Westendorf M L, Zimbelman R G, Pray C E
Department of Animal Science, Rutgers University, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.
J Anim Sci. 1995 Jun;73(6):1628-38. doi: 10.2527/1995.7361628x.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding of science and education at Land-Grant College institutions is in transition. The traditional "science pipeline" model linking basic science funding with the application of technology is in question as some policymakers dispute the premise that non-directed science results in benefits to society. Historically, research at USDA and Land-Grant institutions is much more directed than that funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), or Department of Energy (DOE). Nevertheless, there are calls for change at the USDA as well. An approach that both the Congress and the Executive branch are taking seeks to direct research dollars according to predetermined goals. This is being emphasized in part due to budget pressures and may force the system to struggle maintaining funding in constant dollars. Deficit cutters are first considering cutting "earmarked grants" for research and facilities at USDA and Land Grant Institutions. Savings in these categories may help to support modest increases in formula funding and competitive grants. Earmarked grants for research and facilities at the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) for Fiscal Year 1993 were approximately 26% of total appropriations and distributed to well over 100 specific line items. This level has increased from approximately 15% of CSRS appropriations in 1985. At the same time formula funding has remained static and competitive grants, although increasing, are below authorized levels. As state and federal budgets face pressure and as concerns from consumer and environmental groups are encountered, balancing the percentage of research dollars devoted to research intended to increase production efficiency and the percentage devoted to meeting concerns about food safety, pesticides, water quality, sustainability, animal welfare, and so on will be a challenge. Linking research priorities with producer and consumer needs will be essential in the 1990s. Food Animal Integrated Research 1995, or FAIR '95, was a good start to a process involving multiple stakeholders and relating research goals to societal benefits from animal agriculture. Maintenance of research relevance and fiscal accountability is essential to avoid becoming non-contributors.
美国农业部（USDA）对赠地学院机构的科学与教育资助正处于转型期。传统的将基础科学资助与技术应用相联系的“科学管道”模式受到质疑，因为一些政策制定者对非定向科学会给社会带来益处这一前提提出了争议。从历史上看，美国农业部和赠地机构的研究比由美国国家科学基金会（NSF）、国立卫生研究院（NIH）或能源部（DOE）资助的研究更具针对性。然而，美国农业部内部也有变革的呼声。国会和行政部门正在采取的一种方法是根据预定目标来引导研究资金。部分由于预算压力，这一点正得到强调，而且可能迫使该系统努力维持按不变美元计算的资金水平。削减赤字者首先考虑削减美国农业部和赠地机构用于研究和设施的“专款赠款”。这些类别的节余可能有助于支持公式拨款和竞争性赠款适度增加。1993财年合作州研究服务局（CSRS）用于研究和设施的专款赠款约占总拨款的26%，并分配到100多个具体项目。这一比例已从1985年CSRS拨款的约15%有所增加。与此同时，公式拨款一直保持不变，竞争性赠款尽管有所增加，但仍低于授权水平。随着州和联邦预算面临压力，以及遇到消费者和环境团体的担忧，平衡用于旨在提高生产效率的研究资金比例和用于应对食品安全、农药、水质、可持续性、动物福利等问题的研究资金比例将是一项挑战。在20世纪90年代，将研究重点与生产者和消费者需求联系起来至关重要。1995年的食用动物综合研究（FAIR '95）是涉及多个利益相关者并将研究目标与畜牧农业的社会效益联系起来的进程的一个良好开端。维持研究的相关性和财政问责制对于避免成为无贡献者至关重要。
