Testimony of the Institute of Food Technologists

The Agriculture Research System: Structure, Funding, Coordination and Priority Setting, and Accountability

by

S. Suzanne Nielsen, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Food Science
Purdue University

to U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

March 13, 1997

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Suzanne Nielsen and I am a professor in the Department of Food Science at Purdue University and Chair-elect of the Research Committee of the Institute of Food Technologists. Today, I am speaking on behalf of IFT, the scientific society for food science and technology, with 28,000 members working in the food system in industry, academia and government. IFT appreciates the opportunity to comment on agriculture research programs. If it pleases the Chair, I will submit IFT's full statement for the record, and will summarize here, commenting on three issues: 1) the need for food science and technology-related research, 2) agriculture research funding mechanisms, and 3) private sector issues.

The Need for Food Science and Technology-Related Research

The need for food science and technology-related research is critical. The U.S. food processing industry is the country's largest manufacturing industry, with shipments valued in 1992 at nearly $500 billion. This economic giant is rooted in agricultural research, whose traditional focus has been on production. While production issues remain compelling and increasingly complex, IFT believes that greater research attention must be given to the issues facing processors and consumers. We need innovative strategies and technologies to reduce the risk of foodborne illness and IFT commends the President's initiative for interagency cooperation to prevent foodborne disease. We need value-added technologies and food processing methods that use less water and energy. We need continued investment in agricultural biotechnology to develop safer alternatives to chemical pesticides. And the research system needs a regulatory climate that facilitates the development of new biotechnologies such as the inherited traits for resistance to pests.

While the research needs for food science and technology are critical, it is important that strategic investment in food and fiber research be sustained across the entire spectrum of the agricultural system. Plant diseases require continued surveillance and investigation in order to prevent crop failures. Animal diseases and human pathogens transmitted by animal foods threaten food production and can lead to outbreaks of foodborne disease. Improved agronomic methods that protect soil, water and ecosystems need to be developed and adapted. New pathogens emerge to challenge our best prevention and treatment strategies. New technologies are demanded to reduce the likelihood of pathogen transmission by food, to improve the quality of processed foods, and to deliver greater nutritional value in foods. And innovative ideas are needed for adding value to raw commodities not only to benefit the competitiveness of American companies but also to create high value jobs.

Research Funding Mechanisms and Issues

Basic and Applied Research: Research spans a continuum from new knowledge derived from basic research, to innovative processes and products developed from applied research. Fundamental science and the technologies and developments that spring from it are interdependent. Undue emphasis on or distinctions between basic (fundamental) and applied research (mission-linked) can obscure the primary focus on solving problems and accomplishing goals. Both types of research are needed. Thus, a practical need for a disease-resistant plant may entail the quest for understanding why some plants are resistant and others susceptible. Without new information, disease resistance ultimately may not be achieved. Allocating research dollars according to whether problems are basic or applied can miss the most appropriate questions and constrain research that eventually gives rise to solutions.

Wide-ranging Inquiry Needed: It is no less true in agriculture than in other sciences that it is seldom possible to predict the research that leads to breakthroughs. Unanticipated outcomes frequently generate new discoveries; research findings often have unexpected benefits in unrelated fields. Thus, fostering scientific excellence throughout the continuum from fundamental to applied research is the surest path to providing the knowledge necessary to solve the complex challenges facing the food and fiber system. Funding mechanisms that emphasize the best science are most likely to yield the most productive results in the long term.

Interdisciplinary Research: In addition to supporting research endeavors all along the research continuum, higher priority and incentives should be given to research that integrates disciplines, crosses state borders and links basic and applied research. Interdisciplinary research brings together different disciplines to develop integrated solutions to particular problems. The current research funding system struggles in considering single investigator grant proposals and those from interdisciplinary teams. Individual investigator projects may be appropriate for some areas, especially for certain initial studies. Using interdisciplinary, mission-linked research teams may be the only successful way to tackle complex agricultural issues that may entail, for example, production, environmental, health and safety aspects and that require expertise from many fields.

In a specific example, a project on creating insect resistance in plants is being effectively addressed collaboratively by a biochemist who isolates and characterizes the protein effective against the insect, an entomologist who studies the insect biology and conducts the insect feeding studies using the isolated protein, a molecular biologist who clones the gene for the protein of interest and gets it expressed in the plant, and a food scientist who evaluates the protein for food safety. I happen to be the biochemist and food scientist involved in this effort that has been supported by the USDA.

Directing federal funds toward innovative approaches to solving complex problems is a good example of how public funds can nurture creative thinking and foster new ideas. One commentor noted that European models for this type of work are far superior to those in the United States. For example, the joint U.S.-Israel program BARD (Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund), a competitive grants program that sponsors projects between a United States laboratory and one in Israel, has been more effective than regional research efforts in stimulating innovative research. A key reason for its success is that the program directs more funds to actual research than to administration than is often the case with regional projects. A recently completed BARD project between the University of Georgia and Israel studied cloud stability in juice products. This work promises reduction in thermal process times that will save energy and improve product quality.

Consortia: Likewise, with respect to consortia and multi-state, multi-institutional joint projects, IFT is strongly supportive. In 1993, IFT launched a proposal called USFEAST, to foster a collaborative alliance among government, industry and academia for strategic investment of public and private resources in food science and technology. These efforts helped pave the way for the development of new public/private consortia devoted to food research and technology. IFT continues to encourage collaborations across disciplinary, geographic, and institutional boundaries recognizing the importance of seed funds, common goals, realistic expectations, flexibility, and workable time frames to ensure their success.

