Published by the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Vol. 2, No. 2, Feb. 03/March 03

PrescienceCorollariesGrants SubmittedGrants AwardedBack to AES

Prescience
by John Gardner, associate dean, research and outreach

Field of Science
FY ’01 $
Economics
5,905,163
Nutrition/Metabolism
5,025,419
Molecular Biology
4,140,274
Physiology
3,905,444
Genetics
3,646,621
Whole Systems Biology
3,503,591
Ecology
2,438,263
Biochemistry
2,163,920
Entomology
1,322,607
Sociology
1,146,461
Engineering
1,063,465
Developmental Biology
963,631
Cellular Biology
852,383
Nematology
811,772
Weed Science
747,248
Sensory Science
674,578
Immunology
632,623
Chemistry
562,827
Bacteriology
483,432
Pedology
461,182
Meteorology/Climatology
383,556
Math/Computer Science
358,650
Limology
333,238
Pathology
328,549
Mycology
265,614
Statistics
240,799
Hydrology
221,968
Physics
170,217
Toxicology
165,676
Misc Microbiology
141,132
Virology
130,538
Geology
73,066
Mineralology
72,790
Psychology
19,155
Pharamcology
9,418
Education
2,111

These data report over $43 M in total research expenditures from CAFNR as submitted to USDA’s CRIS reporting system for federal FY01. These include all salary, operating, and equipment purchases for research from state, federal, and grant sources of funding.

Is CAFNR’s Research Effort
Ready for Tomorrow?

Ever wonder where CAFNR spends it’s time and resources? Have you debated with friends and colleagues the direction and focus of our research? As a public land-grant university, and part of the nation-wide network of agricultural research efforts, we serve many masters. We are accountable to local, state and federal government, as well as citizens, faculty, and staff. Illustrated on this page is a break-out by field of science of the $43M we expended on research in federal FY01. [These and other data are available from the federal CRIS system http://cristel.csrees.usda.gov].

The data reveal that CAFNR has a broad portfolio of programs and faculty, certainly more diverse than most of us might realize. Many of these are nationally known and competitive for funding among peers across the nation. Others are local, with support from individual towns, counties or economic communities. Taken as a whole, they create the building blocks for a notable research enterprise, one that ranks 16th nationally among all colleges of agriculture for research expenditures by the NSF.

Our future success, however, is probably not as dependent upon size or scope as it is on focus. Are we poised for the future problems of agriculture, food, and natural resources? Or the past? And, who can we trust to distinguish between the two? I urge you to read and become involved in this important topic. The most compelling of recent reports is that of the National Academy in a recent volume entitled, Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment and Community. If you haven’t seen it, an excellent four-page summary is available for downloading at:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/banr/frontiers
_ag_research _summary.pdf

The entire report can be purchased or viewed on-line at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084946/html

Not surprisingly, the National Academies’ Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources calls for greater attention to the quality of products and socio/environ/econ impacts of agriculture rather than agricultural production itself. In fact, in my short career in agriculture, this has always been the message to the agricultural sciences. But, I’ve also observed that most people don’t change unless they have to. During these times of limited budgets and tough choices, we all are being called to transform, realign, and find new ways to go about our business. As difficult as this process is, my hope is that it’s preparing us for the future.

Look across your own efforts and those of the College. Let me know how you think our research assets stack against tomorrow’s challenges.

Regards, John