|
From: BAC Chair Scott Smith
To: Members of the NASULGC System
- Board on Agriculture Assembly
- Budget and Advocacy Committee
- Council on Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching
Reprinted below is an
op-ed article written by Dean Allen Levine from the University
of Minnesota that was printed in the March 8 edition of The
Washington Times.
In addition to calling this compelling article to your
attention, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask each of you
to consider submitting similar articles to your local newspaper
or writing a letter to the editor. The recent Joint CARET-AHS
meetings were a great opportunity for many to express their
disappointment that Congress did not include any funding for
agricultural research in the economic recovery bill – despite
including tens of billions of dollars for other areas.
I hope each of you will secure publication of an op-ed or a
letter to the editor which incorporates your institution’s
particular situation.
Thanks for your assistance.
Scott Smith, BAC Chair
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Art and Science of Agriculture
Allen Levine
The Washington Times
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Like most Americans I listened intently as President Obama
delivered his first address to the nation and Congress.
He outlined the economic challenges facing our country, noting
"the answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They
exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and
our factories." And he heralded the "largest investment in basic
research funding in American history." The president could not
be more right. Investing in basic research will improve our
global competitiveness but these investments need to occur in
every area of the federal research budget.
In the blizzard of new research funding created by the federal
stimulus bill, an important science was omitted: agriculture.
While $10 billion was included for the National Institutes of
Health, $3 billion for the National Science Foundation and $2
billion for the Energy Department, not a penny was dedicated for
competitive research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
That's unfortunate. Agricultural science will help us find the
answers to some of our greatest problems: food safety, scarcity
and cost; water quality and availability; the need for healthy
soil and plants to grow food; and sustainable energy. While some
of the new federal funding will find its way to
agriculture-related issues like climate change and genomics,
designating federal dollars to agriculture would have sent an
important message.
The recent global food crisis provided a startling reminder of
how critical agricultural research is to the international
marketplace. It doesn't take much - a virulent strain of disease
- to decimate a developing nation's food supply. This in turn
has a negative economic ripple effect across the world.
The latest slight is another example of how the traditional
agricultural sciences - agronomy, soil science, animal science
and plant pathology - have somehow become inconsequential in the
public eye since fewer of us actually farm anymore. Young
scientists who study 21st century agriculture, however, will
find it a nuanced, complex field: they work in a systematic
world in which they must understand not just soil microbes at a
molecular level, but also how microbes are affected by
fertilizers and how soil contributes to climate change. That
knowledge will lead to important discoveries that benefit all of
us.
Investing in research at the National Institutes of Health and
the National Science Foundation is important and will support
long-term basic research; but these institutions are not
designed to stimulate new and immediate growth.
Agricultural research however can quickly be turned into
prosperity. It will create new jobs and advance the development
of sustainable crops and better protections to prevent soil and
chemical erosion into our water supply.
Because it's conducted cooperatively with local communities,
farmers, growers and educators through a national network of
extension services, the USDA ensures its benefits have quick and
tangible economic impacts in rural areas.
Agricultural research pays, both in general and economic
well-being. And it has significant impact on the common good.
Studies by my colleagues at the University of Minnesota have
shown that on an international basis over the last half-century,
research and development in agriculture generates among the
highest average annual rates of return, as much as 58 percent.
That seems like a pretty good investment, especially in today's
stalled economy.
While President Obama and Congress missed an opportunity when
they failed to include funding for agricultural research in the
stimulus package, I'm encouraged by the president's recent
words. With the release of his first budget, the president can
rectify this inequity and with a relatively small investment,
make economic gains that benefit many.
Allen Levine is dean of the College of Food, Agricultural and
Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Minnesota and
director of the Minnesota Obesity Center. The views he expresses
are his own and do not reflect an official position of the
University of Minnesota.
|
