is expected to begin. The animal report of the World Bank for 1975 says of ICARDA: This center will devote its research to some cereals (e.g.. harley), so m in legumes (e.g., lentils), and to farming systems centered on sheep and goats, vith particular attention to the problems of areas with low and irregular rainfi ll. When the center is established and begins its work. probably inii 1976, the i sultative group system of research programs will embr,ee the major food (r,'jps and animals, and all of the econological zones, to be found iu the deve!opin;I world.'
The IRRI was founded in 1960 in the Philippines by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in cooperation with the Government of the Philippines. The operation of this center is now supported mainly by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Rleseurcha (CGIAR). In the past decade this center produced the miracle ri'ce varieties and their related technology. It has also trained Asian scientists and technicians and has provided direct technical assistance to national R. & D. organizations in many of the rice-growing nations of tropical Asia.

The IITA is located in Ibadan. Nigeria -nd was established in 1967, also by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, in cooperation with tlhe NigerIan government. The work of this institute concentrates on cowpeas and other legumes, root crops. corn, rice, and tropical cropping systems. This center serves the humid areas of Africa.

The ICRISAT was established in Hyderabad. India in order to concentrate on the improvement of four crops especially important to farmers in low-rainfall areas-sorghum, millets, chick-peas and pigcon-peas. It was founded in mid-1972 by the World bank and the U.N. Development Program in cooperation with the government of India.

The acronym for this center is CIMMYT, as derived from its name in Spanish. The CIMMYT is located in Mexico and was established in 1966 by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Government of Mexico. The center was the source of the high-yielding dwarf wheats now in worldwide usage and has conducted significant work in corn

This center is located near Cali. Colombia and also derives its acronym, CIAT, from its Spanish name. The Ford and Rockefeller FouiSWorld Bank, Annual Report 1975. Washington, D.C. p. 71.

d|ttions, and the government of Colombia established CIAT in 1967 ill order to speed the agricultural development of the humid tropics, speciallyy in the Americas. The work of this center is concentrated nainly on improved beef production systems, and on improving the p)r(ouction of casfava field beans and other important tropical crops.

This center. CIP, was organized initially by the Agency for Internattional I)evelopmen t of the De)partment of State and the North Carolina State IUniversitY in cooperation with the Government of Peru, where it is located. The main research efforts of C('IP are aimed at intensification of the production of the white potato. a staple food of eople in high elevations in the Andes and many other regions of the

ILCA was established in Ethiopia in 1974 by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in cooperation with the Ethiopian Government. Research at this center is concentrated on improvement of livestock production systems. An outreach program at ILCA allows research to be conducted in different regions of Africa under the auspices and sponsorship of the center.

This center, ILRAD, is located in Kenya and was also established by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in cooperation with the government of the host country. ILRAD concentrates its research activities on livestock, mainly the control of diseases. The central goal of ILRAD work is to improve the production of livestock.

WARDA is located in Monrovia, Liberia, and was established by a consortium of West African nations, with partial funding from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). This center is concerned mainly with the ecological conditions in West Africa as they affect rice production.

The shortened name used for this organization is GENES. This is not a research center, in that it has no physical facilities. The Board consists of a grouping of scientists representing many nations. Their responsibility is to insure that the international research centers and national governments have the germ plasma collections that are necessary for their research activities. The home base for GENES is with the FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy.


CARIS is administered by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) with funding from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) through 1976. After 1976, the FAO will integrate this computerized information gathering and centralization system into its own operations. CARIS is intended to be a central listing of all on-going agricultural research efforts, on a world-wide basis.


1hQe policy-making system for setti.l~y national and regiJonal research priorities has recently been revised. Assistant. Secretary of A(rriculture Robert Long testified that:
In 1WG. the Congress requested that the Secretary of Agriculture give immediate consideration to the establishment of an appropriate Research Review C(om mi ttee comprised equally of representatives of the land-grant experiment stations, departmental research agencies, affected producer organization ns, and appropriate industry representation to examine fully each and every line of agricultural research conducted by the Department and by the State experiment ,stations. This resulted in a report entitled "A National Program of Research for Agriculture," published in 1966. (I: p. 43)
Low' wient on to state that input fr'om hundreds of scientists and ,,IldiI -It ra1tors in the State A '.rri cultural Experiment Stations
(SALS ~USDA. and private industry eeue ocmpl hssuy
Hie nocted that the report considered kthe essential role of a(Yri(,IIi IC ] il'e our (1(1010111x and'l t1e Well-beingT of people at home and abrofit. It. eN-aluated the strencrtbis and wveaknesses in acrr-iciiltura1 reSea iwi aud idenifie IiOlIfSacin i- a~xiicult are and forest ri.' (1: p.

Tlip development of a system for research planning and coordinatjoni at the national and regonal111 levels evolNved fromi- a r(cominendation1 ini th ,at report. A~s Loni nr')oted.- in 1.911
...the Agricultural Pe.;ea reb Po licy Advisory Committee-successzor to the Agri iu tural Research Planning ('oimi ttee--adopted a regional and national a,'-riciiltura1 research planning- systei. it began its implementation by arranging for thle establishment of four regional research planning committees. Iii early 1974. the ARPAC memnbershiip was updated and a National Research Plann,11ing, CoPinmi: te- NPC) was estai-lished. (1I pp. 45-46)
FL Nationial ,and', 1'%'C"onai A ricultu ral Reszearch anid P1 "anniiSvt~~~.'mL latest oihate the efforts: of the research ,ieiices andl thle exteInsionl service of the USDAX with thie act ivities of the SALS and thie ar-adeimic institutions re-presented by the 'National AVssoej-;ation of State Utniver-Sity (ald Land Gran-Pt (Colleffyes ( NA-_SULGC. _k memitorandum o a~r]-eemnient between- the 'NA SULG'C and thle USD.V set1s out 'a
A~l 1!101 ecti foiv tl u cooperative research o'Torts.. Thiese efforts

0 ~O!VClocal, regional andi national problems a1Iieiiw1 at:ricuIt-Ire, fore'stry oitier renewable natural wvcsources. and rural life.
-To provide sei -ntific expertise to loeal, State. anId 14ederalI Goven-(I'l
1:1-Clnt aiz'en1cics. private organization and iindividua is.
1) P'1iN1k C ienitific compoj~teiice for teaching and to make avail.1 1e inlcreaIsed Ve?0)hjioppo't1iflities for' grraidate students.
--'Io provide scienitiflic exper-tise ) and] research iii support of prlo(rnumjfs that, related, to foreign niations. JI p. 52))

11I e wmork i I)~ olr, In izti il for. thI]e pla]II i I I gr evaII Ii: I m Ifl. ceoo-(Ii I at ioil and s ilwp t, of these clerli resea reli e1.rt i t lieAgiul ir IResea vhi Pol icy Adlvisorv ( om, Mttee ( A I 'PAC( wliich is,. adm1itili-t eim I .*oiultl I I tile 1 >1)A andl the )%A St IA(T(. A silhCOwillitte(. or A IlZ I 'A (1 ca.,lIled thIe Na (t oI Ia I Ag(rrI( IIlt Iu 1-aI Re-carchi Plannling CorniMittee. Was formed sp('cifical~y to deal wit1 11 thle imjjporItan~t. 1)laflling~ velmnt of A A( I ct ivit jes. (I ). "I'llTe poliy s4i ;teliient of
the( 'Natijonal Mi lniiingr ( onnnittee. sul unittedI for the hearing" r'ecord,1 explains the iiiethiodolory to be w.ed bv that grrolp ill ettimr researchl lni(ri )i es:
Priorities for researchi will be formulatedI by utilizing the Inputs of scientists. research p rog.rai task forces, resea rch progrdai group s, regional planning comim1it tees and the National1 Planning Commit tee. Additional guidance on research priorities will be solicited from third parties and legislative bodies. Improved reallocation of research resources qnd the continued viability of the system will require a hat both &eclsioniinakers ind scientists, react positively to the improved information and priorities thus obtained. (I : p. 73) 11wi A RPAC Uind the 'National Planninf)z Committee set up Research I "roblen is Areas for th li esearchi conducwted byV the 1)ubliciv stipL~ored
airicaltra reerchI 'I'lem, Th folloNinlr( liSt of roal for f od
relatedlie~aul Pi'obIl .XriA etts Wfl t submitted for iiicl iiuion in thils
lcarjing record( I :pp. 56-,59 )
-Insurle, a stal e tanl productive agiciiture for the future through.1I
wise 1-lnarelm-et of natural reson rces
-P rotect fove:4s. cropns and livestock froin insects, diseases and other
--I~oduce anl at teqiaate supply of farm anid forest products -,t,
(locIeasing rea Il o(1iiet joi costs
-Fixpan 1( 1lie, demianid for farm, an(1 forcst p)rodllicts by(eelopinig
tew anuid impiroved products andl lrocesse(s andl enhianc,-ing prolict
-Imnprove efhciency in the marketing systemu
-Expand exp~ort markets and assist developing nations
-rotect consumer health and improve nutrition and well-being
of the AmeicanI people.
Two other Research Problem Area goals could lbe considered to have, some elements9 partially related to food resea rch:
--Asist rural Americans to improve their level of living
-Promnote community improvement including development of
beauity. recreation, en vi ronment, econionie opportunity, and(. publie services.
Figure 1 illustrates that each of the four geog(raphical regions of the U~nited States (South, North Central, 'Northeast, and Wvest) has a subunit under the National Planning Comumittee designated as the llsearch P1 anninor Committee. Each Research Planningr Committee suiidvi des again into Research Planning Groups to handle the coordination of research in a region for a particular Research Planning A rea.
1Ms-tnherm of ARPAC Include Individuals such as the administrators of ARS. 5115. ISRS, ERS. FCS. various representatives of other USDA unIts, and the representative of NXASIA.G(', SAFES. and Colleges of 1890.




Board on Agricultural U.S WORLD US and Renewable BANtK GOVT.
Resources (and OTHERS) L7

Other Appropriations
Legislation Food Program

COOPERATIVE Agricultural Branch Agency Missions Authoriration
EXTENSION Agruura Branch New Legislation Committees&
SERVICE Appropiions Others




Collegesof 180/SAES CSS AFS RS R



I RPC's (each region has one)
RPG s (each region may have seven)
I .-T-.I
RP's (each region may have 47) NRPs

FIGURE 1.-Factor.,/organizations affecting food-related rcscarch policiCes in the public system.
This chart indicates all of the policy systems, factors, or organizations which could be identified during the hearings as affecting food-research policies in the public system. The National and Regional Agricultural Research Planning System is enclosed by dotted lines.


A !Cv, ltilpll- wvd ill thi, clint-t arv listed at fit(,, front of this report %vith fill, \ceptioll of tht. followilig:
N"lliml:11 P1,11111ill-Z Conlinithe (Re-lonal and Natioual Agricultural

N P S, Nntimwl Pro-ralij Siaff ( Agricultural Research Svrvi(-e, US D A
N P, P Pes,, nn h Pnw-rnin ( A-rictiltural Ri-search l."ervice, USDAI
I 'A ( 'S Pi-w-i-,im Anal vs( s III(,' ( '(oordiiiat ion Staff ( Agricultural Research
St, i. v i .1 t S I )A )
it it Re-o-arch Pro-rain I Re-iotial aiid Nntiowil, A-ricultural Research

'I'l III I i I I g ( 'o III )I I i It ee ( Re'_' io I I a I III d N'. It ional A.')-i (-I I] I ura I 11- 'S*\ St eill
it N Ite"o ,l rch I 'l-w', I..1 nt roll p I l,.,.e4,.i( 111fil, alld N111 ional Agricu It ural Re-,
-r. I rr I i I 'I, I I I I I ill 1 ai)
TA To-, hjj()j(),ry
TT 1 197,5. the ARPAC spw,-zored -I national Workin(r conference e oil
to AIM U.S. and AV( )rld Food Ne( (I.- I'lie Ojective of this
'11-,11Ot('1d bv Dr. Orvillv Belltlev
to idelitify the l w,).-;f important probleiiis requiriiit- re.soarch durhi.,, the
next 11) to 15 years tliat ai fect the Capacity of the United S'tates to 111crea.se alld ill1lol'oVe d(lillostio., 211111 woAd food 'supplies. Th(-1 conterenev. did not attempt to su..1,rest rc,4e;tr(-h approaches for solving the problems or to reconinivild finidbig (jl* ()I*,rjtlljZ*j,
The APPAC had (attellipted to inchide participants ill the Conference frol! -Ill aspect.,; od, the public and private agricultural research seefors.
11 -fley tll(.,, major fin(linLrs of that conference and sug'L hat
Th- most important problenis . represent the driving e(l,-,e of research
Thev are the. -nrohleiiis, NvIlich Alwfld rv'( .eive 'special coll-i6eratioll hy rearc!i adiiiiiiistratoi*s, planners, and individual scientists.. 'Maity of the )ther pnolll lll- idelititied .1.'4 important at the conference also must be Solved if the Ui,* ,(,d States and world food nveds are to be met. Npverthele., .,4. the in )st iiii(h.sel-ve, fit least first consideration in pro-raui formulation -in(] cm)pvnilive Solile of theill iiiay serve a.s celirral. needs around which Wher
prt .,! (.,I I he eva I lia tod. ( T I 171
'P.t <(, resillts will influence, the direction of food research for many ye-irs to 4* )IIP (%treful tai-geting of effort on the areas and iwohlem,4 of greaw 4 ixupor(I (.,Ill colltrilmte greatly to supplying consumers with ainple foo(I. at
abl(- i.Jces mid to alleviating the intermittent crises and chronic iiwidence of Nvl ,-I,4 They can help increase the stability and well-beiiig- of the U.'S'.
'IfT .1cult-111'.1! industry. (11 : 1). 160)

111 view of the ijllport allc(.. priced oil the results of tbis coil f erell(-T1) ARPAC it is assinned that future 2kRPAC policies alld
will kl lleavily influenced 1) v the c0iifvl-(1 ,IIe0 results, Which will
b" -!Jl :1111.tlrixed ill Its fill(a] repol.f.2


Afji)j- ()f Ille (ro(Ils fol- 119tiollal qlld 1- ,crioljlll naricilltural rec;earch pro ,s loverbi p those estabi isliporl by i lie T-,qT- A fol. it (-)wn a Cri-ire rch Inissiolig. sulw) 1"ted 11 Iter;al for tll(-'
IV('01,41 that 11)(111ded listim), of "Food Rese, rch Goals." These included

Of the first two cluanters of the report of tlfl 4 eonfcreaee Avo-re Winiitfel fOr D 'li-ion in the hearinix 1-( (.orll ,jl iql lippe:jr iti 11 : pp. 174-220.


the following: (1) resource conservation and use: (2) production and (uality imlllprovemnent; (3) protection of resource comnlodities and food; (4) human nutrition and food consumption: and (5) general technology and program evaluation. (II pp. 1032-1036)
Each agency of the USI)A. such as the A,,ricultural Re each Service, (ARS) Farmer Cooperative Se rvice, and so on. also has it- own policy planning apparatus which meshes with VSI)A missions and the Agrieultur1al Rsae ..!n
the Aricultal Research Policy Advisory ( .7nnittee/iNational Panning Committee above.


T. V. Edminster. Ad(iministr'ator of the Agricultural Research ervice, provided the Subco ittee with a listing of ARS missions and
goals as follows (II: pp. 88-89) :
USDA-ARS Mission Operating goal
Agricultural production efficiency ---------- New knowledge to increase productivity.
Agricultural marketing and distribution----- Research for new products and processes for reducing markerilg costs.
Agricultural exports------------------- --- Develop commercial agricultural
markets through research.
Rural development ------------------------ Increase the supply of adequate
housing (research).
Environmental improvement and resource de- Land and water resource Aimvelopment and use. provemnient to maintain aid improve the quality of the
environment and the natural
resource base.
Consumer services and human resource de- New knowledge to reduce health velopment. h hazards.
Food and nutrition -----------------------Food and nutrition research.
Consumer services and human resource ------ New knowledge to reduce health hazards.
Foreign agricultural development ----------- Research to help countrie n ;eelorate their agricultural development pIrocess.
The Agricultural Research Service. AIRS. was in the process of developing and implementing a new planning and mnaaement srsm called MAPS (Management and Planning System) at the time of t":e hearings. Edminster testified that MAPS:
. provides a framework for setting goals and objectives, allocating resour- e. providing technical leadership) and optimizing opportunities and job satisrati on for our employees. (11 p ). 77)
The ARS divides its research activities into National Research >'Pograms each of which must contain the.following elements:
. a description of the current state of the art, visualized technlgies needed in 10 years or less, research approaches that may prove succes->ul, potential benefits and consequences of the new technologies, and levels of re arch efforts . ( II: p. 78)
Edminster explained that for each Naticnmal Research Proaram within the ARS:
Priority formulation . begins with an examination of national priorities as reflected by economic conditions, public concerns, and the efforts of scientists and policymakers. Department and agency missions, goals and programs are reviewed annually and adjusted when necessary to meet changing conditions.

