NIFA: future of agricultural research
Oct 29, 2009 10:37 AM, By David Bennett, Farm Press Editorial Staff
Funding research
University researchers often have difficulty obtaining funding for agriculture science. Does Coston see that being alleviated with NIFA or will it remain a problem?
“It’ll continue to be an issue. But on Oct. 1 we received notification of what the conference committee on ag appropriations is doing for fiscal 2010. They did make some significant enhancements related to agricultural research, Extension and so on. Both chambers of Congress have passed the bill and it currently awaits the President’s signature.”
Coston says Rajiv Shah, new undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics, will be a friend to agricultural scientists. Shah’s position also carries the title of “chief scientist” for USDA.
“He’s charged with coordinating research activities throughout all of USDA. Not necessarily administering everything, but coordinating. So, he’ll be considering the Forest Service and other entities doing research.
“They’re trying to pull down the proverbial stovepipes. When Shah was being confirmed, he’d bought into one of the concepts we pushed: to double the nation’s investment in agricultural science and education over the five years of the farm bill.”
There are two types of funding. Capacity funding — formerly known as ‘formula funding’ — goes directly to the land grant institutions to support both Extension and experiment station efforts.
“Needless to say, we believe that this funding is very important. There are modest increases in all those budget lines for 2010. These are sorely needed to sustain the long-term work of our faculty and staff working toward new discoveries and to insure a ready cadre of people to respond quickly to new opportunities or a crisis.”
The really big growth, though, is in the “major competitive program” — or the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative — to be managed by NIFA. The initiative has been provided a $61 million increase for a total a bit over $262 million.
“In recent years, when people from institutions across the country submitted proposals, about 13 to 15 percent were actually funded. Those on the review panels say at least double that percentage is high-quality and should be supported.
“Part of what we’re trying to do is grow both the capacity funding — which allows faculty and staff to be in place — and also grow the competitive funding so a higher proportion of projects can be supported. That’s why we’re cautiously optimistic.”
