115 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



The size and duration of awards reflect the capabil- 

 ity of a program to attract top-quality scientific and 

 engineering talent. The USDA Competitive Research 

 Grants Office should award grants that are adequate to 

 conduct effective research and that are comparable in 

 size and duration to those awarded by the National 

 Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes 

 of Health (NIH), the two institutions in the United 

 States with the largest and most successful grants 

 programs. The proposed changes in size and duration 

 will attract more top scientists in a variety of disci- 

 plines and thus increase the capacity to educate their 

 students — the nation's future scientists. 



RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL 



Key parts to the rationale for the expanded program 

 include the need for a federal initiative; the need for a 

 large increase in funding; the justification for new 

 money, not for the redirection of current funds; the 

 suitability of USDA as the central agency for the 

 expanded program; and the ^jproprialeness of com- 

 petitive grants as the funding mechanism. 



A Federal Initiative 



A federal initiative for increased research support 

 is needed because the issues and fundamental research 

 needs are national in scofte, and the nation as a whole, 

 not just a state or region, is the beneficiary. In add- 

 ition, states lack the funding to advance basic science 

 across the full range of areas requiring immediate 

 auention. In the private sector, the rate of R&D 

 growth, which has been strong since the mid-1970s, is 

 likely to level off in the decade ahead, and it may de- 

 cline somewhat Moreover, private sector research is 

 focused on creating opportunities to market products 

 and services, whereas much of the research most im- 

 portant to society and the nation is not market-related. 



A $500 Million Increase 



A $500 million increase in research funding is 

 justified for at least three major reasons. (1) The 

 pervasive needs and problems require large amounts 

 of new knowledge and technology for their resolution, 

 as discussed earlier. (2) Agricultural research pro- 

 vides a high return on investment (3) The agricultural 

 research system, as presently funded, is unable to 

 provide the necessary financial suppoit for the quality. 



amount, and breadth of science and technology neces- 

 sary to address the problems. 



Agricultural research characteristically gives a high 

 annual return on investment, more than 45 percent 

 (Fox et al., 1987). The contributions of research 

 conducted with in thecompetitive grants program will, 

 in addition, bring advances not only to agriculture, 

 food, and the environment but also to other scientific 

 disciplines and other sectors of society. Discoveries 

 that were made in efforts to resolve agricultural prob- 

 lems have already led to major advances in biology 

 and medicine. Findings fiom research with plant 

 models, for example, will lead to advances in the 

 understanding of basic genetics and gene expression. 

 Over time, the research results and their application 

 will significantly decrease both regulatory and envi- 

 ronmental costs. 



Adequate funding through the six proposed pro- 

 gram areas must be available to support the best and 

 brightest researchers currenUy working in agriculture 

 and to attract top researchers in other disciplines who 

 have not previously participated in USDA programs. 

 Current funding cannot do either. 



Researchers* proposals for scientific inquiry are 

 currently funded at levels that are too low to meet the 

 demands of high-quality science. The average 

 annual grant size from USDA is $50,000, in contrast 

 to average annual grant sizes of $7 1 300 from NSF and 

 $154,900 from NIH. USDA grants average 2 years in 

 contrast to 3 years or more for NSF and NIH. In 

 addition to funding grants at a higher level, both NSF 

 and NIH fund a much larger number of grants. In 

 fiscal year 1988, USDA awarded approximately $40 

 million for competitive grants, in contrast to the $265 

 million awarded by the Directorate of Biological. 

 Behavioral, and Social Sciences at NSF and the $632 

 million awarded by the National Institute for General 

 Medical Sciences (NIGMS), which is only 1 of the 12 

 institutes of NIH. All ofthe institutes that make up the 

 NIH together awarded $6.4 billion in competitive 

 research grants in 1988. Research supported by NIG MS 

 is broad, covering all areas of fundamental biomedical 

 science that bridge the responsibilities of all the insti- 

 tutes within NIH. Research supported by the USDA's 

 ■■ competitive grants program is narrow, covering only 

 some of the six program areas recommended in this 

 proposal. 



The proposed increase of $500 million would 

 expand the current competitive grants program level 

 of $50 million to an annual total of at least $550 



