Organizing and Financing Basic Research To Increase Food Production

8/14/2019 Organizing and Financing Basic Research To Increase Food Production

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organizing-and-financing-basic-research-to-increase-food-production 1/40

Organizing and Financing Basic ResearchTo Increase Food Production

June 1977

NTIS order #PB-273182



Organizing and Financing

Basic Research toIncrease Food Production

Food Program Staff

J, B. Cordaro, Program ManagerWalter Wilcox, Project Leader

Ray Torrey, Senior AnalystAnn Woodbridge, Administrative Assistant

Reita Crossen, SecretaryJane Mason, Secretary

Elizabeth Galloway, Secretary

CONGRESS OF

THE UNITED STATES

Office of Technology Assessment

WAS HINGT ON, D . C . 20510

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600025

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 05 2-003-0039&8



T E C H N O L O G Y A S S E S S M E N T BO A R D C O n g r e $ $ o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.. CHAIRMAN

MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD., VICE CHAIRMAN O F F I C E

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEX.HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, M INN. MORRIS K . UDALL , ARIZ .

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA CLARENCE E. MILLER, OHlO

ORRIN G. HATCH. UTAH LARRY WINN, JR., KANS.

EMILIO Q. DAOOARIO

—

O F T E C H N O L O G Y A S S E S S M E N T

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

J U N 3 0 1 9 7 7

EMILIO 0. DADDA

DIRECTOR

DANIEL V. DE SIM

DEPUTY DIRECTO

The Honorable Hubert H. HumphreyUni ted S ta tes Sena teWashington, D. C. 20510

The Honorable Olin E. TeagueChairman, Committee on Science

and TechnologyU. S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D. C. 20515

Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Board of the Office of Technology Assessment,we are forwarding to You the report Organizing and FinancingBasic Research to Increase Food Production.

This assessment was performed in accordance with your requestto the Office of Technology Assessment and authorized by theTechnology Assessment Board on February 17, 1976.

S i n c e r e l y ,

Edward M. Kennedy Marjor ie S . Hol tChairman Vice Chairman

ii.



T E C H N O L O G Y A S S E S S ME N T BO A RD Congress of the United StatesE M I L I O Q . D A D D A R I O

DIRECTOR

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.. CHAIRMAN

MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD.. VICE CHAIRMAN O F F I C E O F T E C H N O L OG Y AS S E S S M E NT D A N I E L V. D E S I M O N E

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEX.DEPUTY DIRECTOR

W A S H I N G T O N, D . C . 2 0 5 1 0H UBERT H. HUMPHREY. MINN. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ.

CLIFFORD P. CASE. N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA CLARENCE E. MILLER, OHIO

ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH LARRY WINN. JR.. KANS.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

The Honorable Edward M. KennedyChairmanTechnology Assessment BoardOff ice of Technology AssessmentCongress of the United StatesWashington, D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The e nclose d r epo r t , Orga niz ing a nd Financ ing B a s ic R e se ar c h to I nc r ea seFood Production, ana lyzes a l te rna t ives for organiz ing and f inanc ing bas ic

r e se a rc h in the b io log ic a l s c i e nc es . I t supp lem en ts the m or e gener alreport of the National Academy of Sciences, “World Food and NutritionStudy : T h e Po t e ni a l Co n t ri b u ti o n s of R e se a rc h ,” w h ic h w as i s s ue d i nJune 1977, and takes a wor ld v iew of the potent ia l cont r ibut ions of re -sea rch in food and nut r i t ion , recommending expanded research in 22 f ields .

The OTA repor t presents spec i f ic sugges t ions for congress iona l ac t ion . I tdesc r ibes and eva lua tes a l te rna t ive organiza t ions of bas ic research in theb i o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e s ; d iscusses a l te rna t ive leve ls of inc reased fundingfor bas ic research in three a reas tha t possess grea t oppor tuni ty forf u n d a m e n t a l s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o v e r i e s ( p h o t o s y n t h e s i s , n i t r o g e n f i x a t i o n ,and gene t ic engineer ing for p lan ts ) ; and sugges ts a l te rna t ive adminis t ra -t ive s t ruc tures for Federa l suppor t of bas ic research re la ted to food

pr oduc t ion .

The assessment was requested by Chairman Olin E. Teague of the HouseCommittee on Science and Technology and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey in hiscapacity as a member of the Technology Assessment Board. It was performedby OTA’s Food Program Staff under the direction of J.B. Cordaro, assistedby the Food Advisory Committee and a panel of sc ientis ts representinga g r i c u l t u r a l a n d n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s .

DANIEL De SIMONEAct ing Direc tor

I l l .



Office of Technology AssessmentFood Advisory Committee

Martin E, Abel, ChairmanUniversity of Minnesota

W. D. BuddemierUniversity of Illinois

David CallCornell University

Arnold MayerAmalgamated Meat Cutters andButcher Workmen of North America

Max MilnerMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert NesheimQuaker Oats Company

Roger RevelleHarvard University

Lauren SethWest Des Moines, Iowa

E. T, YorkUniversity of Florida

Advisory Panel on High-Priority Basic Research

Dr. W. Keith Kennedy, ChairmanDean, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Cornell University

Dr. Martin E. Abel Dr. Marvin LamborgProfessor of Agricultural Chief, Cell Specialization Branch

Development Policy Kettering Research LaboratoriesUniversity of Minnesota

Dr. G. W. SalisburyProfessor David I. Cleland Associate Dean, College of

School of Engineering AgricultureUniversity of Pittsburgh University of Illinois

Dr. Richard T. Darragh Dr. Louis N. WiseDirector of Industrial Product Vice President, Agriculture and

Development ForestryProcter and Gamble Company Mississippi State University

Dean Charles E. Hess Dr. Sylvan H, WittwerCollege of Agriculture and Assistant Dean, College of

Environmental Science AgricultureUniversity of California Michigan State University

Mr. H. Richard Johnson Professor Ronald D, KnutsonPresident, Watkins-Johnson Department of Agricultural

Company EconomicsTexas A&M University

iv



This assessment is an analysis of alternatives for organizing and financ-ing basic research to increase food production, Alternative organizations of basic research are described and evaluated. Alternative levels of increasedfunding for basic research in three areas which possess great opportunity forfundamental scientific discoveries-photosy nthesis, nitrogen fixation, andgenetic engineering for plants-are proposed by a panel of scientists repre-senting agricultural and nonagricultural interests, private research organiza-tions, and industry. These areas are used as illustrations of how high-prioritybasic research may be organized and financed, This assessment does not en-dorse nor limit future basic research to these areas,

The assessment was requested by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, mem-ber of the Technology Assessment Board, and Representative Olin E.Teague, Chairman, House Committee on Science and Technology, Thereport identifies the options available to Congress in placing a priority on anexpansion in basic research to increase food production.

The ad hoc advisory panel on high-priority basic research provideddetailed technical information and judgments with respect to ongoing basicresearch and research institutions. The permanent Food Advisory Commit-tee provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, reviewed thefinal draft, and has recommended publication of this report.

The Technology Assessment Board, governing body of OTA, approvesthe release of this report, which identifies a range of viewpoints on a signifi-cant issue facing the U.S. Congress, The views expressed in this report arenot necessarily those of the Board, the OTA Advisory Council, or of in-dividual members thereof.

v



Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . q. . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q .3

ORGANIZING AND FINANCING BASIC RESEARCH TO INCREASEFOOD PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Basic Food Production Research Inadequately Supported. . . . . . . . . . . .Findings of Scientific Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Returns From Additional Investments in Basic Research To Increase

Food Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Institutions for Administering Basic Research for Food Production. . .

Alternative Levels of Financing High-Priority Basic Research To In-crease Food Production ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Basic Research in Other Areas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C o n g r e s s i o n a l O p t i o n s . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . 0 . .

9

9

10

11

13

15

18

2 0

2 0

2 0

APPENDIXSupplementary Technical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

vii





In early 1975 the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) received requests fromSenator Hubert Humphrey and Representative Olin Teague for an independent assess-ment of the current status of research and development in food and agriculture. At that

time a number of other agencies and committees were engaged in reviewing andevaluating food, agriculture, and nutrition research,

OTA’s Food Advisory Committee reviewed the scope and preliminary findings of the studies in progress and counseled OTA to focus its food and agriculture researchand development activities on two areas: (I) Implications of Increased Support of Research on Major Food Crops in Developing Countries, and (2) the area addressed inthis report, Organizing and Financing Basic Research to Increase Food Production.

In the past ten years, four different scientific groups have reviewed the agriculturalresearch conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the StateAgricultural Experiment Stations. AH recommended an expansion in researchprograms, and three of the groups emphasized the need to accelerate basic research inthe sciences which undergird food production,

The Need for Basic Research

Bas c research for increasing food produc-tion includes areas possessing exceptional op-portunity for discovery of knowledge vital tothe understanding of biological processes inplants and animals. Food and agricultureresearch is the search for new technologieswithin the boundaries of existing scientificknowledge. If basic research remains static,food and agriculture research is subject todiminishing returns and eventual exhaustion.

Basic research to increase food productionhas primarily been carried on by scientists inthe Agricultural Research Service of USDAand in State Agricultural Experiment Stations(SAES) who also adapt research and develop-ment. Increases in appropriations for thesescientists in the past two decades have not

equaled the infla ionary increases in researchcosts, Practical problems associated with in-creased food production have increased dur-ing this period rather than declined, As a con-sequence, the scientific talent available for thisresearch has declined sharply.

Several recent reports issued by the Na-tional Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Na-

tional Science Foundation (NSF) listed theareas of basic research offering the greatestpotential returns in the near future from ac-celerated programs. Three areas with out-standing potential returns are listed in all of t hese re po r ts . They a r e pho tosynthes i s,biological nitrogen fixation, and cell culturestudies.

Achieving Return on Investment

Studies of U.S. agricultural research pro- million to $500 million over a 10-year periodductivity show annual rates of return of 30 t o would yield returns of $1 billion to $2 billion40 percent. On the basis of past studies and the over the next 20 years.potential payoff from accelerated basicresearch to increase food production, it is Food and agricultural research funds arehighly probable that an investment of $300 appropriated for specific USDA projects and



for major functional areas at State AgriculturalExperiment Stations. Funds for these stationsare allocated on a formula basis. No funds are

appropriated specifically for basic research inthe biological sciences.

