Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 105
-
6
The Optimal Climate
for Basic Research
In addition to identifying the most promising oppor-
tunities for agricultural research, the Committee on
Biosciences Research in Agriculture unanimously insisted
that an optimal climate for basic research is at least as
critical to productive science as the specific areas of
research that are pursued. This chapter summarizes the
committee's recommendations on research climate, based on
23 visits to 19 different ARS sites, and the collective
experiences of the committee members. me recommenda-
ations, for the most part, are applicable to modern basic
biological research, both within and outside the ARS.
Introduction
Scientific research is most elegantly described by
the unending pursuit of ideas and the pathways of ex-
periments. It is also characterized by the flow of
researchers in and out of laboratories, their person-
alities and influence, publications, instrumentation, the
network of communications, and the overall structure and
policies of the institution.
In their study Zenzen and Restive state:
Scientific knowledge is created out of available
resources--including formal and informal modes of
communication, and instrumentation. In the deepest
1M. Zenzen' and S. Restivoe 1982. m e mysterious
morphology of immiscible liquids: A study of scientific
practice. Social Science Information 21:447-473.
105
OCR for page 106
106
sense, the available resources in a given laboratory
refer to the researchers' capacities for creative and
critical thought, persuasion, communication, conflict
and cooperation. The indeterminacy of scientific
criteria, the "looseness" of laboratory research,
provide room for the exercise of those capacities.
These factors, obvious and yet seemingly peripheral
to the progress of science, compound to create a
certain climate for research. Scientific progress is
enhanced by a climate that offers the researcher and
the program itself the flexibility to follow varying
tracks of a problem, and that encourages immediate
communication and exchange in the form of attendance
at scientific meetings, sabbaticals, and participation
in seminars. Now, with the quickening pace of tech-
nological innovation and the increasing importance of a
multidisciplinary approach in research, climate becomes
even more important as an influence that can be optimized
in a number of ways.
The lag time between basic research and technological
application is shrinking; the growing biotechnology in-
dustry, for example, is drawing largely from the biology
of the past 10 years. Floyd E. Bloom in his summary of
Frontiers In Science and Technology2 states:
In such an era of rapid transformation, the structures
for basic research and technological development must
be dynamic and must be constantly freshened by the
infusion of new and highly trained scientists and
engineers, by the very best instrumentation, and by
unfettered communication of fundamental knowledge.
The new biology, at its accelerated pace, brings with
it the need for program and organizational changes and
streamlined communications--visits to other research
laboratories and the technologies that provide access to
2F. E. Bloom, 1983. Introduction: Science, technology
and the national agenda. Pp. 1-13 in Frontiers in
Science and Technology, a report by the Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine. New York/San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
OCR for page 107
107
discussion through conference telephone calls and data
base searches. New biology scientists require not only
advanced instrumentation, but more importantly,
increasing numbers of postdoctoral researchers in their
laboratories, providing for the exchange of fresh per-
spective with experience.
All research organizations are attempting changes to
stimulate new means of multidisciplinary research and
development. Many private corporations are developing
significant internal postdoctoral research programs in
the biological sciences. Among the benefits are the
rapid infusion of new ideas and capabilities as well as
the incorporation of flexibility that a continuum of
postdoctoral emDlovees Drovides. Such an aDDroach has
~ _ , ~ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ , _ ~
been and is being extensively used in universities and at
the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland,
where, in fact, approximately 50 percent of the total
staff are nontenured or of a postdoctoral status.
Rigid priorities, particularly long-term priorities,
can no longer be set as planners may still envision. As
stated previously, research priorities and directions
must now be broad enough to readily take advantage of
unexpected results and new strategies for resolving
research problems, but also, the setting of rigid disci-
plinary priorities has become impractical as the face of
science changes. The techniques that have evolved
through an increasing knowledge of molecular and cellular
genetics apply to all living things, from viruses to
humans. mese newer techniques influence all the bio-
sciences; they clear the way to better communications
among researchers and to collaboration among scientists
in agricultural and other biological fields.
Disciplinary boundaries are disappearing among the
biosciences, as well as between bioscience and biotech-
nology. The stimulation of high-quality interdisci-
plinary research in agriculture must be a top priority.
