51 



STATEMENT OF DARYL E. CHUBIN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, 

 SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, 

 OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, CONGRESS OF THE 

 UNITED STATES 



Mr. Chubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I am Daryl Chubin from the Office of Technology Assessment 

 and Project Director for the May 1991 report, "Federally Funded 

 Research: Decisions for a Decade," which looked across the six 

 major Federal R&D agencies, including USDA, and examined 

 choices for Federal investment, 



I would like to highlight from this report OTA's thinking about 

 setting priorities and establishing criteria for investing in projects, 

 people, and infrastructure. Then I will turn briefly to the specific 

 case of agricultural research and another OTA report, "A New 

 Technological Era for American Agriculture," which was released 

 last August. I would add that one OTA role, as you know, is to as- 

 sist the Congress in looking over the shoulder of executive branch 

 agencies. 



Facilities funding both sustains an institution's existing capacity 

 to do research and extends that capacity at a cost. From this per- 

 spective, a fundamental question is: How does the construction of 

 new faciUties fit into the overall USDA mission as well as its near- 

 term priorities? What purpose shall be served by these facilities? 

 Who is to bear the financial burden for construction and mainte- 

 nance? Will this burden be shared? 



The Federal research system is beset by increased resource de- 

 mands and serious tensions. Among them is the tension between 

 allocating dollars for facilities or training versus dollars for re- 

 search projects, as well as the choice between promoting con- 

 centrated excellence and accelerating regional and institutional de- 

 velopment to enlarge capacity. 



In the last few years, the distribution of research funding has be- 

 come an issue not only of which institutions receive funding, but 

 for what purpose. Research goals include contributions to edu- 

 cation, equity, and economic vitality in addition to the advance of 

 knowledge. 



A related issue is the form of allocation best suited for the pur- 

 pose, such as individual investigator-initiated grants, block grants, 

 short-term projects targeted to problem-solving and innovation, or 

 longer-term fundamental research projects. As OTA makes clear, 

 all areas of research are experiencing increased competition, with 

 research institutions and Federal agency sponsors alike facing dif- 

 ficult choices. Of course, neither the land-grant universities nor 

 USDA are exempt from these pressures. 



Historically, the Federal share of capital expenditures for aca- 

 demic facilities — both research and teaching facilities — has never 

 topped one-third of the total. For public universities, 50 percent to 

 60 percent of facilities funds come from the States and 30 percent 

 from bond issues. The crux of the facilities problem is that univer- 

 sities always need new or renovated buildings. Even though need 

 may not be readily quantified, demand unquestionably exists. 



Should there be, then, a Federal facilities program? There are 

 risks, even with cost-sharing, to be borne on all sides. As we are 



