IMPACT ANALYSES AND DECISION STRATEGIES FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (NC1003)

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: HATCH
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 0217126
• Multistate No.: NC-_OLD1034
• Project Start Date: Jan 1, 2009
• Project End Date: Sep 30, 2011
• Program Code: [(N/A)]- (N/A)

Recipient Organization
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
208 MUELLER LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY PARK,PA 16802

Performing Department
Agri Economics & Rural Sociol

Non Technical Summary
The structure of agricultural research funding and implementation is continuing to change. Funding is becoming more competitive and less predictable in the public sector, and intellectual property rights introduce new sources of incentive and possibly disincentive to share information and collaborate. At the same time the opportunities afforded by advances in biotechnology are expanding, although their desirability and safety are subject to challenge.The legal, institutional and economic aspects of this evolving environment require careful, integrated analysis. The purpose of this study is to help make agricultural research as effective as possible in the newly evolving institutional, funding, and scientific environment, and to provide information to help in designing research structures and institutions, and to formulate research incentives.

Animal Health Component

(N/A)

Research Effort Categories

Basic

(N/A)

Applied

(N/A)

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
610	6099	3080	50%
611	6050	3080	50%

Knowledge Area
611 - Foreign Policy and Programs; 610 - Domestic Policy Analysis;

Subject Of Investigation
6099 - People and communities, general/other; 6050 - Communities, areas, and regions;

Field Of Science
3080 - Sociology;

Keywords

research funding

economics

formula funding

land grant universities

Goals / Objectives
1. To estimate the expected and actual flow of benefits and costs of research for agriculture, and related areas, including the incidence of their distribution. 2. To analyze decision strategies for funding, planning, managing and evaluating agricultural research by public institutions and private organizations. 3. To analyze opportunities, risks, and the benefits from existing and potential future public-private sector linkages, including new institutions (joint ventures, partnering, consortia, specialty research centers, start-up companies, intellectual property), technology transfer.

Project Methods
We intend to empirically assess the evolving structure of support, public, nonprofit and private, for Agricultural research. We shall apply modern sociological theory to analysis of the optimal organization of research across units and sources of funding, and study the implications of intellectual property protection for such research,via surveys and/or other means. We shall conduct quantitative and qualitative sociological analyses of patent quality, litigation decisions and patent system performance using patent databases and information on citations and linguistic links. The apppropriate strategies for the newly strong nonprofit private initiatives to support agriculture and agricultural research will be addressed.These will include prizes, purchase agreements and other strategies already in use by major nonprofit donors. We shall study the distributional effects of initiatives such as innovation in biofuels and its effects on producers and consumers, and on government revernu and national security.

Progress 01/01/09 to 09/30/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: The project objectives were to 1) measure the flow of benefits and costs from agricultural research, 2) analyze decision strategies and practices for agricultural research institutions, and 3) analyze public-private research initiatives. I analyzed databases that I had generated previously and conducted a survey of university technology transfer offices during this period. I generated multiple publications as outputs. PARTICIPANTS: I collaborated with many colleagues on writing the papers for this project. I also asked graduate assistants to help me gather and analyze data. TARGET AUDIENCES: The primary target audience is social scientists and university administrators. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
New knowledge was created from analysis of data generated from a previously funded USDA project. The key aspects of that new knowledge include 1)research funding sources influence university scientist research agendas, 2) university structures influence university scientist research agendas, and 3) university scientist value orientations influence research agendas.

Publications

• Glenna, L. L., R. Welsh, D. Ervin, W. B. Lacy, and D. Biscotti. 2011. Commercial Science, Scientists Values, and University Biotechnology Research Agenda. Research Policy 40(7):957-968.
• Ervin, D. E., L. L. Glenna, and R. A. Jussaume, Jr. 2011. The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability. Sustainability 3:847-874.
• Glenna, L. L., R. A. Jussaume, Jr., and J. C. Dawson. 2011. How Farmers Matter in Shaping Agricultural Technologies: Social and Structural Characteristics of Wheat Growers and Wheat Varieties. Agriculture and Human Values 28(2):213-224.

