Competitive Grants Program Research Articles

A commentary on domestic animals as dual-purpose models that benefit agricultural and biomedical research1

Research on domestic animals (cattle, swine, sheep, goats, poultry, horses, and aquatic species) at land grant institutions is integral to improving the global competitiveness of US animal agriculture and to resolving complex animal and human diseases. However, dwindling federal and state budgets, years of stagnant funding from USDA for the Competitive State Research, Education, and Extension Service National Research Initiative (CSREES-NRI) Competitive Grants Program, significant reductions in farm animal species and in numbers at land grant institutions, and declining enrollment for graduate studies in animal science are diminishing the resources necessary to conduct research on domestic species. Consequently, recruitment of scientists who use such models to conduct research relevant to animal agriculture and biomedicine at land grant institutions is in jeopardy. Concerned stakeholders have addressed this critical problem by conducting workshops, holding a series of meetings with USDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials, and developing a white paper to propose solutions to obstacles impeding the use of domestic species as dual-purpose animal models for high-priority problems common to agriculture and biomedicine. In addition to shortfalls in research support and human resources, overwhelming use of mouse models in biomedicine, lack of advocacy from university administrators, long-standing cultural barriers between agriculture and human medicine, inadequate grantsmanship by animal scientists, and a scarcity of key reagents and resources are major roadblocks to progress. Solutions will require a large financial enhancement of USDA's Competitive Grants Program, educational programs geared toward explaining how research using agricultural animals benefits both animal agriculture and human health, and the development of a new mind-set in land grant institutions that fosters greater cooperation among basic and applied researchers. Recruitment of outstanding scientists dedicated to using domestic animal models for agricultural and biomedical research, strong incentives for scientists to take advantage of training opportunities to write NIH grants, and greater NIH and USDA cooperation to sponsor the use of agricultural animals as dual-purpose animal models that benefit agriculture and biomedicine will also be necessary. In conclusion, the broad diversity of animal models needed for agricultural and biomedical research is at risk unless research priorities at the land grant universities are critically evaluated and financial support for such research is dramatically increased.

Developing and extending sustainable agriculture: a new social contract

Developing and extending sustainable agriculture: a new social contract

The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program in animal reproduction: Changes in priorities and scope relevant to United States animal agriculture

The National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program is the USDA's major competitive grants program and is administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The NRI was authorized by the US Congress in the 1990 Farm Bill at a funding level of $500 million; however, the maximal NRI appropriation was $181.17 million in fiscal year (FY) 2006. Across all programs, the NRI is mandated to use 40% of its funding to support mission-linked research. Since its inception in 1991, the NRI has funded competitive grants in the discipline of animal reproduction. Before 2004, the Animal Reproduction Program funded a broad range of projects encompassing almost every subdiscipline in reproductive biology of farm animals, including aquatic species important to the aquaculture industry and laboratory animals. During FY 2004, the NRI Animal Reproduction Program narrowed the focus of its funding priorities to 5 issue-based topics in an effort to make greater measurable improvements in a few high-impact areas over the next 10 years. Funding priorities were narrowed further in FY 2006 to 3 subdisciplines based, in part, on recommendations that emerged from a stakeholder workshop conducted by Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service in August 2004. In FY 2003, Congress authorized expenditure of up to 20% of the funds appropriated to the NRI to support projects that integrate at least 2 of the 3 functions of research, education, and extension. In FY 2004, the Animal Reproduction Program included a funding priority for integrated projects focused primarily on infertility in dairy cattle. The program funded its first integrated project in FY 2005. During FY 2002, increased emphasis on justification for the use of model systems (e.g., laboratory animals and in vitro systems) was included in the NRI request for applications. In FY 2006, applications proposing to primarily utilize nonagricultural animal models were excluded from the program. Currently, all proposed studies must be thoroughly justified in terms of their relevance to US animal agriculture and to program priorities identified within the request for applications.

Assembly Votes Challenge Threats to Patient Care

Assembly Votes Challenge Threats to Patient Care

A researcher's perceptions of United States Department of Agriculture funding in animal reproduction1

Dedicated funding for animal reproduction did not start until 1985 and was available primarily in the reproductive efficiency and physiology areas of the Animal Science Program. Funding for individual grants and duration of funding were similar between the National Institutes of Health and the USDA, typically in the range of 3 yr, with total direct costs of $150,000. The names of these programs have changed over time; the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program started in 1991 with a program in animal reproduction. The USDA did not change the award size for individual grants until 2001, when it gradually increased through 2003. The USDA then markedly increased individual grants in 2004 to a funding level of $300,000 to $500,000 over 3 to 4 yr. This has been beneficial for the funded scientist but discouraging to the applicants with high-ranking nonfunded grants. The number of grants funded per year is approaching a low critical number, with an average of only 10 new grants funded per year. At the present funding level it will be difficult for even the best scientist to sustain a research career based only on USDA funding.

