J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 2007. 85:E16-E17. doi:10.2527/jas.2006-529
© 2007 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jas.2006-529v1
85/13_suppl/E16    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reeves, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reeves, J. J.

TRIENNIAL REPRODUCTION SYMPOSIUM

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

J. J. Reeves2

Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman 99164


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
 LITERATURE CITED
 
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.

Key Words: animal reproduction • funding • United States Department of Agriculture


   EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
 EXTENDED ABSTRACT
LITERATURE CITED
 
As a new faculty member in the Department of Animal Sciences at Washington State University in 1970, I was happy with my beginning salary of $13,500 and my Hatch funds of $13,500 for support of research in my laboratory. These were not considered start-up funds, but rather money I would get each year for research. As can be seen in Figure 1Go, my annual Hatch funding has decreased steadily through 2006, where it currently is $250. This is only my experience and will not be the same for all reproductive scientists working in animal science departments during this time period. However, there has been a definite downward trend over the last 40 yr for Hatch funds for animal scientists to use in their research programs. Thirty to forty years ago, scientists in this area had the luxury of not needing extramural grants to conduct basic or applied research in animal reproduction.


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Hatch funding support from 1970 through 2006 for the Reeves Laboratory in the Department of Animal Sciences at Washington State University.

 
Through the 1970s, NIH was the primary source of federal competitive research grant funding for animal scientists studying animal reproduction. This required couching the proposal in terms designed to convince NIH that domestic animals were good model organisms for basic research on human reproduction. The first USDA Competitive Research Grants Program was initiated in 1978 under the auspices of the Competitive Research Grants Office. Again, animal scientists could only get funds for research in reproduction through the Animal Health Special Grants Program, which began in 1980. Dedicated funding for animal reproduction did not begin 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 NIH and USDA, typically in the range of 3 yr, with total direct costs of approximately $150,000. The initiation of USDA funding for animal reproduction permitted directing research more toward the animal industry and less toward human reproductive problems or animal health problems.

The names of these programs have changed over time; the USDA NRI Competitive Grants Program began in 1991 and included a program called Reproductive Biology of Animals (Mirando, 2006Go). Successful funding of individual grants was based on an important industry problem developed around a sound testable hypothesis and tested using basic technology. The peer review system used by all NRI programs has been based on primary, secondary, and tertiary panel reviewers supplemented by external (ad hoc) reviewers. The current review system for most NRI programs, including the Animal Reproduction Program, is using fewer external reviewers.

The NRI Animal Reproduction Program did not change the award size substantially for individual grants until 2001, when the award size gradually increased through 2003 (Mirando and Hamernik, 2006Go). In 2004, the award size then increased markedly for individual grants to a funding level of $300,000 to 500,000 (for a total award, including indirect costs) for a grant period of 3 to 4 yr (Mirando and Hamernik, 2006Go). This has been beneficial for the funded scientists, because they have a better chance of accomplishing the proposed research objectives of the grant, resulting in a better progress report and a greater chance of continued funding for the next submittal. However, this has also resulted in fewer grants being funded.

The number of grants funded in reproduction per year is approaching a critically low number, with an average of only 10 to 11 new grants funded per year (Mirando, 2006Go). At the present funding level, it will be difficult for even the best scientist to sustain a research career based only on competitive funding from the USDA NRI Animal Reproduction Program. If this trend continues, animal science departments may not continue to employ reproductive physiologists at the present number if they cannot obtain extramural funding. Academic reproductive physiologists in the future may have job expectations of only teaching and extension.

There are 3 possible options for supporting reproductive physiology research of agriculturally relevant animals in the future, if more funds are not appropriated for this program. The first is to convert USDA formula Hatch funds to competitive funds. This may cause other problems for animal science departments and colleges of agriculture. Many animal science departments use this Hatch formula money for supporting their animal centers, employees, and faculty salaries on a 12-mo basis. If the formula Hatch money is moved to competitive grants, then maintaining animal centers and infrastructure will be challenging. This is a necessary component for doing large animal research. This effect also will be a greater problem for animal science departments compared with other departments in agricultural colleges because of the high cost of maintaining animal centers.

The second solution is that researchers in reproduction will need to apply for NIH grants, with domestic animals as the model. This will restrict the kind of reproductive physiology research done to that which has human application and is not always as relevant to animal agriculture. A third option is that commodity check-off dollars need to be made available for basic and applied animal production problems, which would include reproduction. This money, which is also government and industry controlled, could be of tremendous help to researchers if made available. There is no easy solution for this lack of funding support required for continued and needed research in the area of domestic animal reproductive physiology.


   Footnotes
 
1 Presented at the ADSA-ASAS Joint Annual Meeting, Triennial Reproduction Symposium: The USDA-NRI in Reproduction – Relevance to Production Agriculture, Minneapolis, MN, July 2006. Back

2 Corresponding author: reevesjj{at}wsu.edu

Received for publication August 2, 2006. Accepted for publication October 20, 2006.


   LITERATURE CITED
Top
 Abstract
 EXTENDED ABSTRACT
 LITERATURE CITED
 


Mirando, M. A. 2007. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program in animal reproduction: Changes in priorities and scope relevant to United States animal agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 85:E11–E15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Mirando, M. A., and D. L. Hamernik. 2006. Funding priorities in animal reproduction at the United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Biol. Reprod. 74:459–462.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Poult. Sci.Home page
C. G. Scanes
The Case for Funding Agricultural Research
Poult. Sci., December 1, 2007; 86(12): 2483 - 2484.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jas.2006-529v1
85/13_suppl/E16    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reeves, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reeves, J. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS