Strawman/Papers
Establishing Decision Criteria For Evaluating Regional Agricultural Research Priorities
Northeastern Regional Priority Committee
Northeastern Regional Association Of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
Introduction: The Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) created the NE Regional Priority Committee1 with the purpose to "recommend to the NERA membership a focused agenda of multi-state research activities". To address this charge the committee has prepared the following document that offers four criteria that we propose could be used to decide regional priorities
Approach: Selecting the topics for future research investments in agricultural science requires a rational that is defensible, and a process that is, for the public sector, completely transparent. This document sets out a system of points-to-consider that could make up a new approach to setting criteria for decision making on resource allocations
The fundamental goal for setting agreed-to-decision criteria for allocating public sector agricultural research should be to gain the largest possible returns on research investment
This then requires consideration of four factors:
- There must be a congruence between the dimensions of the intended topic and the allocation of research resources. Larger impacts can be expected by investing in topics that already have a large base in agriculture, forestry or rural development (e.g., wheat, hardwoods, community services), rather than trying to start from a smaller base (e.g., edible amaranth) or a regionally distributed environmental issue rather than local or state. This requires that some congruence analysis be done
- The allocation of resources needs to directly reflect the needs of the intended stakeholders and customers. This requires us to be listening to our customers
- Judgements are needed on what is feasible to accomplish through agricultural research, and this needs to be grounded in the best possible science. This in turn mandates some evaluation of the scientific potential of proposed research approaches by knowledgeable scientists
- Projections of expected benefits are needed to permit informed choices of alternative allocations. These must be done with a set of assumptions that are understood by the participants and the claimants to the system, and are broadly agreed upon. Ex ante estimations need to go beyond economic consequences to the non-economic benefits and consequences of technologies (i.e., social, environmental). Assigning premium or discount coefficients to economic projections can do this
- Much of the information needed for the congruence analyses is available through the CRIS system as current outlays. Additional information will be needed on specific commodities and production sectors. Some decisions will be needed on the values to be used for non-production programs such as human nutrition, food safety, youth at risk and environmental concerns
- Customer listening information can be derived from recent and current sources, including: the regional listening sessions; from the joint ECOP/ESCOP futuring activity; and the USDA/REE GPRA process that included regional hearings. Other sources can also be drawn upon, as needed
- Technical judgements on the feasibility of research approaches may need a new methodology that reaches out beyond peer review to obtain the perspectives of knowledgeable scientists (perhaps listening sessions or focus groups) and to gather information and data for further analysis. This may be one of the most challenging aspects of this new approach
- Projection of benefits and consequences will require the commissioning of specialists knowledgeable in the modeling of economic concepts and analysis of projections for validity and accuracy. This might be done as a competitive grant component of this exercise
Implementation: Planning for the implementation of any new criteria to be used for setting regional research priorities will await agreement to proceed by the membership of NERA
This report was discussed and accepted at the February 1-3, 1999 NERA meeting in Washington, DC