27 



its 1989 report, which was written about the time of the Alar scare, 

 the UAB pointed out that while trace amounts of pesticides and 

 toxic chemicals in food may be of concern, the more traditional 

 kinds of food safety issues — pathogens and microbial toxins — re- 

 mained very important issues. Of course, events just recently with 

 the E. coli episode in the Pacific Northwest bore that out. 



I would think that the strategy would be to set a kind of balance 

 so when you're looking at food safety there would be a balance be- 

 tween what we're looking at in terms of trace levels of pesticides 

 in food and, in an acute sense, anyway, more important things of 

 microbial contamination. So when research funds came to be allo- 

 cated, that balance would be reflected from the strategic plan. 



Mr. Smith. Thank you. 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Dooley. 



Mr. Dooley. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent — I have 

 a statement that I'd like to have entered into the record. 



Mr. Stenholm. Without objection, your prepared statement will 

 appear in the record at the beginning of the hearing. 



Mr. Dooley. I guess a lot of us are concerned, and I know the 

 chairman has talked about it at times, too, when we're in this era 

 of declining budgets, and certainly agriculture is going to be facing 

 more challenges than most any other Department, it really is a 

 challenge to the sector and certainly our researchers to develop the 

 tools to allow us to maintain our competitiveness, and certainly the 

 only way we're going to maintain that is by being on the leading 

 edge of technology. 



We've got to continue along the path of increased investment in 

 some of the biotech and the biogenetics, which are going to allow 

 us to be that low-cost competitor, but also there's, I think, an in- 

 creased frustration with farmers out there that we're not giving 

 enough attention to the application of some of the basic research 

 and the research that's done at some of our many fine institutions. 



I guess in that area is where I hope that we'll see increased focus 

 given to some of the practical applications and applied research 

 and even working with some of the programs that were a part of 

 the 1990 farm bill — the AARC program, the alternative agricul- 

 tural research and commercialization — trying to find different uses 

 for a lot of our basic commodities that can expand the market op- 

 portunities for many of our producers out there. 



My question is, in the different capacities that some of you serve 

 in, how are these decisions made given that you have limited re- 

 sources? How do you decide the mix between what you're providing 

 for basic research versus some of the applied? Maybe it's not an ap- 

 propriate question. 



Mr. Savage. I think within the university community, the em- 

 phasis is on basic research. There is a desire, or at least lip service, 

 to encourage or think well of applied research, but the incentive 

 structure in academia is basic research. 



Mr. Dooley. But even from a university perspective, do you see 

 a deficiency in the transmitting of that basic research into actual 

 benefits to the ag sector? I mean, that's what I'm concerned about. 

 We see a lot of great things that come out of our universities, but 

 they don't necessarily ever materialize and manifest themselves in 

 real benefits. 



