washington

Next in line: samples of mutated corn await genetic analysis at the University of Illinois. Credit: AP/ MARK COWAN

The US National Science Foundation (NSF), under instructions from Congress to launch a plant genome research programme following intensive lobbying by the US Corn Growers' Association, appears to have succeeded in framing the initiative on its own, scientifically rigorous, terms.

The NSF says it will award more than $30 million next year to teams of researchers who present the best ideas for investigating the genomes of ‘economically significant’ plants. Money will not be allocated in advance for the investigation of any particular crop, but will instead be sent to where NSF reviewers see the best science.

Mary Clutter, head of the NSF's directorate of biological sciences, says that the announcement reflects NSF's “ordinary way of doing business”. Asked what direction the programme will take, she says: “We're going to ask the scientific community to make proposals, and find out.”

Bond: pulled off bid for extra $40 million.

The programme is being rushed into place after Senate appropriators, led by Senator Christopher Bond (Republican, Missouri), earmarked $40 million for it in the current financial year, which ends next September (see Nature 388, 312; 1997). Clutter met Senate staff last week to update them on the initiative's progress, and convinced them that the NSF will make it work. “I think NSF is embracing it as a good initiative,” a staff member said afterwards.

But concerns remain. Some researchers doubt whether the programme can meet what they see as the corn growers' inflated expectations of immediate outcomes, and retain funding long enough to bear fruit.

Others worry about the principle of the NSF — an agency whose primary mission is to support science being conducted for its own sake — running errands for an influential senator from an agricultural state who happens to chair the appropriations subcommittee that funds it.

This week's announcement asks researchers for proposals that will cost up to $3 million a year for between one and five years. The document envisages ‘virtual centres’ involving collaborators at many institutions, addressing questions on gene sequence and function from many angles.

Participants will be required to coordinate their work with existing international projects, such as the Japan-led effort to sequence the rice genome. No money will be available for new infrastructure or buildings.

As well as plant geneticists, Clutter hopes to see computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers involved in proposals that take new approaches to the study of plant genomes. Much of the work will use sequencing methods developed by the Human Genome Project, Clutter says, “but we're always in the market for new ideas”.

Researchers must submit letters of intent by 2 February and full proposals by 6 April. Grants will go out next September. Clutter says that all of the programme's $30-$35 million will be spent in the current year, with future spending contingent on future funds for the programme. A separate announcement will seek proposals for the accelerated sequencing of the Arabidopsisgenome, on which the NSF will spend the rest of the $40 million.

Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis and a powerful advocate of the programme, supports the NSF's plan to fund competing teams taking distinct approaches to the study of many different plant genomes, rather than contracting people to follow an agreed masterplan.

The genomes of corn, rice, wheat and other grasses are “strikingly similar”, he says, and the investigation of each will benefit the understanding of the others.

Raven is confident that the NSF can handle the sudden infusion of money into this field. “It is a huge ramp-up,” he admits. “But research on plants is heavily underfunded.”

NSF officials believe they have convinced the growers of corn and other commodities who sought the initiative that basic research can help to realize their objective of resilient, higher-yield crop varieties. The growers, says Clutter, “didn't really have any idea that fundamental science questions were important to them — but they now understand that”.

But the growers are watching, as well as learning. Kellye Eversole, a Washington lobbyist for the Corn Growers' Association, says that this year's budget language deliberately gave the NSF plenty of flexibility. “No-one wanted to be real prescriptive,” she says. “But if it doesn't go in the right direction, we'll be more prescriptive next year.”

Eversole is perplexed by complaints from scientists that Congress imposed the initiative on the NSF. “The scientific community seems to be okay with the president setting priorities, but not with the Congress setting priorities”, she says.

These complaints will come more to the fore next year, however, if the NSF's budget comes under pressure and Congress tries to protect the plant genome programme. This year, Bond was able to add the $40 million on top of the increased funding requested by the NSF for its normal research grants.

Officials will not say what is in next year's budget, which President Bill Clinton will unveil in February. But early indications are that he may propose no increase at all in the NSF research budget, leaving programmes to scramble for funds.

Some scientists also worry that Congress will drop the programme if it does not bear early fruit. “The commitment is only for one year,” says Andrew Paterson, a plant geneticist at the Texas A&M University. “That is scary, because it is difficult to quickly make the kind of high-visibility findings which the Congress will recognize as a basis for giving us more support.” Senate staff say this concern is misplaced, and that Bond is with the project for the long haul.

“We're talking about a major effort,” says Clutter. “What the NSF is doing is jump-starting something that will set the stage for agriculture of the 21st century. But it isn't something that NSF will be doing for ever.”

Other agencies, particularly the US Department of Agriculture, are expected to be involved in the initiative. A multi-agency task force, chaired by Ron Phillips, USDA's chief scientist, is completing a report on what their effort will look like.

The Senate has proposed an immediate injection of an extra $780 million over five years into five important areas of agricultural research, of which plant genetics is one. This effort ran into trouble when the House of Representatives went into recess last month without passing a companion bill.

But there is a good chance that USDA funds will be made available for plant genome work. That would mollify those at the land grant colleges who do most USDA research and worry that they will be overlooked by the NSF.