4 (1

111f lrlliatb)li ll sv(l ill priority scttin- ill the flow..; froni a large nuniber iif \,aiiie(l siiiirces, lwtli witliin aii(l ontsi(le the ngency. 'I'lie Con;.Zre- ,q, avrihtn-iimducers, marketing firms, consumer groups, action agencies, Rnd many (,Ihers cim!-4istently request research Information and recommend needs. We ret1wil'alids oi stich coil-liminications from coiisuiners or iisers of technologies

scicllti:-Os contrillute t(I priorities when th( y revanniend research k- gers and rese:lrch leaders re:11!,l 111all 111fir project ,. Pn ,zrain nuiwig
dil-ect proj(wts and .0aff special lists recoinniend short- aiid liau.-range redirecI i4,rs. Ill additioll, the a-ency ot)ndncts nunwroiis provrain and site. re%-ivNvs, Nvork-inlivilth st1ldi('.,-:, annual r(,N-iows of spociflf- project reloorts all(] plans. This
and d \-11,11nic the results ()f \N-hich ,ire iised in establishinlrri()T-N o ( ;wll . (H : pp. 79 80)
"I"o cst,11)1i ,Il tll(' sc(q.)e of tile 1',esoarcii 1"n),crramq for vacli
tli(, AIZS utiliz(- its National PI-w!r('1111 'St"111% ooll.- Istlncr of its '171d tll(, dil-0clOT' Of tile International Divisioll. Tho 'N-jt1()!ia1 Pio rrtmi Stall' ], ,isslste(l by a tecliIlic"ll -I d N-1 1-"() 1W "T(Mp, ooll, ;i-4111(r of top ARS n-'ca rch sclelltl4s. 1,011(r 11:1(1 earlier infor) I le( I tll,, ,'llbcommittees that, a Pro,,,ram Aiiah-sis aml Coor(lination i,-; ab4o 11sed LY the "NRS to:' V
Carry out scientific and economic analyses, technology assessments, do staff Nvork on bud,--ets, provide staff support to the Administrator and Associate Administrator, and work closely with the NPS in program planning and ewrdina0 I T1.A
"I'lie ARS ba(l. at file timo of the liearings. 67 National Re seal-Cll Pro(rrains and 8 Speci tl TZei e.ireli I)rograins'. Vie National Itesearch Pro,-,rna ills were 'n-oll1w(I into flie following major -i.ibject areas iviiieli (rive -,In indicate lon, of tile rv -clarch policies an(I priorities of t1w A-R.S:
Crop efficiency r( search; animal production efficiency research; research on
marketing efficiency research; research to expand agriculfliral exports: rt earch to improve human health and safety; research on consiimer services: f0i)d and nutrition research: research on conservation and lise of land and water resources and maintaining environmental quality; and, research on Nvatersli(-, d development. (II: pp. 93-97)


The otlier 1, SDA agency having a major influence on food-related resean-Ji. the Cooperative 8'tate Research Service (CSIZS), has control of policy aml priorities only within its competitive, gralifs progn-alil. Wit1lin this proo*rain, the CSRS selected seven areas of "national Two(I" W111ell wei-e food-related in fiscal year 1976. Tn (,.qcli area the CSRS provi(led further gitidance, as to the "specific areas of inquiry"
-which would he emisidered acceptable in proposals frolli partleipatill" J-n. Iitufions. (Tile seven selected subject area,-; liave been listed ifl ApI)endix E of t1tis report.) Altliough CSRS ofliloials stated that tile-\, do cmisult with the ARS 1)rior to selection tll(,Il* 111VIAS Of "national
I j
Ueo(,. COSIts does I-laVe clo-e control ovel- tflese 1-ese-m-eli prioritiPs.
T11 tol-1-11" of CSRS input into the policies and priorities of (Alier USDA fuld tile state A <--rT-ic1llt11nql Expol-1111clit Stations.
A - CSR. ;, '10111illfstratm- and scionti.,,;ts participate in the re-ional-national research planning processes; themselves at all levels and thus participate In priority selting, and in forniulatin-, rv.,-4onrce illoeition recomineii(lat-jons.
CSTUS, 'WieTltists and adininisfritorq participate ill interagency committees xvillifti the USDA and oil at ninuber of similar groups involving Iwo or more


Federal departments. We provide information from the State research institutions and facilitate access to their expertise, which is considerable, for various national and Federal purposes.
The recent reorganization of the Agricultural Research Service has provided for improved interactions with CSRS and the State research institutions. These interactions have been encouraged and abetted by ARS administration. (II: p. 134)
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) control a large portion of the agricultural research in progress to(lay. Mention has already been made of the role played by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges in terms of cooperation with the USDA on the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Cornmittee (ARPAC) program for the National and Rtegional Agricultural Research Planning System. Additionally, there is another organization, the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) which has as members the SAES directors and the Administrator of CSRS. Thus, for the Federal portion of the SAES funding. the policies of ARPAC/NPC and the ESCOP
presumably have at least some influence on research goals. It cannot be denied, however, that since the formula grants made to the SAES and Colleges of 1890 are applied to programs mainly of local interest as determined by the experiment station directors, and since the State legislatures provide the majority of the funds for the SAES, the work of these institutions is guided almost exclusively by regional or localized priorities and policies. Dr. Thomas Ronningen of the CSRS noted that, although it had been somewhat difficult to achieve in the past, in more recent times the agreement between regional and national priorities was much better. (II: p. 136)
A few of the witnesses, representing private research organizations outside the USDA system, elaborated on the research goals and priorities of their institutions.
The President of the Agricultural Research Institute, Dr. R. J. Aldrich, as a spokesman for many of the private sector firms engaged in food-related research efforts, stated that "there. is concern that Government regulations directed at agriculture are requiring the industry
to reallocate research dollars from productive, to what might be called defensive research." (IT: p. 230)
Aldrich felt that this was:
. in response to a growing number of government laws and regulations adopted to enhance environmental quality and assure human safety and which additionally seek to regulate fundamental agriculture activities, that is, the use of land, water, labor, equipment, chemicals, and plant varieties. These factors are cited to show that a higher and higher percentage of the U.S. agricultural research funds, the total dollars that are available, including those of industry. are being drained away from research designed to increase and improve the supply of agricultural products.
These demands on industry research budgets mean that more and more public funds are going to be required to provide the necessary basic and applied research data that we will need to produce and protect the food for this Country and for export. (11: p. 231)

Another indtisi ry representat ive. Mr. Adolph (lausi. noted flint re ponlents to a SurveV on future location of 11. & ). dollars in the food industry hal stipulated that large amounts would go into regulatory and legal efforts. le observed:
At the tEop f everybody's list was a (onsideralde increase in the dollars allocated for testing safety and toxicology, as well as for quality control and quality assurance. Product and process development, new or established, as well as basic sciences were much further down the list when it came to increase in funding. iI : p 2 6.5 )
Another questiol asked inl that survey was:
"What single problem will present the greatest challenge to food industry (Mnip:ie betw-en 1975 ind 1!161' The answer givell ln1't often was contrain;s resulting from government regulations. Next most frequently given answer was raw material costs or shortages and their consequent impact on food prices, but iis was a very distaint second. ( 11: p. 266)
('lausi testified that this change in priorities for private industry research efforts could have detrimental effects on future progress to meet world food needs. Ile said that private industry representatives in their response to the questions in this survey:
indicated strongly that they are pessimistic about new developments forthcoming in food processing; that progress in the food industry's search for new ways to provide consumers with nutritious, adequate. and interesting foods is being slowed down significantly by the maze of regulations that must he followed -specially those which mean excess testing for safety and additional quality checks over those already in effect. This obvious l)reoccupation with safety, toxicology, and quality controls on the part of the food processing research comnInunity translates into less time and fewer dollars spent on basic research and new product development. Consequently, it also can mean that a gradual slowdown in the rate of technological progress in the food industry may well result. (II: p. 266)
('hairian Syllington pursued this topic of "defensive research" in his questioning of Al(lriclh. He asked whether:
. there has been an overemphasis on it, or whether the emphasis has been proper, but has tended to detract from the moneys that would have otherwise been available for productive research? Are you suggesting we simply need enough money for both, or that we should deemphasize the defensive [research] . ? (II : 1). 253)
Aldrich replied that:
. there are demands for the research dollar to do things that do not, in themselves, increase our production or the production capability of our livestock and of our crops. We are saying that as there are additional demands on the research dollar, these are cutting into the funds that are available in industry and in the universities. (1: p. 253)
William IHollis. science coolinator of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, accoimpanied Aldrich and added that, these areas of "defensive research" provide "an added dimension which is getting m and deservess the emphasis. . We are having to
divert from static, committed funds into these ancillary areas. All t hat we are saving is that these requirements are imp osinig new and s ol1etillies inadeqiuatelyv conceive(l constrIaints on the existing a(rw'ult1ral research and productions VStelll?' : p. 214)
Consumer pressures for "natu Ira' or env'onnentally safe foods were also st ressed by ('Inusi as a force which changes industry pioities for resench. Ill fact, he felt that such p.resslres cold(1(1 effectively lead to "H ilt 1( levl oi c OltPlf)el ilwP ol2


.. some Americans' unrealistic attitudes toward our own country's food supply. attitudes which consistently thwart science and technology in their attempts to find useful solutions to world hunger problems. . I am talking about the l)ack-to-nature advocates, who believe that foods right off the farm are thile only ones fit to eat. Their feelings are understandable, but they conveniently seem to forget that in our highly developed urbanized society, very few of us live close enough to the land to do that. Rather, we must depend on an efficient food processing and distribution system to supply our needs. (II: p). 267)
The various policy and priority setting mechanisms of the major public agencies performing and supporting agricultural research have been discussed in detail. Although mention was made of the "missions" of the USD)A and other agencies which would determine the programmatic directions for those agencies. it seems clear that many other and diverse forces play a decisive role in the determination of actual research priorities. Concern about future world food shortages cannot he quantified, but may certainly be a factor in many research funding decisions. Local political pressures to bring economic viability to local farm industries may provide vet another source of policy control.
Many of these forces which were discussed in the hearings are capsulized here. Although all of the many hidden policy controls may not have been exposed during the hearings process, those which were mentioned are probably some of the most influential.

The greatest source of potential power in the control of agricultural research efforts is the limitation of funding by the Federal Government and/or the State governments, since a major portion of the food-related research is supported by the public sector. Projects will often be "tailored" to meet the national goal of the day-be it energy, space exploration, or aid to developing countries. Congressional declarations of policy in various areas are watched closely by both researchers and agency administrators so that budget requests will have a better chance of approval. At the same time. careful attention must be paid to the directives given by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Executive Office of the President. These may include directives to achieve certain budget levels or emphasize certain programs. Within the OMB. the Agricultural Branch has the responsibility to oversee the budget of the Department of Agriculture. The programs of other agencies which include food-related or agriulturalrelated research activities are coordinated within the 01MB.
Other factors may affect the priorities placed on food-related research activities as well. Consumer concerns about the safety and nutrition of food may lead the regulatory and other agencies to emphasize these aspects of their research activities. Natural disasters which may ruin entire crops may also be influential in the decisionmaking processes for agricultural research within the Federal Government. Shortages of energy and/or other materials may precipitate a national


effort to ptlursue research for better methods to utilize these materials in the agricultural roses.
A few of the witnesses addressed the issue of funding controls and assessed the potential impact of such controls on the agricultural ren' arclh system for the Nat ion. For example, Dr. Karl MattI testified:
If the United States is to maintain a leadership role in alleviating and eventually overcoming the world's hunger problem, its scientific and engineering leadership must be a major factor in reaching this end. Current Federal resources allocated to advancing foid science and engineering are entirely inadequate for this objective . I could cite some aliost unbelievable examples from my own personal experiences of projects that have a tremendous payout potentiil for which we simply have not been able to find a source of funds. (II: p. 322)
I)r. (ilenn Pound testified that the National Science Foiundation. which is responsible for much of the grant money currently provided for basic agricultural research, also uses the funding process to restrict research to certain areas:
NSF must look at the needs that come before it and see that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, another Federal agency, has a substantial budget in R. & D. in agriculture, and therefore they tend to withhold support from really good research proposals as basic research that tends to be production oriented and commodity oriented. (II : p. 440)
Pound mentioned that. not only was the amount of funding available for competitive gr ants within the USDA inadequate, but that further limitations occurred since: "much of this is earmarked by Congress for commodity research." (II: p. 426)


A number of socially oriented policies of the Federal Government were mentioned as factors which limit the type or amount of research performed in the food-related areas. Earlier in this report some mention was made of the regulatory influences on the allocation of research expertise and effort in the private sector. Mr. Adolph Cl1ausi, a representative of the food industry, endorsed the idea, during his testimnony, of assessing the effects of each proposed regulation on a "cost-benefit basis" and felt judgments as to the implementation of regulations which might affect the research process should be subject to a consideration of such priorities as safety, economics and so forth. Clausi stated:
If it is clearly a matter of safety, economics should certainly take second seat. But if it is a matter of technical judgment or regulatory interpretation, then there ought to be provision for some judgment of latitude, especially if it is still a technical issue. (II: p. 291)
This point was as elaborated upon by Dr. Mattil who suggested that Federal regulations are often based on inadequate technical knowledge:
In the area of nutrition and toxicology, our serious problem is that we are being asked to provide safe foods when scientists cannot define a safe food . we need to go back to the drawing boards to define what is a safe food. ... There is really very little knowledge about how much is safe and how much is unsafe. Yet, regulations are being established prescribing certain levels without adequate knowledge. In the area where we are interested in proteins, unbelievably there is presently no generally accepted method for evaluating the quality of the protein that you can get 75 Ipercent of the nutritionist' to agree on. We do not know when we create a new protein food whether we can get a majority of the


nutritionists to say it is good or it is bad. The only thing they agree oh j they do not have good guidelines. (II: p. 348)
Other areas such as energy conversion measures, waste treatment regulations and environmental controls on pestici(le/fertilizer usaze were also mentioned during the hearings as factors influencing tle research process.


Some witnesses were concerned that the Federal Goverlnient, especially, does not accord agricultural research pursuits the same level of status as it does research efforts in other, possibly more "glamorous areas and that this imposes constraints on agricultural research priorities.
Dr. S. Wittwer, Chairman of the Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources of the National Academy of Sciences, testified that the "lack of scientific input into policies that affect agricultural productivity is becoming a National problem." (I: p. 7) As an example of the importance of the problem he noted that:
The National Science Foundation was created and is currently supported by Congress, and reports directly to the President. Among the 21 options, or national problems, warranting greater research and development efforts according to [their] report.. "Science Indicators. 1972," the 1973 National Science Board's report, food production is not on the list. There is also a complete absence of people even remotely connected with biology-let alone agriculture-in this top echelon of the National Science Foundation. (I: p. 8)
As a further example of this lack of status on the national level for agricultural sciences, Wittwer made the following statement:
The Council on Environmental Quality was established in 1969. It annually reports directly to the President, who in turn transmits the reports to Congress. The annual reports have given little attention or priority to preferential uses and preservation of land for food production. The latest, or fifth, annual report is no exception. (I: p. 8)
At the time of writing of this report, the situation had been at least partially alleviated, since the National Academy of Sciences was requested to conduct a study of priorities in research and development for our Nation and for the rest of the world, in order to assure adequate food supplies.3
Additionally, the Federal Council on Science and Technolog, (FCST), which serves as the coordinating body for major research efforts involving more than one Federal agency, established a Food and Nutrition Research Committee in December of 1975. The proposed charter for that committee is bound into Appendix A of the hearings record. (II: pp. 1029-1030)4

3 Letters from President Ford, dated Dee. 3. 1974. See Appendix A for a summary of this study-request and an update on the progress. 4With the passage of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization. and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282). the FCST is dissolved. It will be replaced by the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technologzy. Although implementation of this act has not been accomplIshed as yet. it may be anticipated that many of the functions of the FCST will be taken up by the newly formed Council. It is not known whether the committee structure of the FCST, including the Food and Nutrition Research Committee, will be adopted by the new Council.


