Legislative View of Research1 ANGIE SIEMENS2 1990-1991 Congressional Science Fellow, Federation of American Societies of Food Animal Science, U.S. House Agriculture Committee, Washington, District of Columbia
1992 Poultry Science 71:1325-1327
INTRODUCTION When examining the views of Congress, one has to remember that in Washington, as well as in state legislatures, perceptions matter. In many cases, perceptions equal reality. To a scientist this is often frustrating, as it goes against his or her training. How does this apply to Congress's view of research? At this time there is a strong focus on priority-setting. Many in the Congress perceive that the research community is free-floating and is not focused on addressing the problems that face the United States today or in the
Received for publication August 14, 1991. Accepted for publication March 19, 1992. Presented at the 1991 Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting in College Station, TX 77843 in Panel II: Issues in Research. Present address: Research and Development, Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 770 N. Springdale Road, Waukesha, WI 53186.
future. Their response, therefore, is to strive to establish priorities themselves by allocating resources to key projects. The ongoing federal budget crisis has led to extensive debate over the level of funding that the government ought to be spending on scientific research. Congress has fewer options in the area of the budget. The 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act was enacted to maintain spending control. In other words "pay as you go"; meaning that if there is to be an increase in funding of one area there has to be an equivalent "offset" in another or a revenue increase. How does this affect agricultural research dollars? Unfortunately in the overall picture, Congress does not as a rule segment research into disciplines. Agricultural research is just a part of the overall research agenda. Congressional representatives are influenced by all activities in the research community, including those actions in other scientific fields, such as military, biomedical, and space programs. Recently research has had some high
1325
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on May 18, 2015
ABSTRACT Congress has its own perception of research; whether it equates to reality is up to the research community. Many in Congress perceive that the research community is free-floating and is not focused on addressing the problems that face the United States today. Recent government reports have reviewed the purposes, accountability, and challenges facing the traditional research and extension system as it enters the 1990s. These reports send a strong message that the status quo will not work sufficiently in the 1990s. How does this affect agricultural research dollars? Congress, in response to its own perceptions, has strived to establish priorities by allocating resources to key projects. Whether this is in the best interest of the nation is debatable. The agricultural research community needs to establish priorities and to communicate them effectively ; otherwise someone less informed in the Congress will do it. (Key words: United States Congress, agricultural research policy, perceptions, priorities, communication)
1326
SIEMENS
points and some low ones. The Persian Gulf Conflict demonstrated the contribution of military research; however, press reports on scientific fraud in universities and industry, overhead costs battles, retraction of scientific papers, and disputes concerning big science versus little science have, in general, shed a poor light on scientific research. These events shape Congress's perception of research and subsequently, its support for programs and funding.
Who in Congress is directly involved in setting agricultural research policy? In Congress there are four committees that are active in agricultural research policy: the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the House Committee on Agriculture, and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. The Agriculture Committees of the Senate and House are authorizing committees. In general, their mandate is to review and establish policy and recommend funding levels. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, more commonly referred to as the 1990 Farm Bill, is the cumulation of the committees' work (United States Congress, 1990). Members of the Agriculture Committees have reviewed this policy about every 5 yr for the last 15 yr. The Appropriation Committees actually establish the final funding levels on a yearly basis. In doing so, members also have the ability to affect policy with the level of funding given. In the 1990 Farm Bill, members of the Agriculture Committees included for the first time a list of purposes of agricultural research and extension. By listing purposes, the Committees felt that the success of the system could be assessed more easily. In general, the members are asking for more accountability of the agricultural research and extension system. As long as there are limited budgets, Congress will continue to ask more questions and demand more accountability. The focus on research objectives and programs will not merely be on improvements in production but will be multidisciplinary in nature, including impacts on net farm income,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on May 18, 2015
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH POLICY
consumer costs, environmental impacts, surplus distribution, marketing capabilities, and global concerns. These concerns were the focus of two recent studies released by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The document "Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTA's Assessment of Emerging Agricultural Technology—Issues for the 1990s" (United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990a) focuses on the traditional research and extension system and its ability to meet the demands of the 1990s. Some of the conclusions made by OTA include: 1) The USDA lacks a statement of goals, action to achieve stated goals, and systems to evaluate results against desired outcomes; 2) There is little specificity and clarity in stating priorities for the agricultural research and extension system; and 3) The agricultural research and extension system is underfunded but Congress will not increase funding without improvements in the agricultural system's justifications. The second document requested by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology examines the federal research system, a conglomeration of many separate systems (including the USDA) that sponsor, oversee, and perform research, and the challenges that it will face in the 1990s (United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990b). The OTA reported that Congress, the executive branch, and researchers must converge on the challenges facing the research community, including: 1) finding new methods of setting priorities; 2) understanding and coping with federal expenditures for individual components of research projects that have increased faster than inflation; and 3) the development of human resources. The OTA offered several suggestions for potential action. The OTA suggests that researchers contain and account for research expenditures and that they revise education and research policies as these affect: 1) recruitment and retention of students; and 2) faculty promotion, tenure, and laboratory practices. Both of these reports send a strong message that the status quo will not work sufficiently in the 1990s.
