45 



Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago congressional leaders signaled a read- 

 iness to act by approving the Agricultural Research Facilities Plan- 

 ning and Closure Study Commission as part of the 1990 farm bill. 

 The commission, modeled after that set up to study military base 

 closing, as you noted in your opening statement, has never been 

 convened. 



As a student of and former participant in shaping public policy, 

 I think the greatest lesson I have learned is that it is very tough 

 for decisionmakers to pinpoint problems in an accurate and precise 

 manner. Too often, problem statements are left fuzzy and we scat- 

 ter about frantically trying to find a way to answer the problem. 

 If only we would spend half as much time in building consensus 

 on the definition of the problem as we do in trying to construct so- 

 lutions, we would stand a much better chance of achieving lasting 

 reform. 



With this lesson in mind, I urge the subcommittee to spend time 

 defining the parameters of the underlying problem in agricultural 

 research that has created the current crisis in facilities. 



I submit today that the facilities crisis is first and foremost a 

 manifestation of the struggle between policymakers and the sci- 

 entific community over the role of planning and research. It is an 

 outgrowth of a deeply held belief that we cannot plan research. In- 

 deed, many scientists argue that scientific breakthroughs come 

 about by leaps in the dark by more or less blind men. It therefore 

 follows — or so the argument goes — that policymakers should allo- 

 cate research dollars with few strings attached. The only check re- 

 quired in this process is a competitive peer review to ensure quality 

 control. 



Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with this view. Consider the enor- 

 mous publicly funded efforts invested in agricultural research and 

 the potentially substantial impact that these efforts have on our fu- 

 ture. It is inconceivable to me that research should remain un- 

 planned and haphazard. Rather than defining, or even admitting 

 to this root cause, however, interested parties have become players 

 in what I have come to call the blame game. 



The rules? Policymakers and scientists alike point fingers at one 

 another in order to explain the facilities crisis, all the while aware 

 of their own actions and fostering that crisis. It starts when sci- 

 entists and administrators ask for a general facility fund with no 

 strings attached. Congress responds by earmarking money for spe- 

 cific projects. 



No one is happy with the outcome. The scientific community then 

 blames Congress for pork barrel spending. Congress is quick to 

 blame the U.S. Department of Agriculture Administrators for fail- 

 ing to make decisions. Those Administrators are just as quick to 

 blame Congress for rewriting the Department's budget. 



The general public may accept any one of these arguments 

 uncritically. And of course the most popular these days is congres- 

 sional pork barreling. 



I urge this subcommittee to expose the blame game to public 

 scrutiny. We need to know all that is happening with research fa- 

 cilities and ask that the players take responsibility for their ac- 

 tions. Most importantly, we need a process that brings together sci- 

 entists, USDA Administrators, and congressional decisionmakers 



