Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Bentley, Orville G.

English

Research Papers in Economics

FORCES RESHAPING  AGRICULTURAL  RESEARCH
AND  EDUCATIONAL  INSTITUTIONS
Orville G. Bentley
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Science and Education, USDA
The  forces  affecting  programs  of our  public  agricultural  research
and educational  institutions are complex - probably because the sys-
tem itself is so complex.
Many observers believe such complexity actually contributes  to the
strength  of scientific and educational programs.  It combines  indepen-
dent  work with a sense  of common  purpose  and strong program ties
that make federal and state institutions capable  of providing a broad
range of scientific  and educational  services.
To  understand  the impact  of change  on institutional  behavior,  it
will be helpful to think of these groups of institutions as being in two
categories, the university community and the research agencies of the
federal government.
The University  Community
Universities  operate  under  constraints  of tradition  and  external
pressures.  The university community  is a tradition-based  entity that
revolves around intangibles such as meaning and values. To this com-
munity there  must be meaning behind  quality  programs in  order to
impart the  all-important  values  contained  in  philosophy,  literature,
history,  sociology,  political  science,  and the basic sciences  that form
the educational  core  of a  university program.  In addition such  foun-
dations as faculty tenure and freedom of expression can be considered
a part of the "institutional  glue" that provides a much-needed frame-
work  for operation.
Maintaining  an  academic  environment  that  fosters  scientific  in-
quiry,  freedom  of expression,  and the capacity  to set academic  stan-
dards  for  its  students  and  faculty  are  prerogatives  that  quality
universities guard jealously.  At the same time, a university has to be
responsive  to the society  it serves,  and  from whom  it receives  suste-
nance  and legitimacy.  The  challenge  is  to  achieve  these  ends  while
keeping the body politic at arms length.
215Despite  these  constraints,  universities  have  demonstrated  a  re-
markable  capacity  to adjust  to today's  changing research  and educa-
tion needs and shifting social and political environment.  Let me recall
a few  changes in our university system  since World War II:
*  College  of agriculture  enrollments  have  shifted  from  a  high
percentage  of rural students, typically with farm backgrounds,
and predominately male, to greater numbers of urban-oriented
and  female students.
*  Curricular  changes  have  been  substantial  with greater  em-
phasis on theory  and fundamental  concepts, and with a reduc-
tion in "how-to-do-it"  courses that were  common for some years.
There are new programs in use of computers and international
agriculture  as well as joint research and  development in such
areas  as biotechnology  and natural  resource  management.  This
includes  environmental  pollution,  water quality,  food  safety,
and residue  avoidance.
Federal Research Agencies
The other major component  of the agricultural research system has
undergone  similar changes.
The USDA's Agricultural  Research  Service  (ARS), like the univer-
sities, has traditional  and institutional  roles that have  evolved  through
successes in fundamental research. ARS scientists developed programs
based on scientific and technological  leads influenced  by national needs.
But because ARS funds come directly from the government, ARS feels
more  direct  influence  from  the political  quarter  and  more  pressure
from specialized  clientele groups than universities.
Other than that, however, the internal and external forces that help
shape institutional policy  and influence decisions  about programs  are
similar. Both sets of institutions are subject to shifts in public attitudes
and policy  and must have the internal  capacity to reshape programs,
whether the pressure comes from inside or outside their communities.
Even as we make progress, we must be prepared to answer the crit-
icisms that frequently come to public institutions - criticisms usually
voiced by persons who are not confronted with the complicated  processes
agricultural  research  and education  institutions  must face  whenever
change is involved.  Often, the criticism revolves around the long-range
planning process,  program coordination,  and the level of scientific and
scholarly  activity.
The  louder  the  criticism,  the  more  likely  it  is  that  research  and
education  institutions  must  bow to  those  areas  of concern  that  are
supported  at the state and federal  levels  by  legislative  mandate  and
program funds.  The result is that programs can become  tilted toward
those that  are given weight by the  simple measure  of dollar  support.
The essential coordination and articulation of an agenda for education/
216research is thus clouded by those who seek to exert pressure-by-purse-
string combined with political  clout.
There  is  also pressure  through  competition  from  non-Land-Grant
institutions and private sector laboratories  for agriculturally-oriented
research funding. The more we have to fight to justify program change,
the more slowly  we can  move ahead in certain areas - and the faster
our  competition  can  "move  in"  on  grants monies.  How are  the state
agricultural  experiment  stations, the extension  services, and the fed-
eral research agencies going to react and adjust to these developments?