Much of the additional testimony, on a variety of topics which could be classified as relating to the management of -agricultural research, focused on the USDA. The remaining discussion deals with three separate topics: Program Reviews and Peer Review; Coordination of Research Efforts; and Transfer of Research Results.


The Management and Planning System within the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) is also the source of program review activities. The national program staff has the major responsibility in this area. although it is a-ssisted by the program analysis and coordination staff and approximately 250 technical/professional employees of the ARS in evaluating and planning the national research programs.
ARS Administrator T. WV. Edminster felt that the planning and review system embodied in Management and Pl anning System was
entirely adequate for the extensive research activities of the ARS. He stated:
We have a strong base of top scientists, facilities and planning and analytical staffs that can be marshaled to cope with a wide range of agricultural problems. Equally important is the agency's central management, resource allocation and planning system which permits great flexibility in adjusting to changing needs and meeting new opportunities and urgencies in a highly participative environment. (II: p. 73)
The use of peer review or any similar rating system to judge the relative merits of various proposed research efforts within the ARS wa s not mentioned during the hearin s. However. a three-tier internal revi'CVw system does exist. This proces:I is explained in the following excerpt from a recent report on the agricultural research system:
The area director in each of the .. geographic areas reviews the proposals that have been submitted to him. He may reject certain proposals at this time. based on his knowledge of national priorities or upon his assessment of the quality of the proposal. Most proposals, however, are sent on to the regional level where they may be evaluated in the light of a broader view of regional and national needs.
At the regional office, the research proposals are rated by the Program Planning and Review Staff (PPR). This rating is based on such criteria as the assessed importance of the project in meeting national research goals, the urgency of the specific research subject, the probability of success in a reasonable time frame, the expected benefits of the project, and the probability of the same or similar research being conducted by other research institutions (SAES, private industry. and others.)
After the proposals have been rated at the regional level, they are sent to the Program Analysis and Coordination Staff (PACS) in 'Washington. D.C . Each project is rated by both an economist and a subject specialist in the relevant scientific discipline.


A third rating procedure is icond(lucted by subl)ject specialist of the National lr'gram iStaff (NS). 1ACS then prepares a lit of all project proposals ranked acording to their rating s and including a short description of the research, the number of scientist-man-years (SM Ys) each project is expected to require, the jpunleod I Watiol of the p inject, and the estimated cost of project.
ThIe Cooperative State Besearch Service (( (S11) utilizes a system f ii it ratings for it wiii:l! ai [ I I I of cIoIpetii, (WP cI'ill r I IS. A1()their "S],)(- 1] TView fun ctio wit lit the
I' 1 t w. *
('SS Is pr()Vid0Ci as a wricVit, to their "eli('l institutions, i.e., the State Agriu!l ural Ex 1eriment Statiius, allegeses of 180, anlI TIsk ~ee In1t it ute. ('SRS Associate Administrator Ronningen described this system in his testimony before the Subcommittees:
A special review is activated only on the request by the Director of a client institution. They identify a research program or problem area that they want to improve. The scientists in that group and their leaders identify problems and opportunities and alternative ways improvement might be made based on their experience and knowledge.
CSRS helps to work out the review process and identify outside experts who can best react usefully to the resident group. The process culminates in an intensive review and discussion session over most or all of a week, followed by recommendations and reactions of the outsiders, first orally and then in writing. (II: pp. 134-135)


Discussions of the coordination of research efforts centered around two separate issues: implementation of coordination among various agencies/organizations which might be conducting similar, or in some cases, identical research programs; and, coordination of agricultural research efforts with nonagricultural research programs, the results of which could impact on the methods used for food production.
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provided the most information during the hearings on its efforts to coordinate research activities with others. T. W. Edminster of ARS testified that they 'hiave r\l( _operative workili relations with other research
agencies, State, industrial and Federal, which minimizes duplication of efforts and oaximizes use and vailability of special knowledge and sI)eCial equipment. (II: p. 7 ) ie also noted that "ARS has the opportunity to coordinate U.S. research and development nee(Ids and W)op)rtunities with tl()e of foreign countries as part of its departmnent al ,pecial IForei(gn (Currency program for which the Agency is alnIinistratively awl technically re possible." With respect to coor(ination efilort s with the Private indidustry research sector, lEdlminster stated:
Coordination with private industry research is on a comprehensive and a "problem by problem" basis. Publications of USDA research results provide industry with information to develop according to their needs. Individual USDA scientists discuss research problems with industry scientists individually and at formal meetings. The recent Kansas City, Mo., Working Conference on Research to MU t .S. and World Food Needs was at tended by over 150 delegates, representing many different user groups. Under the auspices of many scientific groups, farm and industry groups, and other private organizations, scientists from government, universities and industry are brought together for this kind interaction. (II: p. 71)
Op. cit., Agricultural Research: Men, Money and Institutions. pp. 28-29.

In additional testimony on this topic, Dr. Richard J. Aldrich presented an example of coordination of efforts to produce the machinery necessary to institute a now fari f techlnology. (II: p. 231) HIe said that such examples served to:
illustrate the important role played by the private industry in agricultural research in our country and how closely it is intertwined with that of the universities and the USDA in developing usable new technology. (II: p. 231)
During the hearings. Congressman Symington held a discussion with Robert Long, Assistant Secretary of fhe USDA, concerning the coordination of USDA efforts with those of other Federal agencies:
One thing that I think is important is that both the ongoing efforts and the results of all these different research projects are cranked into the general knowledge of the Department officials as quickly as possible.
It seems to me that we would want very much to be assured that USDA and NSF, NIH, all of whom have been pretty much compartmentalized, as far as their vertical reporting obligations to their various chiefs are concerned, would have some . device for being sure that this information is disseminated and made useful as quickly as possible throughout the decision-making process . .
Is this done on some structured basis or do you just wait for articles to appear in the journals... ? (II: p. 660)
In response, Long stated that "quite a little bit of communication does take place regularly and normally within the scientific community on all subjects that have some mutual or common interests." (II: p. 660) He did say that there "could be. without doubt, some gaps here in terms of crossing the communication line," although such groups as the Federal Council on Science and Technology were relied upon to help in the coordination. Of the activities of the FCST, in this regard, Long testified:
There is the Federal Council for Science and Technology which is used to assist in coordinating efforts of the Federal research agencies, and we do get together several times a year and talk about broader issues, and do surface a number of things which have a common relationship among us. And through that process we do have some communication, but I don't know if there is any formal mechanism. (II: p. 660)
In material submitted for the record., Long discussed the coordination of USDA with the regulatory ac'Q,,cies which might minpqct on agricultural processes:
USDA researchers relate closely to staffs of a wide range of regulatory programs related to agriculture. In this way, their scientific know-how and research findings are considered in the development and implementation of regulatory programs. This includes USDA programs as well as those in other departments and agencies such as OSHA in the Department of Labor, the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Fnvironmental Protection Agency. (II: pp. 647-;4S)
The only other attempt which had been made to provide internal coordination of food-related research activities which was mentioned during the hearings wa the use of the Current Research Information System. maintained by the Cooperative State Research Service (CSiRS). Although most of the publicly supported research projects are reported( into that system, it does not include the private sector research efforts. Both CSRS and Agricultural Research
Institute representatives sugested that this was one of the basic problems with Current Research Information System and that solutions should be sought to this problem.

"F ie interface and co)ordlination of nonagtricultural research efforts with the aglricu1tltral research commnunity was also discussed III som1e detil! Cons iderable advt n ces hadl been made InI soMeI ;1reas1", Such as thle d ) It IoN of rem11o te 1:en1i technoI ()1(logie to), aril, lIturalI research aniid to fain production nIethlodologies. A scjparate hlearlings sessiOnl wits hold onI tis topic and much of thle mnaterial from11 that session is sumi11iiarized InI Appendix il to this report.

'1IASF~nov R;AR I'.-vI. I1I>ULT T i.-RS
TI le U7SI)A/SAk -svstei is theo only rescaich performing organizt ion ill tile food resea-rch system With, an organization for the transfer of' results to potential users. AX Complete description of that process, NVhich the UIS)A call-; the "'rcsearchi delivery system" appears in the record* (IT : pp. 630-6149) A brief stumary of that sy' steml is presented here, along with at fewv comments imde during the hearings concerning, tile transfer of researelh results from the UDA.
The important role played by the A-rric ultural Ex.tension Service. andI the success it has hdas a part of the agricultrlrsac ytm
wvas stress sed by Chairman Thornton :
it iz clear that one oIf tho baic stfrengths, of Akiirai agriculture over the Years hus Ibeen thle clo-se ties between the American farmer and the AmHerican ;ogricihura scientist. nhe ind(isIt~ensalIe link between thein las been I)rovid1ed. hy the Agricultural Extension Service. (II :p. 894)
Tihe research delivery systein has three major components: (1) the ('ool.erative Extens ion Service; (2) the individual i1 search and nilSsioli o(encies of the USD)A and (3) the research scientists Within thle FSI)A. Of the role of the Cooperative Extension Service, the report stated :
The Cooperative Extension Service is a major component of the agricultural research delivery system since it is the vehicle for transfer of a broad spectrum of agricultural research findings to clientele in all counties and agricultural communities throughout the United States. It is a cooperative endeavor between the USDA Extension Service, the Nation's land grant universities and county groverunmeits. (11: 1). 635)
Th'le lildc between .U1livi(lIafl faruiiers or other users of technical in forlni:-tioim anid the re~aceswithin the VSDA, whoI develop tha1t imforillono!, is clearly established d through time us~e of teCooperative 11 Xie1I-,i()'! -ervice Since it:
...provides a miechanismi through which findings and scientific- knmv-how from th~e wide range of disciplinary fields of work in the USD JA and lanid grint, universi{ ies, aplvbeto agriculture and the general public, are made avzilHie to asit ani ,,anhers, ,Ind {)thers; to help solve specific lproblels and to bild
eAfiv'ienf systfemls of lroductionl, processing, and iimark~etig for farmn and forestry
prdut. h CoprtieExtensLionJ Systemn also provides a, iechianisil t-hrough1 Nvliul: the UIAacllieves its imlportant gasrelating to all adequate suJply of foodeid 1h( :e for theNtir' omsi and foreignnvrkts (IT: pp. (;:7-68
fnlil coope-rativNpogmwa funded inisca year 197,- by FeOderal, .Statke. and count11y goenunsas follows: Fuieral, 44r percent ; Stkates,
SPerenIt ; anId ('oulite, 17 percent.
The.i principally objective7c of the research delivery system, according to thme T USDA is to:
...ass,,ure the utilization (of research results and scientifle know-how to help fa riners and others engaged in agricultural pursuits, including forestry, to build highly efficient systems of produotion, processing, and marketing, for food and fiber products, with particular emphasis on needs and problems of the private, Independent family-owned farm and owners of timberland. (II: p. 634)

Other -men-mbers of the i'~acomiiirv play -in llnportan4f role in the delivery,1, syStem' also. aIs the IJSI)X.~t poinv out:
Private industry serve~s iimp )rtantly in the rescarvh1 delivery sse hog
use of re~learcli results in providiing supplies and services to fariners; and hi t:.iiga-egd in assemiliinc-, processiag, traiisportinig. wvholesaling, and rettailiin food)( awi lil'er products. Private industry organization id individuals servi11"g 'IS colisultal-ats mae vidcslpreadl use ()f' tra ininlg w(Thjimluities, ii lOirm anonG and irecoit.,n~endai~ions Provided by the~ public --upported rsrli(lieysystem. (TI: p. 636)
The ole f rsearherswitin the _USD)A "State Agriculturzil 1]xperiment Station spvseie is ii.teg-ral to dliverv of re1-sults Siicc tlhi findings ar-e distributed, to others In the r~eSe,.1*Are1ounnt through publications in pr-ofesszional journals, par-ticipation in confOcrcnces, meetings and. seminars, and the teachii (r activte of m'lany of Giese researchers in academic institutions.
The material in the roceord indicates that. v~hile the pri),-*se grroup ofc the Cooietat*,-e EA"xtension Servi(-_e is thea L atos(1l iercial agrricultu-ral sector, it also serves 1l.art-'tim1-e, farmer's andtl( with limited reso-i-(Qes and provi.ucsz r(e-arch reut~and other a1.- Lo-i*u1iitural information to nonf armI people, ab'oit hom.e lawns, (I*- fIf ins an"d related subjects. (11: p. 640)
A-Mr. O thaI Brnan1 db1s cus e d hio w th ie r e Searc_-h d eI e ry z. y;- i ini tiorus in terms of producers and distributors:
The new tetuhnology is developed at the State e-xperiment stations and 1-1,,e U.S. Department of Algriculture and the Extension ervice functions a a d'livery sys tern in getting the technology to the producers.
Now, we work with the stations in field trials and plant selections and Peki
desired charaeteristles in the qualities in plants and also in advising themi of 4whXa_ we 7 rel eed .In the industry for a particular purpose. (11: p. 483) In -e-neral. t-he reerch delivery system of the USDA wv, i il p~raiscd during the blearincrs. Congrressman Br-own noted that
...you very correctly point out that the agicultural research system has the best organization for delivering technology to the consumer of any part of the American system. I think tbat's correct. I th-ink its been demon.S .r,-tei,, over 100 years ... (11: p. 665)

In 1969 Clifford Hardin, then Secretary of A'riculture, requested of the Division of Biology and Agriculture of the National Research Council "the establishment of an Advisory Committee that would represent the range of scientific disciplines involved in agricultural research. He suggested that the Committee review agricultural research as a science and advise the Department and the Land-Grant Universities on gaps in the scientific effort and on new advances that should be developed." 1 In 1972 the National Research Council issued the "Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture," frequently referred to as the "Pound Report" after the Committee's chairman, I)r. Glenn S. Pound, Dean of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin.
The Pound Report recommended sweeping changes in the organization and management of agricultural research within the USDA and was highly critical of certain aspects of the agricultural researe system. At the same time many people within the agricultural r'ese-arch establishment were highly critical of the findings and reconmendations of the Pound Report and challenged the objectivity and the quality of the report itself. Some of the statements in the report ha ve been seriously criticized for making broad generalizations based on limited information, or for not being adequately documented with specific facts.
However, many of the witnesses testifying at these hearings suggested that the findings contained in the Pound Report were valid in 1972, and as of 1975 still had not been sufficiently addressed by the agricultural research establishment. The Subcommittees were illnterested, therefore, in obtaining a report from the USDA on the actions that had been taken in response to the Pound Report recommendations.
This report appears in I :pp. 99-123 of the record. The information furnished the Subcommittees came from several sources at the USDA and included:
1. Statement of N. D. Bayley. Director of Science and Education from 1968 to 1973, on the Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1972.
2. The Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee Review of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.ST. Department of Agriculture. October 13, 1972.

1National Research Council-National Academy of Sciences. Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the UT.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, National Academy of sciences 1972, 91 p. plus 464 p. appendices. p. 1. Cited hereafter as the Pound Report.


