1. Chair, Ham reviewed the revised ESCOP committee structure and charge. The Committee discussed the action items assigned to the S and T Committee.

Strategic Target 2: "Improve the Effectiveness of Agricultural Research Management."

1. "Share research management approaches and successful leadership experiences through professional development programs, seminars, workshops, and in other ways." The second annual Director Workshop to be held in Memphis on September 28-30 addresses this item. There is still opportunity for S and T input to organizer, R. Lower. Theme for the workshop is partnering with industry, with stakeholders in developing research, priorities, and initiative. A question: Should there also be a component on partnering with extension and invite extension or create a panel for this discussion?

2. "Develop improved performance and accountability measures to better assure scientific quality and research relevance." Committee discussed this as primarily involving the development of peer review. It was noted that Dave McKenzie is drafting a guideline for the Northeast on peer review. It was suggested that this could be shared with the committee. All Associations should have documentation of the review for the multistate projects, formerly identified as regional research. In addition, each state has responsibility for identifying a process used in their project review.

3. "Develop, maintain, and share methods for documenting the impacts of research." The committee recognized Dave King's role for several years in the development of the impact statements, first at the national level and then moving to a regional activity. There needs to be further development in this arena to go beyond what has been accomplished in the past to actually do an assessment of impact. Further, the group discussed the need to do something with regional research, now multistate research, in terms of documenting accomplishment and potential impact. Several different approaches were discussed. The committee basically concurred on an approach, which would place the responsibility on the Administrative Advisor for the development of accountability and impact information for a regional/multistate project. Committee considered that in order to facilitate this approach there would likely need to be an education workshop process for Administrative Advisors to facilitate developing such documentation. The Administrative Advisor was selected as the responsible individual rather than the committee chair given most committees rotate chairs on a one- or two-year cycle. Presumably the educational activity for administrative advisors would need to occur at each regional, association. Further it was suggested that the Administrative Advisor utilize the writer from their institution, or another appropriate institution, in working with the regional research, multistate research committee in a workshop mode during the committee meeting to identify accomplishments. This could then be used by the attending writer to develop an accomplishment/impact statement for a regional committee.

4. "Maintain an inventory of SAES System's capacity (human, fiscal, and physical resources) to better plan and direct activities for solving relevant problems." Several current items contribute to this point. Tom Helms activity in the identification and classification of RPA's under CSREES goals and the crosswalk of old to new CRIS RPA's facilitates information in this area. In addition, the database on the web, which identifies faculty and area of expertise, is another source of information. Also, it was noted that many universities use the Community of Science Database.

The question was raised as to what has happened to the study on physical facilities that was generated by USDA. The study has been completed and a draft document is now being reviewed. This will give a broad overview of general facilities. Several committee members pointed out the need to identify unique, critical facilities that will enable the system to contribute in a unique way to research programs, to leverage research opportunities with other Agencies. Examples might include unique animal containment facilities, water quality field stations, etc. Information on such unique facilities could be very valuable in partnering with other institutions, leveraging our position, etc. Tim Strickland and William Wagner of CSREES will draft a questionnaire for use in identifying unique facilities. S and T will review and likely move the questionnaire to Experiment Stations for completion.

5 "Verify the quality of scientific research, utilizing peer review where appropriate, to ensure that research investments are effectively allocated." In the committee's view this overlaps with item 2 above and would suggest consideration be given to consolidating these two items.

Strategic Target 8: "Organize the National Research Portfolio into a Set of Discrete Programs"

1. "Give the SAES System's diversity of disciplines a voice in the creation of a consensus ordering the research portfolio's programs." This item would appear to be an overlap with the Planning Committee activity thus it is placed on the back burner by S and T and deferred to Planning Committee for primary action.

2. "Reorganize the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy's (ESCOP) Technical Committees for greater cost efficiency and effectiveness." This item is what this particular meeting is all about in attempting to identify, describe, and move forward with the S and T Committee agenda.

3. "Partner with the professional society activities (e.g., FAIR 2002, CROPS 99) for planning national program activities." FAIR 2002 and CROPS 99 are represented around the table. The question was posed, are there other broad entities that should be considered for representation at the S and T table? Entities identified were ARI and CAST. The committee elected not to recommend expanded membership until we had organized ourselves and put an agenda in place. It is noted that the Board of Agriculture has a Science and Technology Policy Committee chaired by, Darrell Lund. This is a derivation of the previous Biotech Committee. There is need to pursue the question of how does this S and T Committee relate to the Board on Ag Science and Technology Policy Committee.

4. "Act as liaison with commodity groups to establish agreed programmatic priorities, for mutual support." There is a need to sort out who all is working with what outside groups. It was recognized that the Administrative Heads have an activity in this area Also there is a question about the Partnership Committee and their agenda in this area. S and T recognizes the importance of private sector relationships. Further, it is important that there be coordination in our approach to the private sector versus potential multiple conflicting messages. Chair will pursue the issue with the Administrative Heads and the Partnership Committee.

5. "Charge the identified program areas with responsibility for monitoring and projecting needed capacity, planning research activities, and reporting accomplishments." Committee sees this as an overlap with Item 3 in Target 2 and would recommend that these two be amalgamated into a single item.

2. Proposed Framework for Planning Joint Extension Research Programs

The committee reviewed the NRPA's and also received a copy of the North Carolina Plan of Work Program areas, which moves from 18 to 12 program areas or topics. While there was considerable discussion on this topic there was no action or resolution. Committee noted the importance of integrating and harmonizing program areas between research extension in order to report and account for integrated activities. While SAES recognizes the importance in moving forward in this area, progress is very limited at this point-in-time. The committee expressed appreciation to Tom Helms for his leadership in crosswalk of old RPA's to new RPA's and categorizing both old and new RPA's under the CSREES goals and objectives.