The sophisticated technologies and products of
research still emerge from the manners of science that
have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Humberto Gerola and Ralph E. Gomory reported in a recent
issue of Science:
Electronic communication, even when given away free,
has not yet altered the fundamental way in which
scientific work has been done. Face-to-face communi-
cation, so far, appears to be essential to scientific
collaboration. . . . [It] has survived the change of
OCR for page 108
108
scale of science itself, from an activity carried out
by a very small number of people to one involving
thousands and thousands of researchers. It appears
that it may well survive electronic communication.3
Recommendations
As the principal intramural research agency of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the ARS has a long
history of conducting research that has been translated,
with outstanding success, into applications in seed,
food, and fiber production. The committee strongly
believes that the following 17 recommendations,
addressing the larger issues of review, communications,
leadership and staffing, organization, and scientific
opportunities for researchers, will combine to promote
the optimal climate necessary for creative, quality
research within the ARS. His in turn will provide the
basis for the future worldwide competitive advantage of
U.S. production agriculture and agribusiness.
Periodic Outside Review
An advisory council consisting of 5 to 10 leading
scientists in the research community and reporting di-
rectly to the ARS administrator should be created. The
advisory council would provide a regular review of ARS
research and, in addition, could communicate new direc-
tions in research and suggest strategies for guiding
national research. This ARS Advisory Council (ARSAC)
would have a rotating three-year membership and would
delegate subcouncils as needed for review of all ARS
programs on a three-year cycle. The subcouncils would be
similar to the existing advisory committee at the ARS
Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York.
It is imperative that the members of the ARSAC be
selected from among those national leaders in agri-
cultural research who have a strong and active research
background. In addition the individuals must possess a
global view of agricultural science and technology.
3H. Gerola, and R. E. Gomory. 1984. Computers in
science and technology: Early indications. Science
225:11-18.
OCR for page 109
109
Their selection should be based primarily on these
strengths, independent of their affiliation, be it
academe, industry, or government. Members of any sub-
council should come from a strong and active research
base.
The ARSAC would act as a non-ARS source of information
about state-of-the-art developments throughout the United
States and the world for the ARS administrator and for
other ARS leadership such as the National Program Staff.
The ARSAC would suggest specific programs in basic agri-
cultural sciences that will provide the highest dividends
to U.S. agriculture. me council might also recommend
program changes, including the initiation of new
scientific efforts.
m e precedent for such an outside advisory council has
been set by scientific advisory boards to the National
Bureau of Standards and the National Institutes of Health
and by the National Science Board of the National Science
Foundation. Many large corporations as well as smaller
start-up companies have strong scientific advisory boards.
Leadership
The literature on leadership in organizations is
dominated by the human relationship thesis that good
leadership leads to high morale and that high morale
leads to increased productivity of group members. The
ARS must address its need for additional capable sci-
entific leaders as laboratory chiefs. The committee
particularly noted that both quality research and
individual and group satisfaction were reflected by ARS
laboratories supervised by dynamic and farsighted lab-
oratory chiefs. mese individuals should be selected
first on the basis of their scientific excellence and
second on the basis of their management potential.
The quality of laboratory chiefs is measured by the
productivity and scientific excellence of their labora-
tory groups. To meet this responsibility laboratory
chiefs need authority and flexibility in budgetary and
personnel matters.
National Program Staff
The ARS National Program Staff, in addition to setting
the long-term direction for the agency, has major control
,,
OCR for page 110
110
of budget allocations for research. The committee per-
ceived that communications between the National Program
Staff and research scientists must be strengthened. One
approach might be to assign laboratory chiefs temporarily
to the National Program Staff on a rotating basis.
The committee recommends that the National Program
Staff provide strong support for creative research in the
laboratory while assuring the flexibility that is essen-
tial for pursuit of the most promising avenues of
research. To accomplish this the National Program Staff
not only must encourage open and frequent communications
with ARS scientists but also must be receptive to the new
ideas and new research directions emerging from those at
the laboratory bench. What then becomes policy must be
clearly communicated to all, management and staff.