Al-(rI '(111t UT-0 R C z(',IT--.lI 1,()! i X- A (14 CoT, )I I I i Itee Reco I I I
T!1, 11(1:1t iw'I- 1\.(, to III(, 1kep wl ("t, I lic ittee on 1Lescarch
A( i I-()IY k) t lit, I _,S I )A Fcbrun rY 107,".
I NP- I v A I Zc<(" I rd I -"cr ick, t( ) t 11(
lik I klat P )11 111 k h,, R 'Jm rl o f, t he ( ollill) Ittee 1-Zese'll-ell A dvisorY to
I )(,I),l rt Im ill" f A irricult urti. N at l(Ill"I 'Olille'll.
(if i I w Pmui d Rqiofl. Jul.v. I I.) 7.- .
",,i(TVic(, 111put to US] )A Re-Imllso to Collullittee On CICTWO (M)(l Toclill(d()(ry Om-4ion ill to Eolwrf Loil.--.,
A --J -t -lilt S(-nt a? v. dn t ell Jill N- 1._ ). P

Tiri--. 14"(11CUS7 OF THE Pol-N-I) CI 'Ni
The Nation,(il Px -earcli Coullcil-Natioll"ll A(-,Id(,i!I v ef CmllAdvl-or to t1he I )(.p, of'
lt ex:1111111:16(mi ()," Ow 1*'jXt,(TlIl1k lit
Station sy4eni on five -( I) a nue.
1. Do the, orcranizati .n and
proinote and encoui-aoe Ijifrli quality oiApitt?
Are tlie basio sciences cide(jul-11,011V 11IN't;1\-cid in resciai-cli mi( e
pinnino. :I _(-I-icultilre ?
V). Are the, acri-icultural sciences ade,iiiatoly intec-rated, with
their basic diseipline-4. Is the qualitv of tl,e sc-ientifie por.-zcnnel, en, ra(yed in -.j(rl-j(-jlltural re, earch as li icrh as, it (-an and sliould be ?
0. Dol's the research bv a (Yricultural sr-ientists reflect the highest
standards of the scientific community?
I'lie Pound Con-imittee*s findings witli resl wt to these questions led to twerfv In generall Ille I cpolt noted t1lat. bol(l
11101'0_ W(AT, CIlle(l for "in resliaping atlininl,-tr, Jivc, philosophies aiA
()- rkonlzatiojls. ill eC-ttbliShi-l1, _r)Wlsn,)(l nils
Tlie Pound Repoi-t inade nine specific recoininen(lations in
to the question. of w1lief-lier USDA_ organ. z:ition 4 nid maiia(renwi4f was, stich that high qwalitv otitplit, 11110111d be cncourar(1(l.
Tliese recominendat-ions fall into three mtiior cate(rorie(":
-Greater participation by active resenrcliers in deciding wbat reQ01111ch I,, to be done;
-..1 sti en"tlieninirr of the review system for administrators, the (Ievelopment of a mechanism for easy replacement of unsatisfactory administrators, and the screening of the scientific community at large Nvlien recruiting administrators;
-Exa lie rationale for fun(lincr manv small branch stations,
t1le proportion of funding for State experin-lent, stations as oppo ;-e(l t
to USDA in-boii :(, an(I commune atinor to Congresq the harmfill effe(-k of cixce -ive coiriniodity (01. wllcl- --q-woified subJect) e(Ir2 N(ite that resj)oii!-:-: tif the Foro-J 'Zt-rvlee will not lie iTIC1114"I'(1 In the (if the r(- i!Ondor of thi- tojil(- :-Ince thl,,; n-port Is 11mited to food-rolated research.
:, P,)lmd T'(,T)ort, oT1. cIt., p. 10.
4 I'mmirl RePort, op. cit., p. 43.

The Economic Beearch Service (EBS) providCd a short Qtiatucent on actions that have iken place since the Poundl Re)0po1t. Two !a j,0r management changes are identified. First. the ranch structur a been replaced "by a more flexile Program strictIre. Under socalled matrix management, temporary teams of economfist- and other researchers are organized under a project !,ader a, required by tL:e problem under consideration.. Second. S is ,-lovine a r'.-.- oa "systematic identification and training of research leaders." (I: p. 121)
X. D. Bayley of the USDA also provided a Zeral reply to tile
Pound Report listing the following major chan:: in he ~Arieuturd] Research Service (ARS) that took place during the time of the Pound Committee 's delib:ations:
(1) Regulatory activities were separated from rese:rci by slitting ARS into two agencies:; () management author :cs wer stre heed for program managers am -ompared to a,:initraiv' manage r~: (,) the field structure of ARS was compktely over_uied; and (4) the entire to- staff of I placed or reasine
Also during the period of the Pound Con-nittee's deliberations, the Federal-State rerri onal cooperation and planning structures were restructured. The new organization provided for increased integration and coordination of USDA-SAES research efforts. (I: p. 101) Input from researchers
Answering in more specific terms, the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) agreed with the Pound report on the importance of participation of active researchers in the decisionmaking process and stated that the reorganization in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) since the report has led to steps in this direction. The Agricultural Research Service's response also pointed to the reorganization. ARS also pointed out the important input of individual scientists and managers in the annual budget process and stated that though "The national administration and staffs provide guidelines . the research scientists and their managers identify and specify the actual research to be done." (I: p. 111) Quality of administrators
Pound Report recommendations to improve the quality of adninistration suggested the strengthening of the review system for administrators. The Agricultural Research Service (AR-S) stated that it was implementing an executive development program designed to identify specific managerial skills. knowledge, etc., needed to enhance the effectiveness of research administrators in their present positions and also to identify the resources through which these needs may be met. Additionally, this program is attempting to identify candidates with high potential for future assignment to managerial positions. (I: 1). 1 2)
The Pound Committee also recommended the development of a mechanism for the easy replacement of unsatisfactory administrators: ARPAC thought "existing mechanisms to provide early identification of persons not suited to administrations co-ld ,e s L ren then 1d. ( 1 : 103) A RS agreed that inefficient administrators must be removed, but because they are under the rules and regulations of the Civil Service

C01111111<-ioll, they -.11olicve it appropriate to pi-occed with the replace11) e I I t a I I v 1111 ,l I I.- lvzoarch 11(hililli-4 rator though established
1 T )1 k i i i i k I -I I I I v,
I I I gr I I e Nv i d r( I I
I I q )1 1 :1 t 11 fl I, t 1 r I III I"'I l"it I v c U a I I I I I i v. I )I: t I ) o 111 t ed olit the M lP011"HIC(I (d, I wr cap"11)111tw" as we'll ac-, scielitific
102do".-Illp M pwelltl"11 "t (till I 111SI 1-a t ()]-w;. Thc A_(Yricullural Resean-h servl lk. W 111- ]I(),( ill '11flef v :1 1(rivellw ill Nvil 11 t 11114 1,0CO111111olld"ll 'loll, st-titCivil WO ( 'will-I I I
'I I id I ]w f",(.t I h:It I I !v 111,111y 11I.A lly (111:1 tified ist" oil our rolls
N% it 11 dc'! Im ]. l I ( d or p)(olilial nlan:igerltal (.ipahitilles, vvo have not (Jetel-Illined 1, !m t it, 1 Ill m ll. he'-t ilitelv
9 w
A NVAC a Ivith the of, t"It, Poll'i(I Ripol-i jl.. (.W''It)(11datioll, fo a. of t1w ration'lle of Lralwh StAimls but
1 wrlt" l wit th"It, -11!q l.o lllctivc bvaiv-h st;iti( iis may be es.soittial an(t
;:11 _r l Prodlic! ivi, pot( ]-Lial if appi-olli-IA(Ily funded and properly
AINIP-1 1wi*I've(I t1lat Ic 1,vcoll.liwil(lat lon calling for the
o:-(-()1lt of fie14 -:tafioI-.,,; 01. t1le li-1114( r of their I'Ospoilsiinto I ?_1_iVI11r1v implied that si!i:ill locations pel. so wei-c
The AP%,.S rosporx!4( pi-esciited a list of locaP. 11")-l 1-0 01,. have Iwen closed or liav( ha(I their respontZ'O 1969.
oit ilw Tiw(linLr of tate w-perillient stations as add 1;Y the P011110 I-epoi.t. APPAC thollr])t -i i-(,\-I(,w hoard shoij1d
V.-M !;" Oll N 1):)sIs to niak recojiml(Ilidatiojis on f i I n d I I i cr base (1,
oil wl t,(. 1w1:(L:. ("nd flult the prn(,ess, "shoulil not 1-w re(IMced to a conAejli( Ilt .5) ArS po ( d 'tl
A cr proportionality." (I : 1). 10 ) n le wi
.It clia It kT : P. 11 4) lisfincr the ,if prolpriat ions for rJosearch fov ARS ajid tho Cooperative Research Service froin, 1966 to 1975.
v oil the D(,( i tv of communicating to Con ress f lie harmf til,
effects of di.,4pT.opol-fioI1,-t(,,, of f i i n (1,;, AR PA C
fin't (111c -liwi( (I 1.11af, tllfj*(, is a (1isprop()-1-fion(,if(," amount of this., and e(101111 Li ; *j 1,,,(1 v.-it- the basic assunip'ki()!!,- -Upporting this recolni 4 'rT To q i i ()I ( A 11' PAC's response
Howci-cr, \vo take fxeeption to the implication that (:minno(lity eariiiarkin.-, 1i v the Con,_-re ;s i ; n ro likely to i r(-)duce harniful rc ur(e than Nvoill(I Al(wation T- a of s(-ienfisfs, deserve 1,7 ro c:tnli 1)i. otiler
Ait viiative proce(liuc.- by whi(Ii resource el. are III-Ide. (I : 1). 1()(;)
I 1-io A.gi-icii1hiral T-Ze zcareh Service stated that eflCh Yc,,ff its
11,1011f, of 'T*'(" 01111"Ch, prioi-ifi ; is presented to Congi-esz. jrowevei., ,there is 110 MV _(ri(' Nflw-h ( ,-n be, applied to (14ei-rimc natio 01. Perof e4orf. to ap-r)]v to rc,: earoh on the various acrric ultui.-al. com1110fhtlo :. (1: P. 11c)

'I"I'le noxt two qlw -f ions- report aiial v :is wero voiiceriie(l
ill the Pomi(I P .1
With first, "are the basic adequately v involved J.
in 'TsOal'ch llll(1eIJ)innij,,(r agriculture"; aiid -le(-,wid.. "are the am el asl disciplines?!'
cliltul-1111 Zrlell(,Ts ,14equately integrated with th 'r 1),

The Po, nd (Coiinllittee: Aiiaj C;11(l1l1i1L- P t I'CQtfl. 1
1110 201810 00 11110 El: O PgeJ e lil-in, k- H 00 & lta: 1 these subjects fall into threk eenalr
-That there is i equate support of a-, .sarc" 1 by t Ihe Deartinent of Agriculture, and the USI)A should "seek a greatly increased level of appropriations for a competitive grints program, which should include support of basic research in the sciences (biological, physical, social) that underpin the USDA mission." These appropriations should be free of commodity-earmarking and made available to scientists within and outside the USDA-State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) system;
jThat the USDA and the SAS p i greter support in their intramural programs to research in the basic disciplines related to their missions,;"
--That there be greater integration at the working level between the agricultural scientists and the scientists in the basic disciplines.

Com petitive grants
The USDA responses to the Pound Report generally di -a:,,. ith the idea of an expanded competitive grants system. The Agrieultural Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) response stated, "we believe that major internal conflicts of interest would evolve within USDA in administering both in-house and competitive grants programs and that such conflicts would seriously impair the effectiveness of each." (I: p. 10'6G) ARPAC recommended that USDA and State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) concentrate on adequate Federal funding for their joint in-house research, which ARPAC believes is essential to ensure the continuity of funding necessary to the long-run success of the national agricultural research program. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pointed out that it does have a program of extramural research based on grants and contracts, but explained that their research is mission oriented and that any extramural research is designed only to be supportive and supplemental, based on its relevancy to the ARS mission. As a result many grants must be supportive of research aimed(l at particular commodities. Irntramn uiral basic research
In response to tlhe recommendation for greater support for the intramural programs of USDA-SAES in the basic disciplines. ARPAC stated that "there is now and has been substantial research in the Basic disciplines in the total agricultural research rogram." (I: p. 110) ARPAC did point out the need to continually assess the Balance between support of mission-oriented basic diseplinary research and problem-solving activity. an-d( noted that this balance had been reviewed often in the past. ARPAC also stated that a great deal of basic research was done as part of proiects which. if identified only by title, would not reveal the basic research component. The A,--rieultilral Resear h Service also disa-reed with the Pound Report stating, "Basic research is an integral part of all areas in which the Agency conducts research, but it is generally based on technological needs to meet practical obeetives. For ARS to consider supporting research aside from these objectives would be contrary to good research management." (I: p. 117) ARS also pointed out that the Pound recommendation only calls for

~~N. I PC icl re~ea Jvi Lm( :~ Re TIi (1 I peSn iy ; 1 elC "A I S
Avill cxpc'n11 11f f-tini~l$79uillin. or neail1.v 44,) percent of its I' Iget In 'FY 19).-) onllaWiccrl~W r conjf1ident the report
autorswer no vul cogizan1t Of A l> ,111, coniiIiuiit to basic reIII PtPI )UP Of ti p 7?b, (1 (1,,(7 1)J lsH sai
Iii~~_ Iv I> ,~ to nhe l~llI. ~dl o it thee, should he a greater
0ne~a filat te workingi'ic levelbtwnagcuurlcitssad
thle l,_1t>! Ill t !e baI c- (I ei'ifeSz. A RPAC an d AR S piniited to
th oe IVt IrergInizaoll of ARS s havng1 ais one,( of it" l)aIsiC ob)jecii~~~~ Ce I' li ciivl fte 1etrnt tofraloll of111 mlId icilil"Tnr
1):r~7 10T A 7 RPA( Il C~ poIe wll 1" 1ha the1 Economic 0
I. IY T'u vmra'aVV' ilio iv lnrucp
iiav I;ne ~iid owa1'( in'(rIte teai-s involing sinists in the(,
~ I .1;)) AI, S oilrt 0 S, -I itwe feel th1e recoinluuendati:i 'lite "Nat ioital Rec ei C u ~ l- ational Academi-y of
Sri~i''s Thiut eei' fully mlet by current AgnypoliCy." 0I: p. i11)

The fourthl ques-tion dd1s' by the1 Pound1 I wport I!"I th1c equality of thle scienlt-iic personnel engaged in, agricuiltural research as hIl a' it should e?"Tilie Pound Commii1ittee awv the research atiosl)Illr inl whiich1 scientists work as one of thie moSt important, factors affectingr the quality of reserarchi and made, Six recommendations in
theea~asto improve thi-s factor in the UnitedI States Departmnent of A iriul tinre- St ate Agricuiltuiral Experimient Stationi (SAES) systems.
-S 'nti't vina .1 : II repiortjeomedd thLat USDA. strengthen its Scientific per-sonnel appoiinent and review system to include evaluation by the broadest scientific community. In addition, adi(nistrato4rs should not serve as chairmen of personnel committees since they hold final approval authority. The report also recommended thiat SAES make broader use of peer judgment in evaluiatingy scientific personnel -with scientists f rom outside of the professor's department and college being included on the review committee. Again the recommendation added that department heads or chairmen should not serve on review committees.
-Stwhsta~lailcmeft :The comm-it tee I'econiuneni(ledl th~at time USDA' provide increased opportunity for active researchers to advance as researchers to tile highest salary classifications, believingc that
Fent s)'teln ~or en 1ftlsts to I.)(,(oiipe dnihinistlators ini order to re-ach the top grades. The report also recommended that USDA search the scientific community at large when recruiting for research positions at all professional grades.
-Staf iprovmenet : The report i'ecomn'neiid "thlit fuinds to suipivort an ef1,1ctive, progra-m for staff improveiienlt iil tile USDA be set
aie a t or b!vwe the (livis ional level before dllocationis are made for,
J~ro~rt spponrt."T'he Pound Commi~ittee believ-ed that onily in thiswy
would lp1rtfor the staff improvement profgrMAm be "protectedi froml thie pre-stires of operational budget fleeds." The report also recoimeild ht"AES m a a grea-ter effort to provide study leav
opp(o1rl itis for their res-earchi staff andfliat both SAES anid'USDA

provide travel funds to enable staff to attend national and international meetings in their fields."
To these recommendations dealing with the quality of scientific personnel, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) stated that, in their appointment "candidates selected from civil service registers are carefully screened and both formal and informal inquiries are made of the scientific community as to their qualifications . Scientist evaluation
On the review of working scientists the Agriculture Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) stated that evaluation by peers broadly representing the scientific community is desirable but went on to note that "since USDA like most Universities has a large and broad community of scientists there seems little need for including peers from outside the Department." (I: p. 107) On the same point ARS responded that although the review system does include a number of factors related to the individual's standing in the scientific community, "we are not in a position to include on a formal basis the views of the broader scientific community in our review system." (I: p. 117) ARS went on to explain that some changes had been made in the composition of peer group panels and committees as a result of the recent reorganization, but the basic evaluation system remained the same. ARS stated, "we do not agree with the NRC Report that the evaluation system has failed in many areas to develop to,-quCality bench scientists." (J: p. 118)
ARPAC and ARS both pointed out that administrators with final approval authority do not serve as chairmen on personnel review committees nor have they done so in the past. ARS further stated. "We have no intention of designating offials who have final approval authority as chairmen of our evaluation committees." (1: p. 118)
ARPAC responded to the Pound recommendation for improvements in SAES personnel evaluation by stating. "Most universities have definitive procedures which include peer evaluation in con:idering rank and tenure." (I: p. 107) However, ARPAC went on to sa "More attention could we!] be paid to contimIal evaluation." (: p. 107)
Scientist advancement
ARPAC did not agree with the Pound Report on the lacy of advancement opportunities for qualified scientists in the case of biological and physical scientists but did believe that the same opportunities need to be extended "more fully to social scientists and eni neers." (I: p. 107) The Agricultural Research Service was in complete disagreement with the Pound Committee on this point. Ouotine the Pound Report contention that researchers are forced to become administrators in order to advance, ARS stated, "This is incorrect and our scientists are well aware that the present system provides for advancement based on their research achievements." As evidence of this ARS pointed out that as of "December 31. 1974 they had a total of 37 employees in super-grade and super-grade equivalent positions. Of this number 10 (or over 25 percent) were bench scientists."

