206 



Tbe professional leaders of die land-grant universities surveyed in 1992 

 downplayed die importance of Federal Governmental leadership and felt that 

 college leadership, and to a certain extent campus and departmental leadership, 

 would be the important factor in precipitating change within their own colleges. 

 Their viewpoints suggest that the time has c<Hne for land-grant colleges of 

 agriculture to reduce their dependence on the USDA and their national 

 organizations and seize die opportunity to develop pertinent and rational missions 

 diat undergird dieir own teaching, research, and extension programs. . . . The 

 development of leaders and colleges widi the vision and ability to create an 

 environment for both short- and long-term responses to societal concerns will be 

 critical for the survival of these land-gram colleges of agriculture.''' 



Of course, land-grant universities have a responsibility to serve their constituencies in new ways. As 

 diey cope with multq)le missions, accepting die financial burden that accompanies the construction of 

 new facilities would seem short-sighted and ill-advised. At a minimum, we should expect a careful 

 canqius plan that targets areas both for growdi and for consolidation. 



But diere is a unique Federal responsibility as well. The Federal Govanmeat could choose 

 to exerdse the leadership that comes from a "buOy pulpit." There is sufBdent leverage at the 

 margin to make a difference in funds aOocated to universities. The vision projected by a USDA 

 strategic plan and funding priorities would have cigntfi<^n* influence on land-grant universities in 

 the ag g re gate . The Administratian, Congress, or both can help to instill that vision. 



Conclusions 



An overarching question for the Subcommittee is lliis: How are USDA's goals articulated in 

 their criteria for decisionmaking? Specifically, how do research facilities rank compared to other 

 funding priorities in the Departnttnt's portfolio? 



In a funding climate in which demand is increasing faster than resources, 'sometliing's gotta 

 give.' All deserving conq>etitors will ixx be satisfied, but priorities must be established and 

 implemented. OTA conchides that if the Federal Government supports o|^rtunides for growth in 



''' James H. Meyer, *Tbe Stalemate in Food and Agricultural Research, Teaching, and Extensioa,* 



Sdemee. vol. 260, May 14. 1993, p. 1007. 



