Competitive research in agriculture is key
Recently, the Obama administration announced an initiative that went relatively unnoticed amid the coverage of Afghanistan, health-care reform and the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, the groundbreaking effort has the potential to fundamentally transform a field of science to improve human health and protect our environment, while greatly improving the foundation for global food security.
I'm talking about the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), which Congress established in the 2008 Farm Bill. Launched recently by Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack, he saw the promise of NIFA as rebuilding USDA's competitive grants program from the ground up to generate real results for the American people. It's a bold move. And, it's about time.
The growing global agricultural demands from 3 billion-plus more people of increasing affluence quite simply means we must double output by 2050. Yet, there is precious little additional land available to farm, perhaps no more than 12 percent that is not now forested, highly erodible or subject to desertification. On top of that, the water for agriculture is increasingly limited, as urban and industrial uses grow. Plus, we are just beginning to understand the added constraints that will come with climate change. So, this is no small challenge, indeed.
We'll need our best researchers and innovators to keep our own agriculture competitive while helping developing countries improve theirs and sustainably close the gap between the current rate of productivity growth and the much faster rate we'll need to meet demands by 2050.
Yet, agricultural research is woefully underfunded in the United States and poorly focused as it is heavily laden with parochial earmarks. We've neglected fundamental science for 30 years.
A study commissioned by the agricultural committees of Congress reported that the 1984 USDA research budget was only 21 percent the size of that of the National Institutes of Health. By 2004, the falling USDA research expenditures were only 7.4 percent of the NIH budget - $2 billion vs. $27 billion. Moreover, less than 10 percent of the $2 billion USDA research expenditures were for competitive, peer-reviewed projects, a mechanism that has been so successfully used by the NIH. In fact, the NIH spending for peer-reviewed grants was about $150 for every dollar spent by the USDA. Competitive USDA grants were smaller than those of the NIH and generally awarded for shorter durations, making them less attractive to scientists.
We sorely need NIFA, built on the NIH model, to work with industry, academia and the nonprofit sector to coordinate, prioritize and promote outcome-based research. NIFA won't do research; it will award federal funding based on scientific merit and national priorities.
Already USDA Undersecretary of Research, Education, and Economics Rajiv Shah has begun a systematic analysis of USDA research programs, with a goal of better matching resources to priority projects and bringer much greater focus. This is a critical first step.
The next step must be toward increasing fundamental research funding through NIFA. President Barack Obama has tapped plant scientist Roger Beachy to lead NIFA. Winner of the Wolf Prize in agriculture and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Beachy is known for developing virus-resistant plants through biotechnology. Furthermore, he has a track record of working with academia, business and the nonprofit sector. Those partnerships will serve NIFA well, combined with his vision for how science can help not only U.S. agriculture and the American people but also to close the global agricultural productivity gap.
We should all be heartened to see so many federal leaders who understand and support agricultural science. Tomorrow's innovations start today. Let's make sure it doesn't stop here with the launch of this promising new mechanism.