taOff improvement
In terms of staff improvement programs ARPAC responded that, although the USDA is making a significant effort in this direction, it does lag in providing the equivalent of a sabbatical leave for profesonal improvement. ARPAC suggested consideration be given to establishing an item for training in yearly expenditure operating plans. ARPAC also agreed that opportunities for study leave was a matter that needed to be given more attention by SAES administrators. On providing more travel funds ARPAC stated, "In general, we believe USDA policies are adequate in this respect. State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAKS) policies vary and some SAES
administrators should work toward more liberal policies. Both USDA and SAES must give attention to means for implementing these police." (1: p. 108)
The Agricultural Research Service, however, did not agree with tlh.-e recommendations of the Pound Committee. They stated that "for years ARLS has recognized the need for and value of an effective program for staff improvement," (I1: p. 119) but they did not believe that a more effective program would result by setting aside funds before allocations are made for project support. ARS reasoned, "It is our opinion that the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences recommendation would foster training requests not always related to need, on the premise that the expenditure is not being borne at the operative level." (I: p. 119) ARS thought a more effective approach to staff improvement would be "to regard the development pr(cees as an integral part of the research program." (I: p. 119)
In response to the recommendation for more study leave opportunities ARS pointed out that for a number of years they have urged the Department of Agriculture to seek the support of the Civil Service Commission for enactment of leoislative authority to grant sabbaticals to scientists. However, such authority has not been given as yet.
Finally, ARS believed that it had a good record for numbers of scientists authorized to attend national and international meetings and stated that in FY 1974 more than 125 scientists attended international meetings and nearly 1200 scientists attended 16 national meetings of professional societies.

Thle lat question analyzed by the Pound Committee was, "Does the rcsmarchi by agricultural scientists reflect the highest standards of the
scient1: c, nity? ThIe report stated, "Most of the specific discipihn, reearch studies made by tlhe committee and its panels reveal a oring amount of low quality research in agriculture." The report also )1ointd to evidelt, o necessaryay duplication and poor selection of r( F+a, r )j kcts. To 1'mdv tes problems the Pound Committee reconc)nded that "USDA anid State Agricultural Experiment Station (LES)" develop, cooperatively, a new project and program review system that requires peer judgments of the scientific quality of the pro jects and programs," and suggested consideration of the science panel review concept found in other Federal research agencies. The rel)ort recommended that panel members include scientists from pri-

vate universities, non-land-grant public universities, and industry as well as from USDA and SAES. In addition, new projects should be reviewed as early as possible and no later than one year after initiation. The report's final recommendation called for broad subjectmatter program reviews at least every five years.

In its written response to the Pound recommendations the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) stated that although the recent reorganization will make some of the needed improvements in USDA mechanisms for project review and program analyses and evaluation, "'we concur in the need for continued assessment, restructuring and improvement of these processes, both to make them more effective and efficient." (I: p. 111)
However, in the written and oral testimony of several USDA witnesses, the newly developed planning system, begun in 1972, was described as essentially fulfilling the recommendations of the Polind Report. The overall planning system of USDA-State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES), referred to as the Regional and National research Planning Syste-m. was outlined. (Details of this planning system were presented in part IV.) During the hearings. Dr. Orville Bentley noted that this system does provide that "the research planning carried forth will be updated every 5 years and closely integrated with the identification of resource management needs and the planning of resource management activities." (1: pp. 51-52)
The new research planning system within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS MAPS) was also outlined during the hearings. (See also part IV.) In written testimony the Agricultural Research Service gave an example of how the new planning systems have worked utilizing peer review of projects as recommended by the Pound Report. ARS stated:
During the first year after reorganization of ARS, the Northeastern Region conducted a peer review (five ARS scientists and three program managers appropriate for each line of work) of all current Work poring nits. O-'n the i of these reviews, plans were modified where improvenwnts were indicated and resources were adjusted to provid(le better project support. Subsequent to this initial review, each new CRIS project submitted in the Northeastern Re-ion has been reviewed by a panel of peers selected from the scientitic eomiunity at rge. These project proposals are revised in resp1,nse to ieer comminnts before they are approved and implemented. (I: p. 120,
ARS responded to the la-t reco fnf l!iE on 0 the ,n' fLIport
with a description of a newly implemented Ag enc'-wide system of subject reviews and workshops. Twenty-six such reviews were held in FY 1974. ARS explained. "MAlany of these are broad in sub)ject-matter coverage while some are relatively specific. Representativ s from other Agencies and State Agricultural Research Stations also participate in many of these reviews. Policy has been developed to guide the Agency in planning, conducting, and implementing the recommendations resulting from the reviews and workshops." (I: p. 121) A RS believed this planning and review system fulfills the recommendations of the Pound report.


Many of the witnesses who appeared at these hearings felt that the changing world framework of food needs and national goals would require far-reaching changes to the agricultural research system. Other witnesses, basically supportive of the existing' system, also provided their views on aspects of the system which possibly could be improved. Many substantive recommendations were made, a nunber of which are discussed below.



Many of the witnesses expressed the belief that, with the new demands on the agricultural research system, the goals and objectives of agricultural research need to be more clearly defined. Charles Romine, an economist with the Midwest Research Institute, summed up a number of the questions in this regard:
I would also note that research priorities must take into consideration the national goals for agriculture. Some of the past criticism of agricultural research and its lack of direction or appropriateness can be attributed to confusion regarding policy issues. We believe the research community needs guidance on such critical policy issues as:
1. To what extent do we intend to encourage maximized efficiency in production of food and fiber?
2. What role are agricultural exports expected to play in maintaining a favorable balance of trade?
3. To what extent do we intend to use food as a dilnlomatic tool?
4. To what extent do we intend to protect the viability of the family farm, the rural sector, and the open market?
5. What tradeoffs are we willing to make between agricultural production and energy consumption, utilization of other resources that are in short supply, and environmental quality?
We recognize that these are not separate issues, but are highly interrelated and that tradeoffs must be made which will result in the greatest overall benefit. The point is that there is no difficulty in obtaining agreement on the broad, general objective to conduct research which will improve the efficiency and productivity of U.S. agriculture.
However, it will be difficult, if not impossible. to establish meaningfu! priorities for this research until we better define our national objectives for agriculture. I believe that with sufficient gnidancee on these critical issues, the agricultural research community will respond. (I: p. 460)
Several witnesses felt that the present agricultural research system is too "closed" in terms of its policymakin- a,,d priority-setting activities. Congressman Richmond a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, made the very strong statement that:
. USDA does its research in a vacuum. They seldom discuss research with any other Federal agencies. They spend money. many hundreds of millions of dollars on research, but unfortunately nobody from the outside world advises them or tells what the priorities really are in the United States. (II: p. 399)


:I comlilt 111 1( 111 "It'll I 1 -1 :11,1,( t he cm l lit I-v ;v I hclll- d \-(.s a
ollylill 111 [ v
f e ,* ;i I Ii.sh i nr% :i4ricultti r;il rc ,ca rch p4dicy, pri-irit :I 11, i(.II (If fim d :,-,i vt- niuch t i) 1w dv: l red. Thf-re i-4 a great lively for im:,_1_N*iu,_, ;y- n-m. Toi) iflen ()ur ngriculturil s4liontilst., who Illay he Ifwaled !!I !!"e hilitcl'I'llid, 1111t :dso) 111.1v have Ihe host 1*-I)(",N lp(l.'e ()f ill(, re.11 pr(iblem s
-C i-riculture. ta-iiemill.y h.tve little, or no voice in Iliese matters. This is true hl :I i he Fcdera I inst it lit i, 'lls-1 S1 )A. EPA. I I E\V, allot the NaI ''Im I Acadclly of 'Scielwe" 11lat have influence (In nati0iml. twricultural reOX'Ch poli-it.,4. There :tI-11 Ippcar-- to ho little coordination auiong- these (agencies i"I prid dellis of 11111tua I concern. 111 : 1). 961 I -it tlie cvci-itv of some of tliez;e probof fih tit, I I
] AIIS 1"'OlAd l'o roducoki if tll ,re wc,.I.e adw(julate repre. -;enta(ion of arm4 polievinakincr -vviihin the government. it I wk- I- ex
Dr. *SY1%,in 11" pu(- Se(l ii
A-,ricultin t, hn 4 not Iwo it in the top eclielon, lit our ;( irnt ific 11riorities and !!ii1IM D' ill, *11iS _N Iti1)11 I have referrotl t4o tlio if th4 t i I S i
Board. The pro',Iem still exist,.:. Tlwi-t, i -; io)t ,i1_rrici,,h iir.il -wi(,nti*ic reprise
ill tlie ri,-,Iit 1)1;11 iT1 terms, of research, I)OiieN. ni- neviis to iw
-,md ta ffwus diroct-A :it cnwiil Fvi trlo(l t,) jilline licre
Gli-,; morilill--. Only 01011 we (..III Illaixe progi.e.s's". (I : 1). -"T
Du. Ri(-Ii-ird J. Aldr1oh expivsl-wd his view that
1111 ,r -;(- h mld lie a inember in full standin- i)n tlie l)rol)osp(l
t _ricultural lenist <1
C0111)(41 of Advisors for Science ;m(l Techncilo,-,v. In addition there ltoiild be ade-,
rcprel- ciltath)lj fif t"It, 111(1 indii-trie., on Ole other eclielous
involv-d 1- Nvell 1,-; on the surve v bodies create( .
Thf- inierrAationsli!,;).- broad fields of s,-ienc(, are increasingly ap-:i rtut. . There must be in overview (If this sci"Iice ill a XvIlicl-I includes
".a.ience a- a full i)(trtncr at the hi-lie-i lov(IN in mir Federal (;(,vt rimmit. (11 : p. 9132)


A'Vith -c-r. director of the iafe Airrriculflil-kal Experilileilt
te T-11* P,- z
It 1 itV 1*111d cliau m!iii of the Board
I)IJ 'icultilre all"I Relle ,.-,ible M-soui-ces of the -Natimial Academv
t1le 11,,C(I for impi-m-eiiients. Ife
t'1!T1h-i-'.'1,,,A that
A ll nl;ijor in :i z 1-7 (.lilt 4" 1"11 f,,i- f")f).l

oil"-14,llt 'Is(l (1c for recrilitili.-, 4 1!f I'T ("Ill w l the hiAw" 4"A C4)111 1% 21
J I (It 1c I I 1 0
,,'ki lwrmps bcv U AV I t I N%- I,
T lw rt li:]" I wcll Z;lt 1,111 li )t !re t L*,;"L k a
''ll. 1',:t lw rf cliuld ""o rrw v (; iln,-, :111(l Ill 111hill i* kill for A "I c"Tt,( 'ive colilpcl itivf (dem el't '',)Illd i". ilitrorevi('V < 1](Y(l Ill I'PLIG A)";JI)s lwc(l fo.Sllorltivo ( v,+icli 71,it now (-xi -zt Tlicre lire
]I( it, It 111:1 (I iiter;l"(.11, V rflat I ( 11 ,Ilips het Nv(,cli T _1. o Nvil It top I 110 ()f f, ) o (11 jn iduct Ion aii(l i ;.1i rov(A nutri: ion. I : p. 2
cooi dinat ]on of agricultural re.-earch, Wittwer the 111wonimittces thzit. -% iipport of agricultural.
"oo t ZA, aild 111it'litioll is frapucnted aniong I-) or more, federal
t- *7

aUrefllces. TheeIe is not, sinkyIe, bod l)Nl ~iil Provicles a fooa1 point for t echnical gu-tidance. coordination and -filitation of this inimenisel con-plex endeavor."" 1:1) 148) Hie recoinmenled the es-tal)1 ishmelit of "a national overseeing, steering or coordinating body or commission." JI: p. 148)
MNfany of the witnesses werve concerned with finding better ineanis
( fcoodiafi~ragricultural reerhsupported by the pbi etr
and several made, suooestions similar t~o that of WY'ttwer. Dr. Edward ('11ass, professor of entomology at the New York Stato. Agricultural Experiment Station, sounded a cautionary note, however:
I would strongly recommend that all of our research and development not b~e dictated from Washington or California oranly other ofe sp)ot. (I1: P. 58'2)
There also was general ag-reeinent that bOetter coordination of public In private ag)riculttural research efforts is desirable but may be a inuch more difficult, problim. Very little seems to be known about the extent of industrial research. the kinds of research 1)rojects currently in,, progress, or even about the, number or identity of the performers' of that research.
Dr. Richard J. Aldrich made a suggestion for inlprov-ingr Conunun1ilication between the public and Iprivate sectors:
Let me just speak briefly to the communication iieeds. I thiaik much has beeii tloie to improve comiliniica tioii among agricultural scientists and managers inl the public research sector, hiut there is room for continued and further iniprovemient. The Current Rtesearch Information Systeii, adlinini-tered' by the CooperamCive State Research Serviee, has been anl important elemnlt In tIs i4rvd co 1itnaunica tiori.
Dr)i. Ronningen, in nmeetiiig with you yesterday. describedl this systeni in somne detail, so I need not here. I would only mention that there is a missin g component, in that we do not have time private industry research plugged into) the system. There are good arguments for trying to plug it in. I am not necessarily saying I am optimistic we will get the job done, but the [Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) ] has committed itself to try and come up with a way of plugging industry research into the informnat ion system so that it will be comnpiete.
WV( coniiend the chairm-en of this joint committee for their expre-;ec initerest in improved science information exchange. We hope this can b-- translated into pol_)icies and incentives which, inl the case of agriculture, will inc-reatse the use of CRIS and expand its data, base. Further, we encourage you to Work towardI the development of some coordinated system for all of science. (11I: 1).23



