Regional Research seems to have become the sacrificial lamb for the complexities and frustrations of Station research programs. Criticisms have been made of the travel involved, the administrative time entailed, the procedures needed for routine business, and of the tendency to orient individual station programs toward regional research projects. There has been considerable discussion and some sharp disagreements concerning the causes and cures for these alleged deficiencies. In many regional meetings and in our national meeting we have resolved that something must be done. But action has been slow. . . . The quality of regional projects has improved, but most important has been the attitude toward regional planning and the extent of participation in it. Whereas in early years, regional projects were approached in many cases merely as a means to secure funds, now we find research workers asking for regional projects even without regional fund allocations. The present controversy about Regional Research is healthy. The future is open to make it what we will. The State Experiment Stations Division and the Committee of Nine have solicited suggestions as to how Regional Research administration can be simplified and the program made more effective. During the past year, several significant suggestions have been received and a study of the entire program has been initiated. . The Committee contends that Regional Research has unique values worth preserving, and that regional research meets a distinctive need in our varied system of State, federal, and industrial research in the United States. This is an opportune time to take firm steps, not toward curtailment, but toward improvement. REGIONAL PROGRAM APPRAISED During 1960 the State Experiment Stations Division of the Department, with the concurrence of the Committee of Nine and the regional associations of directors, deemed it desirable, after 14 years of experience with cooperative research under the Regional research fund, that the program be appraised, particularly those aspects dealing with operational policies and procedures. Director M. A. Farrell of the Pennsylvania station, a former member of the Committee of Nine, was employed for the purpose. He visited some 25 experiment stations during 1960-61 and conferred with more than 400 administrators and researchers. Recommendations based on this study are being developed. In April 1961 the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations examined the Department's request for increased payments to the States and Puerto Rico for fiscal year 1962 (15). The subcommittee once again expressed concern whether duplication of effort was controlled, and how effective effort on particular problems could be with money distributed on a formula basis (17, p. 564). Question was raised if there was any way to meet particular problems through a national fund that might be allocated to meet a particular problem through the State approach, which would not necessarily be committed to the distribution formula (17, pp. 577-581). Dr. Elting, Deputy Administrator for Federal-States Relations, ARS, pointed out: As you know, the only fund that is not now distributed by formula is the 25 percent set aside as a regional research fund. Here we have some discretion as to where this money is allotted. Dr. Knoblauch and I recently have had serious discussion with the Committee of Nine, which was created by law to recommend the program of research under this regional fund. We have examined the possibilities there for perhaps creating some reserve or other devices where we might attack some of these emergency problems that arise from time to time. I am sure there is merit in exploring how the reserve fund or the special grant authority might be created that would permit channeling money into the special problems as they arise. The Committee of Nine and the regional associations of directors in their 1961 meetings continued to seek ways to improve and strengthen the Regional research fund program. Some feel that Cooperative research on many major problems has become entrenched. Many additional needs for research are not being met. There is no question that accomplishments under the Regional research program have been outstanding. A wealth of new knowledge has been compiled. Each year over 2,000 publications emanate from researchers in the program. Central facilities and centralized effort have been developed for many major problems. Regional poultry breeding facilities now serve the State stations, the Department, and industry needs. Beef, dairy, sheep, and turkey breeding research are regionally and nationally coordinated. The introduction and evaluation of new crops and plants has become a closely knit team research effort of the State station and Department scientists. Interregional stations are maintaining and developing potato and fruit stocks essential for industry and research needs. Progress in cotton breeding, basic genetics, and production efficiency through improved mechanization has been greatly accelerated by organized and long term regional research in these areas. Many other outstanding examples could be enumerated. Cooperative marketing research has pyramided and produced many fine practical results which have brought industry into closer relationship with State and Federal researchers and increased industry support of research. Basic research has grown steadily in relation to each area and regional researchers have made many shifts in emphasis from earlier applied studies to direct concentration on the search for fundamental knowledge. Perhaps more significant than the contributions to scientific knowledge, the regional research program has led to more efficient use of State and Federal research resources and manpower. Practically every segment of the research programs of the State stations has been affected. The concepts of the Directors concerning the possible advantages and benefits of cooperative regional effort, as expressed, during the twenties, have been more than verified. The popularity of the program is one of the main factors creating the administrative and management problems which the Directors continually seek to alleviate. Accomplishments under the program have been outstanding and a wealth of new knowledge has been compiled. But many additional problems requiring the regional approach stand waiting support and the regional research funds are inadequate. Ways must be found to improve or streamline the administrative machinery which seems to be overtaxed already. There is uncertainty as to what the next course of action might be to more effectively meet the continuing pressures for solutions to the perplexing and shifting problems of agriculture. The directors of the State stations, USDA administrators and the Congressional committees stand at a crossroads deciding whether policy and procedures for use of the Regional research fund will continue along lines established in 15 years of operation, or whether some of the recommendations of the Farrell study and other perhaps even more drastic modifications of the regional approach to research must be adopted to effectively cope with the regional and national problems of agriculture. One of the first steps to be taken must be the clarification and general acceptance of 634244 O-62-17 203 the philosophy of the regional approach to research under the amended Hatch Act. The following section represents some reflections along this line. PHILOSOPHY