among the recommendations and the estimates in the
three above studies with our own has its origin in a com-
monality of judgments.
 Of all the public agricultural research organizations
or institutes, the only network that has been funded
beyond the pace of inflation during the past decade has
been the international agricultural research centers. This
has to be changed. The World Food and Nutrition Study
of the National Research Council of the U.S. Academy
of Sciences (1977) and those assembled at the interna-
tional conference "Crop Productivity-Research
Imperatives" (Brown, et al., 1975) concluded that
biological and physical science research is grossly under-
funded. Had that conference and study been designed
to examine the social sciences, they would have reveal-
ed even greater evidence of underfunding. Industrializ-
ed and developed nations-including the United States,
with its vast human, financial and natural resources-
can make great contributions to themselves and to the
agricultural development of Third World nations by fun-
ding well conceived relevant DISC research along with
SM research on multidisciplinary subjects and multi-
disciplinary PS research. The costs (investments) for do-
ing this are minor compared with the returns on invest-
ment in research and the real income that can be
generated (Evenson, et al., 1979; Ruttan, 1982).
 Improvements in productivity are essential to main-
tain the competitive position of U.S. products in world
markets, but agricultural research should be directed to
more than production alone. Research is important for
improved efficiency and farm profitability, depend-
ability of outputs, improved competitiveness on inter-
national markets, conservation and efficiency in utiliza-
tion of resources, food safety and improved nutritional
quality. Social research will be required to develop in-
stitutions for controlling overuse of technology and con-
sequent adverse pressure on prices or, with price sup-
ports, the accumulation of government-held surplus
stocks (Johnson and Quance, 1972).
 The demonstrated returns on investments in
agricultural research (Evenson, et al., 1979) make it dif-
ficult to understand why only 2 percent of the federal
research and development budget in the United States
goes for support of all food and agricultural research and
education. It is equally disturbing that less than 2 per-
cent of the current budget of the USDA goes for all
research and educational programs. The contributions
from the states about equal that of the federal system.
The total approaches about $1.5 billion. Though this is
more than doubled when the investments and expendi-
tures of the private sector are counted, the total is low
compared with gross farm income, estimated at $177
billion to $181 billion for 1984, and the contribution of
food, beverages, clothing and shoes to GNP, totaling
around $550 billion in 1983. The expenditures we recom-


mend for agricultural research are modest relative to the
contributions of farming and agribusiness to society.
 The competitive grant program sponsored and admin-
istered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture needs
more emphasis. The current program, in its sixth year,
is at a lower level of funding, in terms of real dollars,
than when it was initiated. The National Academy of
Sciences World Food and Nutrition Study (1977) recom-
mended the establishment of such a program to support
high-priority, mission-oriented, DISC (basic) research
on the enhancement of food production. It called for a
first-year level of $60 million, with increases of 10 per-
cent per year in real terms for a total of five years. The
program was established in 1978, but at $15 million
rather than the recommended $60 million, with $5
million designated for research in human nutrition.
Specific funded programs for support of relevant DISC
research in the plant sciences relating to enhancement
of food production include plant breeding and genetic
manipulation, photosynthesis, biological nitrogen fixa-
tion, and greater resistance to biological stresses. Work
on greater resilience to environmental stresses, which is
important for improved stability in production, has not
been funded. Animal agriculture has received minimal
support while the social sciences and agricultural
engineering are completely neglected. Also, the program
emphasizes DISC research to the neglect of multi-
disciplinary PS and SM research. Much of the latter is
as important as DISC research and must be done.

 The competitive grant program in the Department of
Agriculture should be at least doubled within the next
year and increased within five years to at least $75
million and preferably $100 million per year in 1983
dollars.
 Support from agricultural clientele groups for com-
petitive grants would be easier to mobilize if the pro-
gram included PS and SM research. Without such sup-
port, the competitive grants program is suffering slow
attrition from inflation. The USDA should use the
substantial competitive grant funding recommended
above to support high priority DISC research relating
to enhancing and stabilizing crop, livestock and food
production, agricultural engineering, human nutrition
and the rural social sciences, and for competitive grants
for PS and SM research. Without the funding recom-
mended for competitive grants, research personnel will
continue to migrate to other agencies and to the private
sector.
 For obvious reasons, Congress favors special grants for
PS and SM research rather than competitive grants for
DISC research. The competitive grants program was in-
itiated by the White House, and its clients are now the
disciplinary biological and physical scientists who com-
mand few votes compared with farmers, rural residents,