longer needed to do PS and SM research to generate and
distribute new technologies.
 Biological and physical science critics seem no more
 sensitive than their ARE colleagues to still other critics
 who are dissatisfied with the way technological advance
 sometimes restructures agriculture and society. These in-
 sensitivities probably result from the philosophic com-
 mitment of biological/physical scientists to logical
 positivism. Logical positivism undergirds much of the
 methods used by the biological/physical sciences
 (Pearson, 1937; Achinstein and Barker, 1969). This
 philosophy (and those adhering to it) excludes from
 science much research on values and on "what ought to
 be done." More specifically, it excludes research on
 values as characteristics of the real objective world.
 Biological and physical scientists outside the USDA/land-
 grant system appear no more aware than their colleagues
 inside the system of needs for social science research on
 values and on the rightness or wrongness of alternative
 governmental actions to channel the structural changes
 in agriculture along more desirable lines. (In this con-
 nection, we note that the agribusiness sector should not
 be expected to implement social science research on
 restructuring society unless such restructuring is in the
 interests of agribusiness.)
 The positivism of biological/physical science dis-
ciplinarians both within and outside the ARE often
causes them to regard their roles of scientists and citizens
as dichotomous. As citizens, they tend to deal with
values, but, as scientists, they regard questions about
goodness and badness as characteristics of the real ob-
jective world and about what ought or ought not to be
done as beyond scientific research. In short, they often
refrain from research on values (goodness and badness)
essential for SM and PS research. This leads to a
technological determinism in the criticisms of the
biological/physical scientists outside the ARE, which
treats technological change as the singular cutting edge
or frontier of agricultural development while neglecting
institutional change, human development and capital
accumulation. As a result, biological/physical science
disciplinarians make cases for transferring research
resources from the ARE to the biological/physical science
disciplines outside the USDA/land-grant system.
 Power plays also occur among biological/physical
scientists inside and outside the ARE for control of the
system's resources. If some of the disciplinary
biological/physical scientists were to have their way, PS
and SM research within the ARE would be greatly
reduced. Disciplinarians from the biological/physical
sciences have advocated a competitive grants agricul-
tural research program in the basic biological/ physical
science disciplines and opposed the so-called Hatch
formula funding of state Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tions. They fail to recognize that balanced funding of


PS, SM and relevant DISC research in the total system
is essential for agricultural progress.

 Humanists, Social Scientists,
 Religious Leaders and Others
 This group is critical of some of the values pursued
by the ARE. Their objective criticisms were expressed
along with less objective criticisms of anti- and pro-ARE
activists at conferences at the University of Delaware,
July 14-17, 1981; Texas A&M University, March 11-12,
1981; the Yahara U.S. Council of Churches Conference
on World Hunger in Madison, Wis., April 23-26, 1981
(Knowles, 1983), and at the University of Florida, March
8-9, 1982, and Oct. 18-21, 1982 (Haynes and Lanier,
1982). The late Rachel Carson (1962), though not a
social scientist or humanist, objectively criticized the
ARE on humanistic grounds as part of what she probably
regarded as her extra-scientific activity (Hadwiger,
1982). This group of critics is concerned that the ARE
pays inadequate attention to the values involved in rural
poverty, human nutrition, malnutrition, justice, en-
dangered species, environmental pollution, energy,
water and the structure of rural society. Some of these
critics have not distinguished carefully between the
biological/physical scientists within and outside the
USDA/land-grant system. Instead, they have tended to
lump them together as logically positivistic scientists who
neglect values.
 The above-mentioned conferences have also revealed
substantial gaps in the knowledge of humanists and
social scientists about the nature of agricultural
technology, institutions and people. Ironically, the
humanists have often lacked knowledge about values im-
portant for agriculture and the positivistic characteristics
of agriculture and farm people. The two University of
Florida conferences are noteworthy because the first
(which partially planned the second) revealed a grave
lack of both positive (other than about goodness and
badness) and normative (about goodness and badness)
knowledge about agriculture. The second conference at
least partially corrected this deficiency by including
more people from the ARE. Despite some unobjective
activist participation at these conferences, much of the
effort was devoted to objective investigation of ethical
questions. Both logic and experience were sometimes
used in addressing questions of value. Further, both
positive and normative knowledge were often used to
reach prescriptive knowledge about "what ought to be
done." Obviously the humanists and social scientists have
important contributions to make to the guidance of the
ARE's work over the next 50 years.

 Activists
 As advocates, activists often sacrifice objectivity to
promote prescriptions that they put beyond investiga-