On this coming Labor Day, September the third, I salute the wisdom of the voters of the State of Missouri. On August the 7th, they voted to repeal their existing Right to Work law and helped restore some hope for me that the people, the voters, do have something to say and do have a role in how their government should operate. The vote was overwhelming, and I know that didn’t just happen on its own. Much work, including help from Kansas, went into educating the voter on what Right to Work really means and the benefits of workers having some of their strength restored at the bargaining table.  

It was just a year ago this weekend that I posted a blog on “The Labor Movement and the Middle Class.” I stand by what I wrote then in terms of the critical link between the labor movement and the success of the middle class. But, on reflection, if you had asked me at that time of the chances that Missouri would repeal their Right to Work law, I would have probably said slim to none. I would have said so because, as I wrote, the labor movement had been on a long decline. How could they possibly have the political muscle to achieve this goal? Oh for sure the labor folks worked hard and invested much in this effort. But I really believe what brought this success this time is they got the people to understand that what they wanted would be for the greater good of the State of Missouri, not just for union members and Unions in general.

As I put this salute together, I was reminded of a parallel experience growing up on and operating a dairy and Registered Holstein herd for many years. Most agricultural commodities had a checkoff so that, as commodities were sold, there would be money pooled to promote the product and fund further research and development into that commodity. For dairy, it was milk checks to go primarily towards marketing their product. It was put in place by a vote of those who produced and sold their milk to Co-Ops primarily. But when the majority vote took place and it came time to implement, the checkoff applied to even those who opposed the checkoff. There was no “right to sell” without the checkoff but with the benefits. Everyone participated. I also remember listening to dairymen defend their system and, at the same time, oppose labor’s view on Right to Work. Apparently, consistency doesn’t always govern.

Federal laws permit and enforce many mandatory commodity checkoffs. Meaning we currently require farmers to chip in “for the good of the group,” but when workers wish to pool together their resources for their collective benefit, we pass laws that essentially exempt people from having to pay into it. Afterall, the so-called “Right to Work” is really just the right to avoid paying union dues, while any benefits that result from the negotiations—​to the employees themselves or the labor market as a whole—​still come your way.

So I salute the repeal of Right to Work in Missouri, and I issue a warning to their Legislature. The initial reaction from the Republican Legislative leadership on the repeal is to consider the possibility of just passing a new “Right to Work” law. In their view, they are the all-powerful legislature and are in a much better position to know what is best for the state. If that is the case, the next people's movement just might be taking them out of office.

Just when you think nothing more crazy can come from the Trump Administration, you learn of something that is truly dangerous, and this one hits close to home. Through the budget sent to Congress, the Administration is recommending moving operation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Agriculture. Please don’t think of this as “inside baseball” that does not impact you or the state, or the country for that matter. It does. What makes this move particularly scary is the apparent interest in shaving some money from the operation of NBAF to help fund the Wall. Yes—​the Wall. The one along our southern border. This should be a cause for great local concern, and I know from experience it will take a very united Kansas front to turn this decision around.

As a reminder, NBAF came about as a result of 9/11 and the consensus agreement that the United States had to take Homeland Security much more seriously. This was especially true in areas where much more advanced research would be necessary. For example, the unbelievably dangerous zoonotic diseases—​the viruses that can move from animals to humans—​need much more attention. In 2001, the research being done in this area was happening at Plum Island off the east coast, under the control of the Department of Agriculture, with a focus only on animal disease research. At the time, that structural organization made sense. But, after 9/11, decision makers focused on the new national security threats (particularly bioterrorism and attacks on our food systems) wisely decided to build the new facility under the leadership and management of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. In substance and common sense, the location decision has not changed since.

Just think for a moment about the problems that will likely evolve. The current facility construction is handled through private contracts but closely watched by Homeland Security staff. Many of whom, one would assume, will continue to work at the facility to help wisely and safely oversee the many incredibly dangerous research projects that will follow. Now, one can say that is not a real problem. Just move the staff. Yes, but how many will follow and how well will Agriculture manage and fund them? Keep in mind, Ag has crop insurance and food assistance programs that always generate intense interest and questions when it comes to budgeting. Will NABF face operational cuts in order to satisfy those other legitimate needs? And remember, it looks pretty clear that the Administration is moving to get their money for the wall by shifting the dollars from existing current needs within Homeland Security to fund wall construction.