Both university and Federal agency scien-tists agree that the creation of new Federalagencies to conduct basic research would notbe cost effective, There is also substantialagreement that the use of a formula for theallocation of funds for high-priority basic

research would not be cost effective.

The most effective means of allocating addi-tional funds for this high-priority research ap-

pears to be through a competitive grantsprogram. These grants should be available toqualified scientists, on the basis of peerreview, in USDA research agencies, StateAgricultural Experiment Stations, public andprivate universities, and nonprofit researchinstitutions, This approachoppor tun i s t i e s be yondUSDA/SAES complex.

Administering Basic Research Grants

The administration of high-priority basicresearch to increase food production could beassigned to either USDA or NSF,

Basic research, applied research, anddevelopmental technology are inter-related.There is merit in supporting accelerated basicresearch through USDA, the Federal agencywhich has the responsibility for both appliedresearch and technology development,

There are several alternative means within

USDA for administering aprogram for high-priority

broadens researcht h e t r a d i t i o n a l

competitive grantsbasic research. It

could be administered under Public Law89-106, if amended to permit scientists in theAgricultural Research Service to participate inthe grants. No other authorizing legislationwould be required.

Congress, if it wished, could mandate aspecific administrative structure within USDAor NSF for the administration of this high-priority basic research.

Funding Needs

The USDA’s Agricultural Research PolicyA d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e a n d t h e S t a t eAgricultural Experiment Stations recom-mended expanded research on the 117 mostimportant problems as identified at the 1975Kansas City Conference on Research To MeetU.S. and World Food Needs, The committeedid not distinguish between basic and applied

research and recommended increases totaling$215 million over a 4-year period.

The NAS world Food and Nutrition Studyissued in June 1977 proposes a first-year ap-propriation of $60 million in Federal funds for

a new high-priority basic and applied researchcompetitive grants program. The report sug-gests that these funds be increased 10 percenteach year for a 5-year period.

An OTA advisory panel found that about$15.6 million annually is being spent on cur-rent research in the three high-priority areas

of photosynthesis, biological nitrogen fixation,and cell culture studies. It estimated that in thefirst year of an expanded basic researchprogram in these three areas, an additionalfunding of $12.25 million plus $200,000 addi-tional administration expenses appeared costbeneficial,

4



The panel proposed that after starting at aminimum of $12.45 million the first year theprogram should be increased $4 to $6 million ayear for a 6-year period, as more scientists areattracted into research in these areas. Thepanel did not address the problem of desirablefinancial support for basic research in otherhigh-priority areas, although it recognized thatother areas should be included. Thus, their

conclusions should not be viewed as limitingthe competitive grant program to $12,45million.

The merits of including other research areasas high-priority basic research areas should beevaluated by the administrator of the high-priority basic research program with the ad-vice and counsel of an advisory committee.

Options for Congress

one option for Congress would be to con-tinue funding food and agriculture research atthe current level,

A second option for Congress would be toappropria te funds specifically for basicresearch to be administered by the Secretaryof Agriculture under Public Law 89-106, withor without minor amendments,

A third option for Congress would be tomandate administrative changes in USDA,creating an office of competitive grants andauthorizing a long-term program of high-

priority basic research to increase food pro-duction.

A fourth option for Congress would be toauthorize and finance an NSF program for ex-panded basic research to increase food pro-duction.

An appendix, prepared by OTA’s ad hocadvisory panel, provides supplementary tech-nical analysis upon which the OTA reportdraws. Any reference to this material shouldcite the panel.

5



Organizing and Financing Basic Research

To Increase Food Production



Background

I n F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 5 , S e n a t o r H u b e r tHumphrey, as a member of the Technology

Assessment Board, asked the Office of Tech-nology Assessment to assess the current statusof research and development in food andagriculture, Senator Humphrey’s request wasfollowed by a similar request from Represen-tative Olin E. Teague, Chairman of the HouseCommittee on Science and Technology. Chair-man Teague asked OTA, with the help of itsFood Advisory Committee, to report its find-ings as a supplement to the Committee’splanned oversight hearings on agriculturalresearch and development.

At the time these requests were received, anumber of agencies and committees werereviewing and evaluating food, agriculture,and nutrition research:

q The General Accounting Office wasengaged in a general overview study of the organization, scope, and manage-ment of publicly supported agriculturalresearch;

q The Congressional Research Servicewas preparing responses to severalcongressional requests on aspects of theorganization, priorities, and funding forpublicly financed food and agricultureresearch and development;

q The Agricultural Research Policy Ad-visory Committee of the NationalAssociation of State Universities andLand-Grant Colleges and the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)were organizing a National Food andAgriculture Research Users Conferenceto be held July 9 to 11, 1975, in KansasCity. The purpose of the conferencewas to inventory the wide-ranging foodand agricultural research activities un-derway at USDA and the universities,and to establish priorities for futureresearch funding.

q Special oversight hearings on food andagriculture research were scheduled by

two subcommittees of the House Com-mittee on Science and Technology forthe summer and fall of 1975;The Board on Agriculture and Renewa-

ble Resources of the National Academyof Sciences had completed a report,Enhancement of Food Production inthe United States, released in late 1975.Responding to a 1974 request fromPresident Ford, the National Academyof Sciences (NAS) was engaged in a 2-year World Food and Nutrition Studyinvolving 14 committees and numeroussubcommittees, (The NAS issued an in-terim report in November 1975. )

The requests for an OTA assessment were

discussed with OTA’s Food Advisory Com-mittee against the background of these ac-tivities, Chairman* Clifton Wharton, Jr,, ap-pointed a subcommittee to confer with OTAstaff, review the scope and preliminary find-ings of related studies, and narrow the assess-ment scope.

The subcommittee and staff established thefollowing guidelines for a response to the con-gressional requests. The response should:

q avoid duplication of similar reports;q be a significant and unique undertak-

ing;q be manageable in size;• lead to options for congressional action;

andq be completed in time for legislative use.

Using these guidelines, OTA focused itsfood and agriculture research and develop-ment activities on two areas: implications of increased support of research on major foodcrops in developing countries, and the area ad-dressed in this report, organizing and financ-ing basic research to increase food production,

“Dr. Wharton, President, Michigan State University served asChairman until June 1976 .

92.759 0- 77 - 9



Bask Food Production ResearchInadequately Supported

Public support for research to increase food

production has declined in the last twodecades for a number of reasons. In the 1950’sand 1960’s, Congress was concerned morewith the costs of storing surplus crops andmaintaining farm income support programsthan with food production research. Althoughpublic support has increased modestly, in re-cent years increases in appropriated fundshave not been large enough to offset the loss inthe purchasing power of the appropriationsdue to inflation.

Basic research in the biological sciences re-lated to food production has historically beenan undifferentiated segment of the researchprograms supported both by USDA, in its ownAgricultural Research Service, and in the StateAgricultural Experiment Stations. Under con-ditions of declining funds, however, increas-ing demands for research to solve current pro-duction problems has forced a sharp declinein the support for basic research in the biologi-cal sciences related to food production. Scien-t i s t s who tes t i f ied a t the hear ings onagricultural research and development (beforethe subcommittees of the House Committee on

Science and Technology, September 2 3through October Z, 1975, ) observed that recenttechnological advances in crop production inthe United States have exhausted the pre-viously existing backlog of basic researchavailable to plant and animal productionscientists in a number of areas and that addi-tional basic research is needed,

Adminis t ra tor s of publ ic ly suppor tedagricultural research institutions have beensuccessful in obtaining modest increases infunds for agricultural research in recent years.Almost all increases have been utilized to sup-

port urgently requested pest, disease control,and adaptive research, Thus with the need totackle immediate problems, only a smallamount of the additional funds have beenchanneled into basic research to increase food

production. The Department of Agriculturedoes not have established procedures for fi-nancing basic research, as distinguished fromadaptive or developmental research.

The National Science Foundation (NSF)recognizes USDA as the lead agency inagricultural research, and in the past has pro-vided only limited support for basic researchin biological sciences to increase food produc-tion, Although the need for increased researchin the biological sciences related to agriculturehas been recognized by groups of scientists forseveral years, little progress has been made indeveloping plans for organizing and financingincreased basic research to increase food pro-duction,

There is substantial agreement amongagricultural scientists that three high-prioritybasic research areas-photosynthesis, biologi-cal nitrogen fixation, and cell culture studies-offer unusual promise of high potential payoff over a moderate to long-term time period, Toillustrate its points, OTA’s assessment in-cludes:

1. A consideration of methods for organiz-ing and financing research in thesethree areas, and the application of thesemethods to the administration of high-

priority basic research to increase foodproduction in related areas; and

2. An examina t ion of the cos ts andbenefits of increased research in thesethree areas.

To obtain the advice of a diverse group of scientists, OTA established an n-member ad-visory panel that represented views from theuniversity community, both agricultural andnon-agricultural, private research organiza-tions, and industry,

The advisory panel addressed both issues:alternatives for administering basic researchto increase food production, and the costs andbenefits of expanded research in the threeselected areas.

10



This report reviews the findings of scientificgroups concerned with both the need for basicresearch in h igh-pr ior i ty a reas and theprospective returns from additional invest-

ments in basic research to increase food pro-duction, It considers alternatives for ad-ministering such research and the implica-tions of alternative levels of financing thisresearch, Finally, it reviews the options opento Congress in dealing with this issue. In pre-paring this OTA report, the OTA staff drewupon the findings and conclusions of the ad-visory panel , as we l l a s supplementa lmaterials. The panel’s detailed review of theresearch underway in photosynthesis, biologi-cal nitrogen fixation, and cell-culture studiesand suggestions for expanding this researchover a 6- to lo-year period are attached to pro-vide technical background for the report.