Funding Priorities in Animal Reproduction at the United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service1

The National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's major competitive grants program and is administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Since its inception in 1991, the NRI has funded competitive grants in the discipline of animal reproduction. Previously, this program provided funding for a broad range of projects encompassing almost every subdiscipline in reproductive biology of farm animals, including aquatic species important to the aquaculture industry. During fiscal year 2004, the NRI Animal Reproduction Program narrowed the focus of funding priorities to the topics of infertility, basic mechanisms regulating fertility, cryopreservation of gametes, reducing the postpartum interval to conception, and sterilization methods or development of monosex populations. In response to a directive to further narrow the focus of funding priorities for fiscal year 2005 and beyond, CSREES conducted a Stakeholder Workshop on Funding Priorities in Animal Reproduction at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction in Vancouver, Canada. More than 75 stakeholder scientists from a cross section of federal, public, and private institutions from across the United States participated in the workshop and provided recommendations to CSREES for future NRI-funding priorities in Animal Reproduction. The recommendations provided by stakeholders included continuing efforts to focus funding priorities into fewer high-impact areas relevant to animal agriculture and aquaculture. Recommendations also included movement back toward subdisciplines of animal reproduction that cut across all applicable species. The three funding priorities that consistently emerged as recommendations from the workshop participants were 1) gonadal function and production of gametes, 2) pituitary-hypothalamic function, and 3) embryo and conceptus development, including interaction between the conceptus and uterus. These funding priorities were considered when preparing the fiscal year 2006 NRI Request for Applications.

Ag Schools Say They Can't Afford Budget Boost

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHUniversity lobbyists have declared war on President George W. Bush's proposed 39% increase in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's signature competitive grants program because it siphons money from a different program that assured some schools steady funding for infrastructure, salaries, and research on local problems.

Mental Health Issues Reach Congressional Agenda

Mental Health Issues Reach Congressional Agenda

ECONBASE DOWNLOADS AND THE RANKING OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS RESEARCH: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

ECONBASE DOWNLOADS AND THE RANKING OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS RESEARCH: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

USDA Stakeholder Workshop on Animal Bioinformatics: summary and recommendations

An electronic workshop was conducted on 4 November–13 December 2002 to discuss current issues and needs in animal bioinformatics. The electronic (e-mail listserver) format was chosen to provide a relatively speedy process that is broad in scope, cost-efficient and easily accessible to all participants. Approximately 40 panelists with diverse species and discipline expertise communicated through the panel e-mail listserver. The panel included scientists from academia, industry and government, in the USA, Australia and the UK. A second ‘stakeholder’ e-mail listserver was used to obtain input from a broad audience with general interests in animal genomics. The objectives of the electronic workshop were: (a) to define priorities for animal genome database development; and (b) to recommend ways in which the USDA could provide leadership in the area of animal genome database development. E-mail messages from panelists and stakeholders are archived at http://genome.cvm.umn.edu/bioinfo/. Priorities defined for animal genome database development included: (a) data repository; (b) tools for genome analysis; (c) annotation; (d) practical application of genomic data; and (e) a biological framework for DNA sequence. A stable source of funding, such as the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), was recommended to support maintenance of data repositories and data curation. Continued support for competitive grants programs within the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) was recommended for tool development and hypothesis-driven research projects in genome analysis. Additional stakeholder input will be required to continuously refine priorities and maximize the use of limited resources for animal bioinformatics within the USDA.

Biotechnology, intellectual property and value differentiation in agriculture

Biotechnology, Intellectual Property and Value Differentiation in Agriculture Rachaei E. Goodhue, Gordon C. Rausser, Suzanne Scotchmer and Leo K. Simon October 17, 2002 Goodhue is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Davis and a member of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. Rausser is the Robert Gordon Sproul Distinguished Professor of Agricultural Economics in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley and a member of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Eco- nomics. Scotchmer is a professor in the Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. Simon is an adjunct professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley. The authors gratefully acknowledge funding provided by the US DA CS RE ES MR! Competitive Grants Program. Research assistance was provided by Gregory Graff and Gregory McKee.