I have yet to talk to anyone who thinks this makes sense. There is very little public awareness or much communication coming from any Kansas elected official. At the very least, we should—​in a united fashion—​push back, ask the tough questions, and insist upon full disclosure of all the facts. I’ve tried to think of a comparison that could help put this into perspective. For me, this would be akin to moving the K-State women's basketball coaching staff to the football program to squeeze money for something totally unrelated and ill-fated—​like building a wall along the Colorado border as a way to keep the drugs from coming our way.
​
This decision merits serious discussion at all levels—​local, state, and federal. The strategy that helped Kansas successfully attract the NBAF facility was based on a strong, united Kansas voice on the matter. Elected officials from both parties and all levels of government agreed that this facility was in the best interest of the state and the region, and their support was backed by strategic investments in things like the Kansas Bioscience Authority (which was dealt its final blow by the Brownback Administration in 2016) to help spur the growth of a new industry around this important area for research and development. All together, this helped prove that Kansas was serious about the prospects of the federal facility and also that we were ready to make the necessary decisions to ensure its future safety and success. That Kansas voice must, once again, be raised on the issue—​this time, in support of a sane way forward for NBAF.

With the date set for Governor Brownback’s confirmation hearing (October 4th), we in Kansas have the opportunity to look back on his six plus years as Governor. Below are my reflections on the lasting impacts of his time in office and some thoughts on where we, as a state, go from here.

What we got from Governor Brownback was not quite what we expected. Much changed between the time he was Secretary of Agriculture and Governor. He went from being quite likable and non-controversial to being a very polarizing figure. His leadership approach was certainly not built on bringing people of different persuasions together. Not only did he change religions but, philosophically, he went from reasonably moderate to extreme right.

His policy mistakes were many but none more puzzling than his systematic destruction of the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). What was at one time the darling of legislators across the board (created with bipartisan support in 2004) was now being trashed. Truth was not important and philosophical positions were often quite bizarre. None was more puzzling than his stance against picking winners and losers. He disliked that the KBA worked hard to make the wisest investments for the best interest of Kansas. He preferred that we invest the money without considering the likelihood of success. I think the Bible talks about putting the seeds where they can grow and not on the rocks.

His lack of support for all levels of public education is another example of his move to the far right, which favors private education. This dramatic change of position was totally new for Kansas. Proud of our public school system, most Kansans took for granted that the support from most public officials would be strong. With big money from private donors and other public school opponents, a push to support private education took place—​more often and in new, different ways. This includes an assault on our judicial system to change the way we select judges in Kansas, in order to push the policies that these monied interest groups favored.

In his run for re-election, he loved to promise of his support for very much needed highway improvements. He was comfortable endorsing specific projects but never sharing on how they might be funded. Given he robbed extensively from the highway fund to avoid Kansas going broke, maybe that is understandable. Historically, highway maintenance and improvements had strong support from both sides of the isle, but not under this Governor.

As puzzling as anything was his adamant opposition to Medicaid expansion. Kansans were paying for it but not getting it. Despite many Republican Governors accepting the dollars and significant support from Kansas citizens, he stood his ground. The result was pain inflicted on large numbers of Kansans as well as the financial viability of many, particularly rural, community hospitals and nursing homes.

But maybe the most damaging mistake over time will be his lack of support for, and his meat ax approach to, the civil service system and public service in general. I say that because it may take a generation or more to restore the quality state workforce we once had. With the Governor's recommendation and the Legislature’s support, now when a civil service employee leaves the system the position automatically becomes political, bringing back in essence the spoils system that most of us thought was a thing of the past.