Almost, all witnesses were in qjg1'een tOi h -oadlin".
funinT oraoriculti-ral research. and ilany lil4 h anut of
5111)1)01W -vaI-LSOilable and the wvays ill whi*c! Ijeerul allocated to tho quia tv of theo ripsoarcbi. As D r. Eiciamr(1 J. A,1 iJci. x(, K tlhi relatio-,,shIp :
The funding; oj' re.-Qearoh by the Feder-11 GCcv(-;iiw~nt hei~ tloiif, in i way which does not ililIy that there are first find -s(cid chiUsS S(O1vj ith :i1Tj-ic tural scienfIsts fallin- in tile latter cate-ory. I 1,ersonatlly ii ijKO t o that some of our policies for administering dollars ixavo. iialeA. ittipii-d thlat agricultural scientists were not first class scientists. (11: P. 233)
Dr. William Hueg, deputy vice president of the Institute of Ag.triculture, Forestry and Home Economics at the Universit-y of Minne-

a, hlelvivvd that twhe <':l1 fullding situal iol for agricultural re,cai~i is very serious:
WVo cannot CIi Iue t o erate with appropria i ion s for recea reh adj ust( l only to the cost of living. The evidence is clear from the 3 reports of the task forces :n ti the present li il ilillg oflot tll il theo re'learh neds are re al. If we are serious about increasing flod production, not only for domestic but for the world, then I think we must begin to k at those reports aiind appropriate at the levels irUflestedl. I: p. 59)
Witnesses disagreed, however, on tIhe amount of additional funding wiel would he required to improve current research efforts substantially : nor did all agree on the proportion of funds which should he invested in formula grant versus competitive grant programs. "The problem, as Dr. Edward II. Glass explained to the Subcommittees, is that:
Research programs cannot be turned on and off at will like water from a spigot. It takes time to build facilities and establish productive teams of s.i enti v t s.
()in the other hand. continuing unquestioned support can lead to complacency and lack of productiveness. (II: p. 566)
In terms of the type of funding made available, Hueg made some very specific suggestions:
My feeling is we ought to be really using the Hatch Act as a good, solid base for the Federal support of the programs at the State stations, and that that ought to maybe increase a little more than just the cost of living. But, attached to that, either through the Public Law 89-106 funds or very specifle kinds of things that you think the stations and USDA have capacity to do, identify x millions of dollars for that purpose and put it out on a grant basis. (II: p. 621)
Dr. Glenn Pound, who had chaired the committee which developed tle, "Pound Report," brought to the Subcommittees' attention the 1972 recommenndati on "that the USDA seek a greatly improved level of a, p)'opriations fora competitive grants program for basic research in all the sciences that underpin the mission of the USDA and the SAl'S; that such funds be available to both Federal and non-Federal Scientists: and that the funds be administered by a rigorous peer review system." (II: p. 426) Pound felt that, even now, there are still ome -clea-r-cut weaknesses in the present grants and contracts program from the standpoint of meeting our basic research needs." (II: p 426)
It ;:as a:o n r:sted th t. for sme types of research, formula grants may not be the most effective means of support. New types of grant programs may need to be established to deal with new national goals in agricultural research. As William Hueg stated:
We m'-y be comiv to a time, though, when again, working together, we have to have more direction. Is it energy that we ought to be concentrating on, and if so, where should it be done? I don't happen to believe it ought to be done nie ssa rily in every State experiment station. There may be some places that have greater expertise in energy, and that could be accommodated through grants and contracts for specialized research. (II: p. 589)
('ompetitive grants were often considered to be the most effective way of funding certain types of research. This was also noted by Hueg: I'm not convinced that all experiment stations ought to get into the most basic and fundamental research. They don't have the staff to do it. This would


Tiean that -ou(I ]s ot of those reso)urc ,s to build ne-W f (dtCS, 2n P1t" 1;s
hoe W uny to lbilld oll 1 hi pide h already are s trong-,, or !'(t\ ht OWhY nedare addit-onal hands to W Ouk. with then. If y-ou wouid put it in NSF. or NIH or whe-rev(-r it might 'go-the only thing I ask is M at the same111rtuii bo afforded to scientists in the State Stations and~ T'Si )1A to havq aeI- tos i funds. Dean Pound's testimony spoke eloquently to that point-i-f you h N-e pewo who are not affiliated with that system they do not iinderzs.Iand it 1. (11: 621-422)
Dr. Edward Glass made several specific suggestions along these lines for the improvement of research through a competitive grantsprogram:
-That tile "IISDA--CSP-ZS program of fun'Ting by grants-Pu2;'r Law 89-106--should be increased. Such funding shoulld be aillo('atcd . by program are a rather than crops." (11I: p. .567)
-That an "agricultural granting agency, comparable to Nh in th health field" mighrt be established. (II: p. 566)
-That an. "at(rT-jcult,,iral division" might be set iup in thle -N~IZT', to handle the granting of funds for basic and applied res.,,earch in crop 1)rotec-tion and other areas of agricultural research. (MT p. 5616)


Witness,,,es were generally in favor of more extensive use of "Scientifif ers" in the review of research proiects and programs. Dr. Pound made a strong statement on this subject:
The recent report of the -National Academy of Sciien -os (2 nimit-tee 'iiz
at'ricultural research re~omndn~ed that the 'USDA land SAES,; esta!bHi h. c,'cu')eratively, a national svsteom whereby research project Ipro!.osIIs 11 gn nrr would be subjected to rigorous review by scienfiSt peers. uch a move would (10 ~n,,h to upgrc-de the quality of science. directly in terms of the out1pu t Of resear(P itself and mono- subtly in the quality- of recruits L~.dto the field and to thlv-ir Sc(IenPt Ific a-spi r at io ns.
tis admitted that lbothi research systems have somie mnechanisms ,,f '
review in operation now btit is felt that comprehensive and rigorous rre-views a T'e not- common.
Tr .In addition to peor review of project lfoPsli.tere is need for 2, re!; ted effort toward peer review-, of broad program arf-as. CSRIS Dowofescnrhsive reviews t, the SAES but does not have the resrelirces to expand th.s to adequa' tely mneet thle needs. If these could be expanded to cover mor prograi oec:. to have more balanced review teams, and t,) servi-e USDA as wed i a:, S-kHES, significant upgra dine- of research planning and research Lunaag-Anient w:)-uld result. (11: pp. j,37, 438)
I);1% WIiiiiarn ITlITu( t-rok -is-7uc with the,! ,)r outside i of peer rev; pw. Ilueg) testified:
Who are the peers, though? You see, I'm not going to take( our program to somnebody in a medical school and say'-, n owv wil youi mak 1z eui~fel whether the convent here is, what it ought to be? Srlook Over out-r should' r anMd see what we're doing, but I don't think they're in any better position t ) itiake the judgment, than weP are of. say, somne nmedi,-,d reseanreli. APnl I think thi-4 is, whA-at you find in mniiy of these review groups, th-t they )-,e '4;. far out of the a tivity of the real w.orhl that perhaps they wns~'hat r-,llvn.'ed to 1,(, don,,. (11I p. (122)

-A I--Pe S s Jisted -muierous areas OT! rezea reb) why ic 1fv oiiv I~ curTrently underfund od in proportion to the o+be enrwin
wVould result f:,om break1-tliroughs in these, areas. Pr'. Sylva~n AWit(cr

plv-, Itc(l OW 111W-t 1)llIPicl1kIl.- I Vk, I f Iv- r, (.111
Li m cvcr, t fiat
1# V ,h s)llid ,l ill :-I! ld :11--L
11, v P Z
k, r. it it l I i 1 11 Id I e
I 11. v 11110 i I i I I I r e I I e I r t i z t- r
I lwi I'l \V ; I I I I I a S t he

I i I I I I I \v I. I I I I I I i 1 to I I T I I I i v v -.01 W
0 f t le (-1.() -sc:4 I 'I I I I I I I i e a I 14 111 t I I I I I rc carci I e fl,( )l-t of t lie
t v I I 1 1 t I 't 11 1 11 x fi x I t1 011 01( o
A i1i, rl"Lt 11 hvil If(' fill-ther Ihe llc0d to
fevilfy 'MId I vpk, of er()p-- Nvilh 11 c - (.1*11111,111c,
*110 4,clicti-c N-l.1lierabilltv: inventorv the :oil alid Nvatel. I es () I 11, t,
.!I ,). T) i F k, I,( j 11C111 r p TV o. e t, t 1, 1, t ill
',I T 111 e I' T I I I I TV f I :,r! I k I t i i i -e ca ; s s t I i j i i -, i lz i T t: (1, ,i n ( I c x t c 11 t o f t h e
rapidly inclva.-- Illlg acid precipitation and It- (-flFects on crops and ofl P1l1,<1W neiv 11 z- Ile culture. techniques: ,md docriimic the nuti-Itimial 4111,11itic'., of vari()',I- cfmvelilional and nm-icoiiv(-ntioim1 food--:Mr. L. C. -C1cII- Carpentk r o f the AlikIC011t Hif-lit A.- O('*Mtion -ilz o listed a number of spcufic research ell'orts ,vhicli need more 11110 1 a : Icz in I I is view
I C i ; it 11- are troil,,,
t_ t;) I)e forced to devoliq) ije-,v pe,,ti( ides that vill h(,
mi., (,,,it ii)atiile Nviiii t-i e maintenance (,f tiie eilvin) I I ill el It....
\11-0 11,1ve 1.) llave t bett# r "-,.I v to colltl.(d arlillial 1.1111off. Climatic
Ilave 111(ore Idvallre ill w-der t,,, lielp firmer ill plai!ning, und pri)(lucing. our : lld lilwr. E- Twrl iil v ilIIp()I.t;tllt i 1() (i-terillizie \mir prc)per halanc(, bet"'vvil
till'I (re and ii,,e of lierbicid(,s whi0i will maxiinize energy saving, and ti: (;ne ()f mir f Ild it call be &,l1c. It i .; hf ill- &)11(_ alld ve lleed

A ii Ainl(y of NI,)j(,!- alv i z of I C,: Iplla -i ;
Jr.. vice pre.- Iilellt ()f
cl, llccs 1,01. t I Ie 1-niver-ity o f Califorma ;v 4em.
t111(, brma(I and ( (-()Iwrivallv fl ](I of
1,() f t i () 11 Nv i t 1,tr COTICOV,, I-Or C I I V I I I I (, I I I I a t N
Al to) incr 'a ,c
'111d plant 7, (1, (,:11 IQ1t:m(,(, to
vild to tolerance, , and phots,< viif lief el'i
10-1i -f, the structure I I axal ioll 11fl(I wher
-4 't 1(m.; t.1 affect, sizc: the strilctlu-e ,lld perfm-malil
(,I- tI vdiok nd th(, rolle ()f ittermit Dm d t rode
,li 1-0(y,IT"I t,) C il' 1)1'0 1611- d 111111('d ('('01101 111(1
aii rn a t I i ia I pd; cic,: o f t I; (, I i i I f e d -,t t
A- dr-.( e (d, cmll-- (, I,,Ils w:l- lill(mcr Ilie
I)II the nec-1 fol.

4'( t t *th I)r. 61elln I)()11Ild,,-;
111 L I I I t "I ell" C 1110TV ba IC 4
It t(.) I I I t t I re. 1)r. S to I rl I I I (Y
f I 1 .1" fe I r F( I I I I a t 1 on 1.( fo 1 (1 t I I i: I y pe 0 f
a- --tjpp()I-tjjI(r be -,kiisc it is 11rected zit a

specific goal al hias a woll-deffined 11ijos.iLs view ofthefx
aviabefor this type of base L'eseare- I wa"s thiat
.the ore unental but J)ui s)OfU wako ui .lrfn, ic i:
(Animal species--tile suppol ting typ,-clea11rl s!'-iL ~ct in tlii~ c~mit ; during the yeai-s of surplus food production'.
*.Iii short, i t ,1)1 apc rs that tis enitire -.e 1i f 1II-h..v imohi \o
fallen through a very wide crack in our naiilrcsealch effort, ti the dct rimelt of both fax flers and consuiiiers. (11 16.-17
AlVthough witnesses believed that more support in these areas is required, many emphasized that there is ab;fo a "need for a greater r integration of applied and basic research efforts.*' (I: p. 412) 11ucr mentioned this need, and also suggested that the role of thie grantlL." agencies in this process should be examinedl:
. .we need to (jo a better job relating the 1)-slc alld" ftiJ"J.!e(1rsi dh rg:
to continued imjproi-einent of the food prcdlutiLon nd ih~rlibution ssei V need to look more eriticallvy it the ke-isiolls hiah'o iy >gat'- gncs
The standard response that we get too ofi en in 01ie St-are Stiltions is t'hat u1
funds are avai lalble throuit:h USDA and thrimugh S taito support. ;aid flwrefo'o you do not needle this. And I would contend that those fu-nds are mnot cinta we delve into many of these unresolved [basia,- ,Ssues of fG id )rodiuctio Ii.
(I:p. 595)
Several -witnesses, including Pound, indicated that these, probiei I are not caused by a lack of appreciation for basic researchi in cuiture. As an example, the Agricultural Research Service Aiii. trator, T. AV. Edmninster, stated. "We are tIVl o hiciea..;e our ba, io research in ABS and1 I knowi, the experi,;-ient K- al vm~s aro atteiiiptin thiis. too. But wve face nepoin-Tt of reality: Basipr research is not thle
-iost attrac'ive( res each in ternms- of sCce'llfr a- immcdjate rec-Io11se. But we feel thiat tis is one0 of the areas we must developp woire thiorotighly, because this Is the basis for vlilchi w.ell1 hav-e food produc,tion 110, 15. 2)0 vear fro POVw--b1);7n Y Qab! to csupport thebai researchh* (IT: p. 12 7)

The criticism frequently made that, by focuigisefrso
increased production of commodities, the agricultural research Qsystern is not giving appropriate attention to the interrelationships of foodl. energy and the environment. Dir. Parry- ( nnni belx that this will mean serious problems in the future: Research is designed to be a guide to the future and . the future (of agric-ulture in this country is in doubt because the context in which agriculture i operating has begun to shift.
It has already been pointed out that the resour-es vil4 for 91-riculttire are now in short supply and the importance of research is to forewarn our production system. about such changes.
Now, the main point . is that the present sy: tem of ag-ricultural research . is not able to forewarn agriculture of impending developments... The reason for this shortcoming, is that ... the existing system of al-rieu-ltuial research has concentrated on a narrow purpose--to prod nace food. (IIT: p. -5041
Commoner related this specifically to the serious concerns with tile present and future availability of energy:
As matters now stand, agricultural production is heavily dependent on inpumt, of chemicals, pestj-cxdes, and fertilizers, and there is n~o doubt that any sli'7,

(.f h,.uii III very ,erii uA affect

wa r

t h I) t t I i
W I r I I I 10S t I
'S :1 11 1 0 F(
T -:L V 1 i I d r'; I I n, I, ('X 1 11 re:;t a rc 11,
ill I I I)f clw v ill w il. teill, "111d \VP ull.L Ilt,
f I ( I i I I I I I e i 111 )p rt ;, I I t I i s
'I"d it j- ii, c I.,.- i n (I eq i w t e. 1). 2
( -4, h'ps between :irri-lculturc, and the
cc111plex "111(l dc1i(,:1,e I I
f, I V 11"OT111WIlt ',11-0 ldso pzirt of this, larger problein. Dr. Wifliam Jhw(r

p 0;0*,; il 1) (1 1 r! v 19-0,.,; 1 ed to t 11 e (It, velop("I (-t, I"'v < 'Id 11,11 tho ()np utunit v for ixp:in(1e(1 nroduo'0 1 h(all h.),7ie :111(1 applied,
j,( ll,!w ill lorce. 1). 610)
Coi)ii-lio-ior made the following iecomin-ndation oil this subject: t,!p
T J 4 f 1,r,,.iden fh(, r.in,-(, of ro 4(-!ruh cr-inizations thit
wd to include thoso whi-h ,ire and the larger eiiI J j,-L,(i-,1,:ti,,,1 of w1lich i" I p-rt. f 11 0:23)


E, ;ther Petor: on, consumer adi-iQj1i, for a major retail food
Oiaiii, dell".-c-red the most extensive testimony continuing the, relation11*p be"'v" -I research aiid human nu;1,-*t.ion. "he not, ,d
C) 'i :
A, today flktl to d,) with n-,trition
mid I Alli :1,),, Ing tliat agri(-nit, ral res ,:in,1 Uld food prodwnor am I (1-1,i)vilig that F.S. ,i.-,ricu!tiir(, lifis prolv-fl, far more food than the.v can c-nsunie, or that i.,-z th ; < I i,, 4)f t irld .
I 1 T, I t 11 1 1 re:,,ct irchersl what their wor!c !in.;; to do xvith
1111. 11M i I %v v.-ill ausv, ('r vvilli the Same que-stioii, "What (loes agricultural I-(, rch li;ive 1 6 vN i' I i ii u t i- i f i on I I : 1). 54
(in thi.:; point, stafiiigthat it N-vas her impn ,ss;,,-)n that
ni huen focused oil niltritloii 1 e(-,xzse it h"Is heell ( lid on (loveltiping varieties of prodivt z III(.11 call "oil or Xhich into snipes and siz --;
Ji:ii ;iro j-.-i- li:,nulwd 1,Y h;irve. A -- ", I .11 'A ; i i - ( 1 I i ( i i I I i : I ( 1 14 % I I W orking (ill ])-,It riclit roquirct! 1111S 50 )1:],-; ;wtn i re ,(-trcli priority; i, is i.(,t a research
I I :

