Duration: 10/01/2006 to 09/30/2011

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Continued improvement in social welfare of Americans, international competitiveness of American agriculture, and resolution of production and environmental problems facing American farmers depend on public and private investments in R&D. Public sector research and development have, in the past, contributed substantially to advances in farm productivity and efficiency in marketing agricultural products. Research and development have also generated technologies and provided information that have enhanced environmental quality, improved food product quality and safety, reduced adjustment costs in rural areas, helped maintain the economic viability of rural communities, and upgraded the performance of public policies at state, regional, national, and international levels as they relate to the agricultural sector. A continuing flow of research results is needed to maintain and enhance productivity, efficiency, environmental, and other gains.

Significant changes in sources of R&D funding, opportunities in science, intellectual property rights, and new technologies have been occurring during the first decade of the 21 Century. Some of these changes are having large social impacts and others have encountered resistance by consumers. Advances in knowledge from R&D, new technologies, and new social-economic issues associated with the organization of R&D and impacts of new technologies are expected to continue well into the 21st Century. Careful examination and analyses of these issues can produce a national public good yielding valuable information and facilitating better public and private R&D polices in the future. In order to most effectively plan and implement an agenda for public research in agricultural and related areas, substantive information and analyses are needed on (1) expected net benefits and costs of alternative research programs, both basic and applied, (2) distribution of the costs and benefits (including environmental and other selected externalities) among producers, consumers, and (agri-) business/industry, (3) key inter-relationships between investments in research and other public sector programs affecting agriculture, (4) alternative mechanisms for planning, managing, and evaluating agricultural research portfolios, (5) new linkages and relationships between public and private R&D, and (6) evaluation of alternative institutional configurations for funding and conducting research.

Public agricultural research has been supported historically by strong programmatic funding. The federal government provides all of the support for its own research agencies, the Agricultural Research Service and the Economic Research Service. The federal and state governments have provided programmatic funding of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Veterinary Colleges/Schools. The federal support has come from the Hatch Act and other formula and competitively funded research programs and the state support has come from state governments. However, the state agricultural research institutions were established with the possibility of obtaining other types of funding and these types have been growing in importance. Over an extended time period, the consensus has been that public agricultural research in the United States is best organized as a partnership; the federal part controlled centrally by the USDA and the state part under local control of the SAESs and state veterinary medicine colleges (Kerr 1987). More generally, there has been an on-going debate about the appropriate composition of SAES funding, including the relative size of USDA federal formula and competitive grant programs. The impacts of public research on agricultural productivity and the associated high rate of return on investment occurred before the USDA had a significant competitive grants program (Evenson 2001; Huffman and Evenson 2005). The initiation by the USDA of a competitive grants program in 1977 was due to concerns about the volume of research in high priority areas and in basic science to support agriculture over the long run. The funding, however, was largely targeted to new areas and had modest impacts on other SAES research programs. More recently the discussion has been of expanding competitive grant funding, while at the same time formula funding is shrinking. This type of policy has major implications for the future potential of the Land Grant Universities to maintain scientific staffing and research infrastructure needed for future agricultural research, especially that which is geo-climate or economic area specific and must be conducted locally and cannot be borrowed from other states or regions of the country. The research agenda for federally funded competitive grants is set in Washington, and some states are better positioned to successfully compete for competitive grants in agriculture. The large state universities generally have the advantage and many of the small Land-Grant Universities are not as competitive. Also, federal competitive grant programs do not account for the time and cost of proposal writing or preliminary results, and when funding is obtained, it is for less that the total cost of a project. Hence, the debate about the future direction of federal funding of agricultural research continues.

