The United States is examining a joint research and development model closely resembling Australia’s CRC structure, for future animal agriculture research activity.

Former Beef CRC chief executive Heather Burrow delivered a presentation on Australia’s CRC mechanism at a US conference involving a range of US R&D stakeholders earlier this month.

Participants included top level decision-makers and administrators from the US government, US Department of Agriculture personnel and land grant universities.

Steering committee outcomes from the conference carried a strong recommendation that the US should adopt the CRC model, or something close to it, for the US’s agricultural R&D funding.

“Based on the success of the Australian Cooperative Research Centres, a new funding paradigm should be established in the US in which academic research institutions are required to deliver products or services to society,” a post-event summary said.

“There should also be a defined path for adopting these products or services. This model would include large grants with flexible funding over a long-term period. Investors would also expect research institutions to leverage funds with multiple sources, such as private companies, commodity groups and federal agencies,” the report said.

In a conceptual vision which closely resembles the Australian CRC model, the report said, “A stable source of funding would allow faculty to spend time conducting research rather than writing grant applications. Collaborators would include a mix of expertise in fundamental and applied research, education, extension, technology transfer and commercialisation.”

“Successful teams would have the best talent to achieve outcomes important to industry and society. Quantifiable benefits to all stakeholders, expectations for collaboration and issues associated with commercialisation would be planned at the initiation of the project.”

Success of each project would be measured by assessing impacts on research capacity, society, the environment, and the local, state or national economy.

Dr Burrow told Beef Central that the US animal agriculture R&D stakeholders appeared to be in a very similar situation to those in Australia.

“Their rural R&D funding is declining to accommodate the US national budgetary situation, just at a time when they desperately need to increase innovation for food security reasons and to accommodate climate change impacts,” she said.

That said, Australia’s total R&D spend is only around 4 percent of the US total budget. Dr Burrow was not able to get comparative rural R&D figures, but suspected that the rural sector was no better off than the rest of the US R&D system, in relative terms.

“I genuinely got a sense that they will push towards adoption of CRC-type models in the US, at least for agricultural research,” she said.

The conference was convened to discuss novel funding models for US animal agricultural research at land grant and other university level, and to develop a framework for future efforts to influence industry partnerships and federal funding for animal R, D&E activities.

US federal funding for agricultural research has been stagnant for more than 30 years and has not kept pace with inflation, the conference summary said.

In a warning that could also be heeded in Australia, the summary said because federal and state investment in ag research had historically generated a return on investment of at least 20 to 1, not maintaining or increasing investment in ag research wasted an opportunity.

The lack of support for ag and animal research also represented a serious threat to national security given the looming increase in world population, it suggested.

Participants at the conference recommended that public investments in ag R&D be reinvigorated, and that land grant universities seek partnerships with the private sector to support research in animal agriculture.

Joint ventures with the allied industries should leverage strengths of academic institutions with capital in the private sector. Partnerships with the allied animal industries needed to be structured so industry partners received useful and relevant data while allowing academic scientists to conduct independent and unbiased research.

Novel ideas to increase R&D investment

Participants heard that some innovative revenue streams to support animal ag R, D&E programs had recently been implemented at several US land grant universities.

Some institutions had organised faculty around societal challenges or local issues such as One Health, Foods for Health and Water for Food, rather than the traditional disciplines of animal science or agronomy.

Cluster hires had been used to build critical mass and interdisciplinary teams. These approaches were important because agriculture sat at the nexus of food, energy, water, communities and natural resources.

Providing leadership development training for stakeholders and recent university graduates would help build a cadre of citizen advocates who were prepared to ask state legislatures to support university animal science programs, the conference summary said.

Examples of success

US university administrators had developed strategic value propositions to obtain large donations

from the private sector. In this funding paradigm, the university leverages its state funding, facilities, faculty expertise and equipment to attract funding from industry. In turn, industry collects a fee from its producers to leverage these dollars with state dollars at the university.

Industry support had funded undergraduate internship programs and graduate training programs that ensured a sufficient and qualified workforce for the industry.

The $27 million investment in Washington State University by the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission was an example, demonstrating effectiveness of a forward-thinking group of industry leaders.

The vision and conviction to dramatically increase their self-levy resulted in the university matching the industry contribution with salary for positions and investment in infrastructure that will secure the fruit growers’ long-term viability.

CRC examined as an international funding model

In the US, each academic research enterprise operates independently. This often leads to researchers spending much time writing grant applications that will not get funded, intense competition for limited federal funds and duplication of resources.

In most federal funding programs, there is no requirement that research results lead to outcomes that benefit society, economic development, the environment or the private sector.

“This situation is not sustainable,” the conference summary said.

“Based on the success of the Australian CRCs, a new funding paradigm should be established in the US in which academic research institutions are required to deliver products or services to society. There should also be a defined path for adopting these products or services. This model would include large grants with flexible funding over a long-term period.”

“Investors would also expect research institutions to leverage funds with multiple sources, such as private companies, commodity groups and federal agencies. A stable source of funding would allow faculty to spend time conducting research rather than writing grant applications.”