Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:20:10.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Fundamental Characteristics of Quality Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Donald E. Davis
Donald E. Davis*
Affiliation:
Dep. of Bot., Plant Pathol. and Microbiol., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“We're Number 1” has become an oft-repeated claim in sports, but agricultural research in the United States must admit to being only a poor Number 2 (9). The Soviet Union exceeds the United States 3.4 to 2.2 in percent of gross national product invested in agricultural research, 60000 to 12000 in numbers of agricultural scientists, and 150000 to 13000 in support personnel (9). Furthermore, agricultural scientists hold eminent positions in the Soviet Union and are regularly admitted to the Soviet Academy of Science, whereas few United States agriculturists are elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences. This disparity is hard to understand in view of the importance of agriculture in the United States. For example, it is anticipated that in 1982 the United States will pay $60 billion for imported oil and that two-thirds of this will be paid for by agricultural exports (6). According to Schultz (8) in his address on socio-economic aspects of agriculture, “the future food supply is dependent in large measure on achievements in agricultural research”. It would appear that accepting second place to the Soviet Union in agricultural research is even more unacceptable than second place in space. This audience does not need to be convinced of the importance of agricultural research. We might, however, profit by enumerating some of the characteristics of a high quality research program. The comments I am going to make are not intended to be all inclusive and are primarily based on my observations of agricultural research in land-grant universities. Most of the comments are, however, equally applicable to other fields of research and to other agencies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , July 1982 , pp. 423 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Bartlett, J. A. and Vaughn, J. C. 1981. The recapitalization of research universities. Natl. Forum 61:11–12.Google Scholar
2. Broad, W. J. 1981. Fraud and the structure of science. Science 212:137–141.Google Scholar
3. Broad, W. J. 1982. Harvard delays in reporting fraud. Science 215:478–482.Google Scholar
4. Davis, D. E. 1979. Herbicides in peace and war. BioScience 29:84, 91–94.Google Scholar
5. Edsall, J. T. 1981. Two aspects of scientific responsibility. Science 212:11–14.Google Scholar
6. Jensen, M. H. 1981. Tomorrow's agriculture today. Longwood Program Seminars 13:25–28. Univ. of Del., Newark, DE.Google Scholar
7. McKean, Kevin, 1981. A scandal in the laboratory. Discovery 2(11):18–23.Google Scholar
8. Schultz, T. W. 1979. The economics of agricultural research and productivity. International Service Occasional Paper. Reprinted from a paper presented at a Seminar on Socio-Economic Aspects of Agricultural Research in Developing Countries, May 7–11, 1979, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
9. Witwer, Sylvan. 1981. Agricultural research: some comparisons of the Soviet, Chinese, and the United States systems. Natl. Forum 61:20–21.Google Scholar