204 



The USDA is the second largest single contributor to SAES research 

 funding .... USDA funding has ttasically stagnated and barely keeps up with 

 inflation. Increases in USDA funding primarily reflect congressional *«nnarking 

 of special grants for such areas as water quality, nutrition, and integrated pest 

 management and biological control research. ^^ 



To complicate the picture, according to OTA, research funds are not evenly distributed to all 

 ejqteriment stations (see exhibit 6). The SAES in 12 States (California, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, 

 Michigan, Minnesota, Nordi Carolina, N^raska, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin) account for 

 neariy half the total research funding available to the SAES, more Aan two-thirds of USDA's 

 anapetitive grants, over 60 percent of all competitive funds obtained fhnn Federal agencies odier dian 

 USDA, and nearly 60 percent of all funding from industry siqipoit aixl product sales. The SAES 

 system cleariy contains "have' and 'have not" institutions. The have nots rely primarily on the 

 traditional sources of funding (State and USDA formula funds), while the haves have diversified their 

 fimding sources. '3 



Funding, of course, is an 'input* issue. On die oatput side of the equation, OTA observed: 



It is widely presumed that the research sapportei via a cuinp e tiiiv e gran 

 mrrhanism is of hi^ier quality than that funded by fDrmula funds . . . However, it 

 is also possible that competitive grants distort the research mix favoring 

 discq>linary research over problem-solving research . . . [R]ecem research 

 completed by OTA and tiw University of Miimesota suggests that the most 

 appropriate policy is a mixture of formula and competitive grants, with differem 

 funding mrrhanimis potentially more appropriate for different functions and goals 

 of land-grant univeTsities .... [see exhibit 7]. 



If die goal is to increase cutting-edge researdi, com p e titi ve grants might best be 

 emphasired. If the primary goal is to enhance resntdi applicable to problem 

 solving (more developmeot and adsfXive research and technology transfer) or to 

 train fimue researchers, the more st^le and locally controlled Hatch funds may be 

 the more appropriate mrrhanism. . . . Uffic two types of grants depend on die 

 priwity system given to the mult^le missions of the experimem stations.'* 



'^ U.S. Coogren. Office of Technology AMtettmeOi, A New Tedmological Era for American Agrieubure 



(WashingioD. DC: U.S. Govenmeot Printiiig OfiBce. August 1992). p. 412. 

 " lUd.. pp. 412-413. 



1* Ibid., p. 422. 