The story of the past six years will be about a Governor who sowed the seeds of political division in Kansas. From his all-out attacks on members of his own party, to his blatant disregard for opposing views of any kind, Governor Brownback leveraged a big money machine to turn our state into a petri dish for far-right policy and an extremist approach to governing. This is a far cry from the Kansas that many of us have known and loved.

What will happen to our state as a result of the Brownback years remains to be seen, and it will largely be up to us to decide. Kansans of all political stripes have certainly been activated. And, so far, there are signs that we may learn our lessons from these divisive and damaging years for our state and begin to put Kansas back on the right track by bringing people together around the solutions to our largely self-created challenges. The path forward will not be easy, and there is certainly a lot of work to do. But perhaps the next chapter can be the most exciting and impressive one yet: a state turning the page on division and building a model for how to come together, engage, and overcome the disastrous results left behind by these difficult years for Kansas.

This Saturday evening, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders here at K-State’s Staley School of Leadership Studies will be wrapping up a six-week Civic Leadership Institute. The Young African Leaders Initiative is facilitated through the U.S. State Department with the goal of helping develop the next generation of leaders in Africa. In all, there are 1,000 leaders studying at colleges and universities around the U.S. this summer who will bring their learning and newly-established networks back to their countries and continue to make change in their communities upon their return home. For the second straight year, the Staley School has had the pleasure of hosting this Fellowship. Twenty-five young but experienced Sub-Saharan African leaders, representing twenty three countries, make up the group. The time has been filled with class work and training sessions, interactions with local public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders, participation in some local civic engagement efforts, and making the most of a variety of experiences from Kansas City to Wichita. Building off our experience from last year, this year's program has not only been well-received but has proven once again to be of significant value.

As alluded to in my welcoming remarks six weeks ago, I made it clear then that the learning would go both ways, that we—​here at K-State and in Kansas—​would benefit significantly as well. That has certainly played out in real time. I was particularly struck by the candid comments from our visitors at a forum for local elected officials to share and answer questions. Just one example made clear by a young woman, Folasade Bamisaye from Nigeria, who shared during the forum that she was amazed that this country taxed feminine hygiene products. Here in this country there is little or not even discussion about this issue, much less action. So there is much that can be gained from a dialogue and exchange of ideas on the future.

Each of the Mandela Fellows is engaged across a wide array of issues, including: youth development, public health, gender equity, grassroots organizing, agricultural sustainability, and disability rights. The benefit of having six weeks is having the time to work on specific challenges they had in their leadership experiences in Africa. Naturally they all, as we do, want better ideas in general on how to lead effectively and mobilize people to address challenges. But they also focused on a couple specifics. They wanted to learn more about developing partnerships to work towards systemic change. And one piece in particular, that we all need to focus on, is the importance of utilizing volunteers more successfully.  

One of the unique aspects of this program is the one-on-one mentoring that takes place. Last year, my partner was Abdoul Salam Diallo from Guinea (pictured to the left). Our natural link was his family’s tie to milk cows, so as would be expected that put us together, but from there, our relationship grew to include more areas of discussion around his work. My partner this year is Ahmed M. Afi from Somali. Our connection is his direct interest in public service, and he has made some progress in that regard. His ambitions include being a national leader for Somalia, and given his knowledge, passion, and political savvy, I’m not going to be surprised at all if he achieves his goals. I certainly look forward to staying in communication, continuing to share lessons from my experiences, and knowing just how his plans are going.

Now, here is the not so good news. This program, along with many others, falls under the banner of “Foreign Aid” or investments in diplomacy. As you may know, these types of investments are currently under attack by the President, and it will be up to the Congress to—​as our country has historically done—​appreciate the value of investing in programs like this and other aid efforts. Stronger, well-prepared leaders for the future of Africa will help empower and mobilize citizens to address a range of issues that exist throughout the continent. Meanwhile, the ability to address community needs such as food insecurity not only helps these countries build for the future, but it’s also absolutely in our national security interest. Hungry people can easily be the target of self-serving leaders who prey on the needy to the benefit of themselves and, in the process, create an environment that is ripe for terrorist activity.
​​
It has been an absolute joy to spend time with the Mandela Fellows during these past six weeks, and most importantly, I look forward to the impacts that their leadership will make in the effort to build a healthier, happier, and more peaceful world for all.

