Part II


 Critics of the

Agricultural Research Establishment


 Various groups have criticized the agricultural research establishment
(ARE) in recent years. Consideration of these criticisms is essential in
reaching objective recommendations on agricultural science policies, the
introduction of new technologies, and decisions on priorities and research
projects for the next 50 years, as we are attempting here. These criticisms
are widely known by legislators, government officials and research ad-
ministrators and must be given serious consideration in this report.


 Agricultural research ranges from efforts to solve
problems for individual farmers and public decision
makers, at one extreme, to agriculturally relevant DISC
research in the biological, physical and social sciences,
at the other. This wide range of research leaves the ARE
open to rather sharply contrasting opinions from prac-
tical persons interested in the relevance of research done
to those interested in advancing the disciplines of
academia. The critics include: the biological/physical
scientists outside of the USDA/land-grant system;
humanists and social scientists (some but not all of whom
are outside the USDA/land-grant system) who are con-
cerned about societal as well as private impacts of ARE
research; and various anti-ARE activists concerned, in
general, with private and societal impacts of ARE
research and, more specifically, about the environment;
sustainable, regenerative, organic or closed agricultural
production systems; equity; hunger; poverty; con-
tamination of food chains; and "quality of life."
 The criticisms advanced by these groups combine
with the power they exercise to create ethical dilemmas
for agricultural administrators and researchers. These
dilemmas are considered in the last two sections of this
part.

 The Biological and Physical Scientists
 Outside the USDA/Land-Grant System
 These critics argue that the resources used by the ARE


on PS and SM research would be much more produc-
tive if used for basic research in the biological/physical
science disciplines (National Academy of Sciences, 1972;
The Rockefeller Foundation, 1982; Marshall, 1982; The
New York Times, 1982; Science, 1982; Lepkowski,
1982).

 This group of critics correctly points out that agri-
cultural technology is increasingly complex and is more
and more dependent on advances in the biological/
physical science disciplines. They argue further that the
institute-like multidisciplinary departments in colleges
of agriculture are "frittering away" resources on trivial
research that could be better used by biological/physical
scientists. Not everyone agrees. On the other hand, farm
leaders, farmers and farm-oriented legislators fear that
transfers to more DISC research would lead to neglect
of PS and SM research for food and agriculture and to
the proliferation of irrelevant "ivory tower"
bureaucracies. Consequently, line items appear in
budgets to ensure that certain kinds of PS and SM
research will be done.

 Along with the conviction that PS and SM research
of the ARE are less important than DISC research, there
is often a presupposition that the agribusiness sector can
convert advances from the basic biological/physical
sciences into technology so effectively that college of
agriculture researchers and extension workers are no