National Research Initiative A Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and Natural-Resources Research (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
C External Views of the NRI
C External Views of the NRI
Pages 112-140
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 112... ...
were mailed to deans and directors of land grant and non-land grant institutions, recipients of NRI grants, nonrecipients in the applicant pool, and representatives of industry. In October 1998, the committee conducted interviews with four former chief scientists.
|
From page 113... ...
Table A2-2 breaks down the response rates for recipients and nonrecipients by NRI program area. TABLE A2-1 Response Rate by Group Surveyed Group Surveyed No.
|
From page 114... ...
Respondents who had review-panel experience in other competitive grants programs were especially complimentary of the NRI process. Some nonrecipients and administrators of land grant institutions criticized some elements of the peer-review process, including panel composition, the single yearly application, the long response times, and the length of panel terms.
|
From page 115... ...
The low overhead rate was cited by some respondents but was not a major concern. The survey was limited in scope and statistical significance.
|
From page 116... ...
Awardees Nonrecipients Land Grant Industry Yes, for the most part 111 Yes, but less than I expected No, its promise remains largely unfulfilled 22 3 30 33 12 13 24 8 5 Awardees: Although some respondents commented that the program focused too much on fundamental or applied research, the general consensus was that despite limited funding, the NRI contributed greatly to fundamental research and to the training of scientists (graduate students and postdoctoral scientists.) In many instances the program provided funds to innovative and valuable research that otherwise would not have been performed.
|
From page 117... ...
Land Grant: Respondents agreed that NRI funds were too low, which, in combination with the low success rate, discouraged many researchers from participating in the program. Many agreed that the NRI was generating important fundamental research and allowed training of graduate students.
|
From page 118... ...
One panel member mentioned that projects were discussed in the order in which they were received at the NRI, so the earlier-arriving proposals received better and fresher consideration; this person recommended numbering projects randomly instead of sequentially. Two respondents marked both "yes" and "no." Land Grant: A majority of comments showed negative perception of the review process.
|
From page 119... ...
programs that attracted many graduate students and postdoctoral scientist (60% of respondents indicated great NRI impact in this area)
|
From page 120... ...
One respondent felt that NRI funds were not sufficient to support graduate students. Another felt that the NRI was an additional important funding source for the college.
|
From page 121... ...
The respondents felt that receiving NRI grants greatly contributed to their obtaining funds from other sources. Some said that the NRI played a major role in building programs and reputations and that, as the main support of agricultural research, NRI funds were of more value than funds from other sources.
|
From page 122... ...
A similar example was cited by another person, whose work on animal disease led to animal models applicable to human disease, generating proposals to NIH. Other examples were patented processes for strain development, currently being tested in the field; rural development efforts coordinated with county land-use planning, development of a new fertilizer that will have an impact on foodstuffs production and, work on viral diseases that affect agriculture in Montana.
|
From page 123... ...
Many respondents made general statements for example that the NRI played a very important role; that improved human resources led directly to professional effectiveness that benefited food and agricultural system, and that the NRI greatly improved fundamental knowledge. Some stated that it was difficult to quantify these benefits, because results of fundamental research did not have immediate applicability.
|
From page 124... ...
. Land Grant: Although no specific examples were cited, many comments were made that the NRI contributed to agricultural biotechnology, food-safety management/environmental issues, farming, animal health, and so on.
|
From page 125... ...
125 Cat.
|
From page 126... ...
Land Grant: Only a few respondents felt that the program areas should not be determined by Congress. Some respondents made specific recommendations, such as increasing funding, moving Value AddedJNew Products from the NRI to commodity or industry groups, adding Genomics, integrating Plant Systems with Animal Systems, moving Markets, Trade and Policy to the Depa~lt~ent of Commerce, and changing the NRI from a discipline to a problem-oriented program.
|
From page 127... ...
Expandinto new areas 11 4 8 6 5 3 Increase size of awards 12 6 7 10 4 Increase duration of awards Increase number of submission dates per year Other 17 9 3 1 4 9 6 5 8 10 6 1 1 2 8 6 10 Major recommendations were to increase the number of awards and to increase funding. Others included increasing funding for increasing funding for specific areas, and awarding riskier research initiatives.
|
From page 128... ...