Science is best and most aggressively pursued when
supported by the stability and continuity of program ob-
jectives. During the past decade the ARS has undergone
several reorganizations that have resulted in some abrupt
and disruptive shifts in the direction of research pro-
grams. Not unexpectedly, continuity has faltered, to the
detriment of long-range research direction. The National
Program Staff, along with ARS management, must ensure
that, if and when such events occur, program stability is
preserved and that this reality is conveyed to the scien-
tific staff.
New Centers
The committee was informed of the plans for the Plant
Gene Expression Center to be established in collaboration
with the University of California at Berkeley and the
California Agricultural Experiment Station, and supports
this novel plan. me new center, which will be located
at the ARS Western Regional Center in Albany, California,
offers a new opportunity for increased focus on basic
research in the plant sciences. The committee members
agree that the mission of this center should be to pro-
vide an understanding of gene structure and function with
respect to key plant processes. m is report offers
examples of programs appropriate for the center.
The Plant Gene Expression Center will provide both the
public and private sectors with the opportunity to con-
vert the fundamental knowledge generated by the center to
practical application. The long-term agricultural impact
of the center will be to strengthen the base for U.S.
OCR for page 111
111
crop biotechnology. me committee recommends that a
subcouncil of the ARSAC be created to provide scientific
program advice for the center.
The ARS must constantly consider other new opportu-
nities arising in the agricultural sciences and seek
innovative ways such as this to exploit these
opportunities.
Interdisciplinary Activities
me ARS has an unusually broad base and has excelled
in many areas of traditional biology. The new biology
now provides a set of techniques that are making possible
advances in the understanding of major biological systems
and processes. His understanding may then be translated
to new technologies. Central to the successful use of
these newer techniques is the promotion of interdisci-
plinary research. me committee recommends that the
scientific and managerial leadership of the ARS seek ways
to facilitate interdisciplinary activities. m e ARS
appears to be in a most fortunate position to pursue such
approaches, since the agency is not constrained by the
departmentalized disciplinary organization that is char-
acteristic of academic institutions.
Consolidation
The committee has noted that there is inadequate
communication and duplication of scientific efforts at a
number of the 147 ARS research centers. m e committee
recognizes that multiple geographic research locations
are important to agricultural research, but also believes
that the number of sites is too large and must be reduced
to create a critical mass--more effective research
groups--at fewer sites. Although modest duplication may
be beneficial to science, excessive duplication is not an
effective use of limited economic and scientific
resources.
m e committee recommends three approaches. In one,
sites specializing in similar research areas would be
consolidated to give a more effective concentration in a
scientific area. In another, the smaller numbers of ARS
scientists at some centers would be coupled with strong
academic groups to achieve the same end result. In-
creasing scientific sophistication requires that some of
OCR for page 112
112
the 147 centers be consolidated and/or located on a uni-
versity site to make best use of facilities, to comple-
ment areas of expertise, and to increase the opportunity
for additional interdisciplinary interactions. In the
third case, smaller research groups having scientific
missions that are no longer critical or of high priority
would be discontinued.
The committee recommends that the ARSAC be asked to
make specific recommendations for the consolidation of
scientific programs within the ARS.
Leveraging
In general, one of the ARS's outstanding advantages is
that a large capital investment in facilities has already
been made. Program changes and the addition of crucial
staff members will yield a significant positive effect.
The addition of a number of people with newer biology
skills to the current ARS scientific staff, with its
substantial base in the more traditional biology, could
provide a strong synergistic effect. This would ensure
the ARS future status as a strong world leader in many
areas essential to advances in the agricultural sciences
and technology.
Postdoctoral Program
The ARS has responded to the demands of the new biol-
ogy by creating a special postdoctoral program and by
streamlining the hiring process for those temporary
employee appointments. (Twenty-five researchers were
hired in fiscal year 1984, and future additions are
anticipated.) The committee recommends that the ARS
aggressively expand its newly adopted program, with the
goal being a steady state of about 750 nontenured posi-
tions dedicated to postdoctoral fellows and senior staff
fellows. These nontenured positions should be distrib-
uted throughout the most productive basic research
programs of the ARS. The resulting ratio would be less
than one nontenured position per tenured basic research
scientist.