The state agricultural experiments stations are facing other funding issues. SAES funding from 2000 to 2003 has grew very slowly, continuing a trend from the 1990s. Also, state and CSRS/CSREES funding declined. The decline of real state government funding for the SAES system started during the 1990s averaging 0.6 percent per year, but accelerated to a 3.7 percent decline from 2000 to 2003. State government funding of SAES research, which had comprised more than 50 percent of the total during the 20th Century, dropped to 44 percent in 2003. This decline in state support for the SAES system suggests that the nature and magnitude of perceived benefits to state governments and their clientele from programmatic funding of agricultural research has changed. If state agricultural experiment stations were to lose their Federal formula funds, they would most likely lose additional state matching funding. Hence, the SAES system is at risk of losing both federal and state programmatic funding.
Regular federal government appropriations for agricultural research declined over the 1980-2000 period, but then rose by about $50 million from 2000 to 2003. The funding under the Hatch Act and other formula funded programs, however, continued the decline that started in the 1980s. Over 2000-2003, a significant increase in CSREES special grants and other CSREES- administered programs occurred. The latter increase was due largely to the IFAFS competitive grant program which has been discontinued. The largest increase was in "other federal government research funding" of about $100 million in contracts and grants with non-USDA federal agencies, which suggests competitiveness of SAES scientists, but also a further potential change in the direction of agricultural research.

The gene revolution is well underway in U.S. agriculture. The first generation GM-products have been input traits--herbicide tolerance and insect resistance--that have been introduced into soybeans, cotton, corn, and canola by modern biotech methods. These traits were introduced in the U.S. starting in the mid-1990s and currently about ninety percent of U.S. soybean acreage is planted to RR soybean varieties and about 45 percent of U.S. corn and cotton acreage is planted to Bt or RR varieties. Although there is not a single documented case of a person being harmed by a new attribute, there is some consumer resistance to GM food products. The image of the public agricultural research system would receive a boost if it could develop a new biotech trait in crops or livestock that has large direct value to consumers. Although we see a number of scientifically proven examples where biotech has been used to enhance traits that might have value to consumers, e.g., Golden rice (Dawe et al. 2002), none has been commercialized or commercially successful yet.

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 altered the incentives for IPR protection and distribution of income from discoveries financed completely or partially by the federal government. The Land Grants and other universities have been impacted by this new possibility because it gave the income generating rights of the discovery to the non-federal partner (e.g., a university or research institute). The Bayh-Dole Act was a major force behind the rapid growth of university technology transfer offices and associated increases in university patenting, licensing, and start-up companies, and increase in licensing income of public universities during the late 1990s. However, university patenting slowed dramatically over 2000-2003 (Massing 2004). The future of patenting for profit by Land rant Universities remains clouded. Although the Bayh-Dole Act has provided the opportunity for public universities to undertake discoveries with the objective of profiting from licensing, selling discoveries or from supporting start-up companies, this is not the tradition of the land grant system. Traditionally, administrators of public, e.g., Land-Grant universities have argued successfully that they were undertaking public-good discoveries, and that universities research budgets should be financed from public tax collections. Much, however, remains unknown about the long-term effects of R&D for profit in public universities, e.g., implications for the public/private-good composition of discoveries, the incentives faced by university scientists, the social rate of return to public research, and the reaction of taxpayers.
Public universities have also had support from private firms and individuals in the form of contracts, gifts and endowments. The LGUs have had a long history of undertaking research using this type of private funding and much of it has been carried out responsibly at a public institution. In some cases, industry support is in the form of payment for service. In some other cases, the research has public value, e.g., bridges the gap between scientific development and invention potential. In other cases, private support may be in conflict with pubic interest and responsible behavior, for example, when private funding provides exclusive rights to discoveries or inventions. The recent University of California-Berkeley and Novartis Agricultural Research Institute agreement gave Novartis the first negotiating rights to license inventions emerging from the research supported by their funds and inventions from all publicly funded research during a 5-year contract period. The Novartis-Berkeley program was recently evaluated by an external committee (Busch et al. 2004), which raised a number of concerns, including that this form of public-private contract is inconsistent with the public role and responsibilities of a Land Grant university. New public-private institutional arrangements have the potential to raise new and important researchable issues.

Related, Current and Previous Work

NC1003 has been operating under the following three objectives during the most recent project period. Objective 1. To estimate the expected and actual flow of benefits and costs of research for agriculture, and related areas, including the incidence of their distribution. Objective 2. To analyze decision strategies for funding, planning, managing, and evaluating agricultural research by public institutions and private organizations. Objective 3. To analyze opportunities, risks, and net benefits from existing and potential public-private sector linkages, including new institutions (joint ventures, partnering, consortia, specialty research centers, start-up companies, intellectual property), technology transfer mechanisms (licensing, exchange arrangements, direct purchase, borrowing), and freedom to operate.