Progress 10/01/09 to 09/30/10

Outputs
OUTPUTS: In an effort to inform science policy in the public and private sectors, I conducted a survey of university technology transfer offices in the United States to determine variation in funding structures. They tend to be structured in one of three ways: (1) Self-sustaining: operating revenues generated solely from licensing revenue; (2) University supported: operating revenue supplied by university (licensing revenue goes to university budget); and (3) Hybrid: a combination of university support and licensing revenue. PARTICIPANTS: There are currently 39 participants from 26 land-grant universities and from the USDA ERS involved in the NC-1034. TARGET AUDIENCES: Articles and reports are intended to inform policy makers at the state, federal, and international level, university administrators, industry managers, and representatives in global non-governmental organizations. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
I submitted an NSF proposal to utilize qualitative and quantitative social scientific research methods to determine if the variation in structures of TTOs and other factors explain patterns of technology transfer. The results of this study may yield insights regarding best practices for TTOs. Such findings are likely to have implications for federal and state policies that shape university TTOs, and are likely to be useful for university administrators overseeing TTO policies and practices.

Publications

• Glenna, L. L. and R. A. Jussaume Jr. 2010. Social Equity and the Genetically Engineered Crops Controversy. Choices 25(2). www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/pdf/article_130.pdf.
• Mendum, R. and L. L. Glenna. 2010. Socioeconomic Obstacles to Establishing a Participatory Plant Breeding Program for Organic Growers in the United States. Sustainability 2:73-91.
• Lacy, W. B., L. Glenna, D. Biscotti, and R. Welsh. 2009. Agricultural biotechnology, socioeconomic effects, and the fourth criterion. In Michael C. Flickinger (ed.) Wiley Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology: Bioprocess, Bioseparation, and Cell Technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pp. 1-16.
• Ervin, D. E., L. L. Glenna, and R. A. Jussaume Jr. 2010. Are biotechnology and sustainable agriculture compatible Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(2):143-157.

Progress 10/01/08 to 09/30/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: This project is designed to develop information used for making and implementing science policy in the public and private sectors. (1) To determine benefits and costs of research for agriculture and related areas. (2) To analyze decision strategies for funding, planning, managing, and evaluating agricultural research by public institutions and private organizations. (3) To analyze opportunities, risks, and benefits from existing and potential public-private sector linkages, including such things as institutions, technology transfer mechanisms. PARTICIPANTS: There are currently 39 participants from 26 land-grant universities from the USDA ERS involved in the NC-1034. TARGET AUDIENCES: Articles and reports are intended to inform policy makers at the state, federal, and international level, university administrators, industry managers, and representatives in global non-governmental organizations. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Project outputs will be used to increase knowledge and awareness of social and economic impacts of agricultural research and new technologies. New data will be collected and analyzed to inform public decisions at the institutional and national level for organizing, managing and funding public agricultural research.

Publications

• Glenna, L. L. and D. R. Cahoy. 2009. Agribusiness Concentration, Intellectual Property, and the Prospects for Rural Economic Benefits from the Emerging Biofuel Economy. Southern Rural Sociology 24(2):111-129.
• Biscotti, D., L. L. Glenna, W. B. Lacy, and R. Welsh. 2009. The 'Independent' Investigator: How Academic Scientists Construct Their Professional Identity in University-Industry Agricultural Biotechnology Research Collaborations. Economic Sociology of Work 18:261-285.
• Jussaume Jr., R. A. and L. Glenna. 2009. Considering Structural, Individual and Social Network Explanations for Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture: An Example Drawn from Washington State Wheat Growers. Sustainability 1:120-132.
• Welsh, R., L. Glenna, W. Lacy, and D. Biscotti. 2008. Close Enough but Not Too Far: Assessing the Effects of University-Industry Research Relationships and the Rise of Academic Capitalism. Research Policy 37:1854-1864.