go unchallenged. This applies to both anti-ARE and pro-
ARE activists and to the ARE, as well as to its critics
from the biological/physical sciences, the humanities and
the social sciences. It is tempting to groups with vested
interests to warp both positive and normative informa-
tion in favor of prescriptions that yield budgetary and
power advantages to themselves. It is therefore necessary
to apply the standards of honesty generally endorsed by
scholarly communities to advocacy and lobbying ac-
tivities, either pro or con, with respect to agricultural
research. This need also applies to the present effort of
the authors of this report.


Dilemmas Faced

 The authors of this report are faced with primary
ethical dilemmas in developing research priorities for the
next 50 years. The humanists, social scientists and acti-
vists have demonstrated that the ARE lacks adequate
normative knowledge and has left much knowledge in-
adequately researched and unattended. Logical posi-
tivism is partly responsible for the shortage of objective
knowledge about values-particularly knowledge of
non-monetary values (both total and in exchange), but
also of prices, which are monetary exchange values. The
particular dilemma involved here is that the dominance
of logical positivism makes it appear unscientific to ad-
vocate use of ARE resources to do research on values.
 This is particularly frustrating, both when the authors
of this paper try to develop prescriptions about the ARE's
research policies and priorities, and when they consider
priorities for PS research that requires generation of
knowledge about values.
 The criticisms of the non-ARE biological/physical
scientists also present a dilemma for the authors of this
paper. These critics assert that DISC research yields
more per dollar spent than PS and SM research. This
descriptive assertion about values is hardly consistent
with the underlying logical positivism of the critics. Few
in the ARE would disagree about the value of the pro-
ducts of DISC research in the biological/physical
sciences. Many in the ARE, however, feel that the PS
and SM research of the ARE also produce results of great
value. The dilemma is one of obtaining objective agree-
ment from two groups who believe descriptive knowl-
edge about values is unobjective on the relative values
of the three types of research done in the ARE.
 The authors of this paper also face two further dilem-
mas, the first more ethical than the second. The first


dilemma involves the question of using power bases to
put prescriptions about agricultural research into effect.
Power legitimately substitutes for knowledge when the
cost of more knowledge exceeds its value (Johnson, et
al., 1961; Johnson, 1977, 1981, forthcoming-b). Logical
positivists regard knowledge that purports to be about
characteristics of a real world as illusionary and
unobjective.
 The second less ethical dilemma has to do with exist-
ing public support for PS and SM agricultural research.
Can the authors ignore the existing political and
budgetary support of members of Congress, state
legislators, farmer organizations, commodity groups,
and agribusiness people who expect PS and SM research
results from the ARE? Can the authors risk letting
biological/physical scientists make the case for DISC
research in the biological/physical sciences at the expense
of publicly supported PS and SM research? Might there
not be a serious backlash among the clientele who need
practical results against all scientific agricultural
research, including basic or DISC research? The authors
seriously question the political transferability of support
from PS and SM to DISC research. The way around this
dilemma seems to be one of presenting a united front
for all three kinds of research in the proportions and se-
quences judged optimal on the basis of more knowledge
of values than both the ARE and its critics commonly
use. This is the course we have tried to follow in this
report.
 The "Pound Report" (National Academy of Sciences,
1972) of the ARE initiated the recent increase in pressure
from biological/physical science critics of the ARE for
more basic research in the biological/physical science
disciplines. Actually, such pressures are at least one hun-
dred years old (Science, 1883). Clearly, DISC research
was, is and will continue to be needed. This expansion,
however, should not be at the expense of multidis-
ciplinary PS and SM research and relevant DISC
research in the social sciences and humanities. To date,
the ARE appears to have heard its biological/physical
science critics much more clearly than either its social
science or humanistic critics, or for that matter, its
activist critics. The dilemma is that social science and
humanistic research are also needed, and many of the
anti-ARE activists have valid points. The authors of this
report attempt to solve this dilemma by balancing the
need for DISC social science and humanistic research
against the need for DISC biological/physical science
research in developing priorities for PS and SM research
on technological advance for agriculture.