THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Attention: all college students considering a government research career, please avoid the agricultural sector. Some people, including Nature contributors, will try to convince you that agricultural research will rejuvenate, turn a corner, and reach new heights. Don’t buy into the hype. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the government’s new agricultural research department, is already declining after only two years. Compared to the private sector, NIFA is horribly inefficient, invested too heavily in genetically modified crops (GMCs), and under fairly questionable leadership.

Nature argues that NIFA shows signs of improvement. And NIFA does show signs of improvement. The government has increased agricultural research funding 67%. It created more socially oriented goal, such as promoting bioenergy, reducing climate change, and eliminating obesity. A new competitive grant programs will allocate funding more efficiently to these programs. The agricultural community is seizing the chance to tackle the larger issues. Sounds good right?” Of course it does. Closer inspection of the argument reveals several key problems though (A New Roe to Hoe).
As always, the government is horribly inefficient. Then the most recent stimulus package came out, $3 billion went to the National Science Foundation, $10 billion went to the National Institute of Health, and only $176 million went to NIFA, and that could only be used to improve already existing facilities. Obama’s eventual 67% funding increase still only equates to $262 million (still not much far as research goes). The government tries to supplement this funding by running through state universities, hoping to receive additional research money from the university itself. State universities tend to concentrate on regional issues though, and thus get sidetracked with isolated cases that span respectively small areas. While this kind of research improves these individual regions, it often lacks the ability to improve the nation as a whole (Grant).

The private sector is much more adept at conducting agricultural research. The private sector possesses the resources and the money. Large ag corporations’ research and development funding far exceeds the mere $262 million that NIFA currently receives. Better funding helps attract the top agricultural researchers. This is why the private sector owns most of the recent agricultural knowledge and developments via the title “intellectual property”. The government is trying to play catch up. Need proof? Look at the number of patents the private sector put out vs. the amount state funded universities put out. The top six agribusinesses alone pumped out 255 patents in the technology class alone (which includes plant protection, regulating compositions, planting, and GMCs). The top state university, University of California, only put out six patents. Another big advantage the private sector comes from the way it operates. The private sector concentrates almost exclusively on the staple crops essential to today’s markets. The research they provide goes toward the Midwest’s grain and corn industries, the Southeast’s cotton industry, and Florida and California’s citrus industries. The private sector’s superior funding and top researchers combine to produce revolutionary strides to increasing the world’s crop productivity (Grant).

The government’s concentration on GMCs is another reason for its ineffectiveness. The GMS is a new agricultural development and it has created a lot of excitement. They can be pest resistant, disease resistant, and/or herbicide resistant. They can withstand freezing conditions, drought conditions, and poor soil conditions. Plus, they possess extra nutritional benefits. What’s not to like? With its ability to survive harsh conditions and produce high yields, the government it’s found the solution to poor food distribution. It’s no wonder the governments sends so much money into further developing them (Whitman).

However, GMCs possess a dark side. They harm the environment and the body. Their resistance to pests disrupts the food chain. Insects, the base of the food chain, will face significantly reduced populations. The GMCs resistance also reduces pesticide effectiveness.. Now this may not seem like too big of a problem since the crops themselves are pest resistant, but pests eventually will overcome this resistance, and when they overcome it, our pesticides won’t be able to handle them, thus allowing them to ravage our crops. Add in the chance of unintended cross breeding. If GMC genes get transferred to non-target species, they may create super-weeds. As for human health effects, the possibilities can be frightening. Many times the genes used in GMCs come from other plants that possess desired attributes. The new gene may happen to trigger a potentially deadly allergic reaction. The big problem concerning GMCs is presented in the long list of possible side effects. The long-term health effects of GMCs can not be studied due to their newness. NIFA is investing money into GMCs, taking a gamble that they can be consumed safely. We may later discover that NIFA spent several years and millions of dollars on a project detrimental to our health (Whitman).

President Obama appointed Robert Beachy as head of NIFA in 2008; not the wisest choice. Robert Beachy is one of the great experts in the field of plant biotechnology. His work with Monsanto Company did lead to the word’s first GMC. But his overconfidence in GMCs’ importance makes him too biased to navigate the complex bureaucratic world. Beachy is convinced that GMCs are the future and will pour disproportionate funding their way. However, agricultural research is more than just GMCs. One viable alternative, sustainable organic crops. Its how we farmed for centuries, and yet we still find new methods for improving yields. Ask any farmer, while taking risks is part of the business, the real key to success is diversifying. That means funding both GMCs and sustainable organic corps. Not just one. And Robert Beachy will not do this (Grant).

President Obama nominated Islam Siddiqui to the post of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in 2010, and tough the appointment has not been approved yet by the Senate, this is another ill-conceived choice. He comes from a strong corporate background with connections to almost every biotechnology corporation. He was a registered lobbyist for big corporations. I think we know where his loyalty truly lies. And both Siddiqui and big business remain out of touch with NIFA’s goals. NIFA wants to improve not just the US’s agriculture, but the world’s. These goals include reducing pesticide and herbicide dependence. This though, would marginalize these corporations’ income and Siddiqui will not allow this. So rather than encouraging research to reduce agriculture’s chemical dependence and Helping NIFA become a successful and worthy member of the USDA, he will encourage the continues practice: sell overpriced goods to struggling nations and reap the benefits of high interest rates (Velazquez).

Beachy’s GMC reliance represents the type of one-dimensionalism that can potentially ruin NIFA. One can look at it like putting all you money in one stock that shows some promise, but whose consistency remains unproven. Things may work out in the end (GMCs will solve all our problems). But the chance that things go horribly wrong still exists (GMCs will not solve all our problems and will create new ones). Siddiqui’s appointment hurts NIFA because he really promotes the private sector, rather than the government, thus interfering with NIFA’s attempted ascent.
The government simply does not exhibit what it takes to be an effective medium for agricultural research. Sure, funding has been increased, but if you look more closely, you realize that the private sector still spends much more on research and development. The private sector remains far more efficient, putting out tons more patents that address the national staple crops. The government’s heavy investment parallels the proverb of putting all one’s eggs in a basket. Lastly, leadership is questionable. The current leadership may lead the department will astray and make it further irrelevant. College students, if you desire a career in government research, especially those looking into agricultural research, consider first looking at the private sector. The opportunities are so much greater.

Grant, Bob. "Can USDA be ag's NIH?." The Scientist. The Scientist, 27 Oct 2009. Web. 30 Sept 2010. .

Whitman, Deborah. "Genetically Modified Foods: Helpful or Harmful?." CSA. CSA, April 2000. Web. 5 Oct 2010. .

Velazquez, Shelia. "Losing Our Food Freedom." Bear Market News. N.p., 31 Oct 2009. Web. 5 Oct 2010. .

"A New Roe to Hoe: The Time is Right to Revitalize US Agricultural Research." Nature. Nature, 01 April 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010. .