NC1003 has shown outstanding productivity toward meeting these objectives. Two books resulted from the direct cooperative efforts of the project members, one containing 13 chapters on agricultural productivity measurement and growth (Ball and Norton, eds., 2002) and a second containing 32 chapters on the economics of the regulation of agricultural biotechnologies (Just, Alston, and Zilberman, eds, 2005). This latter book is also accompanied by a Farm Foundation Issue Report. One additional book on the value of economics research (Pardey and Smith 2004) had significant project-member contributions. Huffman and Evenson's second edition of Science for Agriculture has just been released. Three other books on agricultural science and technology policy have been edited by at least one project member. In addition, the project has produced 94 journal articles and 58 book chapters. In the social science, especially economics and rural sociology, the number of co-authors is small relative to biological sciences, and few of our articlers have as many as three co-authors. However, among the co-authors are scholars in history, forestry, entomology, plant sciences, climatology and anthropology.

Through strong symposia programs, the project has facilitated members seeing and learning about new research institutions and technologies, obtaining new perspectives on research problems and science policies, and engaging stakeholder participation. Two of our annual symposia emphasized stakeholder involvement. The first of these was held in Washington, D.C., in 2002 and entitled: "Future Public Research Opportunities and Directions" and it drew administrators and planners of agricultural science policy from the USDA, SAES system, and International Centers. In our 2005 symposium in Arlington, VA, we attempted to draw individuals who are involved directly in the various aspects of federal regulation of technologies. This program was entitled: "The Economics of the Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnologies." Our 2003 symposium focused on the intellectual property rights (IPRs) and how recent developments have affected the incentives for invention by private firms and the public sector. This symposium was held in New Brunswick, NJ, and entitled: "Intellectual Property and Agricultural Research: Implications for Public and Private Sectors." Our 2004 symposium was held in St. Louis and focused on the performance of research in new institutions and private agricultural biotechnology inventions. This meeting was held at the new Danforth Plant Science Center and it included a tour of Monsanto's Plant Research Facility. The title of this symposium was "Research Impacts and Decision Strategies for Biotechnology."

In addition, two members of the project were members of the NRC Committee on Opportunities in Agriculture and several other project members served on subcommittees. The committee undertook a major review of federally funded agricultural research and published a report (National Reseach Committee 2003). Also, Wallace Huffman, Chair NC1003,was part of a four-person ad hoc ESCOP Task Force that undertook a Counter-Factual Study (focused on likely impact of an increase in Federal Formula Funded research). The Executive Directors of the four SAES regions have distributed more than 7,000 copies of a bulletin from this project entitled, "Formuala for Success." Since September, 2004, Huffman has been a member of a ESCOP/ECOP Taskforce on Formula Funding. This latter taskforce consists of 10+ individuals who are working on practical national agricultural science policy issues associated with maintaining Hatch Act funding as traditionally known. In the summer of 2005, Jim (A.A.)Araji (ID)conducted a seminar for U.S. Senators and their economic staff on the local and state economic impacts of Hatch formula funded agricultural research.

Although much has been accomplished in NC1003, considerable work remains to be done. Hence, we propose to continue under the renewal a set of objectives that are very similar to those of the most recent project period. The details, however, are modified in light of the past accomplishments and remaining work to be done.

Objectives

1. To estimate the expected and actual flow of benefits and costs of research for agriculture, and related areas, including the incidence of their distribution.
   
2. To analyze decision strategies for funding, planning, managing, and evaluating agricultural research by public institutions and private organizations.
   
3. To analyze opportunities, risks, and net benefits from existing and potential future public-private sector linkages, including new institutions (joint ventures, partnering, consortia, speciality research centers, start-up companies, intellectual property), technology transfer
   

