7 U.S.C. § 7613 — Relevance and merit of agricultural research, extension, and education funded by the Department

(a) Reviewing the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
(1) Peer review of grants. The Secretary must set up scientific peer review for every competitively awarded agricultural research grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
(2) Relevance and merit review. The Secretary must also set up review procedures — covering both relevance and merit — for every competitively awarded research, extension, or education grant from the Institute, and must keep consulting the Advisory Board while designing these merit-review procedures.
(3) These peer and merit reviews cannot take into account whether matching funds are offered or available.

(b) Advisory Board review. Each year, the Advisory Board must review how relevant the Department's research, extension, and education funding is to the priorities set under section 7612(a), and whether that funding is adequate.

(c) Requests for proposals. After the yearly review under (b), the Secretary must factor its results into writing and evaluating requests for proposals for competitively funded research, extension, or education work. While writing each year's request for proposals, the Secretary must also ask for and consider input from people who do or use this work, about the prior year's request.

(d) Scientific peer review of research.
(1) The Secretary must set up procedures ensuring scientific peer review of all Department research activities.
(2) At least once every 5 years, a review panel must confirm that each Department research activity and program has scientific merit and relevance.
(3) For research in the Department's research, education, and economics mission area, the review panel must weigh the work's scientific merit and relevance to the priorities set under section 7612, and its significance on a national or multi-state level.
(4) The review panel must be made up of scientific experts, and most of them must not work for the agency whose research is being reviewed. Wherever practical, the Secretary must use college and university scientists on these panels.
(5) The panel's results must go to the Advisory Board.

(e) Merit review by universities.
(1) Starting October 1, 1999, each 1862 and 1890 Institution must set up and follow its own merit-review process for an activity, in order to remain eligible for agricultural research or extension funds.
(2) Starting the same date, each 1994 Institution must do the same to remain eligible for agricultural extension funds.
(3) Each Hispanic-serving agricultural college and university must also set up and follow its own merit-review process, to remain eligible for agricultural extension funds.