Winter, 1992 (v5n2)
Recently I participated in
The Joint Economic Committee of Congress' hearing on Agricultural Industrialization
and Family Farms: The Role of Federal Policy. I was asked to discuss
a multidisciplinary project I have been coordinating that compares bovine
growth hormone (bGH) and rotational grazing, a pasture management technology.
Suzanne Smalley of Michigan State University Extension was among
those panel members who responded to my presentation. She noted that in
Michigan many farmers have asked the university for information about
how rotational grazing has been used by other farmers. Unfortunately,
although the scientists at MSU have information on bGH, they have very
little on rotational grazing, she said.
If Land Grant universities'
mission is to serve the citizens of the states, how is it that we have
such a dichotomy between information people apparently want from universities
and what many scientists are prepared to deliver? This issue may go to
the heart of the questions that are important to Land Grant universities.
Almost across the board, American universities are suffering severe budget
cuts. University scientists feel forced to seek industry grants to continue
their research. This is the case with bGH. Biotechnology companies provide
research money to help develop this product. Taxpayers' money (faculty
salaries, laboratories, research farms) is used for private product development.
That means industry grants can set the research agenda. Rotational grazing
is a management approach that produces few products that can be sold,
and it therefore does not attract large industrial development grants.
I also suspect that most
scientists are looked upon more favorably by their peers if they work
on bGH rather than on rotational grazing because the growth hormone appears
to be more "scientific." All of this suggests that for some
Land Grant university scientists, their clients are other scientists rather
than the people they are meant to serve. It also raises practical and
ethical questions about how research agendas are determined and how the
public's money is spent.
Who makes the decisions about
where agriculture is headed? How can the public interest be safeguarded?
These are very difficult ethical and pragmatic questions, but support
of and good will toward public Land Grant universities in the 1990s may
well depend upon how well we answer them. Let's use the dairy industry
as a case study, and avoid shaping its future by default: "The money
was there for research and we developed a product" is not acceptable.
An agricultural research agenda attuned to the public's needs is developed
through an open process involving the people of the state. -Bill Liebhardt,
director UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program.
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]