Methods

To achieve the above three objectives, the following methods will be employed, including coordination to avoid needless duplication. Sub-projects involve parallel but complementary projects undertaken by individual AESs. Over time, however, an increasing number of sub-projects have been undertaken collaboratively by scientists at two or more participating institutions. We expect this trend toward increasing collaboration to continue throughout the tenure of the project. Roles and responsibilities by AES are noted below. Under Objective 1, the project will undertake parametric and non-parametric analyses of the impacts of public and private research and the technologies that it generates on: (a) technology adoption by farmers, (b) consumer acceptance of new food products and food safety, (c) agricultural and resource productivity, (d) the performance of the U.S. commodity and storage programs, (e) new energy sources, new pesticides, climate change, environmental quality, and bioterrorism, (f) international technology transfer, and (g) the economic welfare of producer, consumer, and agribusiness groups. Emphasis will be given to examining the impacts of new agricultural biotech products and information technologies. Methods to achieve objective 1: 1(a) Technology Adoption by Farmers--Most new agricultural technologies have been single trait, but with biotechnology and information technologies new technologies can have multiple traits. These new dimensions will be incorporated in new econometric models of technology adoption using actual data and simulation methods. Also, the economic forces that underlie the development of particular new technologies will be investigated with a re-examination of the induced innovation hypothesis of Hayami and Ruttan. Micro-level studies of adoption of technologies will be conducted in a number of areas including: § adoption of crop biotechnologies in the United States (AZ, CA, AL ,ERS) § adoption of biotechnology in dairies (WI, NY) § adoption of biotechnologies and other agricultural technologies in developing countries (CA, IA, NJ, ERS, MI, IN) 1(b) Consumers Acceptance of New Food Products and Food Safety--New labeling policies and use of GM-materials in food preparation has raised new consumer issues. Research will be also undertaken on the new food labeling requirement for transfats as they related to human health. Research will be undertaken on the role of labels and diverse information on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for foods and drink made from new low-trans fat oils and other GM products. The value to consumers of country of origin and other types of traceability information will be assessed. will coordinate efforts and share results. Studies will include the following topics: § labeling and segregation requirements for genetically modified products (IA, IL) § consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods (IA, IL, MI) 1(c) Agricultural and Resource Productivity--Social costs and benefits from public and private agricultural research will be estimated at the global, national, regional, state, and sector level using newly constructed R&D data sets and newly constructed measures of agricultural outputs and inputs. Geographic and technology spillovers will be investigated. Models will apply single equation, e.g., total factor productivity analysis, and multiple equation models, e.g., systems of output supply and input demand functions, and other frameworks using advanced econometric and sector simulation techniques. Where appropriate rates-of-return on investments, net present values, benefit-cost ratios, and other selective indicators will be derived. § international estimation and comparisons of rate and direction of technological change including spillovers ( CA-Davis, NE, ERS, MN) § international estimation and comparisons of rate and direction of technological change including spillovers (CA-Davis, ERS, IA, FL, WA) 1(d) The Performance of the U.S. Commodity and Storage Programs--Implications of rapid technical change in U.S. crop and livestock production on the effectiveness, competitiveness, and cost of U.S. grain and dairy programs will be examined. The effects of the new dairy compact price policy on entry, exits, and farm expansion choices will be investigated. The economics of commodity storage policies under the post-1996 farm bill will be re-examined, including the impact of new GM drought technologies as a substitute for traditional storage programs. Specific projects include: § Interactions of new technologies with dairy programs and structure (CA, WI, NY) § Interactions between crop biotechnology and commodity programs (IA, AZ) Representatives from California-Berkeley and Davis, Washington, and Wisconsin will coordinate efforts and share results. 1(e) New Energy Sources, New Pesticides, Climate Change, Environmental Quality, and Bioterrorism--Agriculture is a potential source of future petroleum substitutes through bio-fuels, e.g., ethanol, bio-oils, and biomass from plants like switch grass, and wind energy. Impacts of these new alternatives on farmers, the U.S. economy, and the environment, especially green house gases, will be identified and measured. New insect resistant crop varieties lead to dramatically reduced applications of convention insecticides, and new estimates of the impact on environmental quality will be obtained. Sub-projects include analysis of: § impacts of new biotechnologies and IPM methods on pesticide use (AZ, NJ, VT) § role of new technology for carbon sequestration and biofuels development (TX, ID) § regulation of biotechnology and pesticides (MD, CA-Berkeley, CA-Davis) 1(f) International Technology Transfer--The speed at which technologies developed in one country are diffused to other countries has increased. Important transfers occur from the U.S. and other developed countries to developing countries, and some technologies move among developing countries, especially with the assistance of the international centers. New research will examine the international transfers of crop biotechnology, e.g., in cotton, soybeans, corn, canola, and vegetables. Research will also be undertaken on biosafety and intellectual property issues in developing countries. Key countries in this analysis are China, India, Mexico, Thailand, and Sub Saharan Africa. Focus areas include: § ex ante impacts of biotechnology transfer in rice (VA, AZ) § ex ante impacts of biotechnology transfer in corn (ERS, NJ) § ex ante impacts of