agribusiness people and consumers. Congress continues
to provide special grants to serve its voting constituen-
cies. Including PS and SM research in the competitive
grants program would help provide clientele support in
the Congress and open the door for disciplinarians out-
side the ARE to make practical and relevant contri-
butions to agricultural research.
 More of the available talent could then be recruited
into better financed agricultural research programs.
Fewer than half of the proposals rated as excellent in
the USDA Competitive Grants Program can now be
funded. Thus, there is an opportunity at the federal level
for research administrators and Congress to reassert
leadership in relevant DISC research across the
biological, physical and social sciences in the ARE. it
is not consistent with true national interest to deny
agriculture and food research programs the talents of
some of the very best young scientists outside of the ARE.
We need financing to open the doors of agriculture and
food research to all of the nation's scientific expertise.
Such support would sharpen the cutting edges of future
technological, institutional and human advances for in-
creasing yields, stabilizing both production and
marketing, and increasing the capacity to produce all
major crops, livestock and forest products through 2030.
 Funding of agricultural research also involves the
expense of maintaining and replacing the flocks, herds,
computers, software, buildings, barns, feed, milking
parlors, field stations, land, orchards, crops, irrigation
facilities, greenhouses and growth chambers of the ARE.
Much of the Hatch formula money traditionally
allocated for agricultural research goes into maintain-
ing these so they are available and ready for PS and SM
research, and for much DISC research as well. Some
critics say that formula funds for support of agricultural
research are inefficient compared with the competitive
grant programs of the NSF and NIH when applied to
food and agriculture. NSF or NIH competitive grant
funds now go mainly for DISC research, which requires
fewer and less costly facilities than PS and SM research.
The need for modern and expanded agricultural research
facilities would increase substantially if competitive
grants were made available for PS and SM research.
When the ARE's facilities are used for competitive grant
projects, indirect charges from competitive grant fund-
ing do not pay for maintenance, replacement and opera-
tion of agricultural facilities.
 There should be a 10 percent per year increase above
inflation from all sources for the support of PS, SM and
DISC research in the ARE until the real budget is
trebled. Research needs to be given higher priority in
the USDA. Though the USDA has a 1983 budget ap-
proximating $50 billion, scarcely 2 percent of that
budget is expended for research and extension programs.
Still more aggressive leadership in gaining support for


research is needed from the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture and Congress, wherein primary responsibility
resides. Without such leadership, it is unlikely that much
progress in improving federal-level budgetary support
for food and agricultural research will be made. The last
two budget years, in which the research budget of the
USDA has been slightly increased, have given some en-
couragement but far more is suggested.
 Agricultural research in the state Agricultural Experi-
 ment Stations is slowing down because facilities-
 laboratories, greenhouses, barns and equipment-are
 wearing out and becoming obsolete. There has been no
 federal support for their upgrading in 16 years.

 Personnel Requirements
 At present funding levels, serious personnel shortages
 exist in the ARE and in the private agribusiness sector.
'The shortages are for DISC, PS and SM (or R&D) scien-
tists and for social as well as biological and physical
scientists. If adopted, the research targets specified
herein will make this shortage even more acute in the
decades ahead unless we train and motivate more bright
young scientists to enter the agricultural research system.
 A related item of concern is the increasing seniority
of scientists in both the federal system and the state
Agricultural Experiment Stations. The average age of .
agricultural scientists in the federal system (48) is well
above that of all other scientists (44). The gap continues
to widen because of failures to attract young scientists
in the federal system.
 The Cooperative State Research Service is slowly
disappearing as an effective unit, as a result of budget
cuts, retirements and slashes in personnel. This unit in
the USDA plays a key role in the partnership between
the federal system and the states, and it should be
retained. Retirees from this organization should be
replaced by some of the brightest young scientists out-
side the system. To attract these scientists, recruitment
incentives-social, economic, political-must be
improved.
 Two major scientific frontiers-computer technol-
ogies and genetic engineering-have emerged recently
with far-reaching implications for agricultural
research-PS, SM and DISC. We are now in the midst
of the greatest biological revolution of all times and
witnessing major advances in cellular and molecular
biology and significant improvements in plant tissue
culture. Globally, no less than 350 firms, ranging from
large multinational to small venture capital units, have
entered the biotechnology field in less than five years.
It is estimated that there are 175 such firms in the United
States alone. Almost all major seed companies in the
United States have been absorbed by, become integrated
with or have merged with biotechnology corporations,