Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
settled, UC had won its court case but lost some of its public reputation.
Public interest groups were further emboldened to publicize the negative
impacts of LGU activities. 34
LGU administrators generally brushed off these critics, at least ini-
tially. During the 1980s, in at least some states, groups inspired by
Hightower were able to assemble a sufficient breadth of argument to
public officials for sustainable agriculture initiatives. Concomitantly,
internal to the LGU system, criticism of research activities emerged.
Relative to other research institutions, LGU science was judged too
production oriented, too applied, and not sufficiently focused on origi-
nal discovery. 35 State public funding for agricultural research declined
simultaneously with the escalation of federal agency (external) funding,
leading to more emphasis on discipline-specific basic research at the
expense of applied research to produce knowledge useful for growers.
External and internal forces brought an end to what Fred Buttel called
the “Golden Age” of the LGU system in the 1980s. 36 In the 1980s, LGU
system administrators, inspired by the success of the National Institutes
of Health, identified a new constituency: the life science/biotechnology
industries. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the Golden Age and the new
model. Note the absence of extension activities and farmers in the new
Farmer needs
(communicated or
perceived by
Cooperative
Extension, LGU
administration
and scientists)
Applied,
locally-
adapted
research
Public domain
technology;
Cooperative
Extension
technology
transfer
State legislative
appropriations
(induced partly
by federal
formula funding)
Interstate
competition
among farmers
and perception of
interstate
competition
Figure 2.1
Schematic model of the “Golden Age” of LGU research (1940s-1970s). From
Buttel 2001.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search