biotechnology transfer in cotton (ERS, NJ, AL, AZ, CA-Berkeley) § agricultural sector and economy wide impacts of transfer and institutional barriers to technology transfer (MI, IA, NJ, IN, AL) 1(g) The Economic Welfare of Producer, Consumer, Innovators, and Agri-business Groups--The magnitude of social benefits and costs and their distribution resulting from new successful technologies, especially biotechnology, will be examined. Also the differential impact across producers will also be examined, especially as new technologies affect competitiveness. Methods applied here will use latest procedures developed for social cost benefit analysis (Just, Hueth and Schmitz 2004). Projects include: § returns to public information provision and economics research (ERS, VA) § methods to assess regional development research on value added agriculture (CO) § returns to wheat breeding (KS) § value of genetic information in cattle breeding and production (FL,ND) § returns to improving nutritional content of food (FL, IL) § comparisons of partial vs. general equilibrium impacts of research (VA, AZ) Under Objective 2, the project will undertake development, analysis, and examination of decisions strategies: (a) for optimal incentives for scientists in research institutions (b) to provide new funding mechanisms for agricultural research (c) to aid and improve research priority setting Methods to meet objective 2 are: 2(a) Optimal Incentives for Scientists in Research Institutions--R&D is an unusual activity where difficulty to measure output, uncertainty of output, and inability to monitor inputs (scientists' effort). Building upon the principal-agent models for single task (discovery), new modeling will consider optimal incentive setting for agents engaged in multi-tasks (e.g., research, instruction, and outreach). Universities are experimenting with incentive based budgeting and economic analysis of likely outcomes will be modeled. Research will continue on the issue of appropriate balance between external programmatic (Hatch and state government funding) versus competitive grant funding of agricultural research in state agricultural experiment stations. Issues include: § principal-agent models or research incentives (MD, IA) § empirical analysis of agricultural scientists and incentive structures (PA, UC-Berkeley) § productivity effects of IPR regimes (ERS, MI, NJ, UC-Berkeley) 2(b) New Funding Mechanisms for Agricultural Research--Given that administrators and scientists are searching for new resources for research, an examination of the potential advantages and disadvantages of new sources will be undertaken. This includes the social welfare implications of university patenting and licensing policy, start-up companies, new public-private partnerships. Theses new activities are outside the usual contributions of university discovery to the intellectual commons. Moreover, an examination of causes and consequences of alternative agricultural R&D policies will be considered. Parallel projects will focus on analysis of two main data sources: § CRIS data analysis (ERS, AZ) § Agricultural scientist surveys (WI, WA, PA, UC-Berkeley) 2(c) Aid and Improve Priority Setting--Formalizing public research planning in sound principals of priority setting may increase the social benefits from public funds allocated to research, especially in low income countries. Principles of priority setting will be advanced, information management systems developed to support the system, and a document to assistant experiment stations and other institutions set priorities will be written. Application of economic methods will be developed for developing countries (MI, MN, UC-Davis) and decision support tools will be developed and applied to evaluate economic impacts of alternative research projects (ID). Under Objective 3, the project will examine analytically and empirically the potential costs and benefits (advantages and disadvantages) of alternative institutional, transfer, and operating arrangements: (a) for land-grant universities and USDA agencies (b) for the CGIAR system and the national agricultural research systems of the LDCs (c) for private sector companies. Methods to meet objective 3 are: 3(a) Land-Grant Universities and the USDA--The SAES and USDA research agencies were endowed with public federal and state funds to undertake research for the public interest. New funding mechanism challenge the traditional rationale for public sector financing of agricultural research, may crowd-out or complement traditional funding sources, and hence may result in more or less real resources for agricultural research in the long run. The research will produce new results and shed new light on these important land-grant research policy issues through new conceptual models and empirical analyses. Specific problem areas include: § new arrangements and structures for extension and research (CO, PA) § formula, competitive and other funding mechanisms (WI, AZ, IA) § impacts of alternative funding on productivity (IA, MD) 3(b) The CGIAR System and National Agricultural Research Systems of the LDCs--The private sector development of agricultural biotechnology with a profit motive continues to be in conflict with the philosophy of the CGIAR system, which emphasizes farmers use over strong IPRs and licensing income. Research will continue on the optimal strategy for the CGIAR system in the new IPR environment, which greatly impacts the options available to the plant breeding program of the low and middle income NARS. Ongoing research will continue on analysis of: § research Prizes (IN, CA-Berkeley, NJ) § Performance of CGIAR system including genebanks (AL, MN, CA-Davis, ERS, CA-Berkeley) § intellectual property rights in developing countries ( NJ, MN, CA-Berkeley) 3(c) Private Sector Companies--Changes in public research have impacts on private R&D just as changes in private R&D have impacts on public research. Both static and dynamic models of these relationships will be developed and tested, including the application of game theory. New research will quantify the impacts of public research on aggregate private R&D, and examine the potential complementary/ substitute relationships between these major sources of R&D. New research policy recommendations will be developed. Specific projects include analysis of: § industry technology pricing strategies (NE, MI, AL, WI, CA-Berkeley, IA) § patenting of biotechnologies (ERS, NJ, MI, IA) § university-industry research relationships (PA)

