216 



In Federally Funded Research, OTA warned about the "research university" model dominating the 

 growth strategies of many institutions (pp. 198-199). For the forseeable future, strategic planning by 

 universities will decide the fit between their capabilities and their aspirations. Each clearly cannot afford to 

 do everything. This is where the Federal Government can be helpful. The more Federal policies are 

 selective in creating infrastructural burdens, i.e., planning new construction of buildings where research 

 would be conducted, the better Selectivity can be promoted if an agency looks across its current research 

 performers nationally. By identifying who is doing what, the agencies can discourage duplication of 

 facilities and programs that will continue to require Federal support for an indefinite time. 



3. Since the placement of facilities is actually a method of setting priorities, how effective would 

 you say our priority-setting has been? 



Because of pressures for decentralization and a recognition of local needs, research ^cilities have 

 mushroomed during the last half-century. In terms of setting priorities, the placement of facilities can 

 hardly be called rational. It has certainly been effective in bringing expertise to local problems and resident 

 populations. Now is the time to stand back and ask "what have we wrought?" and "can we bring it under 

 control?" 



One answer to the latter question (to which the Subcommittee already seems favorably disposed) is 

 a body, eg, a Facilities Review Commission, that would look at all the existing facilities, ascertain their 

 condition and operating costs, and recommend whether: (a) they are achieving their objective, (b) they are 

 in need of a new objective, (c) the state of the inftastructure warrants renovation, and (d) they are obsolete 

 due to shifts in local population, i.e., agricultural needs elsewhere appear more pressing. USDA might also 

 have some solutions that balance the need for renovation against the emerging need for new construction. 



4. Since there is no currently good model for determining the placement of facilities, what would 

 you suggest? 



If CSRS and ARS are indeed developing and revising strat^ic plans, they should have a sense of 

 what is best for agricultural research as administered by USDA. At the hearing, the intramural and 

 extramural needs of the Department seemed to proceed separately, so that we heard not one voice but two. 

 There is need for a single strategic plan recommending what the Department intends to do. Such a plan 

 would provide a framework that articulates a set of criteria for research decisionmaking. Included in this 

 framework would be a rational planning process for the placement (renovation, closure, and creation) of 

 facilities. A merit-based process is surely preferable to a political one In the latter, the criterion of local 

 need is fovored in the name of "geographical balance"; how this need fits with existing priorities and the 

 distribution of focilities nationalh' is seldom considered. This perpetuates the "ad hoc-ness" of the system 

 and contradicts rational planning. 



It is worth noting that earmarking has traditionally been associated ~ rightly or wrongly — with 

 agricultural research. Now that other research areas and academic institututions have sought direct 

 appropriations for research, there is an opportunity for agriculture to shed the stigma of supporting 

 "second-class" or "tainted" research by formulating a strat^c plan that sets forth some "ground rules" for 

 the renovation and construction of USDA facilities. Even if these ground rules are not emulated by other 

 agencies, USDA will be recognized as dealing with the facilities issue head on, i.e., trying to get a handle 