Findings of Scientific Groups

In the past 10 years, four scientific groupshave reviewed the agricultural research con-ducted by USDA and the State Agricultural

In February 1969 Clifford M, Hardin, thenSecretary of Agriculture, requested the Divi-sion of Biology and Agriculture, NAS, “Toascertain gaps in agricultural research and

make such recommendations as might be ap-propriate ., . “

Panels were appointed by NAS to reviewareas of research, visit laboratories, and inter-view research scientists and administrators inboth USDA and the universities,

An NAS committee, under the chairman-ship of Dean Glenn Pound of the University of Wisconsin, issued an 80-page report of itsfindings and conclusions in 1972, togetherwith a 384-page appendix consisting chiefly of the reports of the individual panels. 2 In itsgeneral summary, the committee said:

Bold moves are called for in reshaping ad-ministrative philosophies and organiza-tions, in establishing goals and missions,in training and management of scientistsand in allocation of resources. There aretoo many field laboratories . . .

Experiment Stations,This underscored the report’s conclusion

In April 1965, the Senate Committee on Ap- that effective use could be made of additionalpropriations requested, in Senate Report No. funding,

156,

that the Secretary of Agriculture give im- With respect to level of funding, the committee. . .mediate consideration to the establishment of recommended:an appropriate research review committee

q That increases in Federal support to thecomprised equally of representatives of land- SAES via formula funds be maintainedg ra n t e x p e r ime n t s t a t io n s , De p a r tme n t at a level at least proportionately asresearch activities, affected producer organiza-tions, and with appropriate industry represen-

great as for USDA in-house research.

tation, to examine fully each and every - line of agricultural research conducted by the Depart-ment and by the State Experiment Stations,

A USDA-SAES task force was organizedand a response to this request was issued inOctober 1966.1 The task force found that I Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, A National Program of USDA-SAES agricultural research activities Research for Agriculture~, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

required 10,330 scientist years in 1965, and Agriculture. 1966recommended an increase to 14,250 scientist

2Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Report of the Committee on Research Advisory toyears for the year 1972, 18,170 by the year the U.S. Departnlent of Agriculture. Washington, D.c.: National

1977. Academy of Sciences, 1975.

11



q That the USDA seek a greatly increasedlevel of appropriations for a competitivegrants program, which should includesupport of basic research in thesciences-biological, physical, social—that underpin the USDA mission. Theseappropriations should be without com-modity earmarking, although theyshould not exclude commodity-relatedresearch. They should be available toscientists in the USDA, in land-grantand nonland-grant public universitiesor colleges, and in private universitiesor colleges, institutes, and otherresearch agencies.

q That this program be administered insuch a way that research proposals aresubjected to evaluation by peer panelsof selected scientists drawn from thoseeligible for support, and that ad-ministration of the program be differentfrom the administration which allocatedfunds for USDA in-house research.

A Committee on Agricultural ProductionEfficiency of the Board on Agriculture andRenewable Resources, NAS, was organized in1971 to “evaluate the adequacy of the Nation’spolicies, knowledge, and technology relative toagriculture research and education efforts. ”The committee issued a 199-page monograph

in 1975, which reviewed new research andagricultural technology, the practical problemsfor getting improved technologies adopted bysmall, undercapitalized farms, and the abilityof society to make wise choices when a tech-nological change has the possibility of causingadverse environmental effects. 3 The commit-tee’s report included these statements:

q We see no way to avoid the problems of basic uncertainty about the future , .,

q A recent study by the Battelle Institute(1973) suggests that the average lead

time in research is about 20 years andthat it has not decreased appreciablyover the years . . ,

q For major advances in the practices andtechnologies of agriculture, the Nationmust continue to look to the research

programs in public institutions and inprivate industry . . .The long-range breakthroughs inknowledge and technology that canboost our apparent productivity ceilingswill require greater emphasis on basicresearch attuned to clearly perceivedgoals ., ,There is an urgent need for agriculturalresearch to receive increasing-emphasisand much greater support. The futurewell-being of mankind could be atstake . . .

The monograph closes with the following sen-tence:

The breakthrough in science and technologythat must precede the long-range achievementof increased agricultural production efficiencyrequires additional investment in promisingbasic research areas such as cell fusion, photo-synthesis, and biological nitrogen transforma-tions, being ever mindful of the need to seekpractical field applications of major advancesin knowledge . . .

The Board on Agriculture and RenewableResources, NAS, recommended a substantialincrease in support for research directedtoward the production, dependability, andquality of the food supply in its 1975 report,Enhancement of Food Product ion in the

United States

4

:q Financial support for such research should

be increased to restore at least the 1966 buy-ing power, and the support should bebroadly distributed.

q State and Federal support, now totaling about$450 million per year, for research related toagricultural productivity should be in-creased immediately by 40 percent.

3Committee on Agricultural Production Efficiency, AgriculturalProduction Efficiency. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975.Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources, Enhancementof Food Production in the United States. Washington, D. C.: Na-tional Academy of Sciences, 1975.

12



Regarding basic or fundamental research, thereport stated:

q Fundamental research undergirding foodproduction technology has languished fortwo decades.

Ž The National Science Foundation has notfocused on agriculturally related research,although it has given substantial support tobotany, zoology, and plant and animalphysiology and pathology.

q USDA-SAES complex has not adequatelyfunded basic research relating to biologicalprocesses that control crop and livestockproductivity and insure a greater stability of supply,

The Steering Committee, Commission onInternational Relations, National Research

Council, repeated several of the recommenda-tions made in the earlier report of the Boardon Agriculture and Renewable Resources inits interim report, World Food and NutritionStudy, issued in November 1975. The SteeringCommittee stressed the potential for increas-ing crop productivity both through improve-ment in photosynthesis and nitrogen fixationand through the development and use of tissueculture techniques. The interdependence of these three research areas was emphasized asfollows:

q

To the extent that greater nitrogen fixa-tion and photosynthesis can be inducedby genetic changes, the prospects willbe multiplied by progress in the applica-tion of cell fusion or DNA recombina-tion techniques to genetic manipula-tion.5

Returns From Additional Investments inBasic Research to Increase Food Produc-tion

Scientific groups concerned with prioritiesin food and agricultural research are agreedthat the returns from a long-term program of expanded basic research are likely to be great,although additional investments in a widevariety of projects are needed.

An increase in the efficiency of photo-synthesis in a crop like soybeans could resultin 50-percent increase in yield per acre. Theannual value of increased production, reduced

acreage, and/or production costs wouldamount to no less than $1 biIliOn, assumingthis increase of only 50 percent in the yield of soybeans in the United States.

Improvement in nitrogen fixation inlegumes also would result in large gains. A 1 0percent increase in soybean yield has beenreported in the last few months where im-proved nitrogen-fixing bacteria have beenutilized in producing the crop. 6

An evengreater gain would be achieved with thedevelopment of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in

corn, cereal grains, or any important cropother than legumes, Such a discovery couldreduce the need for nitrogen fertilizer bymillions of tons per year in the United Statesand throughout the world. A saving of half abillion dollars a year in the United States fornitrogen fertilizer is not an unrealistic expec-tation.

Cell-culture studies offer promise fordeveloping new combinations of germ plasmand thus provide a means for gene t icengineering which could lead to new strains of Rhizobium with much higher nitrogen-fixingcapacity. They could also lead to new varietiesof soybeans, cereals, potatoes, and other cropswith substantially higher photosynthetic effi-ciency levels than occur in conventional plant-breeding methods. In addition, cell and tissuecultures have demonstrated their value both infreeing important cultivars of viruses andother pathogens and as a method for rapidlyp r o p a g a t i n g n e w i m p r o v e d c u l t i v a r s ,especially those that are reproduced asex-

Ssteering Committee, NRC Study on World Food and Nutrition,World Food and Nutrition Study, interim Report. Washington,D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, November 1975, p. 28.

BNew York Times, Sept. 27, lg76.



ually. Further research with cell and tissuecultures are likely to lead to additionalpossibilities for plant improvement,

Scientists consulted by OTA on this projectare agreed that:q The potential for making a major

breakthrough within the next 10 years inany one or all three of these high-priorityareas is so great that significant expansion inresearch support is fully justified.

q Sustained research effort is likely to be re-quired for the balance of the 20th century if we are to realize the gain to be made fromsubstantially increasing and exploitingscientific knowledge.

There is a wide consensus in the scientific

community that the results of additional in-

vestments in research in the areas cited abovecould be greater than in most other basicresearch areas. Groups of scientists have iden-tified several areas in addition to photo-

synthesis, nitrogen fixation, and cell-culturestudies which could have substantial returnsfrom expanded research could be substantial.

Mos t s tud ies o f the , p roduct iv i ty o f agricultural research indicate that investmentsin agricultural research in the United Statessince World War II have shown an annualreturn of 30 to 40 percent, A summary of thefindings of a number of cost-benefit studies of agricul tural research investments in theUnited States and in other countries as com-piled by T.W. Arndt and V.W. Ruttan is shown

below:



On the basis of these studies, it is likely thatan investment of $300 to $500 million over alo-year period in expanding basic researchwould yield returns over the next 20 years of $1 to $2 billion.

Institutions for Administering BasicResearch for Food Production*

Basic research to increase food productionis defined as those research areas 1) possess-ing exceptional opportunity for discovery of knowledge vital to the basic understanding of important biological processes in plants andanimals, and 2) which can contribute to ap-plied research on problems that have large im-pact on societal needs and urgency of imple-

mentation, They require the participation of asmall group of scientists and frequently willbenefit from large-scale multidisciplinary andinterinstitutional cooperation.

The Federal Government might support ad-ditional basic food production research bycreating new or expanding existing Federalagricultural research agencies. It could ear-mark funds for basic research and allocatethem to the 55 State Agricultural ExperimentStations on a formula basis. Or, it could makeFederal funds for basic research availablethrough a competitive awards program ad-ministered by USDA or NSF.

Federal funds are presently appropriatedfor specific agricultural research projects inUSDA and for major research areas such asmarketing, production and rural developmentat the State Agricultural Experiment Stations.The stations’ funds are allocated on a formulabasis, taking into account population and otherfactors, Most efforts to increase appropria-tions for agricultural research in recent yearshave focused on inc reased funding forresearch on pressing problems, such as pest

and disease control, or on increasing fundsavailable to State Agricultural ExperimentStations on a formula basis. These increased

*Some scientists perceive the term “basic research” to pertain toinvestigations of fundamental processes and relationships with-out regard to how such knowledge might be applied in a pro-duction process,

funds in turn being used to deal with immedi-ate problems. The net effect has been to shortchange basic research whose payoff is longterm.