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• The project will produce new R&D data sets,
• new models of R&D impacts and assessment, and decision strategies,
• and new information for agricultural science policy.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Project outputs will be used to increase knowledge and awareness of economic impacts of agricultural research and new technologies. New data will be collected and analyzed to inform public decisions at the institutional and national level for organizing, managing and funding public agricultural research.
• The project will provide analysts and program planners with improved methods to evaluate impacts of technological change and to conduct economic evaluations of alternative research policy options. Research administrators will be provided with improved methods to analyze data and information and to make recommendations to decision-makers.
• Federal Scientific Advisory Panels (SAP) such as EPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) SAP will continue to rely on publications and new assessment methods developed by project participants in risk and benefit assessments of agricultural biotechnologies.
• Project participants will continue active involvement in projects and publications of The Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources (BANR). BANR is the major program unit of the National Research Council (NRC) responsible for organizing and overseeing studies on issues of agricultural production and related matters of natural resource development, including forestry, fisheries, wildlife, and land and water use. The goal of the NRC, organized by the National Academy of Sciences, is to further knowledge and advise the federal government on critical issues in science and technology. Project participants will continue to be directly involved in publications and to be sources of key cited references.
• Knowledge and awareness of critical issues related to the three project objectives among members and staff of Congress and staff of federal and state agencies will be enhanced through testimony, briefings, and workshops, and further evidenced by citations of project-related work in congressional, federal agency, or state reports and decision documents.
• Organizations furthering international agricultural research and technology transfer such as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, the World Bank, USDA, and the U.S. Agency for International Development will use research findings and research evaluation methods developed by project participants.
• Outputs will be used to enhance knowledge and awareness among state agricultural experment station directors, CSREES, and groups such as ESCOP and ECOP that influence the allocation of research and extension dollars of the impacts of changes in research and extension funding levels and funding mechanisms.

Milestones

(2007): A symposium with a half-day devoted to disseminating project information to agricultural science policy makers.

(2010): A symposium to report and discuss major discoveries followed by the publication and distribution of a book.

(2011): A symposium to disseminate information to science policy makers.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The nature of the research undertaken on this project places a premium on communicating and disseminating research results to experiment station directors, national level research administrators, and national policy makers and research directors responsible for justifying and allocating research resources. Consequently, a symposium will be organized annually to present, discuss, and disseminate research results and three special symposia will be organized (see Milestones). All symposia will be open to research directors, administrators, and policy makers. In addition, information bulletins in non-technical language as well as two-page summaries of research results will be prepared and disseminated. Project annual reports, symposia programs, and related materials will be posted at the NC-1003 website and summaries of research results made available to a broad audience.