3. Committee Membership

Committee recommended there be a liaison between the Board on Ag Science and Technology Policy Committee with the ESCOP S and T Committee. The request for this liaison would be forwarded to Darrell Nelson for implementation. There was considerable discussion on representation from various other program and discipline areas. It was recognized that Darrell will be talking to the Social Science groups in the next couple of days. It is the committees recommendation that Consumer and Family Science, the social science component of our community, be represented on the S and T Committee. This recommendation will be forwarded by the chair to Darrell Nelson.

4. Review of Subcommittees

There was considerable discussion on what is the charge, the role, of subcommittees. Should all subcommittees be grandfathered? What is the status and current activity of the various subcommittees? Several have submitted annual reports while others appear to be quite inactive. Copies of subcommittee reports were made available to the S and T committee. With respect to subcommittees there may be multiple functions, roles or activities in which some subcommittees may need to be long-term continuing committees, whereas others may be quite short term with an immediate problem solving orientation. By consensus the S and T Committee elected to continue the Pest Management Strategies and Genetic Resources Subcommittees. In discussing the Genetic Resources Subcommittee it was noted that there is a new national animal genome initiative which is primarily focused on production ag animals. This is not an ESCOP sanctioned committee, but Darrell Nelson was requested to appoint ESCOP representation to this iniative. That representation includes Randy Woodson and Nancy Cox from the ESCOP S & T Committee. Randy reported on the initial meeting of that group, May 10, in D.C. The basic thrust is to attempt to elevate genomic research on agricultural animals to the same level as plant genome in Agriculture.

Food Safety. The committee concurred that there should be a subcommittee on Food Safety. Bill Wagner expressed a need for this group in the terms of CSREES interaction. There is an ad hoc committee in CSREES and it will be important to have the SAES represented on such a committee. The S and T chair will communicate with Darrell Nelson and seek to establish SAES representation to a subcommittee on Food Safety with CSREES.

Water Quality is another area that might benefit from a subcommittee structure. Tim Strickland is in the process of developing a group in CSREES and will communicate with the chair of S and T at an appropriate time to solicit the development of representation from SAES.

5. Science Road Map Subcommittee

Randy Woodson reported on activity in this area. The science road map concept was first generated in SAES by Colin Kaltenbach in a presentation at the ESCOP Kansas City meeting. It was subsequently identified as an S and T Committee activity. In a concurrent situation NASULGC also recommended there be a study and activity very similar to the science road map concept. Further, the Board on Agriculture has initiated an activity in the development of a road map activity. President Clinton and his administration has issued a statement on the importance of the federal and state partnership in the arena of science. There will be contact with Cliff Gabriel to determine what might be developing in the Office of Science in the Clinton Administration. Thus there are a number of additional related activities in other agencies and other entities that involve a science road map type planning and development activity. Randy will contact the other entities and develop coordination and/or linkage to other activities to facilitate a broad planning/road map project activity.

6. "Bio Based Ag Products" and a DOE initiative

Darrell Nelson spent a brief time with the committee and brought several points to the attention of the committee. Senator Lugar has introduced a Bill, "Bio Based Ag Products," as an amendment to AREERA. The Bill is to provide authorization for USDA to pursue research and development in this area. Committee consensus was this is a good initiative and should be supported by SAES. A DOE document and initiative identifies DOE focus in two areas: 1) Bio based bio energy and 2) Carbon sequestration. It is important that the SAES be involved and identify their capacity and previous contribution to research in these areas. The capacity of SAES to contribute to these areas needs to be documented and forwarded.

7. Recommend R. Jones organize meeting of ESCOP Committee Chairs to facilitate coordination.

8. Next meeting of S and T Committee: September 27 (prior to ESCOP Workshop)
 
 

SUMMARY: Action Items

a. Invite Social Science to be represented on S and T Committee (Ham to contact Nelson).

b. Reauthorize Subcommittees: Pest Management Strategies and Genetic Resources (Ham communication to Nelsen).

c. Develop Subcommittees: Food Safety (Ham request to Nelsen to interact with CSREES group, via W. Wagner) Water Quality (Tim Strickland will advise on timing to implement).

d. Develop S and T Committee liaison with Board on Ag Science and Technology Policy Committee (Ham to contact Nelsen).

e. Combine Strategic Target item 2 and 5, Target 2 number 3 and Target 8 number 5. Defer Target 8 number 1 to Planning Committee. (Ham communicate to Nelsen).

f. Science Road Map: Woodson will consult with and coordinate development with other entities engaged in a similar development activity.

g. Facility Identification: Strickland and Wagner will develop a draft survey for S and T consideration. Objective is to identify "unique/one-of-a-kind" facilities. S and T likely to "sponsor" survey.

h. Recommended approach to developing regional research accomplishment/impact statements. (Ham to communicate to Nelsen).

Submitted by Eldon Ortman.

Meeting Participants:
Bill Brown
Nancy Cox
George Ham
Richard Heimsch
Tom Helms (by phone)
Allan Jones (for Edwin Price)
Terry Nelsen (for Richard Dunkle)
Eldon Ortman
Ron Pardini
Tim Strickland (Ralph Otto)
Audrey Trotman (for Conrad Bonsi)
William Wagner
Randy Woodson

[END]