There is a widespread agreement amongboth university and Federal agency scientiststhat creating new Federal agencies to conductbasic research to increase food productionwould be less cost effective than providing ad-ditional funding for institutions and scientistswho now have ongoing bas ic researchprograms, There is also substantial agreementthat funds for high-priority basic food produc-tion research should not be allocated on a for-mula basis if additional basic research fundswere made available to USDA and the SAES

on a formula basis, There is a high probabilitythat the funds would continue to be utilized inmany cases for adapative research and thenumerous pressing problems. Further, such adistribution precludes the opportunity to ob-tain the needed critical mass of funds and per-sonnel to make the kind of breakthroughs ex-pected of basic research.

There are wide variations both in the staff-ing of Federal, State, and private researchagencies and in their ability to provide in-creased basic research related to food produc-tion. For this reason, the usual project and for-mula basis for allocating agricultural researchfunds would not be cost effective in allocatinghigh-priority basic research. The greatestprogress in basic research in the near futurecan be achieved by increased funding forthose scientists and groups of scientists whonow have both ongoing bas ic researchprograms to increase food production andproven competence in the field.

Competitive Awards. There is substantialconcensus among scientists that the most cost-

effective way of financing increased basicresearch to increase food production isthrough a competitive awards program. Com-petitive grants should be available to qualifiedscientists in USDA research agencies, the StateAgricultural Experiment Stations, public andprivate universities, and nonprofit research



inst i tut ions, The key features of such aprogram would be:

1. R e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l s s h o u l d b e

developed in detail by the principal in-vestigators.2. Research proposals should be reviewed

and rated by peer review committees.3. Funds should be distributed, usually in

the form of grants for 3 to 5 years, ac-cording to the scientific merit of the pro-posals and an appraisal of past perform-ance.

D i s a d v a n t a g e s o f C o m p e t i t i v eAwards. Research grants made on a competi-tive awards basis tend to be awarded to scien-

tists located at well-established research in-stitutions, thus contributing to the rapidgrowth of these institutions relative to youngerand smaller research institutions. The alloca-tion of research grants on a competitive basisalso requires that qualified scientists spendconsiderable time as members of peer reviewcommittees, reviewing research proposals.

The administration of high-priority basicresearch to increase food production could beassigned to USDA, NSF, another existingagency, or a new Federal agency. Historically,

USDA has borne the responsibility for foodand agricultural research. It has met theseresponsibilities within the limits of its funds.There is ample evidence of excellent basicresearch in the USDA-SAES complex. It ap-pears that with adequate levels of funding andchanges in allocation procedures, USDA couldadminister a first-rate program in basicresearch to increase food production,

An advantage to assigning the responsibilityfor basic research in the biological sciences toUSDA is that the purpose of increasing the Na-tion’s commitment to basic agriculturalresearch is to provide new knowledge whichwill enable this Nation to significantly in-crease its production of food. Lines betweenbasic research, applied research, and develop-ment of technology are not clear, but the threeare interrelated. USDA and SAES scientists

have demonstrated their ability to take new in-formation in the biological and physical scien-ces and apply it to the production and protec-tion of plants and animals through applied

research and the development of improvedtechnology, There is merit in supporting basicresearch through an agency that has the abilityto followup with applied research and tech-nological development, and both USDA andSAES have this ability.

The Nat iona l Sc ience Founda t ion hasestablished an excellent record for supportingbasic research, including work in the biologi-cal sciences important to agriculture. It hasdevised effective procedures for solicitingresearch proposals in the basic sciences,

reviewing the proposals, and making awardsto the most productive and promising scien-tists. The National Science Foundation is capa-ble of handling basic agricultural research butdoes not have the responsibility, nor is it aswell-equipped to support or to integrate thenecessary applied research and the develop-ment of new technology.

While increased funding for basic researchto increase food production could be ad-ministered by NSF, it appears that a more effi-cient and less costly way to proceed would be

to assign the responsibility to USDA.Administering Agencies within USDA. A

number of agencies within USDA could ad-minister basic research. Any agency selectedwould require an experienced administrativeofficer with high standards of performance inresearch. The person in charge of administra-tion should be a recognized authority in an im-portant area of basic agricultural research.

If a new office for awarding grants for basicresearch to increase food production wereestablished, it would not need a large staff.The staff should be sufficient to solicit andacknowledge receipt of research proposals,organize and assist peer-review panels, allo-cate and administer grants, organize and spon-sor special symposia, and prepare annualreports and budgets. In addition to his or her

16



other responsibilities, the person in charge of the administration of grants for basic researchto increase food production should haveliaison with other agencies supporting or con-

ducting agricultural research and be a mem-ber of the interagency Federal CoordinatingCouncil for Science, Engineering, and Tech-nology, and other such relevant groups as maybe established.

An advisory board of 12 to 15 rotating mem-bers , appointed by the Secre tary of Agriculture and representing a variety of dis-ciplines, regions of the county, and Federal,State, and private organizations, may beneeded to oversee the program, If such aboard were established, it could assist the ad-

ministrator in the development of proposalsand in the selection of areas of research whichshould be given priority.

The board could also periodically or an-nually review the areas of basic research to in-crease food production which should be givenpriority. It would be the board’s responsibilityto recommend to the administrator of theprogram, as conditions change, and to theSecretary of Agriculture the designation of ad-ditional basic research areas to be givenpriority funding,

In establishing operating and review pro-cedures, the administrator and the advisoryboard should be guided by current practicesin the National Institutes of Health (NIH) andby the recommendations in National ScienceFoundation Peer Review, Volume I, January1976.

U S D A H a s C o m p e t i t i v e G r a n t sAuthority. Under Public Law 89-106, theSecretary of Agriculture now has authority tomake research grants on a competitive basisfor a period not to exceed 5 years for any onegrant. Scientists in Federal agencies, however,are not eligible for grants under Public Law89-106. This authority has been delegated tothe Administrator of the Cooperative StateResearch Service. Congress appropriatedfunds for FY 1977 for research grants totaling

$4.5 million to be awarded on a competitivebasis in 11 specified areas.

Administration of grants for basic research

to increase food production could be assignedto the Administrator of the Cooperative StateResearch Service (CSRS). He or she would beresponsible for administering all researchgrants.

There would be a number of advantages inmaking such an arrangement, as CSRS has ex-perience in administering grants awarded on acompetitive basis. Congressional concerncould be minimized, overhead costs reduced,and continuity provided. There are also disad-vantages to such an arrangement, since CSRSis primarily concerned with activities of theState Agricultural Experiment Stations. Cur-rent CSRS programs requi re inc reas ingamounts of funds and might prevent programsin basic research from receiving the attentionand funds they need . The Secre ta ry of Agriculture would have to see to it that par-ticipation in the program is open to allqualified scientists, whether they are at StateAgricultural Experiment Stations, publicly orprivately endowed universities, or at nonprofitresearch agencies.

An alternative would be to establish anOffice of Basic Research Grants as a separateUSDA agency, This would provide a highvisibility within USDA, assure program integ-rity, and it would not disrupt operations. Itwould prevent domination of research grantsby a single agency and prevent confusion withother competitive grants. The major disadvan-tage of this arrangement is that a separateagency would require a separate accountingstaff and other administrative services; suchservices are available in other research agen-cies in USDA, Since it would be a leading

office, its future budget might be restricteddespite its small size.

Alternative number 3 is a variation onnumber 2, It would establish an Office of Basic Research Grants as a separate USDAagency, However, it would have a pass-

17



through provision for funding other agencieswhich support or conduct basic research to in-crease food production, such as NSF. This ar-rangement would recognize USDA as theleading Government agency for food andnutrition research, but would assure the entirescientific community access to funds support-ing basic research, Coordination of researchfunding activities in USDA, NSF, and otheragenc ies concerned wi th funding bas icresearch would be improved, The scientificcommunity might have greater confidence inthe new funding program under such an ad-ministrative arrangement.

The significant disadvantage is that it reducesthe leadership role of USDA as the agency to

promote basic research to increase food pro-duction, and increases the costs of administer-ing the grant funds.

Alternative Levels of Financing High-Priority Bask Research To increase FoodProduction

A comprehensive statement concerning theadditional research needed on the more im-portant problems relating to food was pre-pared by an ad hoc work group of theAgricultural Research Policy Advisory Com-mittee,7 This group reviewed the adequacy of current research for each of 134 of the mostimportant problem areas identified at the 1975Kansas City Conference on Research to MeetU.S. and World Food Needs and, in its 1975report, by the NAS Board on Agriculture andRenewable Resources.

The ad hoc working group of the committeeconcluded that research should be increased

7 Report of Ad Hoc Work Group on Most Important Problems,U.S. Food Research. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 1976 (duplicated).

on 117 of the problems. The increases recom-mended for all 117 problems would require2,031 scientist years and cost $215 million overa period of 4 years.

The amount of labor expressed in scientistyears and the recommended increases over a4-year period in each of three broad subjectareas is shown below:

Safety. ‘ -

Organization ofResources to providePublic Policy,, Finance,and internationalDevelopment.

Management ofResources to ProvideFood, Including LandWater, Crop, andLivestock Production

582 191 33

4702 1535- 33

Total 5906 2031 35

No comparable analysis has been made forthe number of scientist years and necessaryincreases in basic research to increase foodproduction.

The OTA advisory panel was asked to directits attention to the more limited subject of needed increase in basic research in photo-synthesis, nitrogen fixation, and cell-culturestudies, Their analysis indicates that currentresearch funding through all public and pri-vate sources amounts to about $15,6 mill ionannually for the three areas. About 290 USDA-SAES scientists are engaged in the three areasof research. In addition, approximately 75scientists are at other universities, nonprofitorganizations, and in private industry. (Table

1.)

18





million the first year, increasing to about $50million in the tenth year. The advisory panelbelieved that such an expansion programshould be considered a minimum effort. The

provision of funds for an even greater expan-sion was recommended, permitting a 60 to 70percent increase in the number of scientistsengaged in basic research in photosynthesis,biological nitrogen fixation, and cell-culturestudies over a lo-year period.

A complete review of basic research in thethree areas and a proposed lo-year expansionprogram is developed in detail in the advisorypanel’s attached “Supplementary TechnicalAnalysis, ”

Bask Research in Other AreasExpansion programs for basic research to

increase food production in other areas, suchas management and breeding of plants tominimize environmental stress, plant growthregulators, or more effective and lessdangerous pesticides, would merit perhapsroughly comparable funding.

