Increased Emphasis on Basic Research

Basic research programs in physiology, biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology within agricultural disciplines such as agronomy, entomology, and animal science need to be strengthened and in many cases redirected to questions of identifying genes and understanding the regulation of their expression. Just as an enormous information base has provided a substructure for sweeping advances in biomedical science, a similar foundation of knowledge is now needed about the basic biochemistry, physiology, and genetics of such agricultural subjects as host-pathogen interactions, plant and animal developmental responses to environmental stimuli, enzymes and metabolic pathways, and molecular constituents and their patterns of organization in subcellular organelles. Acquiring such knowledge will affect the rate at which agriculturally valuable genes can be identified, isolated, and characterized, and is a prerequisite for applying the tools of biotechnology to agricultural problems.

Improved Techniques and Applications

The repertoire of molecular biology and cell culture techniques needed to implement advances in genetic engineering is incomplete. Methods for gene transfer in many plants, animals, and microbes; plant cell culture and regeneration; and animal embryo culture and manipulation are inadequate to support the goal of improving agricultural productivity. Increased efforts are needed to apply techniques developed for laboratory organisms to those plants, animals (including insects), and microbes relevant to agriculture.

A national effort should be mounted by both public and private sectors to apply techniques of biotechnology to problems in the agricultural sciences. This effort should include research on:

• Gene identification—locating and identifying agriculturally important genes and creating chromosome maps.
• Gene regulation—understanding the regulation and expression of these genes and refining methods by which they may be genetically engineered.
• Structure and function of gene products—studying the structure and function of gene products in metabolism and the development of agriculturally important traits.
• Cellular techniques—developing and refining techniques for cell culture, cell fusion, regeneration of plants, and other manipulations of plant and animal cells and embryos.
• Development in organisms—using the new technology to study cell and organismic biology in intact organisms.
• Development in communities—understanding the complex associations and interactions that occur among organisms.

Increased Attention to the Ecological Aspects of Biotechnology

Both the public and private sectors should increase their efforts to develop an extensive body of knowledge of the ecological aspects of biotechnology in agriculture. In particular, studies must be done to further our understanding of the behavior and effects of genetically engineered organisms. In addition, the public must be educated about biotechnology. These efforts are essential to support future applications of biotechnology and to adequately inform regulators and the public about both the benefits and possible risks involved.

Linking and Integrating Research

The tools and approaches of biotechnology are equally relevant to science-oriented research and technology-oriented research. Biotechnology can strengthen as well as benefit from improved linkages between basic scientific research and research to adapt technology to agricultural problems. Equally important, different disciplines within biology and agriculture can collaborate to integrate knowledge and skills toward new advances in agriculture.

New approaches to agricultural research are needed to establish productive linkages between basic science and its applications as well as interdisciplinary systems approaches that focus a number of skills on a common mission. Just as biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and fields of medicine have successfully joined forces to solve medical problems, integration of these scientific disciplines for agricultural research must be promoted and supported by appropriate recognition and reward through university, industry, and government channels.

First, universities should establish graduate programs that cut across departmental lines; recognize and reward faculty contributions to cooperative research programs; promote collaborative projects and exchanges between researchers in land-grant universities, non-land-grant universities, industry, and government laboratories; and recruit faculty to create interdisciplinary research programs that can attract competitive funding. Faculty should be selected by departments or groups representing two or more disciplines (e.g., genetics and entomology or biochemistry and botany).

Second, federal and state governments should support the establishment of collaborative research centers, promote interdisciplinary conferences and seminars, support sabbaticals for government scientists and other exchange and retraining programs with universities and industrial laboratories, and provide funding for interdisciplinary program project grants.

Peer and Merit Review

A peer and merit review process must be used to assess and guide the development of the agricultural biotechnology research system, including all steps from basic science to extension.

The participants and procedures in the review process should be organized to match the nature of the tasks and programs reviewed and must include individuals outside the organization as well as experts from relevant disciplines and from basic and applied research programs.

Efforts must be made to broaden the expertise represented on review panels in order to best examine the quality and relevance of work with minimal bias. The benefits of peer and merit review—properly done and heeded—are continuous monitoring of research advances; more efficient, relevant, and higher quality research; and increased communication and respect among scientists.

The Federal Government's Role

It is logical that primary funding for agricultural biotechnology should be achieved through the USDA. Unfortunately, funding for both intramural and extramural basic research within USDA is well below that of other federal agencies. USDA has recognized the need to support basic research and is attempting to do so, albeit not as rapidly as might be optimal. Funding increases are needed. Allocation of new and even redirected funding should be based principally on competitive peer and merit review.

Any increase in funding at USDA should not come at the expense of appropriations to other federal agencies that support biological research relevant to agriculture. This is because it is not always clear where innovation applicable to agricultural biotechnology might arise. However, some existing research program funds should be redirected within USDA to heighten the priority given to biotechnology. USDA should also emphasize related fundamental research on animals and plants, the lack of which is impeding the application of biotechnology to livestock and crop improvement.