, reducing emphasis on grain and fiber crops and increasing emphasis on plant fruits and vegetables, funding "system-type" projects, changing orientation from areas to problems, and placing emphasis on interdisciplinary research. Industry: Marked Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank without 2 3 4 5 rank Expand into new areas 3 Increase size of awards 14 Increase duration of awards Increase number of submission dates per year Other 2 5 2 2 11 6 3 3 4 8 8 3 5 9 3 Recommendations were made to increase the funding, number, and duration of awards.
|
From page 129... ...
5 15 1 12 19 126 7 120 4 The table shows that the NRI program plays a crucial role for individual researchers, their employers, USDA, and US agriculture as a whole. Most of the comments focused on the overhead rate.
|
From page 130... ...
2 3 a deterrent? 1 1 8 ~ 14 4 15 3 2 One respondent wrote that 19% overhead rate was "in line with most institutions", another that it should not increase, and another that the "probably keeps institutions from pushing researchers too hard to apply for NRI grants for unwarranted work."
|
From page 131... ...
Recommended changes included better selection of panel members and reviewers to avoid "old boys" networks, ensuring that only competent researchers review proposals, ensuring that all types of institutions are represented on panels, limiting the number of USDA researchers in the decisionmaking process, and creating more permanent panels. Recommendations were also made about the application process.
|
From page 132... ...
for discussing proposals, to expand into multiple products from single-source feedstocks, to place emphasis on nutrition, to connect programmatic support from the NRI to universities or private laboratories with industrial long-term needs, to screen projects for maintaining US competitiveness, to consider smaller local and regional research organizations for awards, and to separate plant-science programs from commodity lobbies. INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER CHIEF SCIENTISTS In October 1998, the committee conducted separate interviews with four former chief scientists: Paul Stumpf, 1989-1991; Arthur Kelman, 1992-1993; James Cook, 199~1995; and Ronald Phillips, 199~1997.
|
From page 133... ...
The chief scientist role often includes development of joint programs with other agencies, such as NSF and DOE. The former chief scientists thought that such cooperation would be increasingly important as the scope of research by other agencies embraces food, fiber, and natural resources.
|
From page 134... ...
Scientists who serve as panel managers gain valuable administrative experience in a high-quality research-evaluation process. Quality of NRI Research Chief scientists were convinced that the peer-reviewed competitive process substantially enhances the quality of research.
|
From page 135... ...
Economic Evaluation of NRI Program Areas One former chief scientist observed that agricultural economists have not been adequately involved in the process of evaluating agricultural research. The economic aspects of research must be integrated into the NRI evaluation process and more broadly related to both basic and applied research in agriculture.
|
From page 136... ...
· Panel 3 universities and experiment stations: USDA Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area Advisory Board; and Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy. · Panel Farm organizations: Animal Agriculture Coalition, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, and National Cotton Council.
|
From page 137... ...
The industry panel recommended that areas of interest to food and fiber biotechnology stakeholders funded by the public sector include soil management and carbon sequestration; seed biology (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and trace-element mobilization and use) ; biotic stress tolerance (plant metabolism and heat and cold resistance)
|
From page 138... ...
One participant observed that the NRI research niche is not clear either within USDA or with regard to the overall needs of the food and fiber system. The need for interdisciplinary or integrated research received considerable discussion, especially in light of limitations attributable to the small grant amounts.
|
From page 139... ...
Representatives of federal agencies strongly supported increases in NRI funds. They emphasized, however, that limited funding for the NRI resulted from the limited amount of money available for all agricultural programs (such as research, rural development, soil conservation, and forest service.)
|
From page 140... ...
By providing that accountability in easily and quickly accessible forms, it has helped to stimulate strong legislative support for the research enterprise of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. Participants triggered discussion about how one enumerates and evaluates research outcomes that are essential to continued support.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.