The NAS World Food and Nutrition Studyissued in June 1977 proposes a first-year in-crease in Federal funds for food and nutritionresearch of $l20 million to be divided equallybetween (1) USDA in-house research a n dHatch formula allocations, and (z) a newgrants award program. The study proposesthat after the first-year research funds be in-creased 10 percent per year for a 5-year period.Such a program of increases would raiseUSDA research support from $522 million tonearly $1 billion annually.8 Although thescientists in this study emphasize the need forincreased basic research to increase food pro-duction, they do not indicate how the fundsfor competitive grant programs should be allo-

cated between basic and applied research. It isprobable that fully half to two-thirds of thefunds made available in the next 5 to 10 years

%teering Committee, NRC Study on World Food and Nutrition,world Food and Nutrition Study, final report, Washington, D.c.,

National Academy of Sciences, June 1977, p. 19.

for expanded food and nutrition researchunder a competitive grants program should beallocated for basic research.

Summary

Available studies and discussions with in-formed agricultural scientists point to anurgent need for additional basic researchdirected toward increasing food production.The three highest priority areas, from thestandpoint of prospective payoff, appear to bethose discussed in this report—photo-synthesis, biological nitrogen fixation, andcell-culture studies. A minimum expansionprogram in these three areas should start at$12.45 million and increase several milliondollars a year for a 6-year period, An evenlarger program would be needed to fully usethe potential opportunities for an acceleratedprogram of basic research in five or six impor-tant basic research areas.

Congressional Options

The past 10 years have been years of rapidlygrowing research programs in health, spaceexplorations, energy, environmental protec-tion, and related fields, but years of declining

research programs for the enhancement of food production. Scientists have been drawnfrom basic food and nutrition research intothese other fields. The sharp inflationary priceincreases in the past 5 years have not beenmatched by comparable increases in Federalfunds for food and agriculture research.Federal appropriations for research in USDAand the State Agricultural Experiment Sta-tions totaled $522,284,000 for FY 1977.However, appropriations of $570,584,000would have been required to provide the samelevel of research support as in 1966. Federalappropriations for USDA-SAES research forFY 1977 lack $48.3 million of equal purchasingpower of the 1966 appropriations for research.

The issue for Congress is what priority toplace on an expansion in basic research to

20



enhance food production. If Congress desiresmore public funds invested in such basicresearch, it appears that funds will have to beearmarked for this purpose. Otherwise, as

research funds are now administered both inUSDA and in the State Agricultural Experi-ment Stations, there is no assurance that addi-tional funds will be utilized for these specificpurposes. Thus option number one for Con-gress is to continue the status quo. However,if changes are desired, option number twowould be to earmark funds allocated under acompetitive grants program utilizing a peerreview system. This appears to be the mostsatisfactory means of assuring that such fundswill be utilized effectively in expanding high-priority basic research. Additional legislationis not required for the administration of suchfunds. Without additional directives the Secre-

tary of Agriculture would have discretion, asprovided in Public Law 89-106, to delegate theadministration of such funds to any memberof his administrative staff, Legislation may be

r e q u i r e d , h o w e v e r , t o a u t h o r i z e t h eAgricultural Research Service to participate incompetitive grants programs,

The third option for Congress would be topass legislation setting up a USDA Office of Basic Research Grants, with or without a pass-through provision. The legislation could pro-vide for a 5- to lo-year or longer term programat either minimum or higher funding levels,

A fourth option for Congress would be toauthorize and fund an NSF program of ex-panded basic research to increase food pro-duction.



.

The views expressed in this material are not necessarilythose of the OTA Board, or its individual members. Any reference to this

.



Rationale for selecting photosynthesis,nitrogen-fixation, and tissue culture ashigh-priority areas

The need for basic research in the plantsciences, and the potential for increasing cropproductivity both through improvements inthe efficiency of photosynthesis and nitrogenfixation and through the development and useof tissue culture techniques, have been out-lined in the November 1975 Interim Report of the Steering Committee of the NRC Study onWorld Food and Nutrition and the Board onAgriculture and Renewable Resources report,“Enhancement of Food Production for theUnited States;” in the report prepared by apanel of eight scientists in February 1976 forthe National Science Foundation, “Researcha-ble Areas which have Potential for IncreasingCrop Production;” and in the report of the In-ternational Conference in October 1975, spon-sored by Michigan State University and theCharles F. Kettering Foundation, “Crop Pro-ductivity—Research Imperatives, ” Reports of the Agricultural Research Policy AdvisoryCommittee (ARPAC) of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) and the NationalAssociation of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and internal documents of the

Agricultural Research Service, also recognizethe need for expanded research on photo-synthesis, nitrogen use and fixation, and cellcultures, The above-cited reports properlyemphasize the tremendous opportunity forenhancing food production through expandedresearch in the three areas, but additionalbenefits that should be noted are the resultingtechnologies would be nonpolluting, wouldproduce no noise, would add to the resourcesof the earth, and are nonpolitical, All mankindwould benefit from significant advances inany one or all three areas.

Excellent review articles on the currentstate of knowledge and the opportunities andneed for expanded research in each of thethree areas appeared in Science, Volume 188,

May 9, 1975, “Improving the Efficiency of Photo synthesis,” by Israel Zelitch, pp. 626-633;

“Nitrogen Fixation Research: A Key to WorldFood?, ” by R.W.F. Hardy and U.S. Hevelka,pp. 633-643; and “Plant Cell Cultures: GeneticAspects of Crop Improvement,” by Peter S.

Carlson and Joseph C. Polacco, pp. 622-625.

While promising research in the three areasis being carried out in a limited number of laboratories throughout the United States, theadvisory panel is distressed that world leader-ship for research in the three areas currentlydoes not rest with the United States, andavailable data indicate that there will be afurther decline in the relative position of U.S.mission-oriented basic research to enhancefood production unless there is a major changein U.S. agricultural research policies and

levels of support.The importance of photosynthesis is ob-

vious because the ultimate yield of crop andanimal products is dependent upon the net ac-cumulation of photosynthate and the partition-ing of accumulated photosynthate between theusable portions of the plant and those that arenot usable by humans or animals. The integra-tion of photosynthate accumulation and itspartitioning among the usable and nonusableportions of the plant gives realized yield, Themaximum daily efficiency of converting lightenergy into photosynthate only approaches 3percent in a highly efficient crop such as corn,and most plants have even lower light-energyconversions. Utilizing 1 percent more of thesunlight falling on a plant during the growingseason for production of photosynthate couldlead to realized yield increased from 50 per-cent to well over 100 percent, if the ratio of usable and nonusable portions remained thesame.

Achievement of high crop yield under agiven set of soil and climatic variables re-quires exact integration and precise balanceamong the numerous gene-directed a n denzyme-implemented biochemical actions andphysiological processes. High-yielding cropcultivars often differ extensively, indicatingnot one or only a few genetic-biochemical-physiological pathways, but rather numerous

25



combinations with potential for giving highyield. Unfortunately, low- and moderate-yield-ing combinations occur far more frequentlythan high-yielding combinations, making the

breeding of higher-yielding cultivars a slowand difficult process,

Currently, limited understanding of thephysiological genetics of yield leaves geneticimprovement of plants almost totally depend-ent upon chance recombination of favorablegenes and of the accompanying enzyme-im-plemented biochemical and physiologicalprocesses. Efficiency of breeding higher-yield-ing cultivars would be increased if the roles,interactions, and modes of integration of themany physiological components of yield ex-

pression were better understood.Experience accumulated over the past 40

years indicates that improvement in efficiencyof breeding higher-yielding cultivars requiresconsideration of more than one or a few of thephysiological component processes leading toyield, Benefits from crosses using geneticvariation in one or a few components havebeen disappointing. Major improvement in theefficiency of breeding high-yielding cultivarswill require broad and coherent research, in-cluding integration of the efforts of differentscientific disciplines directed toward the com-mon goal of enhancing crop productivity.

While realized yield is dependent upon thenet accumulation of photosynthate in usableorgans of the plant, the availability of ade-quate supplies of nitrogen also is essential forhigh crop yields. Increased input of fertilizernitrogen during the past quarter century hasbeen an important factor for the 3-percentaverage annual increase in world cereal pro-duction. Increasing yie lds in both less-developed countries and more-developedcountries parallel increasing use rates of fer-

tilizer nitrogen during this period. In 1974,world consumption of fertilizer nitrogen was40 x 106 tons compared with 3.5 x 10 6 in 1950.

The additional nitrogen inputs required forincreasing world crop production during the

next quarter century could be provided by theconstruction and operation of about 500 addi-tional large-scale ammonia synthesis plants toproduce a total of 160 x 10 6 tons annually.

There are many reasons, including energy andeconomic costs, that support the desirability of developing and applying improved or alter-nate technologies for nitrogen input ratherthan relying solely on fertilizer nitrogen. Ex-ploratory leads available in both chemistryand biology suggest that the opportunities fordevelopment of such technologies for nitrogeninput in the short- and long-term appear to befavorable.

Recent advances in the culture of plant cellsand tissues in vitro have provided the basis of

a novel technology that permits the applicationof microbiological methods to higher plants.By employing populat ions of haploid ordiploid cells as experimental material, it ispossible to utilize the genetic, physiological,and biochemical procedures developed withmicroorganisms to induce and recover poten-tially desirable mutations, to make possiblethe rapid screening of natural-occurringvariability and to extend the range of plant hy-bridization beyond the bounds of sexual com-patibility, Since, in some species, plants can beregenerated from cultured cells, modifications

induced in culture can be examined andutilized in the whole plant. The developmentof cell-culture technology is of importance forpractical applications in agriculture and forcontinued long-term advances in crop im-provement,

It should be noted that there is an interrela-t ionship among the three selected high-priority research areas. Realized yield is de-pendent upon the accumulation and partition-ing of photosynthate. Realized yield also is de-pendent upon the availability of adequate sup-

plies of nitrogen for vigorous growth of leaves(where most of the photosynthesis occurs) andfor the protein portions of the photosynthateaccumulation in usable plant organs such asthe seeds of cereals, corn, and soybeans, Muchof the nitrogen taken up by plants is in the

26



nitrate form , and energy der ived throughphotosynthesis is required to reduce the ni-trate in order that it can be utilized by theplant to synthesize protein. If the nitrogen is

obtained through the symbiotic fixation of ni-trogen, there is an energy requirement for thegrowth and development of the nodule as wellas the support of the Rhizobium nitrogen-fix-ing bacteria, In fact, available photosynthate isa limiting factor in biological nitrogen fixationby Rhizobium. Thus, the level of nitrogenutilization in all plants and of nitrogen fixationin legumes is governed by the efficiency of photosynthesis.

