chemical, petroleum or pharmaceutical companies. The
effects of the above on the needed human resources for
biological agricultural research are both far-reaching
and challenging. A brain drain on publicly supported
institutions for cellular and molecular biologists was in-
itiated in 1979 and has continued. This migration of
human resources from the public to the private sector
poses the question of who will train the future
agricultural, biological and social scientists and conduct
graduate training programs for advanced degrees in the
agricultural sciences. Will enough DISC researchers re-
main in the public sector with the current swing toward
the private sector, fueled by tax write-offs and hopes of
early profits in the sale of potential seeds, crop varieties,
microorganisms, products of microbial transformations
and vaccines?
 In genetic engineering, the unfortunate gap between
DISC and PS research may be in the process of being
bridged. Some results are finding immediate application.
We may no longer (if we ever really could) separate
fundamental biological scientists from practical PS and
SM researchers. Biologists in the academic arena, as well
as in the private sector, are now active in industrializa-
tion and commercialization of their research and profit
from it. Where will their loyalty be in the future? As
research gains in complexity, the goal may become more
one of private profit than of the public interest. Recent
acquisitions of seed companies by chemical companies
are already beginning to provide in-place breeding,
reproduction, crop production, crop protection and
market distribution networks. If this happens, who will
research socially desirable but privately unprofitable
technology and the socially undesirable aspects of
privately profitable technology?
 This situation bears watching because there is always
a public as well as a private interest. Government con-
trols the structure of society within which the private
sector operates. The results of biological and physical
science research should not be permitted to restructure
society unbridled and undisciplined. The possible im-
pacts of changing technologies in the biological sciences
are important. The results of social and humanistic
research should be in place to guide governmental
policies. Consequently, more social scientists are needed
to do agricultural research.
 Other important personnel issues now face the ARE.
The first is that state Agricultural Experiment Stations
are still the main source of financial support for ad-
vanced degrees in the agricultural sciences. They pro-
vide graduate research assistantships, jobs as technicians
and postdoctorals in the physical, biological and social
sciences. The agricultural scientists trained in this system
constitute most of the scientific expertise in the United
States and a significant proportion of that in the rest
of the world. These scientists are found in the U.S.


Department of Agriculture, the USAID, the private sec-
tor, the foundations, the international agricultural
research centers, the land-grant universities and other
universities, as well as many federal agencies, including
the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of
Health, Environmental Protection Agency, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, the Department of Energy and the
Department of Commerce.

 Approximately nine out of 10 agricultural scientists
in the nation were trained in the land-grant university
system. This significant contribution of state Agricultural
Experiment Stations is, for the most part, an unherald-
ed and not fully recognized or appreciated input of far-
reaching significance. Though there are some problems
associated with such a majority coming from similar en-
vironments, the timely message is that current budgetary
constraints faced by state Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tions is significantly reducing the number of graduate
research assistantships, technicians, scholarships for
undergraduate students and postdoctoral fellowships for
future agricultural researchers. These terminal appoint-
ments are the first to be eliminated in managing cut-
backs (Wittwer, 1983). Thirty-one states have recently
imposed severe budget reductions, and federal support
is hardly keeping pace with inflation.

 The long-range implication of the above is that
replacement scientists (Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. levels) will
be in short supply in many areas, including integrated
pest management, marketing, agribusiness, veterinary
toxicology, institutional development, human resource
development and public resource management. Projec-
tions are that overall annual demand for college
graduates with expertise in the food and agricultural
sciences will exceed the available supply at present
salaries by 13 percent during the 1980s. In some
categories, the supply constraint will be far more severe.
At current salaries, the demand for food manufactur-
ing and processing scientists and engineers exceeds supply
by 18 percent, and demand for agricultural admini-
strators, managers and financial advisers exceeds the
supply by 30 percent (National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1983).

 Serious consideration should be given to additional
training grants in the agricultural sciences for the land-
grant colleges and for educational units outside the land-
grant system. Very limited programs were initiated in
1982 by the Agricultural Research Service and the
Economic Research Service. These programs identify
highly talented young biological, social and physical
agricultural scientists and subsidize their education,
beginning with undergraduate degrees, with the com-
mitment that those trained will stay with the system.
This is to be highly encouraged. Other programs are also