What are the implications for program continuity and for long-term,
fundamental,  mission-oriented  research?  What  is  the future  for  ap-
plied research and technology  transfer?
We are  continuously evaluating  new demands  for extension  educa-
tion  and  for teaching  programs  at  the baccalaureate  and  graduate
levels.
There  are many  scenarios that can  and will be followed  to circum-
vent these problem  areas and make our programs  timely,  functional,
and attractive  to our nation's best scientists - both present  and fu-
ture.
Emerging Trends
No single  prescription  can  apply to  a  system  as  heterogeneous  as
our universities  and federal research agencies, but some common trends
are  emerging that  are  likely  to  affect the future  of the agricultural
sciences  and education in the United States.
A.  Greater financial support of basic long-term, mission-oriented
research.  The Department of Agriculture should take a more  ag-
gressive  role in leading this effort  and providing funding.
B.  Development  of new  and innovative  programs  by  extension
specialists  and  applied  researchers  to  bridge  the  gap  between
applied  research and  more fundamental  science  in terms  of ex-
tension  education and  technology transfer  referred to  by James
Bonnen of Michigan State University.
C.  More stress on joint, long-range  planning for federal/state pro-
grams,  followed by more  accountability to make sure the needs,
priorities,  and  program  directions  identified  by  planners  have
been fulfilled.
D. Continued emphasis on maintaining what Vernon Ruttan and
others have referred to as "institutional capacity for research and
education,"  including the allocation  of more  federal funding  for
developing  specialty institutes for nutrition,  food safety, and en-
vironmental impact studies,  or other similar areas of concern.
E. Greater  public debate about agricultural  policy and the rela-
tionship of science and education to our water and land resources;
217the quality  of our environment;  international  trade; energy;  food
prices;  and the proper  role of state and federal research  institu-
tions.
F.  Recognizing  that agricultural mindpower  is crucially  impor-
tant to the security  and well-being of this country.  Our colleges
must  take  aggressive  leadership  in  recruiting  qualified  under-
graduates and expanding  graduate  education.  Opportunities  for
post-doctorate  education must be expanded and encouraged.
Planning for Change
Given our system, the dialogue - and sometimes  conflicting  views
- between  Congress  and research  and educational  institutions  will
continue.  But it is our greatest hope that the dialogue will encourage
long-range planning  resource  allocation  and assessment  of the roles
of publicly supported  institutions.  There  are  many  examples  of this
kind  of activity.
Early this year,  ARS  issued a strategic  long-range  plan for the  fu-
ture along with a six-year  implementation  plan. The reaction in Con-
gress  and  among  user  groups  and  scientists  was  mixed.  Too  often,
those  who  saw  resources  shifting  away  from  their  areas  of interest
were alarmed, while those who saw their concerns appearing as higher
priorities were  supportive.
The ARS experience  typifies the dilemma many institutions  face in
their planning efforts:  resistance to changes in institutional structure
and  programs.  This  is  true  for  a  college  faculty  as  well  as  for  the
federally-funded  agencies and the clientele we serve.
Recall, if you will, the great brouhaha over  cross-breeding  in hogs;
the tightening  of environmental  regulations  on  chemicals;  enforcing
pure food and drug laws; and introducing hybrid seed corn. Some courses
deemed important years  ago look ridiculous by today's standards.  But
today's  courses  may  become  outmoded,  horse-and-carriage  curricula
tomorrow.
The message, then:  institutions  and their leaders must do a better
job of anticipating change,  and then managing change in a framework
that  preserves  basic  educational  values  such  as  freedom  of inquiry,
institutional autonomy,  accountability for funds, intellectual objectiv-
ity, and  developing the  social  and intellectual  conscience  of the  stu-
dents and the public they  serve.
Interdisciplinary  research,  teaching,  and  extension  programs  will
be increasingly  important  to future  developments  in science  and  ed-
ucation  in agriculture.
Every university,  federal  agency,  non-Land-Grant  institution,  and
private sector  laboratory has successful cooperative  programs. Unfor-
tunately,  there  are  too  many  well-conceived  efforts  that have  never
218fulfilled their potential.  Intellectual  and physical resources need to be
mobilized to initiate new broad-based  research.
