Summary - Planning and Coordination Workshop
for ARS National Program 306
Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products
Greenbelt, Maryland
March 11-13, 2003  

The following serves to describe only the major issues, points of discussion and actions taken as a result of the workshop.

ARS National Program (NP) 306 is a large, diverse research program which is scheduled to undergo peer panel reviews of its 100+ research projects in the near future.  In preparation for these reviews, lead scientists of CRIS projects coded to NP 306, pertinent Research Leaders, Center Directors/Location Coordinators, Area Directors, and representatives of the National Program Staff (NPS) and other ARS offices were invited to participate in a planning and coordination workshop with the following objectives:

1) Review the peer review process, peer review experiences with other national programs, and timeframe, requirements and expectations for NP 306;

2) Review the NP 306 mission, components, action plan problem areas, and how NP 306 compares to other national programs;

3) Review progress made on designated action plan problem area(s) for each project;

4) Describe the proposed focus, objectives, and approaches for next 5-year cycle for each project;

5) Identify specific stakeholders and advocates for each project;

6) Constructively critique draft prospectuses within peer panel groupings;

7) Identify gaps and needs in research within NP 306 and how we can address them

8) Coordinate research planning to the extent possible within NP 306; and

9) Identify potential cooperations and collaborations within NP 306 and beyond.

Objectives 1 and 2 were addressed by speakers from the Office of Scientific Quality Review and the National Program Staff.  Workshop breakout sessions were constituted by scientists representing research projects expected to be reviewed in the same peer review panel.  Lead scientists were asked prior to the workshop to prepare an outline (draft prospectus) of their project plan for the next five years which served as a basis of discussion in their breakout.  Participants in these breakouts addressed objectives 3-9. Common issues related to project plan preparation, peer review, coordination, and cooperation were discussed in a wrap-up session. 

Workshop Feedback

The vast majority of workshop participants felt that the stated workshop objectives were accomplished, that the information presented at the workshop was useful to them, and that the discussions in the breakouts and the wrap-up were useful in learning what others in the NP are doing, in coordinating research and for strengthening project plans. 

Many participants would have liked to have had the draft prospectuses for their breakouts available to them to review prior to the workshop.  However, many draft prospectuses were not received by NPS sufficiently prior to the workshop to accommodate this request.  Draft prospectuses will be sent out to workshop participants on a request basis.

Several participants suggested that having a past peer panel chair provide insight as to what the panel is looking for might have been helpful.

Participants generally concurred that discretion must be used in writing project plans to provide sufficient detail to reviewers to allow them to assess technical merit without sacrificing disclosure of intellectual properties or scientific creativity.

It was strongly suggested that projected benefits of research should include economic valuations where possible, at the least statements describing expected or potential societal, scientific or economic benefits.

Actions from Workshop

It should be noted that significant discussion and planning occurred prior to the workshop among ARS administrators, managers, scientists, and customers/stakeholders of the NP and resulted in programmatic actions being taken.  

Action Plan

Added Manhattan, KS, under Problem Area 2.a (sorghum new uses).

Added Oxford, MS, under Problem Area 1.d.

Added wording on “sampling” under Problem Area 1.b.

Added section on Dairy Products to Planned Research Activities under Problem Area 1.d.

Changed name of Component 2 from "New Processes, New Uses, and Value-Added Biobased Products" to "New Processes, New Uses, and Value-Added Foods and Biobased Products".

Panels

Moved CRIS 6612-44000-018-00D (Lyon) from Panel 7, Quality Assessment...  to Panel 3, Food Animal Processing...

Moved CRIS 6435-13410-002-00D (Mullaney) from Panel 6, Oils and Fats Processing… to Panel 2, Non-Lipid Biobased Technologies.

Changed name of Panel 2 from “Biobased Non Food Carbohydrate & Protein Processing” to “Non-Lipid Biobased Technologies.”