government &
policy specific recommendations to try to solve them. The principal areas examined include priority setting and objectives and organizational and funding issues. With respect to priorities, the panel research. The report cites a number of notes that NRI supports 26 research arawards for research with high potential, eas in six major divisions. The report inincluding work on glyphosate-resistant dicates that NRI could do more to proplants, gene-silencing biotechnology, mote forward-looking research on cutand modifications of pine lignin to re- ting-edge subjects. For example, in the animal systems research area, NRI supduce process waste. Yet a number of basic problems plague ports projects on aquaculture and aniNRI, according to the study, which makes mal husbandry. More effective would be
Stronger Competitive Research Urged At USDA ore than 10 years ago, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended that the government increase its research spending on crops and food through expanded competitive grants at the Department of Agriculture. In a follow-up to that 1989 study, NRC finds that efforts to boost agricultural research are lagging. The grants program, called the National Research Initiative (NRI), was designed to be the U.S.'s primary meritbased, peer-reviewed research program to respond to the challenges of food, fiber, and natural resources. Although USDA began a very small grants program in 1977, most of today's support for food and fiber research—about $1.6 billion annually—is awarded noncompetitive!^ through intramural research programs, formula funds to state agricultural experiment stations, and special grants to targeted universities. NRC originally had recommended a full-fledged grants effort, including rapid appropriations increases to more than $500 million annually after just a few years. That did not happen, however, and after years of struggle, NRI limps along this year with $120 million, 10 years after its inception. In its current review of the program, the NRC Board on Agriculture & Natural Resources says that NRI is supporting high-quality science but is in danger of languishing. "Program size, grant duration, grant size, and a low overhead allowance have led to reduced application numbers," NRC states. It adds that a key goal of the program, to attract scientistsfromoutside the traditional food andfiberresearch communities, has not been achieved. R Michael Roberts is the current chief scientist for NRI. An animal science and biochemistry professor at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Roberts has just about completed his two-year stint leading the program. "I think the NRC report reaffirms that agricultural research, particularly that with long-term payoffs, has an important place and is much needed," Roberts says. He especially agrees that the lack of funding for agricultural research is pushing talented scientists awayfromthe field. The board concluded that NRI has been able to make some significant contributions to fundamental and applied
M
50
MAY29,2000C&EN
has the hidden ingredient. The choice is clear. ©2000 Procters Gamble
Number of NRI awards falls as award size increases to seek out proposals for transgenic and cloned animals or for gene-based pharmaceuticals. NRC was concerned, moreover, that the complex of USDA research programs might lead to duplication of research efforts and therefore recommends that a formal goal and strategy process be instituted to define NRI's role in the federal food, fiber, and natural resources research programs. With this objective in mind, NRC suggests that all the competitive grants
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
No. of awards
Total awarded, $ thousands
Average award
Average length, years
Average funding per year
590 777 790
$69,294 92,138 91,814
na $126,998
$52,591 na
124,846
na na 2.1
833
96,631
137,256
2.3
783 739 712 699
93,796 87,801 87,316 88,107
127,773 125,620
2.1 2.1
59,987
133,379 136,065
2.6 2.2
51,300 61,848
C
58,701
NRI = National Research Incentive, na = not available. Sources: NRI annual reports, National Research Council
• ^ • Ptocter&GcmibleChenuca/s •
59,450 58,407
The Hidden
Ingredient.
When you are looking for solutions, consider Procter & Gamble Chemicals your global business partner. Not just for the products we offer, but for what we can help you do with them. Consider Methyl Esters: we can help you build your business by discovering new ways to base your products on Methyl Esters. With large production capacities at our plants in Kuantan, Malaysia, and Sacramento, CA, U.S.A., we are well equipped to meet your needs anywhere in the world. And, as we move into the world of sustainable development, we can see that Methyl Esters fit needs in such areas as solvents, cleaners and lubricant additives. At Procter & Gamble Chemicals, we look beyond the product for ways to help our customers grow. This is what we call the Hidden Ingredient, and it goes into everything we do. To learn more, call 1-800-477-8899 (USA) or visit us at www.pg.com/chemicals.
CIRCLE 31 ON READER SERVICE CARD
programs at USDA be combined into a separate Extramural Competitive Research Service. This would give these grants higher visibility, the panel believes, and would allow them to compete more effectively for funding with other department offices. Following this recommendation, the NRC panel says the present part-time head of NRI should be replaced with a full-time chief scientist appointed for a five-year term. This would improve the capability for strategic planning, priority setting, and communications necessary for the expanded extramural program. Roberts believes that leadership in the program is adequate for the present level of NRI. Having a full-time person in Washington would provide more control over budget matters, he says, but adds that the program does benefit by the current setup. "An active scientist in the role brings the perspective of a researcher to the job," Roberts says. But many of the problems come down to money. NRC had originally recommended a program that rose in funding to $500 million infiveyears, but NRI has been stuck around the $100 million level for most of its existence. Coupled with the low funding is extensive earmarking by Congress for specific research projects that frequently cut into the funding level for NRI. The program was also saddled with a 14% cap on overhead, which NRC says many universities will not accept because it is so low. That has been recently raised to 19%, but the panel does not believe that will make a difference. "Failure to obtain the originally proposed appropriations has stunted the development of NRI," the report concludes. 'The practical result has been that a large pool of U.S. scientists might not have been fully used in research directed to issues critical to the food, fiber, and natural resources system." David Hanson MAY29,2000C&EN 5 1