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES IN RESEARCH
ALLIANCES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
agriculture industry must be conducted, not just among animal science researchers but with consumers, producers, other professional societies, and industries in animal agriculture. Priorities need to be established and communicated effectively; otherwise someone less informed in the Congress will do it.
REFERENCES United States Congress, 1990. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Public Law 101-624. 101st Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990a. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTA's Assessment of Emerging Agricultural Technology—Issues for the 1990s. OTA-F-447. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990b. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade. OTA-SET-490. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on May 18, 2015
The ongoing federal budget crisis has led to extensive debate over the level of funding the government should be spending on scientific research. In a recent speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Representative George Brown (Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; D-CA) said the debate is potentially positive but he fears that it may become a divisive force, leading to adversarial relations between different groups in the research and development community precisely at the time that unity is needed. It is extremely important to form cooperative alliances within the agricultural sector. Scientists and persons in the animal industry need to form a consensus on where they are headed in research, especially as funding becomes more limited. Debate on the challenges facing the
1327
1992 Poultry Science 71:1325-1327
INTRODUCTION When examining the views of Congress, one has to remember that in Washington, as well as in state legislatures, perceptions matter. In many cases, perceptions equal reality. To a scientist this is often frustrating, as it goes against his or her training. How does this apply to Congress's view of research? At this time there is a strong focus on priority-setting. Many in the Congress perceive that the research community is free-floating and is not focused on addressing the problems that face the United States today or in the
Received for publication August 14, 1991. Accepted for publication March 19, 1992. Presented at the 1991 Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting in College Station, TX 77843 in Panel II: Issues in Research. Present address: Research and Development, Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 770 N. Springdale Road, Waukesha, WI 53186.
future. Their response, therefore, is to strive to establish priorities themselves by allocating resources to key projects. The ongoing federal budget crisis has led to extensive debate over the level of funding that the government ought to be spending on scientific research. Congress has fewer options in the area of the budget. The 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act was enacted to maintain spending control. In other words "pay as you go"; meaning that if there is to be an increase in funding of one area there has to be an equivalent "offset" in another or a revenue increase. How does this affect agricultural research dollars? Unfortunately in the overall picture, Congress does not as a rule segment research into disciplines. Agricultural research is just a part of the overall research agenda. Congressional representatives are influenced by all activities in the research community, including those actions in other scientific fields, such as military, biomedical, and space programs. Recently research has had some high
1325
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on May 18, 2015
ABSTRACT Congress has its own perception of research; whether it equates to reality is up to the research community. Many in Congress perceive that the research community is free-floating and is not focused on addressing the problems that face the United States today. Recent government reports have reviewed the purposes, accountability, and challenges facing the traditional research and extension system as it enters the 1990s. These reports send a strong message that the status quo will not work sufficiently in the 1990s. How does this affect agricultural research dollars? Congress, in response to its own perceptions, has strived to establish priorities by allocating resources to key projects. Whether this is in the best interest of the nation is debatable. The agricultural research community needs to establish priorities and to communicate them effectively ; otherwise someone less informed in the Congress will do it. (Key words: United States Congress, agricultural research policy, perceptions, priorities, communication)
1326
SIEMENS
points and some low ones. The Persian Gulf Conflict demonstrated the contribution of military research; however, press reports on scientific fraud in universities and industry, overhead costs battles, retraction of scientific papers, and disputes concerning big science versus little science have, in general, shed a poor light on scientific research. These events shape Congress's perception of research and subsequently, its support for programs and funding.