Improving crops through the recombinationof currently available genetic material is felt

by many to have great potential for future ad-vances in photosynthetic efficiency andnitrogen fixation. Both depend upon the inte-gration or recombination of new types of genetic material, and such advances will re-quire the combined efforts and close coopera-t ion of biochemists , plant physiologists,microbiologists, plant breeders, agronomists,and horticultural scientists. The perfection of cell-culture techniques will provide thesescientists with more rapid ways of screeningpotential new sources of biochemical path-ways and/or new ways of inducing more effi-

cient mechanisms for accumulating and parti-tioning photosynthate and in utilizing appliednitrogen fertilizer or in enhancing biologicalnitrogen fixation,

A more detailed listing of research oppor-t u n i t i e s i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e a r e a s w a sdeveloped at the International Conference onCrop Productivity-Research Imperatives helda t Ha rb o r S p r in g s , Mic h . , Oc to b e r 2 0 -2 4 ,1 9 7 5 . Mo re th a n z o o p a r t i c ip a n t s -mo s t o f them active scientist+ examined how plantscientists with input from other disciplines

could best contribute to enhancing crop pro-ductivity and dependability on a global scale,The focus of the conference was on the funda-mental biological processes that control pro-ductivity of economically important foodcrops, with appropriate concern for husband-

ing nonrenewable resources. The conferenceincluded six discussion groups of 30 to 40scientists, each group addressing itself to keyareas affecting crop productivity, The conclu-

sions and recommendations of each discus-sion group represented the consensus of theparticipating scientists as summarized by theselected reporters. Portions of the reports of three discussion groups—photosynthesis ,nitrogen fixation, and genetic engineering of plants follow.

Photosynthesis

During the past 15 months several papers

have been prepared by scientists engaged inphotosynthesis research in which currentknowledge was summarized and the oppor-tunities for increasing photosynthetic efficien-cy were discussed. The paper by Bukovac,Moss, and Zelitch in Crop Productivity—Research Imperatives summarizes the analysisof a work group of 37 scientists at the Interna-tional Conference at Harbor Springs, Mich. onthe research needs and opportunities in thefollowing areas of photosynthesis:

I, Identify the aspects of photosynthesiswhich limit C02 input in natural environ-ments.“ a .

“b,

“c.

In te rc e p t io n and Ut i l i z a t io n o f Light: Crop photosynthetic produc-tivity is strongly influenced bygrowth rate of leaves, leaf angle. leaf lifetime, and photosynthetic capacity.Research is needed to determine howthese factors interact and the degreeto which they can be exploited to in-crease photosynthetic productivityper unit field area.C O2 Absorption: The opportunitiesmust be explored to increase the rateof CO2 fixation in plants by alteringleaf stomatal characteristics, cell sizeand shape, and components of thesystem of plants.Biochemical Processes of CarbonMetabolism: Emphasis should he

2 7



placed on characterizing the proper-ties of the enzymes of CO2 fixationand subsequent metabolism. Howare these enzymes controlled, and

what are the limits within which theycan be altered? The limitations im-posed by electron transport proc-esses should be determined. Therole of photorespiration and its rela-tion to photosynthesis and plantgrowth must be evaluated. The rangeof enzyme variation of naturalecosystems should be determinedwith particular emphasis on thedifferent biochemical systems forphotosynthesis in the C3-, C4-, CAM-type plants. The roles of respiratoryprocesses in carbon input in plant

productivity should be examined.The environmental responses of rate-limiting steps i n carbonmetabolism should be studied.Genetic basis of these processes andchemicals to modify them need to beidentified.

“II. Relationship of plant development tophotosynthesis: We need to know howphotosynthesis influences plant growthand which developmental stages of cropplants are limited by the availability of products of photosynthesis.“a, Translocation and Partitioning:

Studies are needed on the transportprocesses in crop plants and on thepartitioning of photosynthetic prod-ucts among the sites of utilizationsuch as fruits or other storage organsor sites of nitrogen-fixation. We needto know the mechanisms and con-trols that determine whether photo-synthate remains in the leaf cell ormoves into the phloem and on to sitesof storage or utilization,

“b. Hormonal and Chemical Regulationin Crop Plants: Both basic and ap-plied research on plant growth

regulators is needed. What plant hor-mone systems are involved? Whatare the signals between cells andplant organs? Which signals controlplant productivity and how can thesignals be altered? Synthetic growthregulators and genetic means should

“III.

be developed to modify beneficiallythe production, internal partitioning,and storage of carbon compounds inplants.

Provide plant breeders with new screen-ing procedures: Research is needed to pro-vide plant breeders with rapid screeningprocedures which would aid in identifyingand incorporating yield-enhancing carboninput characteristics into crops. ” Tissueculture (in vitro) techniques offer con-siderable potential in providing these newscreening procedures.

Nitrogen Fixation

The opportunity for increasing plant yields

through greater biological fixation of nitrogenand more effective use of available nitrogenby plants has been outlined in several recentpapers, The chapter, “Nitrogen Input,” byHardy, Filner, and Hagemen in Crop Produc-tivity y—Research Imperatives, summarizesthe judgments of 32 scientists regardingresearch imperatives in the chemical andbiological f ixation of n i t rogen and i t savailability and efficient use by plants, Theauthors point out the advantages of developingimproved technology that would “minimizethe energy and capital costs of nitrogen fer-tilizers. ”

Recommended areas of research include:

1.

2.

3.

Development of “catalysts that work at lowertemperatures and pressures” for the produc-tion of synthetic nitrogen fetilizer,Increased understanding of the role of molybdenum and iron in N 2 reduction innitrogen-fixing bacteria.Decrease the need for nitrogen fertilizerthrough improved procedures for rotational-,inter-, and relay-cropping of legumes andcereals, by the development of better recy-

cling processes for recovering nitrogen fromurban and agricultural wastes, and by max-imizing “the efficiency of use of soil nitrogenand fertilizer nitrogen” through:“a) improved utilization of nitrogen by

plants through chemical, cultural andgenetic means:

28



“b) modulating the rate of soil nitrogent ra n s fo rma t io n s b y c h e mic a l a n dcultural means (such as denitrification):and

“c) improved rate data for each of the stepsof the global nitrogen cycle, ”

4. “Develop nitrogen self-sufficiency in crops”by:a) ‘ ‘ Developing optimal plant-

microorganismal combinations’ in-creasing nitrogen fixation of legume-rhizobial associations by optimizationof host-strain combinations, qualityc ontro1 of r h i z o b i a 1 i n n o c u 1 u m,development of effective inoculationtechnology and overcoming inhibitionof nitrogen fixation by fixed nitrogen.

b) “Increasing the transfer of photo-synthetic energy from the plant to N, -fixing microorganisms associated withthe plant. ” Major attention should begiven to improved nitrogen fixation of legume-rhizobial associations by in-creasing photosynthate available tonodules through genetic or chemicalmeans, but the photosynthetic require-ments of N 2 -fixing associations inc e r e a 1s and g r asses s u c h as t h eSpirillum-grass association should notbe ignored.

c) “Seeking, evaluating, and developingN

2

-fixing microorganisms for use insupplying nitrogen to cereals andgrasses.

The panel of eight scientists who prepared areport for the National Science Foundation inFebruary 1976 entitled, “Researchable AreasWhich Have Potential for Increasing CropProduction, ” recommended two additionalareas of research that are long-term projects(perhaps 25 or more years):

1. “Extend rhizobial-based nitrogen fixa-tion to non-legume crops. ”

2, “Transfer genetic information for N 2

fixation and necessary associated reac-tions to higher crop plants. ”

There is little hope of attaining either of these goals until cell culture techniques havebeen improved. Furthermore, they will in-

volve recombinant DNA research that in turnwill require special containment facilities.

Genetic Engineering of Plants

Increasing our knowledge and understand-ing of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixationand utilization will enable plant breeders tomake more rapid progress in crop improve-ment through the use of conventional but time-consuming plant-breeding methods. Con-siderable potential exists for increasing therate of plant improvement through the use of in vitro (tissue culture) techniques. The paper

by Adams, Carlson, Grafius, and Wallace inCrop Productivity—Research Imperatives,outlines the conclusions of 33 scientists aboutneeded research in plant cell and tissueculture. These authors list the following short-term research imperatives:

,*1,

“2,

“3 .

“4 .

“5 .

Determine how to regenerate whole plantsof the major crop species.Adapt and apply the techniques of somaticcell genetics to the goals of understandinggenetic modification, organization andregulation in higher plants.Perform mass selective screening for traitsof agronomic value, as well as for processesinvolved in the agronomic expression of components,Cell and tissue cultures might be used forpreservation of germ plasm of vegetativelypropagated species.Two currently applicable techniques of invitro culture in plant improvement are: (a)recovery of pathogen-free plants and (h)rapid vegetative increase of new clones andcultivars. The first is especially important invegetatively reproduced crops such aspotato and sugar cane, and it is predictedthat the second will become very important

in forest crops and in certain orchard crops,The techniques now available should be ap-plied to a wide range of crop species, ”

The authors outline long-term research im-peratives while recognizing that the currentabsence of proper techniques limit progress,Perfection of cell- and t issue-culture tech-

29



niques for the major food plants such ascereals, corn, and soybeans will permit newapproaches to the improvement of these crops.

