217 



on its capabilities both intra- and extramurally. In short, besides improving the planning and budgeting of 

 the Department, a Facilities Plan would have significant symbolic value. 



S. How do we balance centralized national planning given the decentralized nature of our Land- 



Grant College (LGC) system? 



National planning at the Department in no way violates the decentralized nature of the Land-Grant 

 College system. Each institution is responsible for a portfolio of activities; the Federal Government is just 

 one patron among many. The institution must decide what it wishes to pay for outright, cost-share, or 

 decline to fund altogether. The question is one of the appropriate Federal role. What should USDA 

 support that is in the Nation's interest? 



A subset of national planning must focus on underparticipating institutions. As raised at the 

 hearing, historically Black, other minority, and smaller institutions require provisions that will allow them 

 to cultivate their talented populations A 10 percent set-aside in the National Research Initiative 0*^RI), as 

 claimed by USDA in the heanng, is a modest amount (ca. $10 million in FY 93) Partnering relationships 

 with research universities can help. An Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

 (EPSCoR)-t>pe program is another viable approach (see Federally Funded Research, pp 131-132). 

 However, there is a tension inherent in all these efforts to promote the support of "have-not" institutions, 

 namely, if they succeed, they build more capacity into the system and create a cadre of competent 

 researchers who will compete for scarce Federal research dollars. This increases the pressure on USDA 

 and the other research agencies. From the agencies' perspectives, this is a no-win situation; some 

 institutions will be disappointed. Institutions ineligible to compete for the set-aside will likely lack 

 enthusiasm about the "diversion" of NRl funds. 



Whereas the Federal Government wants to increase research competence wherever possible, it does 

 not seek to increase the number of dependents on Federal research funding A way out of this dilemma is to 

 reexamine how the goals of the LGC system articulate with the goals of USDA How has the mission of 

 the agency changed? All of this could proceed against a backdrop of streamlining the Federal research 

 enterprise, promoting cost-sharing, and distributing research performance by various merit-based regional 

 or other funding formulas. No single R&D agency has tried such a drastic intervention; rather, each 

 continues to respond to demand from "the field" within its portolio of resources. 