This type of program is virtually the best single
mechanism for bringing new techniques, new capabilities,
and new ideas into the ARS. The postdoctoral appoint-
ments should be for a miniumum of two years, with an
OCR for page 113
113
option to extend the position on a yearly basis, to a
maximum of five years.
Each research scientist should be responsible for the
recruitment and selection of postdoctoral candidates to
fill positions in his or her laboratory. The hiring
period should be as short as possible. Even the approx-
imately 150-day hiring period that will result from the
recent ARS plan to reduce hiring time is much too long
for top-ranked postdoctoral candidates to wait for job
confirmation.
Successful implementation of a growing postdoctoral
program would assure the ARS stature as a major contrib-
utor to U.S. competitiveness in providing trained people
for the agricultural sciences, much as the National
Institutes of Health is viewed as a provider of trained
personnel for the medical research community.
Appointment of New Staff
The ARS possesses a well-recognized procedure for
internal evaluation of tenured staff that has been the
model for other federal agencies such as the Department
of Defense and the Department of Energy. The current
policy of evaluating employees within one year from the
time of hiring, however, does not allow for an adequate
assessment of an individual's scientific productivity or
potential. me committee recommends that the decision to
grant tenure should be made upon review after five years,
for Ph.D.-level basic research scientists. me committee
also recommends that the decision to offer a permanent
appointment include an appraisal of the candidate's sci-
entific contributions by outside scientists in the can-
didate's field. Currently, nearly 100 percent of those
individuals evaluated one year after the time they were
hired received tenure. With the institution of a larger
postdoctoral program and a rigorous outside appraisal
system, the committee expects that this figure might drop
significantly.
Budget
The new biology requires special equipment and ex-
pendables, such as restriction enzymes, other specialized
biologicals, and tissue culture supplies, that are rela-
tively high in cost. His highly intensive, equipment-
OCR for page 114
114
oriented research does not diminish the importance of
ideas; however, to carry out new ideas, the ARS must plan
for the cost of equipment and maintenance contracts. The
committee noted that in many ARS centers nearly 90
percent of the total budget was designated for salaries,
and thus recommends that this figure be reduced to
approximately 75 percent. In instances where purchase of
materials is particularly critical to the maintenance of
high-quality research, funds designated for salaries
might be as low as 60 percent of the total budget.
me flexibility to alter direction in exploratory
research is critical to scientific excellence. The
committee recognizes that long-term financial planning is
essential, but budgets must be shaped with an inherent
flexibility to allow for redirection of research into
unexpectedly promising new scientific areas. m e ARS
should designate approximately 10 percent of the total
budget of centers as flexible funds to support meeting
attendance and research-related travel, and perhaps more
importantly, to allow for a rapid response to significant
findings that require a change in research direction.
Continued scientific oversight would provide review of
the effective use of these discretionary funds.
Support Staff
The ARS should continuously monitor its need for sup-
port staff (technicians), particularly with the addition
of any new programs. The availability of a substantial
number of support staff trained at the bachelor's or
master's degree level will allow the ARS scientific staff
to compete effectively with researchers throughout the
world.
Many areas of the new biology are highly labor-
intensive and require skills in monoclonal antibody
production, protein sequencing, and oligonucleotide
synthesis. The ARS must always plan for the addition of
some special research capabilities and instrumentation as
science advances. Centralized facilities that provide
special assistance or technical service and are accessi-
ble by other sites might be most cost-effective.
Sabbaticals/Retraining
The ARS should encourage its scientists to take
sabbaticals to maintain skills at the leading edge of
OCR for page 115
115
science. The committee recognizes that sabbaticals can
be expensive to the agency, but also believes that it is
not cost-effective to support scientists who are not
trained to utilize current techniques. Funding from
outside the ARS should be used for sabbaticals when
possible.
The committee noted that a small number of ARS centers
supported very active retraining programs that involved
almost all of the scientific staff members. me ARS
should take advantage of the opportunity to enhance the
capabilities of some of its scientists by retraining them
in newer research-oriented methods.
