117 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



vides a balance to the overall research program , thereby 

 ensuring high-quality research. 



Responsiveness and flexibility in altering the di- 

 rection of exploratory research are critical to scientific 

 excellence. A competitive grants program capitalizes 

 on the skills and experiences of leading scientists in 

 recognizing the need for new directions in science. 

 Because funding commitments to any one project are 

 for only 3 to 5 years, this mechanism is flexible and 

 responsive to rapid advancements in science, thereby 

 allowing resources to be targeted at the most promis- 

 ing areas of scientific research in each grant cycle. 



Sufficient funding over an adequate period of time 

 is the best way to attract talented scientists from a 

 variety of disciplines. The expanded competitive 

 grants program will more adequately support research- 

 ers within the agricultural research system and will 

 also open the system to scientists from other disci- 

 plines who have not previously participated in the 

 USD A grants program. These scientists should be. but 

 are not now, applying their skills to agricultural re- 

 search. 



An expanded competitive grants program will 

 provide the needed balance among the funding mecha- 

 nisms that support US DA R&D: intramural pro- 

 grams, formula funding, special grants, and competi- 

 tive grants. Competitive grants are a significant source 

 of funding within other federal agencies. At NIH and 

 NSF, 83 and 90 percent of R&D supixxt, respectively, 

 is distributed through competitive research grants. At 

 USDA, however, less than 6 percent of R&D support 

 is so distributed. USDA should not attempt to mirror 

 NIH and NSF in the proportion of funds it distributes 

 on a competitive basis. Problems specific to certain 

 crops, technologies, and regions are often best ad- 

 dressed through formula funds or special grants. Long- 

 range research, such as the development of improved 

 plant and animal germplasms, or tracking of the diets 

 and nutritional status of a group of children as they 

 grow, for example, are more effectively supported on 

 a continuing basis through intramural funding. With 

 full funding of this proposal, the annual investment in 

 R&D by US DA would rise to $ 1 .54 billion from $ 1 .04 

 billion (Offlce of Management and Budget, 1989), 

 and the $550 million in competitive grants would then 

 account for approximately 33 percent of USDA's re- 

 search expenditures. 



nSCAL REALITIES 



The recommendation for a major increase in fund- 

 ing of competitive research grants for agricultural, 



food, and environmental research comes at a time of 

 overall fiscal constraint for the nation. Elected and 

 public o^icials must reduce the national debt and at 

 the same time set priorities among competing federal 

 expenditures to enact programs that maintain the 

 welfare, infrastructure, security, and continued eco- 

 nomic growth of the United States. As a part of that 

 they must also address public concerns for maintain- 

 ing global competitiveness, the safety and nutritional 

 quality of the food supply, and environmental re- 

 sources. The goal of reducing expenditures while 

 allocating funds for essential programs thus requires 

 fiscal prudence. 



Trade-Offs 



Political leaders will need to consider the proposal 

 for an increased commitment to agricultural, food, and 

 environmental research against a background of po- 

 tential trade-offs. What are these trade-offs? 



• The additional $500 million could come from 

 sacrificingotherUSDAresearch programs. Can some 

 current research programs be discontinued in an effort 

 to strengthen competitive grants research? 



• The necessary funds could be directed to re- 

 search fhxn other USDA budget categories. Com- 

 modity price supports, for example, have decreased 

 from $26 billion to $ 1 1 billion during the past 3 years, 

 as U.S. agricultural export prices have improved. 

 Should $500 million of those savings and future 

 budgetary savings be redirected toward research, 

 toward reducing the national debt, toward a combina- 

 tion of the two, or toward progress outside of agricul- 

 ture? 



• The funds could be shifted from other parts of the 

 federal budget into USDA. E>oes the consistently high 

 return on the agricultural research investment over- 

 ride the need for funds in other areas of national 

 interest? 



• The investment in agricultural, food, and envi- 

 ronmental research can be deferred until deficit reduc- 

 tion has been achieved. But investing new funds now 

 can hasten future economic and scientific benefits. 

 >yhat will be gained — or lost — by postponing the 

 investment? 



Redirection within the USDA Research Budget 



For the past 25 years the USD A budget for research 

 has not increased. Actual monetary increases have 

 barely kept up with inflation. In 1965 the USDA 