Past symposia have made a point of inviting speakers and participants from experiment stations, federal agencies and private industry. This practice will continue throughout the projects tenure. Research findings have been and will continue to be published in a variety of outreach publications includeing Iowa Ag Review, UC-Davis Agricultural Issues Center Briefs, Michigan State University International Policy Briefs, the Arizona Review, and publications of the University of Wisconsin Program on Agricultural Technology Studies. Reports and issues papers will also be supplied to national organizations such as the Farm Foundation and C-FARE.

Organization/Governance

The project will be organized as a Multistate Research Project consistent with the specifications for membership and organization given in the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities. The project technical committee shall consist of one vote from each cooperating agency as appointed or otherwise designated by each respective organization, an administrative advisor appointed by the Association of North Central Experiment Station Directors and a representative of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The executive committee for NC-1003 shall consist of a chairman and secretary, elected by the technical committee. Members of the executive committee will be elected annually and may succeed themselves. This committee will have the major responsibility for coordinating research efforts contributing to the Multistate Research Project.

The chairman of the project technical committee will prepare the annual report, summarized from material supplies to him by the project committee member from each participating agency. The chairman will send two copies of the final draft of the annual report with original signature of recommendation and an approval block for signature to the Administrative Advisor. The Administrative Advisor will make the appropriate distribution.

Meetings will be held at least once a year at time and place mutually agreed upon by the technical committee with the approval of the administrative advisor. The secretary will have responsibility to record the minutes of the annual meeting. The secretary will be responsible for distribution of approved minutes to members of the technical committee. The Administrative Advisor will send approved copies to CSREES and Directors of participating SAES and other agencies. A research symposium, drawing on the work of individuals inside and outside the project, will normally be held in conjunction with the annual meeting.

Literature Cited

Ball, V.E. and G. W. Norton. Agricultural Productivity: Measurement and Sources of Growth. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

Busch, L., R. Allison, A. Rudy, B.T. Shaw, T. Ten Eyck, D. Coppin, J. Konefal, and C. Oliver. External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement between Novartis Agricultural Development Institute and the Regents of the University of California. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University, 2004.

CSREES. "FY 2006 Implementation Plan for the State Agricultural Experiment Station Competitive Grants Program," USDA-CSREES, July 5, 2005. Available at:
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/news/csrees_news/05news/saes_plan.pdf

Dawe, D., R. Robertson, and L. Unnevehr. "Golden Rice: What Role Could it Play in Alleviation of Vitamine A Deficiency?" Food Policy, Vol. 27, Isses5-6, Oct.-Dec. 2003, p. 541-560.

Evenson, R.E. "Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension," in B.L. Gardner and G. Rausser, Eds., Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Vol 1A.
New York, NY: North-Holland, 2001, pp. 574-628.

Farm Foundation. "Economics of Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnologies." Issue Report 5, August 2005. Available at: http://www.farmfoundation.org/Issue%20Reports/documents/August2005ISSUEREPORTFINAL.pdf

"Formula for Success: The Value of Fedearl Formula Funds to the U.S. Agricultural and Food System," Counter Factual Working Group, 2004.

Huffman, W.E. and R.E. Evenson. Science for Agriculture. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Huffman, W.E. and R.E. Evenson. "Do Formula or Competitive Grant Funds have Greater Impacts on State Agricultural Productivity?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Forthcoming.(Iowa State University, Dept. Econ., Nov. 2005.)

Huffman, W.E. and R.E. Just. "An Empirical Analysis of Funding, Structure, and
Management of Agricultural Research in the United States." American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 76(1994): 744-759.

Huffman, W.E. and R.E. Just. "Setting Efficient Incentives for Agricultural Research: Lessons from Principal-Agent Theory." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2000):370-388.

Just, R.E., J. Alston, and D. Zilberman, eds., Economics of Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnologies. New York, NY: Springer Publishers, 2005 forthcoming.

R.E. Just, D.L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2004.

Massing, D.E. "AUTM Licensing Survey: Fiscal Year 2003." Chicago, IL: The Association of Technology Managers, Inc., 2004

National Research Council, Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment and Communities. Committee on Opportunities in Agriculture, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2003.

Pardey, P.G. and V.H. Smith. What's Economics Worth? Valuing Policy Research. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Kerr, N. A. The Legacy: A Centennial History of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations: 1887-1987, Columbia, MO: Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Missouri, 1987.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NJ, NY, PA, TX, VA, WA, WI, WY

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

USDA/ERS