.1. Severe limitation of cell culture technologystems from limited knowledge of plant

physiological and biochemical processes.The recognition and recovery of geneticvariation in vitro is dependent upon distinctcellular phenomena. Further research willprovide insight into the molecular and cellu-lar mechanisms underlying agronomicallyimportant traits. The biochemical andphysiological components of whole plantcharacters must then be duplicated in vitro.Selection schemes which recover variantsfor processes unique to higher plants mustbe developed. There are also certainly limits

as to the types of variants which can berecovered in vi tro. Selective systemsdesigned to recover mutuants in basicmetabolism have a high probability of suc-cess, Mutant systems attempting to modifytissue specific characters or charactersunique to certain differentiated stateswould have a lower probability of success.If a character is not expressed by cells inculture, then it is impossible to select forvariants of that character in vitro. At thepresent time, in vitro methods are inadequ-ate for attempting to modify complexdevelopmental characteristics. This area re-

quires further research.“Z. An area which holds promise for increasedproductivity is increased genetic diversity.Fusion of protoplasts from different speciesis one approach to increasing genetic dis-parity, In many instances, the goal of in-creasing genetic diversity is not limited byhybrid production but by the integration of evolutionary divergent genomes. Sterilityand lack of recombination between thegenomes do not permit the potentially novelgermplasm to be utilized. In vitro tech-niques often reveal ways to circumvent thisproblem. Research which focuses on induc-

ing , r ec og ni zi ng ,a n d r e c o v e r i n g

chromosornal changes in somatic cellsshould be encouraged. These techniquesshould particularly attempt to developmethods to induce chromosome loss. Thereis also a need for techniques to induce andrecover genetic recombinant from somatic

“3.

“ 4

cells. In this fashion, in vitro culture can beused in conjunction with sexually andsomatically produced hybrids where in-compatibilities present barriers to growth

and development, Tissue from the hybridsmight be cultured in vitro, subject to thetreatments which caused genetic alterationsand then regenerated into plants, Fertile in-dividuals which display the derived com-binations of characteristics could then berecovered from the population of regener-ated plants.Cell-culture techniques offer the possibilityof exploring the importance of geneticallydifferent organelles and cytoplasm to plantimprovement. In normal sexual reproduc-tion, the male gamete contributes little to nocytoplasm to the zygote. Somatic hybridiza-

tion allows the production of cells which arehybrid for the cytoplasmic components.Genetic utilization and manipulation of these cytoplasmic hybrid should permit amore refined analysis of the importance of these components in plant improvement,Long-term approaches to genetic engineeringshould be encouraged. - Such speculativegoals as accomplishing genetic transforma-tion, transduction and plasmid transfer mayprov ide a fu tu r e sou rce o f gene t i cvariability as well as an analytical techniqueto define the genetic organization in cropplant species,”,

A special case for cell studies (less longterm) is that of the legumes, The bacteroid isthe repositor of some important genetic traits(particularly nitrogen fixation). The tech-nology for genetic engineering (gene transfer)between microorganisms is known and hasbeen well developed. Therefore it should bepossible to increase the gene dosage fornitrogen fixation in Rhizobium and evaluatethe consequences of that enrichment, and thisshould be possible for all legumes, Similartransfers to the grasses should take muchlonger because:

(a)

(b)

they do not associate with bacteria(which is the ‘mutated’ agent);they have not the characteristic struc-ture (nodules, leghemaglobin, etc. ) toprotect the nitrogenase enzyme.

30



Current and Proposed Levels of Fundingfor Research on Photosynthesis, NitrogenFixation, and Cell Cultures

The ad hoc Work Group established by AR-PAC to study the 134 most important researchproblems submitted its report in May 1976.The report summarizes current levels of sup-port in USDA’s Agricultural Research Service(ARS) and the State Agricultural ExperimentStat ions ( SAES) for different areas of agricultural and related research. The WorkGroup estimates 68 scientist years are devotedto research on photosynthesis mechanismsand improvements and recommends an in-crease of 31 scientist years over the next 4years, The current average expenditure for ascientist year is approximately $73,000, whichis an inadequate level of support for mosthighly productive scientists. Present expend-itures by ARS and SAES for photosynthesisresearch amount to approximately $4,960,000annually and the ad hoc Work Group suggestsan increase of $2,250,000 annually by thefourth year.

The ad hoc Work Group estimates 38 scien-tist years are allocated to nitrogen fixation byARS and the SAES, and it recommends an in-

crease of 30 scientist years for research onnitrogen fixation by legumes and nonlegumes,Present annual expenditures are estimated at$2,524,000 and the Work Group proposes anincrease in annual research support of about$2,000,000 within the next 4 years,

The ad hoc Work Group estimates 14 scien-tist years devoted to cell studies and recom-mends an increase of 8 scientist years forresearch on basic cell and tissue-culture tech-niques and “16 scientist years to develop celland tissue-culture approaches for (1) studying

biochemical pathways of protein synthesis, (2)tracing pathways and identifying desirablemetabolic products and defining regulators of many growth processes, and (3) determiningand quantifying plant metabolic disruptionscaused by diseases and other host-specificpests. ” Current levels of expenditures tota l

$1,163,000 annually, and the recommended in-crease would amount to $2 million annuallywithin 3 years.

The annual research expenditures esti-mated by BARR in “Enhancement of FoodProduction for the United States, ” includeresearch support provided by NSF, NIH,AEC-ERDA and SAES (ARS was not listed butwas included ) . BARR indicates annualexpenditures for photosynthesis research are$10 million, and recommends a two-fold in :

crease in level of funding,

BARR reports current funding level fornitrogen fixation at less than $5 million for allsources. It states, “Research funding should be

increased to $25 million beginning in FY 1977,with a 25 percent increment of the base for thenext 5 years, ” The same group reports thatless than $500,000 is currently invested in cells tu d ie s a n d p ro p o se s a f iv e - fo ld in c re a sebeginning with a doubling in FY 1977.

A recent analysis of the research work in-cluded in the USDA Current Research Infor-mation System (CRIS) by the OTA panelchairman indicates that current levels of sup-port in the USDA-SAES complex are approx-imately $6 million, 182 scientists, and 77 scien-tist years for photosynthesis, $2.2 million, 71scientists and 30 scientist years for nitrogenfixation, and $1.1 million, 37 scientists and 16scientist years for cell and tissue studies (ta-ble 1). Research support through NSF forthese three areas amounts to about $5.6 millionannually, but a portion of the NSF fundingprobably is included in the support for CRISresearch projects. Research in all three areasis being carried out by scientists not receivingsupport through USDA, SAES, and/or NSF.Total research funding through all public andprivate sources for photosynthesis, nitrogen

fixation, and cell and tissue studies probablyamounts to about $15.5 million (approximatelythe same level, but with a slightly differentdistribution as estimated in the BARR report).The total number of scientists engaged inthese areas of research is about 290 in theUSDA-SAES complex, with perhaps at least

31





nitrogen in the free-living form, Hence, it canbe argued that so to 60 percent of the addi-tional funds should be allocated to nitrogenresearch. Yet, one of the limiting. factors in

symbiotic nitrogen fixation is available photo-s y n t h a t e t o s u p p o r t t h e n o d u l e a n dRhizobiurn, Thus, a counterargument can bemade for major emphasis on photosynthesisresearch. Cell and tissue studies may providethe key for making major advances in under-standing and improving either or both photo-synthesis and nitrogen fixation, and perhapsthis research should receive the most favora-ble consideration.

The panel recommends the use of competi-tive grants for the allocation of increased fund-

ing for high-priority basic research to enhancefood production. It urges that decisions aboutrelative level of funding in the three areas bebased upon the quality of the submitted pro-posals and the assessment at the time of theawards by the peer review committees, theprogram administrator, and the proposed ad-visory board as to which of these areas, if any,should receive the most favorable considera-tion.

The first priority in increased funding is toprovide adequate support and equipment forthe scientists currently doing high-qualityresearch in the three areas, Discussions with anumber of recognized scientists engaged inthese areas of research reveal that on theaverage most of them could utilize, effectivelyapproximately $70,000 of additional directsupport annually, Indirect costs (overhead)would be in addition to the direct support of the scientists and would amount to about 4 0percent of the direct costs, Some scientistsneed funds for additional supporting person-nel such as post-doctorates, graduate assist-ants, technicians, field, and greenhouse help,

O th e r s n e e d su b s ta n t i a l ly mo re fu n d s fo rchemicals and special supplies; all scientistsneed continuing funds for new replacementlaboratory equipment, The specific needs of some scientists are substantially greater thanan additional $70,000 annually, while an addi-

tional $50,000 or less would be adequate for afew of the better-supported scientists cur-rently engaged in these three a reas of research.

If it is estimated that high-quality researchproposals would be submitted by at least 125

established scientists currently doing researchin the three areas, as individual researchworkers or as members of research teams, theincreased funds to meet these existing needswould be $12.25 million for direct and indirectcosts (overhead) in FY 1978. Using a 7-percentannual inflation rate, the annual level of in-creased funding for 125 existing scientistswould be $13.10 million in FY 1979, $14,03million in FY 1980, $19,67 million in FY 1985,

$27.58 million in FY 1990, and $54.25 millionin FY 2000, (Table 2.) Additional funds wouldbe required for operating the office ad-ministering the competitive grants.

Specialized containment facilities will be re-quired for cell studies directed towardsrecombinant DNA research in nitrogen fixingmicroorganisms and, desirably, four in num-ber, The estimated cost for a single contain-ment facility is approximately $600,000 (1976

prices). It is proposed that funds be providedfor two containment facilities in FY 1979 and

for two additional facilities in FY 1981, A 7-percent annual inflation rate was used to esti-mate a unit cost of approximately $690,()()0 inFY 1979, and $790,000 in FY 1981.

Research progress would be enhanced sub-stantially if additional scientists were en-couraged to shift their research efforts to thesethree high-priority areas, The added scientificcapability would include young scientists whoare just launching their research careers, andestablished scientists who have demonstratedexcellent research capability in related dis-

ciplines or areas of research and who wouldbring a new set of skills into these high-priority areas of research, Such scientistsw o u l d b e o u t s t a n d i n g m e m b e r s o f multidisciplinary teams that are prepared todirect their efforts to a comprehensive

33



Table 2. Al ternat ive Levels of Increased Funding by Years fo



Research on Photosynth esis, N i t rogen F ixat ion and Cel l S tudies*

FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85

(in millions of dollars)

FY 9 0 FY 2000

13.13 14*05

5.25 . 5.62%

0.64 0 . 6 8.