Funding for competitive grants through USDA must be of a size and duration sufficient to ensure high-quality, efficient research programs. The recommended average grant should be increased to $150,000 per year for an average of 3 years or more. This level of funding is consistent with the current average support per principal investigator used by industry and the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) intramural research programs. The duration of these competitive grants is also in accord with the recent recommendation:

Of equal importance with the level of funding is the stabilization of federal support to permit more effective use of financial and human resources. . . . Federal agencies [should] work toward an average grant or contract duration of at least three, and preferably five, years. (White House Science Council, 1986)

The committee recommends that competitive grants by all agencies in the federal government for biotechnology research related to agriculture total upwards of $500 million annually, a level that could support 3,000 active scientists. This level of support should be achieved by 1990, primarily through competitive grants administered by USDA and the National Science Foundation.

The State Governments' Role

States should continue to strengthen their already major role in agricultural research and training through their support of universities and research stations that conduct regional research. They should continue to focus on identifying regional interests and on supporting the training of personnel needed in agriculture. The states should also evaluate programs in agricultural biotechnology and the role such programs can and will play in each state's economy.

The Private Sector's Role

The private sector's traditional emphasis on product development is not likely to change, even though there has been a dramatic increase since 1980 in private sector investment in high-risk basic research in agricultural biotechnology. Because public sector investment provides skilled manpower and the knowledge base for innovation, industry should act as an advocate for publicly supported training and research programs in agricultural biotechnology. Industry can also support biotechnology research through direct grants and contracts to universities, cooperative agreements with federal laboratories, and education to inform the general public about the impacts of agricultural biotechnology.

Foundations should be encouraged to support innovative science programs in order to maximize their potential for having substantial influence in important areas. The McKnight Foundation's interdisciplinary program for plant research and the Rockefeller Foundation's efforts to accelerate biotechnology developments in rice are noteworthy examples. Other foundations should address equally important experiments in technology transfer and extension for agricultural biotechnology.

Increased Federal Support for Training

Major increases in federal support for training programs are urgently needed to provide a high-quality research capability that ensures the future of U.S. agriculture and meets the growing need for scientists trained in agricultural biotechnology. Four types of programs must be supported: pre and postdoctoral fellowships, training grants, career development awards, and retraining opportunities. These approaches, used successfully in the biomedical sciences, have put the United States in the forefront of human medical advances. These programs should be administered on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis. USDA should support at least 400 post-doctoral positions at universities and within the ARS, which represents a quadrupling of the present number, and maintain strong support for graduate level training.

Increased Retraining Programs

For the short term, highest priority should go to increasing the retraining opportunities available to university faculty and federal scientists to update their background knowledge and provide them with laboratory experience using the tools of biotechnology. This retraining will expand the abilities of researchers experienced in agricultural disciplines. USDA should take the lead in administering a program to supply at least 150 retraining opportunities a year for 5 years, starting in FY89.

Roles for Universities and Government Agencies

Universities and state and federal agencies are expanding both the nature and number of their relationships with the private sector as they explore ways to increase scientific communication and the flow of technology. The federal government, granting agencies, and public and private universities should encourage interdisciplinary research, partnerships, and new funding arrangements among universities, government, and industry. The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 provides new incentives to federal scientists in this regard. Consultancies, affiliate programs, grants, consortia, research parks, and other forms of partnership between the public and private sectors that foster communication and technology transfer should be promoted. The USDA, State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) should emulate other agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Bureau of Standards in forming innovative affiliations to increase technology transfer.

Cooperative Extension Service

The CES should focus some of its efforts on the transfer of biotechnology research that will prove adaptable and profitable to the agricultural community. It should train many of its specialists in biotechnology and increase its interactions with the private sector to keep abreast of new biotechnologies valuable to the agricultural community. Furthermore, CES should work to anticipate and alleviate social and economic impacts that may result from the application of biotechnologies. CES should also play a key role in educating the public about biotechnology.

Patenting and Licensing

Patenting and licensing play necessary roles in advancing technology transfer and assuring the commercialization of research results, especially in capital-intensive fields such as biotechnology. Patenting and licensing by universities and government agencies should be encouraged as key instruments used to transfer technology. Universities and government agencies should provide incentives to their scientists to encourage patenting. Public policy should encourage state land-grant universities to confer exclusive licenses on patents to private companies with the resources, marketing, and product interests required to translate these discoveries into commercial products.

Regulation of Field Testing

The government's uncertainty over appropriate regulatory steps has fueled public controversy over the assessment of possible environmental risks from genetically engineered agricultural products. USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency must formulate, publish, and implement a research and regulatory program that is based on sound scientific principles. Initially, 5–10 selected, already-existing publicly owned field stations should be available as an option for environmental release testing, professionally managed by an oversight committee of public sector scientists with expertise in agronomy, ecology, plant pathology, entomology, microbiology, molecular biosciences, and public health. This interim program should be designed to gain scientific information and practical experience with field testing and to protect the public safety. The current lack of adequate regulatory procedures is halting progress in applying biotechnologies to agriculture.