Learn about each of the Mandela Fellows on the Staley School's blog or see more pictures on Facebook.

This spring wrapped up my six years on the Advisory Board for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ Initiative on Global Food and Agriculture. The release of our latest work product, Stability in the 21st Century: Global Food Security for Peace and Prosperity, was shared at a symposium in Washington D.C. on March 29th. From the experience, I learned a lot about the challenges we face in feeding a growing population around the world (estimated to be 10 billion by 2056) and the impacts on national security. I’m sure without the influence of former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, I would have never had this opportunity. Dan and former Congressman Doug Bereuter from Nebraska currently chair the committee, following five years of outstanding leadership from Catherine Bertini, Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

My experience included getting acquainted with Roger Thurow, who has authored several books on food security. His most recent release, “The First 1,000 Days,” emphasizes the impact that the time span from conception to two years of age has on the rest of a child’s life. I also served with Howard Buffett, whose father Howard G. Buffett authored the book “40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World.” He graphically showed the incredible challenges many parts of the world have in feeding their people as well as showing the challenges we face in helping them address those issues. One of the most interesting contributors was Gordon Conway from the Imperial College of London, who taught me much about the importance of resilience in feeding the world given the reality of climate change. You can read more about this in my blog post from a previous symposium.

A significant focus for this Initiative was USAID and their Feed the Future program, which concentrates heavily on help to developing nations where significant potential for much larger food production exists but not without major help and change. Also working to address these challenges is Kansas State University and the College of Agriculture, with four Feed the Future Innovation Labs funded by USAID. Only the University of California at Davis has as many labs, with both having more than any other Land Grant Institution. This work will advance food security into the future, and I'm proud of the contributions being made by my alma mater to help address this global challenge.

The release of this report, our fourth product, not only pushes the importance of foreign aid but also makes the case for increasing such funding, which couldn’t be more timely. There have always been humanitarian concerns, but now, in addition, our own national security is a major issue. Such acceleration comes at a time in our country when the current administration has raised the possibility of dropping all foreign aid to fund increased military projects. It seems common sense to me that any country with a growing population and not enough food would be a target for internal instability and external exploitation. Contrast that with a country able to feed its population with help from outside while growing its internal capacity to feed themselves. I would oppose the current consideration of dropping foreign aid regardless (especially when you consider its percentage of the overall federal budget and the amount of good that is accomplished by a relatively small line item in the budget), but when you take the national security impacts into consideration, this is not just the usual partisan conversation. The differences of opinion on such an issue, if not dealt with intelligently over time, will put not just our country but all of the developed (and developing) world at serious risk. 

I have been enormously grateful for these experiences, and I plan to continue following and engaging issues related to this area of both personal passion for me and growing importance for our collective future.

​The challenges we face today in Kansas, while mostly self-imposed, are complex and will require strong, consensus-building leadership from state lawmakers to address. This is exactly why I’ve been so focused on the November 8th election in many of my recent blog posts. I truly believe that the more voters understand the key issues facing our state, the better informed their decisions will be at the ballot box. In politics and campaigning, framing a message in simple language and using words that fit well on a bumper sticker are effective with many voters, but does this always serve the best long-term interests of the voters or our future? “Cutting taxes,” for instance, has a better ring to it than raising taxes and trying to explain why. Now, this is by no means a shot at people’s capacity to understand the complexity of these issues. However, people today are busy, challenged by the many realities of our times, and pulling the facts from a very noisy, information-heavy environment is not always easy.

