28 



Mr. Savage. Universities really aren't structured or, like I say, 

 the incentive system — and this applies not just to agriculture, but 

 in other areas, too, there's been a great deal of concern about talk- 

 ing university research and having it transmitted through tech- 

 nology transfer in other areas, and it's not something that the uni- 

 versity thinks about. I'm using this as sort of a reified concept, but 

 the incentive structure really is for the basic research with the as- 

 sumption that, through the diffusion of knowledge, the private sec- 

 tor will take these issues up and develop them. There's a real prob- 

 lem, and this is not only in agriculture, but it's in other areas as 

 well. 



Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. I guess the comment that the university 

 doesn't really think about that, I know that was probably an over- 

 statement, but I guess that's where the real concern is. Maybe we 

 have to give more attention to the universities also as part of their 

 charge to be responsible for finding ways to build public-private 

 partnerships to get the research out to the industry, whether it be 

 ag or whatever else, so it can be applied. 



Mr. Savage. I think there are efforts to set up new organiza- 

 tional structures that would try to bring this about. 



Mr. DoOLEY. This is a little more specific. When we have an in- 

 stance such as what is going to be the elimination of methyl bro- 

 mide, which is a real important product that's used in agriculture, 

 and there really at this time isn't an alternative, how do we ensure 

 that some of our Federal dollars are being utilized in a manner to 

 help the private sector as well as the public sector develop an alter- 

 native or encourage research in that area? How does that happen, 

 or is it happening? 



Ms. Offutt. Right now I'm aware of the fact that the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture is trying to structure a research plan to find 

 alternatives for methyl bromide. It will be a few years before it's 

 taken off the market, and so that's one step. The board is working 

 with the global change program in ARS to make sure that we get 

 science together to support that effort. In the case of methyl bro- 

 mide, you had a legislative imperative coming out of the Clean Air 

 Act, so you could organize around that principle. 



I would also, if I could, mention in regard to your earlier ques- 

 tion about this translation of basic to applied research, that the 

 next panel actually consists of people who make those operational 

 decisions every day. It's also fair to say that the strength of the ag- 

 ricultural research system has been its ability to translate basic to 

 applied, and the concerns that the board has when it proposes com- 

 petitive research grants is how to take a new science, molecular ge- 

 netics, and continue in that tradition. 



We hope that by establishing these multidisciplinary research 

 teams, for example, that you get a better feel for the applied prob- 

 lem that a farmer will face in the field, that a molecular geneticist 

 by himself or herself can't imagine what kinds of conditions will be 

 encountered out in the field. You need plant breeders, you need 

 people who understand soil science, and so on and so forth. 



We're all struggling with how to make sure that the system is 

 going to be effective in the future. 



Mr. Kloek. The comment I'd make on technology transfer is 

 that's an area where we've seen the Agricultural Research Service 



