tion and research. In doing this, they distinguish
themselves from objective social, biological and physical
scientists and the humanists.
 Two major groups of activists concerned with ARE
research are the anti-ARE and the pro-ARE activists.
The anti-ARE activists include some religious, hunger
and poverty workers, environmentalists, some concerned
with the preservation of non-farm rural values, people
worried about mistreatment of migrant laborers and
small farmers, some concerned with the so-called demise
of the "family farm," some with fears about the exhaus-
tion of non-renewable resources, some who promote
their own political futures, and some nutritionists and
some academicians promoting their disciplines or fields
and, for that matter, themselves (Knowles, 1983; Lappe
and Collins, 1977; Nelson, 1980; Perelman, 1978).

 Despite lapses in objectivity, the anti-ARE activists
have often placed important problems and issues on the
agenda. Some of the anti-ARE activists have proven
poorly informed about the technology and institutions
of agriculture; others have lacked knowledge about the
nature of farm people. Some see almost innumerable
"conspiracies" among the agricultural research establish-
ment, agribusinesses and large farmers to exploit small
farmers, farm laborers and consumers. Some seem no
more objective than reactionary conservatives who see
communist conspiracies among all concerned about the
poor and disadvantaged.
 Pro-ARE activists who unobjectively defend the ARE
come from the establishment itself, from agricultural
businesses and from various groups of agricultural fun-
damentalists, both inside and outside of government.
Not all defenders of the ARE are unobjective. The
defenders also include those who try objectively to listen
to the anti-ARE activists and to provide them with ob-
jective knowledge about agricultural institutions,
technologies, people and capital accumulation. Others,
of course, react emotionally, in uninformed, unobjec-
tive ways, in defending the ARE against the anti-ARE
activists. The more objective defenders of the ARE
believe the anti-ARE activists should have an opportu-
nity to have their say and, in turn, to remedy their lack
of positive and normative knowledge about agricultural
institutions, technology, people and capital structures.

 Among important issues placed on the ARE's research
agenda in part by activists is the need for agricultural
technologies that are less exploitive of our resources and
more sustainable during the decades ahead. A variety
of alternatives are promoted under such descriptive and
attractive names as regenerative agriculture, sustainable
agriculture, closed-system agriculture and organic farm-
ing (Edens and Haynes, 1982; Rodale, 1982). Activists
often view pesticides and fertilizers as threats to the en-
vironment and human health. This concern has pro-


moted research on possible adverse impacts. Activists
have called important issues to the attention of the ARE
by decrying the losses from soil erosion and claiming that
we are exporting our soils; that current agricultural
systems are unduly exploitive of land, water, energy, fer-
tilizers and pesticides; and that current agricultural pro-
duction levels cannot be significantly increased or even
maintained. Alternatives advocated are more energy-
sparing, soft technologies involving reduced use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides, biological nitrogen
fixation, the use of more organic matter and perennial
grains (Busch and Lacy, 1983). Activists have called
attention to research needs of small-scale, resource-
sparing agricultural production enterprises that need to
be addressed by the ARE (Wittwer, 1982a). These same
subjects are objectively researched by the social scien-
tists, humanists and critics discussed earlier.


Power, Knowledge and Ethical Dilemmas
 of ARE Administrators and Researchers

 Though the complaints of all three critical groups are
sometimes in conflict, they are all primarily ethical in
the sense that they assert that the ARE has made and
is making wrong decisions, often on the basis of incor-
rect values, on agricultural science policies and research
priorities, goals and objectives. ARE administrators, sup-
porters and researchers are facing ethical dilemmas
related to the appropriateness of existing distributions
of power influencing decisions, and the inadequacy of
the normative and, in fewer instances, positive knowl-
edge used by the ARE to reach prescriptive decisions on
agricultural science policies, priorities, goals and objec-
tives. The following subsections deal with power distri-
butions, knowledge bases, and dilemmas in administer-
ing and running the ARE.

Power Distributions
 Changes are taking place in the distribution of power
among groups that support and oppose the ARE. Such
changes create uncertainty for ARE administrators and
researchers who are trying to improve the ARE as it
evolves. Those who possess power with respect to the
ARE include members of the U.S. Congress and state
legislatures, and their farmer, agribusiness and consumer
constituencies; the ARE and its constituent government
and academic agencies; and various non-agricultural
science and academic constituencies. These groups exer-
cise political and budgetary power in the federal and
state governments. At the national level, power centers
are located in the USDA and associated federal agen-
cies, and in the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
the National Research Council of the National Academy
of Science (NAS/NRC). Each power center has its
academic constituencies. The USDA's include the