N f L T, -S C A LL C I z I C U I ITT-P I

"flich of t I w urriculturict co1l(j,jCt(,d ill tll(,% TTnited t-)(Iav

_, ,!oclioll of "v -c'Irch

Miuch of the discussion of this isue had ben I'n.at,,d I t I t .).\ resi)onse to a -1eent ( eneral A.cc in -i ()'iic>, stu(lv -'re pr' !(oS implln C()llOD11 il1provel!l1lt Of -a:nl fiari op crato s."
Charles Romine, who is associated with a non-profit research iIstitute, agreed with the suggestion that the USDA is not doing all that it could in the research areas which would benefit the small. imdcpendent farmers:
I think that with all the touting of the support for the family farm that his one on in this country . [USDA] has done very little to insure that the family farm would be preserved.
Our technological developments . such as large machines that are vastly expensive are extremely difficult for a small farmer to buy. No. 1. he often doesn't have the credit base to borrow the money, and often finds it difficult to make the payments.
I think what we need to do is decide whether we want to preserve the fail, f' rm. I mean, is there,, good cse for r'e-Servin w-'e it .' 1 vb thee int.
But the one organization who probably should or could answer that questi,: has not done so. (II: p. 471
On an even smaller scale, Dr. Sylvan Wittwer thought that the "science of home food gardening" was "one area of technology that could be developed . ." (I: p. 31) Wittwer thought the advantapis to the fostering of home gardening had not been examined sufficiently by the USDA:
It also provides recreation. There is little fossil fuel energy input. High quality produce is available at the doorstep. You have no problems of packaging, transportation, and storage. Food is produced in your own backyard. There are segments of science that could be adapted from commercial production and applied to millions of home units. As one travels in Western Europe, one can see the science, perhaps the art, of home gardening much more advanced tlhan in this Nation. We've paid very little attention to it. But now it's coming bark. It's coming to the front. People have a renewed interest. The sale of garden seeds has risen to new heights. Alnost everyone has n inte-et. I'm saying that here is where science could be put to use, perhaps in a rather unusual way. ,t only at home but also abroad. (II : pp. 31-32)
Several other witnesses also emphasized that such technologirs d, exist, but m~any of them are more highly developed in countries othor than the U.S. Dr. Sterling Wortman provided the Subcommitt:e with the information that:
Much is being learned abroad about organization of systems to benefit smal farmers and to promote rural prosperity-both on farms and in rural trade centers. Again, with a few exceptions, our scientists and institutions are not involved or even able to be abreast of such developments. They could be. of course, if given federal funds to allow certain of them to participate actively and on a continuing basis. (II: p. 46)


Dr. Sylvan Wittwer pointed out early in the hearings that "Climate and weather are the most determinant factors in food and other renewable resource productivity. The impact of changing climatic patterns and weather on food production is enormous." (I: p. 18) Ac the hearings progressed, the need for more research in these areas beeano

a P.S. General AccountIng Office. Some Problems Impeding Economic T'mrwnve:nr t ,f Small Farm Operations: What the Department of Agriculture Could Do. August 15, 1975, 31 p.


'I I h i, I'il lilt 111- l I !1,: 11 t t I I I I I, I I)tk,4 I I I,,, I i (i rt, 5 1 11)11 i s ica t e d
X, 11',V4, IIW F 111- k (I t h(- Nve-ither dept-n(leiict, of agriculture. .
I N (, a ('1111.Pli('Ilted sv,,teui that uses a lot of capital, utiUzes all of our land, ''d T III ; ystejn is sensitivee to the vagaries of the weather. (II : 1). 82'9) 'I", I ( ', )( )" -,I,, M I I S f 1, 11- t N-1)0 Of for the A-T11OriCa1j fill jlj .j- 111(1 rj,(lat. ,-i< (-,-In be e.;pecialiv m ade
:11' 1)v the sta',ement- of Dr. 'Norton Strominen of the Nation.al
and Atmospheric Adniinistration, Center for C11111atic and F"16.1ronnicnial As,4essmentTli( re i, i () question in, my mind that, it we had had the center for cliniatic A enN-ironmental assessment, wecould have said a great deal about the Rus.sian
- ;,;1" 1) tjo
III Cr(I potential in 1972.
I'll i.-; ea r Nve N\,ere on top of it rigbt f roni the start -I nd the diff erence of thi!4 1,11' Is Vf1i-y evii!ew, I think, just l(mking- nt NvIlat the otitoonie % -as in 11)72
I-SUS P 75.
Th(- Nva.s tlicre. Thei-e Nvis. no niechanism at that tirne to support
f-)I-1-1 I ;I-It it D('e([(Id aud SC'eillq tll lt it got t the right it'.aces. (11 : p. S79)
An extrollielY impork"llit j):irt of the deN-clopment of Stich systems is
()j I (I 11(tvanced such as !-:atelhte rernote, sensiihr
I t, I, if I iq i! e lie diss(-mination of such information is ,,I
i I a.-, i oc t i e x 1) 1: ti rle, I I),,- D r. D e c 11-er
Tf is 111I oNN-n (--)Titention that it is the advisory part of the sy teni that, Nve need t exaniine to promote a better excliange of information froni the satellite remote
il"' 1(1CImit-ilie to the farnif-r. We need a specialized weather advisory systeni f This specialized vN-(,:ither advisory system will provide assistance
i-i -,-riw of ihe Iong-terin de -i.; ions that the farm mans-er has to make, some of t I If 'I 0 (1('(' 1 i I IT I -I I ,ind. ",O-year payoffs. This sy,;tvin Nvill al.- o he involved in t1t,,- day-to-6;iv (Ieclslon, of operatin- a farm. (II: p. 847)


Wiflic.-.-o (YeIVIT.111v ao-ree(l that the increase in the number of (Yovei mnent regulatiomi -8N-hich affect agriculture has markedly clianued tho search atinospliere in both the ptiblic, and private sectors. I'liese
foo ., ( -onounced in industrial research and develop- i t have been inost pi
11tent pro(ri-allis. 11011vever. as (,-kj)re ;1sed inost foreelully bv the witne;--ses re )re-- vntinjr industry at the hearin(I's.
T)r. Svl -ayi Wittiver pinpointed the source of many of flw 4(' probfroni Govermnont regulations:
'11wrir, i -- 11TIo-onsiliz doin;,nfl for absolutesafety. We can aT-so now detect that v, hi(-h wf- interpret. The lack of scientific input into decision-making that
i- incre i:- M.glv controlled by lawyers and politicians is a national Problem. (11

Mr. A1 101141 Glaw-i. for ox tnlple. state(I "that pro(-rre :,- in the foo(I
Qefinli for now wav:, to provide constimen; v,-Itli nutritious. lil '(IlWtVl '111d fool; is beillo-r Slowed (lown SiArl 1- iiflcantly by
Cie inaze of ro -ru],,lf loll,, t li:it must I)e followe.A." (IT: 1). 26') Ife unI I i t a t i-I I Ld adde(li tlaf industi-V does not 1.0,111y object toThere, is a 9e11111D(1 1-WCA Ml( I (L-ire to be q.-; preoi e as, Nve ca n about food Safety,
-, ut ntitrition, about and about quality a','4urance. I think 'V%-e

ar at a very crucial time inl our development. Many of the forces, thit wto e in motion were very properly set in motion. But what we need to do now is to step hack. not in an adversary situl ion, but in one (of mutual undiiAerst~du, lIi, aiI respect and reach for truth, or at least closer to truth . .
We are for a workable system that will help assure the public's safety, while enabling the food processing industry to advance in all dimensions, not only just one. (II: p. 209)
To clarify this point, Clausi submitted a list of _some regulations which be believes provide good examples of poorly conceived or poorly executed regulations, and made several rec onnmemndatiois re rdi l,' how, in his opinion, the major problems in this area could be alleviated. (II: pp. '28-28 )

It was frequently contended that the agricultural research effort in the U.S. has been and continues to be strongly oriented to a "commodity strategy," and that such a strategy is not the most effective for meeting the demands to be placed on research in the future. The "systems approach to agriculture which was advocated by several witnesses appeared to be incompatible with such a strongly "commodity oriented" strategy.
In material provided for the record, Robert Long stated that:
There are any number of alternative "strategies" that may be considered. especially when all the variations are added on. Some of the more comi(onl y encountered strategies are discussed here, namely a defensive strategy, a coinmodity-oriented strategy, a geographical strategy, a functional-discipline strategy. a "moon mission" strategy, and a grants and/or protected funds strategy. (I : p. 179)
Upon examination of the various research strategies, Long remarked that:
It is our belief that in speaking of adopting a research strategy, we must speak of what is the relevant mix and not which one is the best. (I: p. 179)
Dr. Sterling Wortman also emphasized the need for a balanced mix of research strategies:
For a country of the size of the United States, a "commodity" approach. a "disciplinary" approach, andc a "problem" approach to research, all are needed. .
Finally, there must be a multi-disciplinary approach to problems of each region. state, and locality in the United States-an aspect of our research effort which the recent reorganization of the USDA seeks, I understand, to strengthen. (II: p. 49)

Closely related to the problems of filling research gaps is the problem of filling "communication gaps"' among researchers within and outside the system of agrieiultural research. the users of that researtlh and the consumers of the ultimate product of that research. In attempting to find solutions to the "world food problem." such communication must also cross international boundaries. Numerous witnesses
addressed the varioi aspects of these important linkage .

0 Ot ',I 1-NI, tA '-IN NVIT11IN 'I'll V AI (I Of MVNITY

M I ny AvIT poI !1', eq I ()lit t1le 1,I(,(,d fol. I litt'l-act ion bet ween tli() e
t il 11 1 he a 111'a I rc- etl I-ch \-S1 em alld thozze out 0
I 1,lT ('111 ),11-1 W i J t H Y i i ii t I I(, I ):i- W I iscl It )II Ines. A ocordillfr to
)1.\ ii !(, I w lt clv. i( !"1 (0, 1 11c c C A Lr; i III,(, nt I he t 'IIIVtl_ :1 f 11. 'no's '11id of III A _,r1-*,-; Ilk
1111101111c i I i(ITI h(.t\V(,c11 \vIthill tilt, T'SDA-State SV 4elji arill
S I (I f i i s i t% I I ti I i I i i i idw i lit ed I c(iii I d bi, be t t er.
-s r(niferenct-s, technical
'11i'l 111111lic :111d Ille h ".II.ld
-iij- them liro-viil- th(, for thi'(I t(, di-cildilie"- (u.."Illizat;wl (,I.

W hen I. k -l 111 14 it 1. 11 ri I cieli I is!.- t "a cX I eir i vely, j 11(.1 11(l i 11 ('1*4 1 I P] 1) 11 V k) 11. t) t w r (-()I o r (I i s r i pI i ne P, i (Pu I I, f( I r t I i e ,,u rl j,)z;es ol' hnia d 1 (,a (,(Ai I; IL's, t he-; 11W
1: (111 (-tilt nral in re t arcli if inuti,al
i)lt 'rk-at. hv nwl -:I-ricultural Fcieiitist:, t(l, scientist_, 1,,rohahlly
Ow triffi,- the (Alier way. Q: p. 19,S)
witn(, Z;: (-.;; believed, however, that niore coul(I and s1iould he
(11)11(1 10 ( !Icolll-a_,re 111is W illwol'
W"! v.- hat the. Fcdet-al government might holp
en *wjr. and supp(jrf efforts (r(, 4eareh that hriii1 ,!11.'A", ()f the ilqllicd agricultural -clence discil1ilw" wiill 010.--Zo, (If Ihe I'a.-ic
In (Ither word fund proposals which have written ju s-,[rafte.-ies to do thk. 'I'll(, i;,w-f.r (if the hiid.-ot to encourage saioh collaboraO)n should he r(--oL-iiized. This;
*11 r"'pfire c(lordination as \vell a,, interdisciplinary collabor
in de cl(qjinent. (I : p. 143)
The cominoditY orientation of agricultural
often mentioned as a reason behind iiiade(piato (,onLTnunication amon(r researebers; for example, Dr. Wayne Lel"ori of Texas A & ALT 17111versit (ry is an arca that cuts across all commo,,lit'
y folt, "that, MOT'g 4.
117'ben wo have a, commodity-oriented funding cr. then this V where i nfvl (liscfl;l' nar.y re :earelli can become a, problpj n. lVe need to i-omtmiz.- tliil as an area wbere we need to make special efforts to have this Illiel.disciplinary cooperation." (TT: p. 1013)
To le!zsen the-:ze effects of conimodity-orieTited fundii-icr AV IT, It wer sill afrc"4ed t 1) (at fedet-ala(rencies:
11_ 11 tBring various disciplines too-ether in a team effort on national problems.
Thb; could be encouraged by a collaborative granting procedure anvm.- federal wn iwies which recognizes and rewards an interdiseir-l1inary tipproach for thl, ,ippli(-ants. (I: p. 146)


of the CoMI1111114.1,16011 NN'llich tlke-; Place, botweell "ITId thOS( Ojjt:S;d10 Ole, 1-o'- ear(-11 colill)-villiltv f.111 liTidAl. the I-111)1-ic ()f "technolo,(Ty tralisfer." Altlloll,(.-h nl(rellvl(, and
1011110FOUS indiviilmil- an, 6,com;i)(ir mon, Nvith 611Z) (1,01101,111
t- ?__

problem, it does not appear that enough has .vet been done in this area. )Dr. David Barr of the University of Missouri stated:
I believe that technology transfer needs the moral support of Government. Technology transfer needs the stature that is associated with high technology research and development. (II: p. 727)
The Cooperative State Extension Service has performed a Iarge part of this function for the USDA-State Agricultural Experiment Station system, and, in general, most witnesses agreed that it has been one of the great strengths of the U.S. agricultural research system. However, some believe that the effectiveness of the extension services has been diminishing. When questioned on this. Robert Long agreed that this was a cause for concern and could be attributed to the fact that:
. the extension leaders have a real problem today of trying to determine their audience. In all fairness to them they have a job to do greater than their resources, in terms of their human availability in the field.
The demands made on them, both from the urban community . as well as from the rural community, which has not lessened, has tended to dilute their ,capacity to do their job as effectively as they could at one time. (II: p. 686)
Communication in the opposite direction-that is, from the users of agricultural research and the consumers back to the research conunnnity-was also perceived by many witnesses to be inadequate. Dr. Wiliiam. Hueg felt that part of the trouble here:
Is that the consuming public have not been sufficiently conscious of the abundance which surrounds them or its source. Many people are two and more generations away from the farm and they have lost sight of how and where food and fiber comes from. Again, we in the experiment stations may be at fault for not telling this story adequately. The media have not been of great help, as they point out the scare stories and failures but seldom the successes. There are many more successes than failures in the agricultural research system. (II: p. 603)
Adolph Clausi believed that the situation is further complicated by: Some Americans' unrealistic attitudes toward our own country's food supply, attitudes which consistently thwart science and technology in their attempts to find useful solutions to world hunger problems. (II: p. 267)
To help ameliorate such problems, Esther Peterson felt that:
It's very important to involve consumers in advisory committees on all levels, state, federal, industry, etc. It's necessary to allow consumers to provide significant input into agencies and industries and help establish policy. (II: p. 61)
In terms of the international aspects of teehnlog transfer,
)r. Glenn Pound suggested that the U.S. Agency for Iternational Development had not proceeded in an effective mnner with its, programs in the past for the transfer of food production techo0Ql)Ov to developing nations. He did concede that the probl. is complex but stated that "there is no way that this country can avoid wev'in.r the cloak of leadership in international agricultural development." (II p. 445) He testified:
I can only say that we have picked our way along a rocky path to try to finI the formulas for getting at this thing. We have met with only partial suces-

in my judgment. The most recent period of endeavors, which was a period in wti~'i there wa strongg ugphauis on institutional building within these developie cununtries was certainly tihe right approach.
I think our Agency fr Iiti national I)evelopment did not follow through adequatelyy, in ttrmis o f trying to imbue these countries and these institutions x ithl an adequate concept of what is research, effective research. I think we pulled out of the picture too quickly that way. (Ii : p). 416)
On the other hand, Clausi suggested that the real problem in getting technical expertise to these countries was with the attitudes of the governments of these nations:
I'.S. agribusiness scientists are trying to transfer their technological expertise to underdeveloped nations-to help them make better use of available food materials; to improve their foods' nutritional content; to reduce spoilage and waste losses; and to achieve better processing, storage, and distribution methods. We have to realize we haven't really made very much progress.
The governments in most developing countries are not waiting with open arms for our suggestions on improving agricultural practices or modernizing their processing and distribution techniques. We still have a long, uphill education job before we will convince the people in most needy nations to accept and use U.S. know-how-especially when part of the problem we face overseas is a reflection of some attitudes we must deal with at home. (II: pp. 266-267)
Dr. Sylvan WVittwer addressed another aspect of the problem, the fact that foreign students are often trained improperly at U.S. academic institutions. lie therefore suggested that:
We need to review our training programs for foreign graduate students, and for scientists abroad who come here. The exchange program has been a good one, but so often we train them to do the very kind of research that we do here with the sophisticated equipment we have which is readily available here but not abroad. What we teach them so often does not apply to the solution of the critical problems they have in their native lands. (1: pp. 35-35)
It was noted, however, that in certain cases U.S.-developed techo ,, is apicalble in other couHtris. Mr. Othal Brand, a grower V it: i (. Texa-. eX)lained that
The agricultural technology developed in the Southern areas of the United States, such as in the subtropical areas of Texas, could easily be transferred to oiher countries in the subtropical and tropical areas of the world. I don't think that there is any question about that. (II: p. 48)
But Wittwer noted that. because the IUnited( States is located in the temperate zone, "there has been very little progress made . in the ~ ionce and technology of food 1)roduction in the tropics." (I: p. 35) Ie went on to state:
Bunt wk n we realize the vawt land and water resources tlhat exist, in Africa .1d SAulh Am( rica,. the masses of people who live inii the Tropics, and that so much of our technology is temperate zone agricultural science and technology, we've got a few problems in terms of translating what we know in terms of the need((s of other nations. It's gradually being corrected: it's being understood; the prO)lem is being recognized; and I'm sure this will change. But agricultural science is still new in the Tropics, in terms of the management of resources, in terms of pest management, in terms of crops and livestock that can be most efhlciently produced. (I: p. 35)




(1) The following chronology highlights the major events affecting the publicly supported agricultural research system. As with thie
hearings held by the Subcommittees, the emphasis has been placed on
the food-related aspects of the subject.
(2) Note that this chronology does not provide comprehensive
coverage of events affecting non -State Agricultural E xpertim ent St ation (SAES) universities, the private sector research system, or the
international system. Due to the worldwide effects of food research,
however, some of the more recent major events in the latter category
have been included.