The point I want to make in this particular post is that deciding the level and methods for taxation is not at all simple and would be very difficult to fit on a bumper sticker, assuming most people don’t keep a spare magnifying glass in their glove box in order to check the fine print on each message as it zooms by. Although, if you did decide to bring that magnifying glass along with you on your next drive down the roads of Kansas, the fine print you’d read about “lower taxes,” might conflict with the original message. Because, in reality, “lower” is not automatically better...or even “lower” at all, when all the other factors are considered. When looking at taxes, our focus should be from an investment perspective. What brings us the best return can only be determined when all forms of taxation, and all the implications thereof, are considered.

For an example, with taxes for infrastructure, it makes no sense to assume that higher taxes are automatically bad. Lower taxes—or, in the case of Kansas, poor fiscal policy in general—often lead to delayed improvements and less maintenance. This short-sighted view will lead to much higher repair costs and taxes down the road, and much higher maintenance costs for “wear and tear” on your automobile or truck. Not to mention, a sound transportation system—which, for Kansas, primarily means our highways and bridges—is absolutely essential. Profitable commerce depends on it. This is important for supporting our urban areas, but it is absolutely critical to our rural areas. Think of all the grain, cattle, and milk that must be moved in order for our economy to prosper, and think of all the families who will have to travel those same roads to attain access to fresh food and other basic necessities.

So yes, we have cut income taxes, including totally eliminating them for a wealthy few, but yet, the 2015 legislative session delivered the largest tax increase in Kansas history. So, what’s in the fine print? The sales tax was raised (leading to higher prices for consumers on every purchase, including those who are struggling most in our state, who now pay a higher sales tax on their groceries than they would in almost any other state in the country), several excise taxes and other fees (including tuition) have been raised across the board, and most local governments have felt the impacts “trickle down” from the state level to put upward pressure on property taxes and local sales taxes.

​Now, I’m not here to push limitless taxation and spending, we must absolutely aim to maximize efficiency, but a sound tax system should have balance, fairness, and allow us to appropriately fund key government functions and invest wisely in our future. When you are still paying a lot in taxes and not getting a quality return on your investment, how is that a good deal for anyone?

​In the 2004 Kansas legislative session, the Republican-controlled legislature—​led by Representative Kenny Wilk and Senator Nick Jordan, working with Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon—​created the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). For six years, it enjoyed across-the-board support from the Kansas Legislature, the Bioscience community, and communities and research institutions across the state. Funding came from income tax paid by the existing bioscience companies already employing people and doing business in Kansas.

KBA’s success was based on some really sound thinking that made good sense both for the private sector and the State of Kansas. The vision was to build on the already existing bioscience success in the state through strong public-private partnerships. Common sense indicated that much potential remained. In time, our dependence on agriculture, manufacturing, and the oil and gas sectors would have another partner. The genius of the plan was to take the existing revenue stream and put it into an Authority established by law. The Authority would be governed by appointments from the Governor and Legislative leaders to hire the talent to wisely invest and partner with projects in the best interests of the state. They would be able to work with outside investors, making commitments for periods longer than one fiscal year, and not dependent on annual appropriations from the Legislature—​a key for private sector involvement.   

Successes included providing key leadership and timely resources for Kansas to be awarded with the NBAF selection (National Bio and Agro Defense Facility) now being constructed in Manhattan. NBAF will do the highest level research on zoonotic diseases, the ones that can move from animals to humans. Also, the National Cancer Designation for the the KU Medical Center allows area citizens access to new drugs on trial. KBA resources were key for funding nationally-recognized consultants, hiring nationally respected cancer researchers, buying much needed support equipment, and securing key infrastructure improvements necessary to compete. Both projects required strong leadership from Kansas State University and the University of Kansas, as well as full support from our Congressional Delegation and the Kansas Legislature. These two projects alone will have broad positive impacts on the state of Kansas for decades to come, but it's likely that neither would have happened without the KBA's support and engagement.

The progress in that short six year window led to national recognition for Kansas and its growing bioscience sector and jealousy from surrounding states that didn’t have this engine for economic development.

Then came the election in November 2010 and a new Governor. Although nothing about the KBA was raised during the campaign, within 60 days of this new administration, that all changed. Concerns were raised that we were picking winners and losers (we did invest in proposals with the best potential), that we weren’t distributing the money across the state, and that the administration had evidence of criminal activity within the Authority and demanded a forensic audit.

