Attending: Dick Heimsch, Don Latham, Kirklyn Kerr, Virginia Clark, Jim Fischer, Al Parks, Ed Price, Ted Alter, P. S. Benepal, Mike Chippendale, Eric Young (chair)
Guests: David MacKenzie, Bob Heil

1. ESCOP/ECOP Task Force report on Agricultural Biotechnology
   • David MacKenzie presented a summary of the Task Force’s report and led a discussion on what the next steps should be for ESCOP.
   • The following points were brought out during the discussion:
     • The Planning Committee recommends that any action on this report within the system should be joint between ESCOP and ECOP, and should also include ICOP and ACOP as appropriate.
     • The appropriate audience for the report’s recommendations should be determined. Is it research and extension faculty and administration or other groups?
     • The world view differences indicated in MacKenzie’s summary need to be addressed.
     • The system’s response must maintain the Land Grant Universities (LGU) as an objective source of information.
     • LGU system works because of the creativity of the individual faculty, but this will require a focused multidisciplinary effort.
     • ESCOP and ECOP should work to facilitate this multidisciplinary effort, particularly by including non-traditional disciplines.
     • Funding sources, such as 401 and Kellogg Food Initiative, could be used to encourage diverse disciplinary teams.
     • LGU’s should be involved whenever possible in industry based forums that are dealing with this issue.
     • ESCOP and ECOP should engage other components of the agricultural community, i.e. commodity associations, industry groups, etc., in discussion on how to move forward on this issue.
2. Agricultural Genome Initiative
   • David MacKenzie presented a summary of this initiative, that was developed by Dick Lower, Terry Nipp and himself, and led a discussion on potential ways to launch the initiative.
   • The following points were brought out during the discussion:
     • We need to determine the current LGU activities, capabilities and partnerships in this area.
     • A national multistate research project could be established and each LGU with genomic programs encouraged to join, which would give some accounting of current activity.
     • There are very serious infrastructure needs in this area for both equipment and facilities throughout the LGU system.
     • Many colleges of agriculture need to increase their collaboration with the life science departments, particularly where they are in a separate college.
     • Emphasis of this initiative should be on food, fiber and the environment, rather than agriculture, if we want to attract partners like NSF and NIH.
     • Should focus on where the science will be in two or three years.
     • Need to do background investigations on what other agencies are doing for future funding.
     • Put together a comprehensive plan for ESCOP, then partner with other agencies for various parts of plan depending on their interests.
     • Should this be a plant and animal initiative or just plant. Animal effort is further along at national level, but may be more activity in plants at LGU’s.
   • Recommendations to ESCOP on Agricultural Genome Initiative
     • Establish an National Multistate Research and Extension Project on Plant Genomics following new guidelines for NRP’s.
     • Request ESCOP Science and Technology Committee to establish a subcommittee on Plant Genomics. This should be done jointly with ECOP, if this will be a joint initiative.
     • Increase support for current national level effort on animal genomics.
     • Determine best estimate of what private sector will be doing in next two years in plant and animal genomics and how LGU’s can complement, rather than duplicate.
     • Approach ECOP about developing a joint initiative following the recommendations of the ESCOP/ECOP Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology.
3. SAES Research Priority Identification Process
   • The process used at the Sept, 1999 SAES Workshop for identifying research priorities to be used in forming the ESCOP national budget request was reviewed and procedures for improving it were discussed.
   • The following recommendations were made to improve the process for next year’s workshop:
     • Distribute report of what happened in last Fall’s Workshop with the priority results to all SAES Directors.
     • Include request to include a discussion of these priorities when they engage stakeholders, internal and external, between now and Sep, 2000.
     • Use Agricultural Genomics Initiative as example of how the Workshop output was used.
     • Eric Young will contact Terry Nipp and Tom Payne about other uses of Workshop output.
     • Eric Young will confirm with Dick Lower that priority process will be included in Sept. 2000 SAES Workshop.
4. Assessment of ESCOP Reorganization
   • How to proceed with this committee charge was discussed. In light of the recent change in the Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing Committee, it may still be premature to accurately assess the effectiveness of reorganization.
   • Eric Young will consult with ESCOP Executive Committee on the timing of this assessment.

[END]