Competitive Grants - Priority: The allocation of research funds among intramural, formula, competitive grants and special grants is highly controversial. It is generally recognized that the competitive grants process produces the highest quality science. Competitive research grants provide the most effective, efficient and economic return to the public. IFT strongly supports the competitive grants process as embodied in the National Research Initiative (NRI) and believes that an open, merit and peer review process, applied as extensively as possible throughout the research system, is the preferred way to allocate research funds among qualified contenders.

Competitive Grants - Strengths and Weaknesses: A particular strength of the competitive grants program is that it helps initiate and foster subdisciplines within a field. It has worked particularly well, for example, in fields such as food engineering and food microbiology. Areas that do not have a critical mass of active researchers may be at a disadvantage in such a system. To illustrate, in the area of food flavor research, we are rapidly losing our ability to compete with European research, because there is little or no support from competitive funding sources.

Competitive Grants - Funding: IFT strongly supports bringing the NRI program up to the $500 million level as originally envisioned. More adequate funding of the NRI would strengthen the commitment of USDA to the competitive merit review process, provide funds for fundamental research with long term potential for new discoveries, and more adequately sustain key areas of food and fiber research. Merit-based grants should consider both scientific quality and relevance to identified research needs and priorities. Increased funding for the NRI can be accomplished by redirecting funds from special grants, extension activities and ARS activities.

Formula Funds: IFT also recognizes the importance of formula funds in leveraging state research dollars, offering flexibility in targeting research investment to regional or local needs, and in sustaining the research, education and training activities of land grant colleges and universities. Formula funds also have been important for directing resources toward solving problems specific to local conditions. Determination of the formula according to rural and farm population should be revisited as the population, economic base and agricultural challenges of states change. Research funding should be allocated to qualified researchers according to identified priority research needs, not on the basis of population or agricultural production. Careful program assessment of research, extension and teaching may be inadequate or lacking in land grant universities.

Special Grants: Special grants and earmarked research funds often are awarded less according to research need, priority or merit than by political expediency. Thus, they can undermine the integrity of agricultural science and its research system. As a proportion of total research funding, their share should be minimal. Greater reliance on competitive, merit-based funding will serve local, regional and national interests and increase the social and public impact of agricultural research. Special grant funds have the advantage, however, of being flexible enough to meet urgent needs, such as the recent intense demand for understanding BSE or "mad cow" disease. They also may be directed toward research needs that are not deemed of highest priority. At a minimum, special and earmarked grants should address priority research needs, and be awarded on the basis of scientific merit and peer review. Two successful examples of competitive, peer reviewed USDA special grants are: 1) the Midwest Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA), which requires matching industry funds, and 2) the North Central Biotechnical Program, in which grants are evaluated in part on potential commercial applicability of the research results.

Private Sector Issues

Nature of Funding: As federal funds for agricultural research have diminished, private sector funding for agricultural research in many disciplines at land grant universities has increased. Those private sector funds typically support only applied, short-term research that quickly will provide the sponsor with information that gives a competitive advantage in a particular market. Some university departments are moving to address the needs of such clients in order to maintain their research and graduate education programs. This has the advantage of keeping researchers at universities attuned to industry needs, and it ensures immediate relevance of the research. Agriculture, however, needs a mixture of applied, short-term research and fundamental, long-term research that may be high risk or high cost. The private sector cannot afford to fund the latter type of research. Public sector funding is needed to continue support of basic, long-term research that has regional or national interest. Research would benefit from a greater variety of more creative funding strategies, such as those described below.

Private-Public Partnerships: The federal delivery system for agricultural research would do well to place greater emphasis on programs that match federal funds with those from state, local, or private sources. State-federal partnerships should be encouraged to pursue research and development that could stimulate economic development in a given region. Private-public partnerships in research funding are of particular value and can complement public funding programs. Industry is encouraged by a mutual investment that increases the value of the industry-provided dollars. Research funded by these private-public partnerships will enhance the global competitiveness of sectors of U.S. industry. An example of a recently established and effective private-public partnership addressing a sector of agriculture is the special grants program funding of MAFMA, mentioned above. This competitive grants program funded by USDA also requires matching industry funds.

Applied, short-term research funded by such private-public partnerships can sometimes be made possible by previous basic, long-term research funded through the USDA National Research Initiative ( NRI). For example, an NRI-supported project several years ago on the fundamental nature of a native enzyme system in milk led directly to a successful MAFMA project that addresses the quality of dairy products, and may provide a competitive advantage for the U.S. industry partner that competes with foreign companies in the marketing of milk protein products. Matching fund programs can complement federal programs that support long-term research that addresses high-risk or high-cost projects of regional or national interest.

In summary, IFT believes that food science and technology-related research is critical to maintain and enhance the total food and fiber system. We believe that a greater share of agricultural research investment should address the issues facing processors and consumers. IFT strongly supports research funding based on scientific merit and peer review and strongly supports full funding for the NRI competitive grants program. IFT supports funding of interdisciplinary, mission-linked research teams as a means of tackling complex agricultural issues. And IFT supports programs that match public funds with private resources, complementing other federal programs for funding research in agriculture, food science and food technology.