No evidence of criminal activity was ever brought forward and a year later (and well over a million tax dollars wasted), they had found nothing of substance going back to the very beginning of the Authority. Oh yes, there were the drummed up charges against our CEO with the only findings tied to actions after the audit began.
​
The eventual death has been long and painful in coming. A tragedy for the state to be sure but only possible because enough legislators went along with the Governor’s actions and bought into a growing mentality that ignores the value of research and the need to wisely invest in the economic future of Kansas. For years, our state has been reaping the benefits of these important investments, but now I fear the only impacts we’ll feel will be the sighs of relief coming from the east, as economic developers in Missouri now see an opportunity to compete.

Why is it that so many people, including elected officials, deny science endorsed by over 95% of those with expertise in a given field? What will it take to get responsible action to address the challenges of climate change where here you have the added support of Pope Francis? Even with that level of scientific support and a global consensus of world leaders who say it’s a priority, elected bodies at both the state and national level continue to delay.

With that in mind, to those who oppose taking any serious action, I offer the following two scenarios:

What if you’re wrong: Where will we be if, at some point in the future, it becomes obvious that you were wrong and climate change indeed causes large-scale harm to the planet? By then, the earth and mankind will have paid an unbelievable price for such inaction.

What if you’re right: What if, relatively soon in this debate, my position—​supported overwhelmingly by solid science—​prevails and major changes are made to theoretically avoid these horrible results, and in time it is shown those actions were not needed? Beyond some significant expenses and the usual pain that goes with additional regulation, what then would be the harm?

Now compare the two scenarios—​mammoth amounts of devastation versus unneeded cost and regulation—​and I hope any reasonable person has to conclude that banking on the long shot (going with the roughly 5% and ignoring over 95% of the scientific community) is just too scary, if not outright crazy.
​
Now I am smart enough to know that my blog tends to reach folks who are likely to agree with me. So, particularly on this issue, I ask you to share and/or at least raise the key questions with folks who disagree. I do this with the hope that, before it is too late, we can take some steps toward sanity.

Update on the COP21 - Earth Day 2016:
Today, leaders from 170 nations assemble at the United Nations to sign the historic COP 21 climate pact. However, even with the global consensus that climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet’s future, many issues remain on the domestic political front for President Obama who will support the deal on behalf of the United States. Which leads me back to my question for the climate change deniers: what if you’re wrong?

Walking our neighborhood recently after an unusually heavy rain, I ran into my neighbor, Nelson Galle, who told me he had five and one half inches in his rain gauge. A couple of nights later in the evening paper, there was a front page article titled, “Rising Waters Expected at Tuttle.” Given heavy rains to the North, the runoff coming out of Nebraska was projected to cause the Tuttle Creek Lake to rise some fifteen to twenty feet. For me, that’s a lot of water that the Corp of Engineers will move as quickly as practical to the Missouri, to the Mississippi, to be flushed into the Gulf of Mexico. The question that leaped out for me was: Wouldn't it have been nice if we could have captured and held that water for a much needed time down the road?

With many projections being made that these big rains will become more common yet our total rainfall will not increase, I gave more thought to what it is we should be doing to address that challenge. I don’t see piping desalinated water from the west coast or the gulf as a realistic option, even if it became a practical answer for them. I’ve heard the idea of taking water out of the Missouri river and somehow getting it to where it is needed in Kansas, but that doesn’t seem practical. What I thought at that moment was that we should consider building additional reservoirs for water storage only, filled by flood waters which today help no one, even the ocean which is already rising on its own. Right there, I thought I had a great idea for a blog piece.

Then I had another one of those moments when the light comes on and just as if my Dad was reaching over and snapping my ear, I got the message that this might be really stupid. To confirm, I called my friend Joe Harkins, in my experience one of the very best public administrators with a specialty in water policy. He was polite but to the point in confirming my fear. He said all the good sites for reservoirs are taken, the federal government is not funding such any more, and that evaporation alone would make them unsuccessful. I don’t share this to discourage creative thinking, but a good second opinion is often quite helpful. Who knows, maybe someone reading about this bad idea may come up with something that works.