Funding Trends
There  will  be  continued basic  support  for  federal  funding  of state
agricultural  experiment  stations  and extension  services  but experi-
ence suggests that federal  funds for major expansion  of these science
and education areas will  come slowly.
Competitive grants for encouraging new research are more likely to
be preferred to new formula funds because support for these grants by
science  policy  makers is stronger.  But this support  should be  aimed
at priorities and long-term research needs by achieving a broad-based
consensus.
State funding should continue to grow modestly, depending, of course,
on tax revenues and state of the economy.  Industry funding is  likely
to increase,  but these efforts  are  likely to  be designated  for areas  of
potential  economic  return on  investment.  Industry-supported  check-
offs are  likely to increase, but the  core funding will continue to come
from federal  and state sources.
Overall, justification  of educational  funds  at all levels will become
more  demanding and subject  to increasing  caveats  on their  use from
legislative  bodies  and  state  educational  coordinating boards.  Hence,
the greater need  for the institutions  to develop  internal assessment-
allocation  processes  - either through  the peer review  system  or  an
analog that can serve as a surrogate for the public, building confidence
in the intellectual  and scientific  quality of our programs.
Coping with Change
The  outlook may  be uncertain,  but not necessarily pessimistic.  We
can do a lot to help  ourselves.  At the federal level, we can streamline
programs; phase out underfunded,  outdated, low-priority programs; or,
where appropriate,  shift from federal  involvement at field locations to
state-based operations  closer to the needs and problems of the produc-
ers.  Transferring  the responsibility  for programs  will produce  better
management  at state levels.
If this were done,  funds  saved  could be  used to  support programs
that extend across all agricultural sciences such as germplasm storage;
cataloging and evaluating expensive large-scale,  long-term projects  in
breeding and genetics systems; molecular biology; watershed manage-
ment;  environmental  problems  requiring great  amounts of time and
evaluation  of their impacts  on  food  safety;  and  potential  long-term
environmental  pollution.  But to  do this requires  user group  coopera-
tion, Congressional  understanding,  and a willingness  of all  members
of the team to support  and accept  advice from peers and the opinions
of scientists  and program administrators.
219Congressional  understanding  of the  need for  the ongoing  research
funding is important  because  of the  Congressional  committees in the
budgeting process.
Closely  related  to the  oversight  role  of Congressional  committees
are questions about the impact this function has on making decisions
on  scientific  matters  and  program  evaluation.  Does  such  oversight
unduly discourage  long-term commitments  to basic research? Does  it
distort short-term  resource allocation for more  applied research?
Creating a Unified  Voice
We need a more  unified "voice" for agricultural  science  and educa-
tion. The long history of institutional  cooperation  and voluntary plan-
ning proves that Experiment Station Extension and Resident Instruction
Committees on Policy, National  Association  of State Universities  and
Land-Grant  Colleges,  USDA,  industry-university-USDA  groups,  the
Congress,  and state  and federal regulatory  groups have served  well.
The Joint Council  for Food  and Agricultural  Sciences  is mandated
by Congress to provide leadership in the federal/state sector.  And they
do have their  work  cut out  for  them!  The role  of the  Board of Agri-
culture for the National  Academy of Sciences in developing policy and
identifying  research  needs  is  likely  to  grow,  especially  in new  and
emerging areas of agricultural  sciences.  But more  is needed.  We should
develop a broad consensus  on  major, high-priority  goals and needs.
There  has been  a  recommendation  for  a high-level  board  or com-
mission  for  agricultural  science.  There  has  also  been  suggested  an
institute for  agriculture  similar  to the National  Institutes  of Health
(NIH). But that doesn't seem to be the answer. NIH and Congressional
committees are now debating programs and internal organizations and
such issues  as new  institutes and program priorities  similar to those
familiar to us in the agricultural  arena.
Personally,  I'm proud  of our  system - but policymakers  don't  al-
ways agree. This is why we need to explain the system and tell about
the successes  at many  levels.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  important  to
remember  that  we  must constantly  review  ourselves  and  determine
how we can  be even more  effective  in meeting our ultimate objective
- the well-being of the American  people. One of the  ways we can do
that is  by involving  our clients - the  people  - at every  level.  You
make the difference.
220

FORCES RESHAPING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics