199 



Tbe Fedenl research system is beset by increased resource demands and serious tensions.' 

 AoKng them (see exhibit I) is the tension between allocattng 'dollars for ^ilities or training* versus 

 'doUais for research projects,' and the choice between promoting 'concentrated excellence' and 

 accelerating 'regional and institutional developmetu (to enlarge capacity).' In the last few years, the 

 distributicm of research funding has become an issue not only of friikh institutions receive funding, but 

 for what purpose. Research goals include contributions to education, equity, and economic vitality, in 

 additi<Hi to the advance of knowledge. A related issue is the form of allocation best suited for the 

 purpose-e.g., individual investigator-initiated grants, block grants to centers, short-term projects 

 targeted to problem-solving and iimovation, or longer-term, fundamental research projects. 



As OTA makes clear, aD areas of research are experieiKing increased competition, with 

 research institutions and Federal agency qmnsors alike Cuing difficult choices. Neither the land-grant 

 imiversities nor USDA are exenqH from these pressures. OTA suggests attention to four issues: setting 

 priorities for research; coping with changing expenditures for research; adapting education and human 

 resources to meet future needs; refining data collection and analysis to improve research 

 decisiotnnaking (see exhibit 2). For this hearing, the first issue is key-setting priorities for research. 



Prinrity-Settiny 



The Federal Government faces two major problems in setting priorities for research. First, 

 criteria used in selecting research areas for enq>hasis are not explicit in either the President's budget or 

 dw congressional process. Second, there is ix> mechanism for evaluating the entire Federal research 

 portfolio in terms of meeting national objectives. Both executive agency and congressional 

 (authorizing) committee jurisdictions prevent effective crosscutting analysis. The Office of 

 Management and Budget, itself fragmented and not inclined to crosscuts, serves as final arbiter in 

 negotiations with the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Then the ^)prq>riatioi]s conunittees 



2 Ibid., pp. 6-7. 



