Research and extension at a crossroads

Wines & Vines, March, 2004 by Cliff Ohmart

It is a fact of life that nothing lasts forever. This is unfortunate, and particularly hard to admit, when something one values falls by the wayside. It appears that the model of publicly funded research and extension in agriculture under which we have been operating in the United States for more than 100 years is dramatically changing.

One of the challenges in dealing with change is recognizing the point at which energy put into resisting it should be refocused toward making changes that will work better for everyone. I think we have reached that critical point. The next few paragraphs will be devoted to some of the changes occurring in research and extension in the wine industry, some of the possible consequences of these changes, and conclude with a suggestion of what changes might make the new system work better for us.

Unless you have been out of the country for the last five years or so, my guess is most in the California wine industry are aware that monetary support, both at the state and county level, for the UC cooperative extension program has dramatically eroded. This situation is not unique to California. Support for cooperative extension programs around the U.S. is also declining. In fact, one entomologist I know, who works at a land grant university in the eastern U.S., predicts that in a decade or so there will only be about 10 viable land grant universities left. There are currently more than 60. Moreover, with the federal and state governments experiencing record budget deficits, money available for publicly funded research programs in agriculture is either static or declining.

Coincidental with the decline in support of cooperative extension in California has been the emergence of two potentially very serious pest problems caused by introduced pests: the Glassy-winged sharpshooter, which vectors Pierce's disease, and the vine mealybug. The lack of sufficient information available for managing both pests highlights the great need for applied research and extension at the very time when the system is experiencing rapidly declining resources.

The decline in the number of viable land grant universities has several ramifications. First, much of the federally funded agricultural research in the U.S. is carried out by cooperative extension programs at land grant universities. As their effectiveness declines, so will their research products. Second, grower groups will have less access to federal agriculture research dollars. That is because much of the federally funded agricultural research, particularly in pest management, is tied to land grant universities. In other words, the grants must pass through one of these institutions. Therefore, as the number of viable land grant universities declines, so will grower access to these research dollars. Third, much of the extension of the results of agricultural research that occurs in the U.S. is done through cooperative extension programs. As support for these programs declines, so will the transfer of research results to the grower community.

The decline of publicly funded research and extension has both short term and long term consequences, and it is important to recognize them. Many of the short term consequences are obvious. For example, when new problems arise, such as the vine mealybug in California, the lack of adequate funds for research means the solutions to those problems will take longer to develop. The long term consequences are less certain, but if they come true they may be irreversible.

One of the long term effects that I worry about is that as money for applied research and extension declines, fewer jobs are available for researchers and extension agents.

Fewer jobs make a career as an applied researcher or extension agent less attractive, and the best minds will seek careers in other disciplines. Eventually, we will not have the most talented people working to solve our important problems in agriculture.

Another long term effect I see occurring is that with less monetary support available for research, many of the less exciting but very important problems will not be adequately studied. That is because researchers at major universities are rewarded most for bringing in large research grants, which are more often than not available for cutting-edge science rather than for more simple, applied problems.

Moreover, promotion and tenure for university researchers are tied to publishing in scientific journals that favor manuscript submissions on this cutting-edge science. These journals are virtually inaccessible to most of the grower community. On the other hand, publishing in trade journals is not recognized as a legitimate research product at many universities, and the practice is even discouraged by some. The emphasis on the field of genomics is a great current example of the pressure faced by today's researchers. Much of the science in genomics is cutting-edge, exciting, and is considered by many funding agencies as the way of the future, so much of the grant funding is tied to genomics. It is not surprising, then, that many young graduate students contemplating futures as researchers, and researchers at universities looking for ways of getting tenure, choose to pursue genomics. Meanwhile, the less than exciting applied problems are attracting less and less attention by funding agencies, and therefore by researchers.