Plans are afoot to create more fertile pastures for research within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). A proposed National Institute for Food and Agriculture, which could eventually have as much as $1 billion a year to spend, would be associated with the USDA, but operate independently of it.

At first sight, this seems like a good opportunity to reinvigorate US agricultural research. Science at the USDA has been hamstrung for years, not by a lack of funding but by structural problems. Only about 15% of its $2-billion annual research spend goes to competitive grants; the figure at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is 70%. Some researchers are wary of the USDA's research programmes, fearing that they lack a long-term strategy. Farmers, consumers, researchers and agribusiness would all benefit if more of the cash went on competitive, peer-reviewed grants.

Advocates of the proposed institute, which is likely to be considered by Congress this month, say it could do this by operating along the same lines as the NIH, which has a long tradition of distributing grants on the basis of merit, without interference from its parent, the Department of Health and Human Services, or from the Congress.

But matters are unlikely to be so straightforward at the USDA, in part because agribusiness is accustomed to exercising a strong influence over the department. It has championed the institute's creation and may expect to retain influence over its research programmes.

To constrain that influence and ensure the institute's independence, some minimum conditions must be met: its director should be a reputable and independent scientist, for example, and so should the members of its advisory panel. These people will put their reputations on the line when they take up their posts, and that should ensure they form a bulwark against commercial interference.

Harder to guarantee will be an understanding on the part of the congressional committees that fund the USDA that the new institute is to be left alone. In the past, the USDA's competitive, peer-reviewed research programmes have been eroded by a culture that demands that each politician receive something for the state they represent.

The committees should consider what the institute stands to lose if they do not take a hands-off approach. The institute is expected to tackle contentious questions on food, its relation to human health, and environmental issues. These questions can only be answered effectively by an institute that has the trust of the public. Equally importantly, the answers will only be accepted internationally if the institute is seen to take on the toughest questions and report the results honestly, irrespective of the corporate economic impact.