Below is a video with thoughts on how new ideas can be enhanced through good dialogue that encourages critical thinking without stifling creative thinking. Watch it here or check out all the Leading and Learning Moments on YouTube.

This Thursday, at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington D.C., the Chicago Council on Global Affairs will host the Global Food Security Symposium. The topic will be Healthy Food for a Healthy World: Leveraging Agriculture and Food to Improve Global Nutrition. Brilliant and experienced people from all over the world will be contributing, and they’ll be making this gathering another successful step in the challenge to feed the future. My attendance is as an advisory member to the Global Agricultural Development Initiative.

I was first asked to serve on the Advisory Group back in 2010, I’m sure on the recommendation of former Kansas Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, who has served as co-chair since its inception in 2008. The focus has been on the United States’ commitment to agricultural development as a way to alleviate global poverty, and last year’s report was titled: Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate. In addition to the fundamental concerns tied to malnutrition and poverty, I am particularly interested in the potential impacts on national security coming from a growing population and the challenges to feed that growth, with the failure to do so leading to more potential hotspots for terrorism and other human rights issues.

As an alum of Kansas State University (Dairy Husbandry '62), I am particularly proud of the talent within our College of Agriculture and Research and Extension. The role they are playing in helping address the many challenges of more successfully feeding our growing population is quite significant. They are the home of four new Feed the Future Innovation Labs, started in 2013, with funding of $100 million over five years from the U.S. Agency for International Development. In addition, the National Science Foundation named K-State the lead institution for the world’s first NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for Wheat Genetic Resources. For the Kansan or American asking, “What’s in it for us?” I would point to the advancement of knowledge and research that will have mutual benefit, the development of markets for our products, and the progress being made toward a more secure, prosperous world for us all.  

Through the Global Agricultural Development Initiative, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has released a series of blog posts leading up to the Symposium that I highly recommend, especially to those who are interested in global food systems. The Symposium will be streaming live here, and they will also be sharing updates on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. I am looking forward to this year’s Symposium and encourage others to tune in.

Up until recently, Kansas policies placed a high value on research and public education as key economic drivers for the state. Just think for a moment about some of the wise investments and tremendous progress Kansas has made in the area of research in the fairly recent past. We’ve invested millions of dollars in the University of Kansas Cancer Center to successfully achieve the National Cancer Institute Designation. Likewise, we’ve invested $250 million plus to establish the Bioscience Research Institute at Kansas State University and to successfully bring the National Bio Agro Defense Facility, NBAF, to Manhattan. These are both very important successes that have major research implications and potential huge economic benefit for the state.

Where I’m headed is asking the question, as time goes on, with Kansas showing a lack of appreciation for research and decreasing funding to our two major public research institutions: isn’t it likely that we will pay a major price at some point?

For KU, the Cancer Institute Designation that has brought earlier access for Kansans to the latest cancer treatments, will that continue? The NCI Designation was for five years and will have to be renewed. In the current environment, how good will we look for renewal and/or expansion of that valuable designation? I think of the huge effort to attract the scientists, build the infrastructure, and put together a plan to implement that not only got the designation desired but put us on the path to producing real, tangible results. Will that all be for naught?

For NBAF to reach its full potential as a major federal lab, the talent to go into the building will make a big difference. Attracting that talent to a state disrespecting the value of research and cutting resources for education at all levels will not be easy. The same can be said for the Bioscience Research Institute, built with much Federal help, to be a level three lab and smooth the transition of zoonotic research from Plum Island to Kansas. As an economic aside, the potential to attract future private and Federal investment would surely be impacted.

How, in just a few years, could we go from bipartisan, united political leadership at all levels to an environment that questions the value of research in general and has little appreciation for the linkage to economic success for Kansas and its people? Will we continue on this path?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and It Hasn't Always Been This Way for Higher Education.