Date/year Event Summary

May 15, 1862--Agricultural Organic Act ------- Established the Department of Agriculture and assigned the Commissioner of Agriculture the task of acquiring and preserving "all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain by means of . practical ex etimertts, by the collection of statistics, and by any other rzppiopiate means within his power. ... The Department was elevated to Cabinet status in 1889. (12 Stat. 337, ch. 72)
July 2, 1862 -----Morril Act (or Land-grant Ccl- Authoiized grants of land to the States and the sale of that land lege Act). by the States for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical
colleges. The Act meant the first establishment of formal mechanisms for cooperative Federal and State government paiticipation in financing academic activities related to science and research interests. (12 Stat. 503)
Mar. 2, 1887------ Hatch Act ----------------- Established the agricultural experiment stations to operate in conjunction with the land-grant colleges. First Federal legislation aimed directly at promoting agricultural research on a nationwide basis. As amended in 1955, the Act is the primary source of authorization for the States to conduct agricultural research in connection with, and supported by the Federal Government. There is a fund matching requirement, (24 Stat. 440) Aug. 30, 1890--Organic Act of 1890 ----------- Provided for a portion of the funds coming from the sale of public
lands to go towards the "more complete endowment and maintenance of colleges far . agriculture and . mechanic arts now established, or which may herein after be established, [funds] to be applied only to instruction. .. ." (7 U.S.C. 450i) Mar. 16, 1906_____ Adams Act ---------------- Strengthened both financial support for agricultural experiment
stations and their control by the Federal Government by increasing annual funding but restricting use of funds to "conducting original research or experiments bearing directly oil the agricultural industry of the United States." Also, SAES now were required to obtain prior approval of their expendituTes of Federal funds, whereas before the Act they had reported to the Secretary on their activities after programs had already been funded. (Public Law 47; 34 Stat. 63)
May 8, 1914-----Smith-Lever Act ------------ Provided, for cooperative agricultural extension work between the
agricultural colleges receiving benefits under the Morril Act of 1862. The Act also authorized extension work~ consisting of "instruction and practical demonstration in agriculture and home economics" for people not in the colleges. By this Act then, the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture was formerly established providing a link between government research and the local farmer, Funds appropriated by the Federal Government to the extension program were required to be rnatcheu by State and local funds, (Public Law 95; 38 Stat. 372) Feb. 24, 1925---Purn~ell Ac-------Authorized additional funds to be appropriated for each agricul
tural experiment station for fiscal year 1926 and thereafter according to a graduated scale. Funds were to be used for investigations relating to agricultural products including research into the "establishment and maintenance of a permanent and efficient agricultural industry." (Public Law 458; 43 Stat. 970)

Date/year Event Summary

June 29, 1935 ----- Bankhead-Jones Act.--------- Provided for the expansion of scientific, technical, economic and
other research into the laws and principles underlying basic problems in aurgculture. USDA implementation of the Act led to the establishment of regional laboratories located according to problems of that area, (Public Law 182; 49 StaL 436). 1946 ----------- Resarch and Marketing Act of Further expanded and defined the purposes of Federal support for
1946. research, tie areas of research to be pursued, and where appropriated money was to be allocated. Specifically the objectives of the Act were to provide for research into basic laws and principles relating to agriculture; to promote the efficient production and utilization of products of the ,oil and a sound and prosperous agriculture and rural life; and to assure agriculture a position in research equal to that of industry. The Act also established a national advisory committee composed of 11 members, 6 of whom were to represent producers, or their organizations. The purpose of the committee was to encourage cooperation between officials of the Department of Agriculture and producers, farm organizations, and industry groups in the development of research programs to meet the objectives of the Act.
Nov, 2, 1953 ----- Agricultural Research Service This plan allowed for formal establishment of the Agricultural established. Reorganization Research Service (ARS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plan No. 2 (and other author- ARS carries on basic, applied, and developmental research in ities), the areas of livestock; crops; pest control; soil, water, and air
resources; domestic and export marketing; use of agricultural products; food and nutrition; consumer services; rural and international development; and agriculturally related health hazards, including food safety.
1953----------Farmer Cooperative Service The FCS wa3 formally est3Llished as a separate agency within the
established, U.S. Department of Agriculture at this time. Original authority
for work done by FCS was given by the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926.. Its fundamental purpose is to help farmers help themselves through the use of cooperative organizations, The agency provides technical assistance and research to improve cooperative performance. Studies concentrate on financial, organizational, legal, social, and economic aspects of cooperative activity in U.S. agriculture.
Apr, 3,1961 ----Economic Research Service es- This memorandum formally established the Economic Research tablished. Secretary's Mem- Service (ERS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS is orandum No. 1446, Supple- responsible for the development aid implementation of a proment No. 1 (under Reorgani- gram of economic research designed to provide economic informazation Plan No, 2 of 1953, tion for the USDA, other Federal decisionmakers, farmers and and other authorities), related industries, and the general public. Research findings are
made available through research reports on major commodities and the national and international economy. July 19, 1961-.--- Cooperative State Research Under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, the Service established, Secretary of the USDA established the Cooperative State Research
Service (CSRS) to administer funds for State agricultural and forestry research authorized by the following acts: The latch Act of 1887 as amended; the Mclntire-Stennis Act of 1962; the Act of Aug. 4, 1965; and the Rural Development Act of 1972, CSRS reviews and approves in advance each research project proposed to be funded in whole or in part by these Federal funds and reviews and evaluates the State institutions' research programs and expenditures administered under the acts. CSRS also assists in the coordination of research programs between the States and USDA.
1 961 .... Statistical Reporting Service, re- The Bureau of Estimates, first established in 1903, was changed to
named, the Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) under authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2. SRS prepares estimates and reports of production, supply, price and other items necessary to the operation of the U.S. agricultural economy. The Service also reviews USDA plans and questionnaires related to the collection of statistical data for use in research, regulatory, and other Department programs.
1964.---..... Agricultural Research Planning This committee was formed by a joint agreement of and with Committee (later ARPAC), representation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
established, State agricultural research organizations. The committee was
later renamed the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC). In a joint memorandum dated Jan. 11, 1974, from the Secretary of Agriculture ant the President of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) the objectives of the committee were outlined as follows: (a) to develop recommendations for policy with respect to planning, evaluating, cc.ordiinating and supporting long-range agricultural research programs and determining the appropriate areas of responsibility of Fedeial and State agencies in carrying out these programs; and (b) to develop further the bases for cooperation in planning and implementing national, regional and interstate research programs.

Date/year Event Summary

Aug, 4, 195--- Public Law 89-106 (or the This Act authorized the Secretary to make grants to State agriSpecial Research Grants Act). cultural experiment stations, colleges, universities, and other research institutions and organizations and to other Federal and private organizations and individuals for basic and applied research to further the programs of the Departmient of Agriculture; A large part of the funds appropriated under this Act in recent years have gone to the land-grant colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee Institute. (79 Stat. 431)
1966- --- Current Research Information CRIS is an automated research information system administered by System (CRIS) established, the CSRS of the USDA, CRIS contains projects for all research conducted by the publicly supported agricultural research system, CRIS provides information for interchange among individual scientists as well as for the planning, coordination, and mangement of national and regional agricultural research programs. The information is updated annually, 1971 ---------- Consultative Group on Interna- CGIAR is cosponsored by the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture
tional Agricultural Research, Organization of the United Nations, and the United Nations De(CGIAR) formed, velopment program. OGIAR is a consortium of internatioianl banks,
assistance agencies, governments, and private foundations which provide financial support to a group of international agricultural research and training centers. The major objective of the Consultative Group is to assist the developing nations to rapidly increase output of basic food crops, both to meet the food needs of growing populations and to speed the economic development that is needed for an improved rural and urban standard of living. Aug, 30, 1972..--... Rural Development Act of 1972--, This Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct, in cooperation and in coordination with colleges and universities, research and basic feasibility studies in any field or discipline which may develop principles, scientific and technical knowledge, new technology, and other information to achieve increased rural de-. velopment. It also authorized research and development programs in management, agricultural production techniques, new products, cooperative marketing, and distribution suitable to the economic development of small-farm operations. (86 Stat. 671) 1972----------- Report of the Committee on Re- The Committee was established by the National Research Council
search Advisory to the U.S. in 1969, at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Department of Agriculture Agriculture. The Secretary asked that "the committee review (Pound Report) Published, agricultural research as a science and advise the Department and the land-grant universities on gaps in the scientific effort and on advances that should be developed." The summary of the 1972 report stated that although the committee found many research programs in USDA and SAES of high quality their findings generally indicated that "much agricultural research is outmoded, pedestrian, and inefficient. .." The committee made 20 recommendations for changes in administrative organization, the establishment of goals and mission, the training and management of research scientists and the allocation of resources within the USDA-SAES system to correct the inadequacies they found. 1972----------...Regional and National Research This is a planning system jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department
Planning System imple- of Agriculture and the National Association of Stat e Universities mented by ARPAC. and Land-grant Colleges to facilitate the coordinated develooment
of research programs at all levels-local, regional, and nationalwith inputs from Federal, State, and industry research organizations. Specific objectives of the system include: more effective use of available scientific talent, laboratories, and other resources in working toward the solution of agricultural and forestry problems; identifying emerging problems of national and regional significance and directing resources to the solution of high priority prcblems; and increasing the integration of efforts among participants in the system. The basic structure of the system consists of 4 regional planning committees and a National Planning Committee (N PC). The NPC, established in 1974, establishes guidelines for national and regional planning operations, monitors performance, reviews inputs from the regions, and evolves a national plan for each cycle of the operation.
November 1974---. World Food Conference in Rome--. Convened under the aegis of the United Nations as a result of increasing reports of food scarcities, the conference addressed the questions of international food relief, international food reserves, and increased food production in chronically food-short a.-eas. Conference participants failed to reach agreement in several critical areas including the provision of immediate fond relief, the funding of agricultual' development and the establishment of food reserves, but did produce a "Progiamme of Action" Y\hich set forth some long-range goals for agriculture. In the area of development Conference recommendations included a call for developed countries to provide increased financial and technical assistance to developing count, ies; the provision of adequ3te suppies of pesticides as well as research and training in th~ir use; and increased attention to high-quality seed supply and development. The Conference also recommended the establishment of an I iternational Fund for Agricultural Development to finarice development projects in the developing countries. Provision was also made for the establishment of the World Food Council. The Council was "to serve as a coordinating mechanism to provide over-all, integrated and cont nr :-g attention for successful coordination and follow-up of policies concerning food production, nutrition, food security, food trade and food aid ... by all agencies of the United Nations system. .. '

Date/year Event Summary

Dec. 3, 1974 ------ World Food Study requested of President Ford addressed a letter to the National Aaemy of NAS. fencess requeitng theii aId in "a major effort to lessen the
grim prospect that future generations of peoples around the world will be confronted with chronic shortages of food and with the debilitating effects of malnutrition." The President requested that NAS develop "specific re~ommendatjons on how our research and development capabilities can best be applied to meeting this major challenge." In November 1975, the Academy sent an interim report on the progress of their work to the President. alon with a report by the NAS Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources titled "Enhancement of Food Production for the United States." The focus of the later study was on the improvement of U.S. food producing capabilities. The report pointed to "some gross deficiencies in our current investments in agricultural and food research" and gave recommendations for "replenishing the scientific pool of knowledge that has been drawn upon headl during the last 2 decades without being adequately maintained.. The interim report itself looked at food problems from a global view and discussed the areas of research, wherever conducted, which if successful could enhance food production in the developing countries themselves. The study emphasized the need for greatly expanded participation by U.S. agricultural researchers in international research acti~ities. The final findings and recommendations of the NAS committee are to be published in June 1977.
June 25-26; Agricultural Research and De- These hearings on Agtioultufal Research and Development, the
Sept. 23-25, 30; veopment hearings held, subject of this report, were held before the Subcommittee on &-t. 1-2, 24-25, Science, Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on
1975 Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis of
the Committee on Science and Technology. July 9-11, 1975... Working Conference on Research Sponsored by ARPAC, the objective of the conference was to to Meet U.S. and World Food identify the most important problems requiring research during Needs held, the next 10 or 15 years that affect the capacity of the United
States to increase and improve domestic and world food supplies. No attempt was made to recommend research approhes or organizational changes to solve the problems identified. Delegates represented producers and processors of agricultural products, marketing firms, national farm organizations, farm labor groups, consumer, environmental and conservation groups, nutrition specialists, and Government agencies. ARPAC also established 2 committees to develop follow-up plans for the conference. These committees were to insure that the publicly supported research system was informed of the results of the conference and that the results were used in determining future research programs. They also were to establish an acceptable data base regarding ongoing research as related to the priorities that resulted from the conference.
c.1975 --------- The Current Agricultural Re- Administered by the FAO of the United Nations, this automated
search Information System information system keeps track of all ongoing. international (CARIS) established. agricultural research projects. The base of operations for the
CARIS system is at FAO, Rome, Italy. Dec, 9, 1975______.Committee on Food and Nutri- The purpose of the committee as stated in its charter is "to promote tion Research established planning and coordination of food research in the Federal Govwithin the Federal Council for enment and between Federal agencies and other public and Science and Technology. private research organizations, Specific functions of the committee include: collecting, compiling, and disseminating information on the Nation's food research and food research delivery system programs; developing and updating plans for Federal aspects of comprehensive U.S. food research programs to meet future domestic and international needs for food; and preparing reports describing the activities, findings and recommendations of the committee,
Feb. 5, 1976 ...... .R. 11743, National Agricultural The purpose of this bill, introduced by Congressman William C.
Research Policy Act of 1976, Wampler is "to emphasize agricultural research as a distinct introduced, mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; to be certain that
all agricultural research is effectively coordinated; and to provide a mechanism for identifying the Nation's highest priority problems for agricultural research." The proposed mechanism is; the National Agricultural Research Policy Committee to be established as a permanent committee within USDA. The bill was referred to the House Agriculture Committee and hearings were held in February. The bill was reported out of committee in May. Debate in the House was scheduled to begin at the time of this writing. May 11, 1976.... National Science and Technol- Outlined principles of a science and technology policy for the ogy Policy, Organization and United States and provided for science advice to the President Priorities Act of 1976. through establishn t t t',e Of ce of Science and Technology
Policy within the Executive Office of the President. The Act also established the Federal Coordinating Council for Science Engineering, and Technology to coordinate and recommend policies on science activities affecting more than one federal agency. (Public Law 94-282.)