2/14/2013 10:02 PM
Rant warning - read with caution.
The problem with university research funding is one of sheer magnititude. It costs the university about $250,000 per full time professor per year - salary, lab space, electricity, etc. and administrative support. In California, before Dr. Frank Wong left, he had to use contract chemical trials funded by industry to to subsidize diagnostic services because the university does not support extension professors as they have in the past. When you do the math, if the industry is not kicking in about $250,000 per university professor per year, Industry is not covering the cost of the professor and the state is paying the difference. This is probably OK if we consider the tax contributions of the golf industry to the states budget. Unfortunately, nobody has promoted this contribution to legislators and university Deans. Turfgrass research programs result in a financial burden to the university in many states. If that is the case, why would a university Dean want to continue supporting a turfgrass research program.
If the golf industry does not start finding ways to support university researchers by generating substantially higher levels of funding or lobbying for some tax dollars to flow back to the university to fund positions, the turfgrass research positions will disappear. The Dr. Frank Wong position looks like it will not be refilled any time soon in California. That means that the industry has lost about $250,000 in research funding that was formerly provided by the university. It is a big impact.
If you look at a program like Rutgers, with many senior researchers, staff, equipment and land, you can easily spend $2,000,000 per year. The magnitude of the financial problem is huge. If universities are not funded effectively, Industry will be filling in some of the gaps, but the research conducted by industry will be primarily directed toward product development, not basic biology and reduced inputs?
We are all going to have to think of ways to get needed turfgrass research conducted. For example, I isolated a strain of Dreschlera poae attacking a poa green that was treated multiple times with azoxystrobin. The fungus is likely resistant to the QoI fungicides and it now poses a new threat to poa managers in California. I have contacted Dr. Jim Kerns to assist in DNA testing at NC State because there is nobody in California to assist. Who will work on population distribution in California to see how widespread the resistance problem is? There are no turfgrass disease culture collections in California. It is a total crap shoot without a research university to assist.
Surprising problems are going to show up and there is nobody here to sort them out. I can work out the preliminary details, but only a university researcher with an active program can determine the true risk and the most effective direction for managing new discoveries.
In a state like California with 921 golf courses, the golf industry generates $6.1 billion dollars in economic activity per year. Some of the tax dollars generated by golf activity needs to be funneled back to the universities to support research and education. Moreover, why should golf course superintendent's shoulder the major fund raising burden. Superintendent's aren't the beneficiaries of research findings, it is the golfers and golf course owners that benefit when the agronomic programs are effective. Why don't golfers and golf course owners know that research benefits their game and business? Who is responsible for educating the golfers and golf course owners?
How dire is the growing shortage of turfgrass researchers? We are going to find out.