0.26 0.28

19.70 38.757 . 8 8 15.50

12.274.91

10.72 11.47

4.29 4.59

0.95 1.880.50 0.54 0.58

0.21 0.23 0.24 0.42 0.83

3.60 3.86 4.131.44 1.54 1.65

2.89 3.09 3.301.16 1.24 1.32

3.15 3.371.26 1.35

5.79 11.392.32 4.56

2.52 2.701.01 1.08

4.63 9.11

1 .85 3.64

0.24 0.26 0,281.58 0.23 0.42 0.83

2.89 3.09 3.301.16 1 .24 1.32

4.63

1.85

9.11

3.64

2.52 2.701.01 1.08

2.89 3.09 3.301.16 1.24 1.32

2.70

1.08-———--———-

4.63

1.85

9.11

3 .& l

2.89 3.09 3.301.16 1.24 1.32

4.63

1.85

9.11

3.64

3.09 - 3.30 4.63

1.85

9.11

3.64- - - - - - — - - - - — - 1.32

2.49 3.49

73.37

—

73.37

6.87

144.36

—

144.36

27.19 33.12 39.48 46.59 52.28

1.58 — — — —

28.77 33.12 39.48 46.59 52.28

that institution; currently it is 60 to 70 percent of salaries and wages for most institutions.



research program on the interrelationships of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation, includ-ing the full use of cell- and tissue-culture tech-niques.

Establishing new scientists in these areas of high-priority research will require an averageannual funding of at least $110,000 per scien-tist in FY 1979, Young scientists can be fundedadequately at $85,000 to $110,000 per year.Scientists shifting their research efforts fromother fields probably have some level of basicsupport, but they will frequently need sub-stantial sums to remodel and equip laborato-ries as well as meet increased annual operat-ing funds. The ad hoc Work Group of ARPACrecommended an increase over the next 3 to 4years of 31 scientist years for photosynthesis,30 for nitrogen fixation, and 24 for cell studies.The BARR report recommended substantiallylarger increases in terms of total funding, butdid not specify the number of additional scien-tists,

The panel suggests that an expansion inscientific capability be phased over a 6-yearperiod beginning with an increase of 25 scien-tist years in FY 1979 at a cost of $110,000 in-direct costs and $44,000 for overhead (1978dollars) per scientist, or a total of $3.85 million

above the funds for the increased support toestablished scientists.

Further increases in support would be for20 additional scientists in each of the subse-quent fiscal years of 1-980, 1981, 1982, 1983,and 1984, It is proposed that a 5-percent in-crease in operating funds (above the 7-percentinflationary rate) be provided for 1985 andsubsequent fiscal years.

Sequential levels of funding are outlined intable 2. As stated earlier, the first priority for

increased funding is to provide qualifiedscientists currently working in the three areaswith realistic levels of support by means of competitive research grants. Funds will be re-quired for establishing and operating the com-petitive grant program office, including fundsto support peer-review panels, special sym-

posia, and other program needs. At least twospecial containment facilities should be con-structed for recombinant DNA research withplant cell and related microorganism cultures.This would appear to be the bare minimumfor increased funding, It would provide exist-ing scientists with much needed support andwould accelerate their individual and collec-tive programs. This level of funding would notprovide the support required to bring newtalent and skills into the research arena and,thus, the tremendous need and opportunityfor establishing multidisciplinary teams of scientists would be largely lost.

Much would be gained by moving to a levelof funding that would permit the establish-

ment of four containment chambers and theaddition of at least 45 scientist years (throughitem 6 in table 2). The level of funding wouldprovide adequate support for the presentscientists and would attract a modest amountof new talent into these areas of research. Itwould provide the resources necessary for thedevelopment of all important new and ex-panded multidisciplinary teams for researchin these three high-priority areas to enhanceU.S. and world food production.

The benefits from modest improvements inphotosynthesis efficiency and/or in nitrogenfixation and utilization would be so great thatthe panel urges full funding of the entireprogram presented in table 2, Research workcould be expanded substantially and in an or-derly manner. Full funding would permit con-sidered judgments through FY 1984 as towhere new breakthroughs have or are likelyto occur, with additional resources to supportthe most promising research. Beyond FY 1984the projected levels of additional funding areextremely modest (only 5 percent increase peryear above a projected rate of inflation of 7

percent ) , bu t the pane l recognizes tha treallocation of resources should also occur asnew knowledge opens up new avenues of research in these three high-priority areas.Hence, funds beyond those proposed for 5percent annual growth would be available fornew or expanded research.

36



Finally, as stated near the beginning of thissection, the panel urges that a fixed percent-age of available funds not be assigned to eachof the three areas. Rather it urges that all threeareas receive increased attention by thequality of the proposals and the judgment of the program administrator, the advisoryboard, and the peer-review committees.

Most Promising Areas of Research inPhotosynthesis, Nitrogen Fixation, andCell Studies.

As pointed out in the panel’s report, max-imum flexibility should be maintained in the

selection and funding of proposals. The mostpromising research proposals as judged bypeers are the ones that should be funded eventhough some may fall outside of the areaslisted below:

Photosynthesis:

1.

2.

Role of photorespiration in C3 plants, withthe aim of reducing the large losses of CO2

shortly after carbon fixation occurs. Someplants (such as soybeans) lose, throughphotorespiration, up to 50 percent of the

carbon dioxide fixed by photosynthesis.At the present time, this enormous lossthrough photorespiration serves no knownuseful purpose, It is important to discoverif it indeed does serve a useful functionand, if not, how it can be reduced, In-creased research on photorespirationshould yield extremely useful informationabout photosynthetic efficiency.

Understanding the factors governing leaf and whole-plant senescence. Currently,leaf senescence and, in some cases, whole-plant senescence, occurs in many foodplants before they reach maturity. Many of the leaves are dead or dying at the timewhen seed (grain) development is occur-ring, and the demand for photosynthate ishigh. Developing cultivars that would re-tain active photosynthetic activity for a

3.

greater portion of the growing seasonwould increase the yield potential of manyfood plants by 20 percent or more,

Research on translocation and partitioningof photosynthate.What are the factors thatdetermine the amount of photosynthatetranslocated to usable portions of theplants, such as the seeds (grain) or to otherimportant sites, such as the nodules of legumes, as a source of energy for thenitrogen fixing Rhizobium? Differencesexist among cultivars in the ratio of weightof usable portions of the plant to weight of nonusable portions, but the basic proc-esses causing these differences are notunderstood, and thus selection of plants

with higher yield of usable parts continuesto be by trial and error.

Nitrogen Fixation

1. Three relatively recent and important ob-servations in biological nitrogen fixationme r i t su b s ta n t i a l in c re a se s in r e se a rc hfunding.a ) T h e r e a r e r e p o r t s f r o m s e v e r a l

l a b o r a t o r i e s t h a t s o m e s t r a i n s o f Rhizobium are capable of nitrogen fix-ation in the freeliving form ( Bergerson

in Au s t ra l i a , Ke i s t e r in th e Un i te dStates, Child in Saskatoon, Scowcroftin Ne w Z e a la n d ) . T h i s o b se rv a t io np e r m i t s t h e s e l e c t i o n o f e f f i c i e n tnitrogen-fixers without having to in-fect plants. I t a l so p e rmi t s g e n e t i cengineering experiments in which thecomplement of nitrogen fixation genesis increased, It allows mapping of theRhizobium chromosome, with speciale m p h a s i s o n t h e s t r u c t u r a l a n dregulatory genes for nitrogen fixation.

b) Valentine of California and Bril l of Wisconsin have observed that certaind o u b l e m u t a n t s o f K l e b s i e l l a a n dAzotobacter are capableammonia. These resultspossibility of ammoniathrough fermentation.

of excretingsuggest theproduct ion

37



2.

3.

c) The very recent observation of Evansof Oregon that hydrogen evolution is amajor factor affecting the efficiency of nitrogen fixation in nodulated sym-

bionts. This observation suggests thatlegumes should be screened forH2evolution capability.

Loss of fert i l izer nitrogen due todenitr if ication is a major problem,especially in Southeast Asia. More effortneeds to be devoted to studying thedenitrification process—the organisms in-volved, the nature of the enzyme catalysisprocess, and chemical inhibitors of thedenitrification process.

Crop legumes should be screened forvarieties that can utilize fertilizer nitrogenwithout, at the same time, impairingnitrogen fixing ability. Some available in-formation suggests that strains of legumeshave variability in sensitivity to nitrogenfixation in the presence of nitrogen fer-tilizer (especially ammonia).

Cell Studies and Genetic Engineering of Plants

1. Determine how to regenerate whole plantsfrom the cells of major food plants. Theuse of cell cultures as a means of improv-ing food plants is of limited value until weknow how to regenerate from cells suchimportant crops as rice, corn, wheat, soy-beans, etc. Research with carrots andtobacco indicate that such regeneration of whole plants is possible, but intensiveresearch with other plants, especiallythose in the grass family—cereals andcorn—is required to develop the requiredtechniques.

2. Learn how to use cell cultures effectivelyin selecting improved sources of germplasm in important food crops, The use of cell cultures offers a way of hastening thedevelopment of improved cultivars byplant breeders, but current knowledge is

insufficient to permit effective use of thispotentially invaluable technique.

3. Increase the gene dosage for nitrogen fixa-

tion in Rhizobium. The techniques areavailable for transferring or bringingabout recombinations of DNA inmicroorganisms and other cellularmaterial. The likelihood, of being able todevelop a highly efficient nitrogen fixingstrain of Rhizobium is extremely high if specialized facilities for recombinantDNA research are constructed at selectedsites.

Team Research in All Three High-PriorityAreas

This material has stressed the interrelation-ships of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixationand how cell studies can contribute to the im-provement of the efficiency of photosynthesisin food plants and/or to the development of

more effective strains of nitrogen-fixingorganisms,

The panel urges that special considerationbe given to funding teams of scientists whocan demonstrate, through the quality of theirproposa ls and peer assessment of pas tperformance, the ability and desire to under-take fully integrated research programs for theimprovement of the efficiency of photo-synthesis and biological fixation of nitrogen inimportant food crops. It would appear that cellcultures and genetic engineering of plants

would be an important component of such aresearch effort in addition to the other con-tributions of biochemists, plant physiologists,microbiologists, and other plant scientists,

OTA Advisory PanelW.K. Kennedy, Chairman