OF REGIONAL RESEARCH DEFINED The term "regional research" as applied to agricultural research during the past 100 years is broad and elastic, encompassing nearly all of the activities cooperative between the States and most of the Federal-State relations. The limits of the regions depend on the problem or intent of the cooperation. Such cooperative research has included a range of activity from discipline-oriented professional society meetings and research administrators' conferences to intimate joint effort of researchers across State lines and Federally contracted single laboratory studies. The regional research prescribed by the Directors in developing the program using the Regional research fund is considerably more restricted in scope. While the limits of the regions are still adapted to the intent of the cooperation-or more specifically to the problem at hand-the research is to be joint effort directed toward the solution of defined problems of important concern to agriculture. There are two distinguishing requirements of research conducted under the Regional research fund. First, the research is to be defined by project plans focused on the solution of specific and important problems of agriculture. Second, each research project should represent a concerted effort involving two or more States in a region of concern. 11 The Congress expects that Federally supported regional researchers will give first consideration to the most pressing problems of agriculture. By law a portion of the funds are earmarked for marketing research. The Congressional committees have consistently raised questions of progress on lines of work directed to the solution of such problems as farm surpluses, utilization of agricultural products, and new or replacement crops. Under these conditions selection of the most pressing problems must continue. There are categories of problems that can be handled to better advantage by the regional approach. They may cover the entire range from those of basic research which represent bottlenecks to progress, to the application of known principles in developing recommendations for policy decisions. The Regional research fund (RRF) was intended to be a source of support for such a range of problems. It should be flexible enough in assignment and administration to facilitate reasonable shifts of emphasis as the needs demand. There is a validating test which can be applied to segregate RRF regional research from the universe of cooperative relations in agricultural research. One asks "is the research a team effort primarily centered on the solution of a specific regional problem?" One common criticism of regional research conducted since 1947 is lack of focus or lack of a regional approach to the problem.12 It means simply that the cooperators fail to demonstrate in plan and procedure sufficient 11 See section 3 (c) 4 of the Hatch Act of 1955, appendix p. 233. 12 A summary of review comments on regional research projects is contained in the unpublished report, "Summary of Committee of Nine Comments in Review of Regional Research Projects," December 1946-November 1960 (SES-OD-1212). evidence of effective teamwork. If interest centers on individual projects, the regional approach to the problem is incidental or secondary. Individual effort, creativity, and initiative are essential to the development of regional project plans, procedure, and analysis of results. But a pattern of joint planning and effort must prevail which demonstrates that most effective use of personnel, facilities, funds, and other resources is being made. Attainment of the proper degree of teamwork without adverse effect on individual creativity and the so-called academic freedom of researchers is one of the most difficult problems underlying the regional approach. Regional research is better planned and conducted than it was a decade ago. The record shows that continued improvement and progress can be anticipated. LITERATURE CITED (1) BORJKA, K. 1945. REGIONAL RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURAL MARKETING. Jour. Farm Econ. 17: 121-137. (2) COOPER, T. (3) (4) (5) 1926. ORGANIZATION FOR AND RELATIONSHIP IN COOPERATIVE RESEARCH. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. Proc. (1925)) 39: 169–176. ELTING, E. C. 1959. REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON COOPERATIVE RESEARCH. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. and State Univs. Proc. 73: 135–136. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION. 1924. REGIONAL CONVENTIONS AND REGIONAL COOPERATION IN PROJECTS OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON PROJECTS AND CORRELATION OF RESEARCH. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. and Univs. (6) MANN, A. R., ACTING CHAIRMAN. 1932. REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PROJECTS AND CORRELATION OF RESEARCH. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. Proc. (1931) 45: 267–269. (7) MUMFORD, F. B., CHAIRMAN. 1929. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PROJECTS AND CORRELATION OF RESEARCH. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. Proc. (1920) 34: 128-133. REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PROJECTS AND CORRELATION OF RESEARCH.--Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. Proc. (1925) 39: 184–187. REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PROJECTS AND CORRELATION OF RESEARCH. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. Proc. (1928) 42: 205–209. (10) SHAW, B. T. 1958. (11) DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH FACILITIES AND THE ROLE OF THE RE GIONAL LABORATORIES IN STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS. (Abstract.) Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. and State Univs. Proc. 72: 166-167. SPIELMAN, A. A. 1958. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF NINE. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols, and State Univs. Proc. 72: 161–163. (12) THATCHER, R. W., CHAIRMAN. 1926. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON EXPERIMENT STATION ORGANIZATION AND POLICY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PURNELL ACT. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. Proc. (1925) 39: 176–184 (13) TRUE, A. C., and CLARK, V. A. (14) 1900. THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Sta. Bul. 80, 636 pp. illus. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH. (Hearings on H.R. 6548 and H.R. 6692: (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) UNITED STATES CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1961. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1962. Report No. 48, 45 pp. (U.S. Congress, 87th, 1st Sess.) UNITED STATES CONGRESS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. 1950. 1961. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1951. Hearings, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1962. Hearings, Part 1, 868 pp. (U.S. Congress, 87th, 2d Sess.) 1958. MANUAL OF PROCEDURES FOR COOPERATIVE REGIONAL RESEARCH. 25 pp. WILSON, M. L. 1936. THE ROLES OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE STATE EXPERIMENT STATIONS IN REGIONAL RESEARCH PRO GRAMS. Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. and Univs. Proc. (1935) 49: 170-177. YOUNG, HAROLD, Chairman. 1957. EXPERIMENT STATION MARKETING RESEARCH AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ESMRAC). Assoc. Land-Grant Cols. and State Univs. Proc. (1957) 71: 157-158. |