Who in Congress is directly involved in setting agricultural research policy? In Congress there are four committees that are active in agricultural research policy: the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the House Committee on Agriculture, and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. The Agriculture Committees of the Senate and House are authorizing committees. In general, their mandate is to review and establish policy and recommend funding levels. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, more commonly referred to as the 1990 Farm Bill, is the cumulation of the committees' work (United States Congress, 1990). Members of the Agriculture Committees have reviewed this policy about every 5 yr for the last 15 yr. The Appropriation Committees actually establish the final funding levels on a yearly basis. In doing so, members also have the ability to affect policy with the level of funding given. In the 1990 Farm Bill, members of the Agriculture Committees included for the first time a list of purposes of agricultural research and extension. By listing purposes, the Committees felt that the success of the system could be assessed more easily. In general, the members are asking for more accountability of the agricultural research and extension system. As long as there are limited budgets, Congress will continue to ask more questions and demand more accountability. The focus on research objectives and programs will not merely be on improvements in production but will be multidisciplinary in nature, including impacts on net farm income,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on May 18, 2015
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH POLICY
consumer costs, environmental impacts, surplus distribution, marketing capabilities, and global concerns. These concerns were the focus of two recent studies released by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The document "Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTA's Assessment of Emerging Agricultural Technology—Issues for the 1990s" (United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990a) focuses on the traditional research and extension system and its ability to meet the demands of the 1990s. Some of the conclusions made by OTA include: 1) The USDA lacks a statement of goals, action to achieve stated goals, and systems to evaluate results against desired outcomes; 2) There is little specificity and clarity in stating priorities for the agricultural research and extension system; and 3) The agricultural research and extension system is underfunded but Congress will not increase funding without improvements in the agricultural system's justifications. The second document requested by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology examines the federal research system, a conglomeration of many separate systems (including the USDA) that sponsor, oversee, and perform research, and the challenges that it will face in the 1990s (United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990b). The OTA reported that Congress, the executive branch, and researchers must converge on the challenges facing the research community, including: 1) finding new methods of setting priorities; 2) understanding and coping with federal expenditures for individual components of research projects that have increased faster than inflation; and 3) the development of human resources. The OTA offered several suggestions for potential action. The OTA suggests that researchers contain and account for research expenditures and that they revise education and research policies as these affect: 1) recruitment and retention of students; and 2) faculty promotion, tenure, and laboratory practices. Both of these reports send a strong message that the status quo will not work sufficiently in the 1990s.
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES IN RESEARCH
ALLIANCES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
agriculture industry must be conducted, not just among animal science researchers but with consumers, producers, other professional societies, and industries in animal agriculture. Priorities need to be established and communicated effectively; otherwise someone less informed in the Congress will do it.
REFERENCES United States Congress, 1990. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Public Law 101-624. 101st Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990a. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Policies for the 1990s: A Special Report of OTA's Assessment of Emerging Agricultural Technology—Issues for the 1990s. OTA-F-447. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990b. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade. OTA-SET-490. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Dalhousie University on May 18, 2015
The ongoing federal budget crisis has led to extensive debate over the level of funding the government should be spending on scientific research. In a recent speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Representative George Brown (Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; D-CA) said the debate is potentially positive but he fears that it may become a divisive force, leading to adversarial relations between different groups in the research and development community precisely at the time that unity is needed. It is extremely important to form cooperative alliances within the agricultural sector. Scientists and persons in the animal industry need to form a consensus on where they are headed in research, especially as funding becomes more limited. Debate on the challenges facing the
1327