Scientific Meeting Attendance
Attendance at national and international meetings by
ARS scientists is critical; face-to-face communication,
as noted earlier in this chapter, is still the most
effective method for the exchange of ideas in the sci-
entific arena. me committee believes most strongly that
the ARS must give a higher priority to allocation of
funds for this aspect of scientific exchange and growth.
Adequate travel resources should be available for invited
ARS speakers and organizers, session chairmen, and select
research scientists. me flexibility to respond quickly
to travel approval requests is essential.
To promote scientific exchange and help alleviate
budget constraints, ARS scientists should be encouraged
to accept outside travel support when available.
Publications
Limited peer review of papers within the ARS labora-
tory, combined with a routine scientific journal review,
will bring research results into publication more quick-
ly. A protracted internal publications approval process
is unnecessary.
The quality of publications is an important measure of
a scientist's productivity. me committee noted that the
method of awarding merit points in order of authorship on
publications--a technique employed at some ARS centers--
can lead to inappropriate orders of authorship and can
fail to reflect the true scientific contribution of the
individual. Such a merit point system could inhibit
collaborative work, which is the basis for progress in
the new biology.
OCR for page 116
116
University Relationships
The committee noted that several strong relationships
have been established between the ARS and universities,
most recently that between the ARS center at Albany and
the University of California at Berkeley in the develop-
ment of the Plant Gene Expression Center. ARS/university
associations or relationships can provide a valuable
source of information and inspiration as well as feedback
and critical review. Those ARS centers located on or
very near university campuses appear to profit from the
richness of such an exchange of information and partici-
pation of researchers. The university can contribute to
and strengthen such relationships by awarding adjunct
professorships where appropriate.
me establishment of additional relationships between
strong university groups and select ARS scientists is
encouraged. Such relationships involving even just a few
ARS scientists can bring that number to the essential
critical mass needed for the pursuit of creative
research. The mutual scientific benefits of continuing
such relationships should be evaluated on a regular basis.
Industry Relationships
The ARS must begin to explore research relationships
in biotechnology with industry, just as many universities
have recently begun to do. These may range from seminars
or laboratory visits to cooperative research. All pro-
grams must be open to the scientific community.
The ability of ARS scientists to supplement their
incomes with honoraria from industry-sponsored public
seminars would help alleviate the constraining salary cap
that now may preclude the ARS from hiring or retaining
the best scientists. The committee understands that such
an approach is currently being used by the National
Institutes of Health.
Public Relations
The ARS, along with industry, universities, the
states, and private foundations, must make an effort to
educate the public about the importance of agriculture to
the health of the U.S. economy and to that of its
people. Programs such as the U.S. Department of
OCR for page 117
117
Agriculture's Agriculture in the Classroom" will broaden
the understanding of how high-quality foods are brought
from the farm to the consumer at relatively low cost, and
perhaps stimulate young people to pursue careers in the
agricultural sciences. All individuals within the ARS
have a responsibility to communicate both the oppor-
tunities and the need for adequately funded support of
agricultural research and technology.
Conclusion
The committee made note of the inherent assets of the
ARS--the superb facilities at some of the research cen-
ters; the network of centers that offers the ideal foun-
dation for rapid communication throughout the system; its
basic structure as a potential training ground for new
scientists; and the opportunity to stress long-range,
high-risk, high-reward research without the more intense
pressures of product development and profit. It is of
utmost importance that these strengths be maintained and
perhaps amplified.
The committee was very encouraged by the major effort
of the administrator to position the ARS as the leader of
world agricultural science and technology. me members
hope that this report will assist him in this challenging
endeavor.
Coupled with these strengths of the ARS, the factors
contributing to an optimal climate for research, as des-
cribed in this report, will enable the ARS to provide a
strong basis for continuing progress in U.S. agriculture.
The ARS, as with the entire research establishment, can
most effectively adapt to the rapid pace of scientific
developments and maintain research leadership by creating
a competitive yet rewarding research environment that
attracts and encourages the most creative and productive
scientists. This foundation will be critical in estab-
lishing strong competitive programs, in both U.S. agri-
cultural production and support industries, that will
successfully meet the ever-increasing challenges of world
agriculture.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ars scientists