Govt. Readies MH Response To Future Terrorist Attacks

Govt. Readies MH Response To Future Terrorist Attacks

Un fondo competitivo de desarrollo para el fomento de la calidad de la educación superior en Chile

In 1997, the Chilean Government and the International Bank for Development convened on a strategy to improve Chilean university education. It was based on quality improvement, effectiveness, relevancy and innovation on university education programs. A US$ 245 millions fund was afforded, for a five years competitive grants program, among certain traditional Universities and Technical Education Institutes. The authors reviewed the projects that won the contests during the first three years in the health area, to determine their impact, demands supported, difficulties and assets. These projects obtained 13.6% of the assigned funds (a total of US$ 16.5 millions). Funds were requested mostly to build spaces, obtain equipment, laboratories and computational support. Funds were also requested to carry out methodological changes and teaching improvements. The importance of teaching health sciences in locations outside the Metropolitan area of Santiago, the modification of undergraduate medical curriculum and the development of post graduate networks are emphasized.

Grant writing: Learning to climb a professional mountain

GRANT WRITING, like mountain climbing, should begin with small achievements and progress, with experience, to greater heights. Nurses are fortunate in that there are many small grants available from professional associations at the local, state, and national levels to support beginning researchers and pilot studies. Obtaining these small seed grants allows nurses to begin grant writing at an amateur level and gradually hone their skills to begin competing with the experts in larger, more competitive grant programs.

The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals

AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.

THE KEYS TO PREPARING SUCCESSFUL RESEARCH GRANT PROPOSALS

This article seeks to demystif-y the competitive grunt recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Coopel-ative State Research. Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing. and ways to interpret revicwer cornrnents if a pl-oposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.

Grantsmanship Hints

Successful grantsmanship, although a critical skill for researchers, is rarely taught in graduate schools. This handicaps inexperienced researchers, who often must simultaneously develop courses, extension programs, and a research program. As a result, they frequently suffer a lower success rate in obtaining research funding than more experienced researchers. Our objective is to provide the research community with a summary of observations we made while serving in the grant proposal review process. A preliminary list of our observations has apparently enjoyed widespread distribution, suggesting that there is in fact a need for this information. We disclaim any status as experts, offering these observations to those who wish to understand the review process as we observed it while participating in the USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.

Agricultural Research: Benefits and Beneficiaries of Alternative Funding Mechanisms

AbstractThis article analyzes alternative funding mechanisms for agricultural research and the benefits and beneficiaries of these approaches. Although other mechanisms exist, the discussion focuses on public formula and competitive grants programs, private‐sector contracts and grants, and revenue from sale of intellectual property rights (IPRs) or new products embodying innovations. Over the past two decades, agricultural research has been criticized for the noncompetitive nature of research fund allocations. Considerable evidence exists that the system has performed well for society. We conclude that the private sector should be permitted to carry out research that it finds profitable to undertake with minimal competition from the public sector. The public research institutions should focus on general and pretechnology science programs that complement private research‐and‐development (R&D) activities and conduct applied research in areas in which innovations are socially beneficial but not privately profitable. The mechanism for channeling public funds to researchers (e.g., formula, competitive grants, or earmarks) can be expected to affect the types of benefits/impacts of agricultural research conducted and the efficiency of the research activity. Issues remain about the emphasis on process versus substance in the R&D funding debate. However, available evidence does not suggest the elimination of traditional funding mechanisms for public agricultural research.

Multiple Evaluations of Grant Proposals by Independent Assessors: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Evaluations of Reliability, Validity, and Structure

External assessor ratings of the quality of the research team and of the proposed research were evaluated for proposals submitted to the highly competitive Australian Research Council large grants program. The structure of the responses by multiple assessors was evaluated using a series of nested models that are variations of the traditional congeneric, tau-equivalent, and parallel measurement models. The estimated reliability based on four independent assessors was modest but comparable to other peer review research: .494 for proposal ratings, .634 for researcher ratings, and .704 for a total assessment. Mean ratings (averaged over multiple assessors) of the proposal and the research team were highly correlated (r = .85), suggesting a lack of differentiation and a substantial method/halo effect in ratings by the same assessor. Confirmatory factor analysis models supported this suggestion, representing this method effect as correlated uniquenesses. Tests of whether proposal and researcher ratings reflected one or two latent variables, based on the internal structure of the assessment ratings and relations with external criteria (academic rank, prior funding, and publications), supported a one-factor solution.

New DOE Research Program to Boost Sagging Industry

NUCLEAR POWERA $19 million competitive grants program of the Department of Energy called the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) is aimed at developing new technologies and reinvigorating the nuclear science community, which has seen its numbers and funding dwindle in recent years. Supporters hope the program will eventually lead to technologies that prevent nuclear weapons proliferation and form the basis for cheaper, safer reactors that generate less waste. Critics, however, charge that NERI represents a handout to a mature industry that can afford its own research.