109 



Administration, as authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill, that the NRI would grow over the next 

 few years to be hmded at $500 million per year. If this occurs, as is still proposed by the 

 new Administration, then the NRI would certainly represent one of the largest growth areas 

 in the university based resources for agricultural research. 



3. How much of a priority should be place upon renovation of existing facilities as 

 opposed to new construction? 



I am not aware of an inventory of existing facilities for agricultural research done on a 

 national scale that would allow one to provide a quantitative answer this question. 

 Historically, universities have tended to do minor maintenance and refurbishment of 

 facilities with their own core resources, seeking special funding from either state or federal 

 sources for major modification of existing structures and new facilities. Recognizing that the 

 federal government will be limited in total resources for facilities, it would seem to me that 

 the Congress should continue to place priority on supporting either major modifications or 

 new construction. On a "per square foot" basis, renovation usually is less costly than new 

 construction. New construction adds "total square feet" of research capacity. If I were asked 

 to express a subjective judgement, I would answer by saying about two-thirds to three-fourths 

 of available federal facilities funding should be directed to new construction. 



4. Without infusion of facilities funds at USDA, do we have a solid enough base 

 currently to handle full funding of the National Research Initiative Competitive 

 Grants Program at levels authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill? 



When individuals and institutions propose to condua research for the USDA, they explicitly 

 state that they have the capability to perform the research, or they identify in their proposal 

 those supplies and equipment that must be piurchascd by the USDA (as part of the research 

 grant) to perform the proposed research. The NRI Competitive Grants Office tells us that 

 they receive a very substantially larger number of proposals than can be funded with existing 

 funds, based on both on merit and relevance of the proposals. In my judgement, if full 

 funding at $500 million per year were available through the NRI, there would be sufficient 

 research capacity in the total system to spend the money on research of high priority and 

 quality. However, if this were the case, I would predict that there will be a substantial 

 uncoupling between the capacity to continue the programs of more traditional research and 

 that needed to do the NRI programs of more fundamental research. This would have a 

 negative impact on the process of taking early breakthrough discovery to application. NRI 

 research, in this situation, would tend to be conducted in larger more affluent institutions. 

 Less affluent, more widely dispersed, institutions would be at a competitive disadvantage and 

 the process of technology transfer through geographic coupling would be diminished. In 

 answering the question this way, I do not mean to imply that facilities grants should not be 

 awarded to larger imiversities, nor to say that technology transfer is not a mandate for large 

 as well as less affluent universities. Perhaps the most probing question that could be asked 

 is "Svould you favor talcing funds from research grants to support research facilities grants?" 

 I expect if you polled my peers, you would get a variety of answers, but I firmly believe that 



