224 0. Bentley

 Many of our institutions continue to act as if tomorrow were going to be
very much like today. Their way of predicting the future is simply to ex-
tend the status quo.
 I prefer the outlook of John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends. He says that
"things aren't going to get better. They're going to get different." And I
would add that they're going to get different very fast. We must prepare
for the changes.
 Molecular biology is a powerful new scientific tool, but it only works if
you use it. Appropriate technologies should be widely available and inter-
disciplinary in scope. That belief was emphasized in a document which we
all associate with Al Wood, Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture: Is-
sues and Policies, Progress Report II, November 1983, Division of Agricul-
ture, Committee on Biotechnology, National Association of State Universi-
ties and Land-Grant Colleges.
 The 1983 edition reads, "Maximum success in the application of the new
research technologies to the enhancement of agricultural productivity will
require an integration of the basic sciences...with the disciplines of tradi-
tional agriculture science..."
 "This (integration) will require different kinds and degrees of program
coordination depending upon the hierarchical structure of the academic
institution. By their very nature and structure, the land-grant universities
provide an ideal setting for the application of advances in biotechnological
research to agriculture."
 Let's look at that research effort. What are USDA and the State Agricul-
tural Experiment Stations doing? Up front, let me assure you that we have
a strong commitment to fundamental science and to the technological ap-
plication of biotechnology to our agriculture, forestry, and food and fiber
systems.
 And we are backing up that commitment. About $26.3 million of the
ARS budget is for projects that utilize biotechnology in the research proto-
col. And under the competitive grants programs of the Cooperative State
Research Service, $28.6 million was allocated in the 1986 fiscal year.
 The states themselves have an investment in biotechnological research
equivalent to 373 scientist years, 583 students, and 650 staff members. I'm
sure you can appreciate the sizeable commitment of funds which that rep-
resents.
 Spending money is necessary and important, but along with advances in
biotechnological research, we must make advances in the transition be-
tween the laboratory and the marketplace. In order to derive the full bene-
fit of biotechnology, we must perfect the art of turning scientific discov-
eries into business opportunities.