needed to provide training grants to support bright young people entering the ARE. A vastly expanded, competitive, postdoctoral fellowship program should also be initiated by the USDA to support outstanding scientists with advanced train- ing. Monetary and other incentives should be provided to encourage participation of biophysical and social scientists in agricultural research. The private sector should also financially support graduate training for advanced degrees in the agricultural sciences, because it has made significant recruitments of outstanding scientists in recent years. This is especially true of chemical companies, biotechnology corporations and pharmaceutical com- panies in the areas of agriculture, genetics and plant breeding, and genetic engineering. Nevertheless, the major source of funding for training grants in the agri- cultural sciences should remain with the public sector. It is unlikely that private corporations will provide substantial long-term support for disciplinary training of students in the sciences essential for the advancement of agriculture in the decades ahead. Of crucial importance is the current reduction in sup- port for rural social science research. This reduces the experience and training of young rural social scientists. Throughout this report it has been clear that PS and SM research-including the setting of science policy and research priorities and the evaluation of projects-are multidisciplinary and should involve rural social scien- tists. This special need is in addition to the need for social scientists to do research not specifically related to the generation and utilization of technological advance in agriculture. The structure and value of agricultural and of rural life may be conditioned more by the research of social scientists on agricultural institutions, human development and the accumulation of capital than by improvements in biophysical technologies. As already mentioned, a deficiency of the World Food and Nutri- tion Study (1977) was its failure to recommend substan- tial financial support for research in the social sciences related to food production and human nutrition. That report appears to have had an adverse impact, as re- flected by the current reduction in federal support of social science research (Zuiches, 1983). Fortunately, the work of rural social scientists in the USDA has not suf- fered as much in federal budget cuts as have non-rural social scientists. Nonetheless, the rural social sciences are under heavy budget pressure (USGAO, 1983). This report makes the case for additional support for the rural social sciences only as they relate to technological advances. Unfortunately, the case for rural social scien- tists working primarily in their own area was not made strongly in the RFF/USDA/Joint Council exercise, of which this report was but a single contribution. One should consider, also, special needs that have emerged for PS research. A specific example is crop pro- tection. Current needs are not being filled successfully by either the professors at universities, the extension specialists or county extension directors. A new genera- tion of scientists is needed for work on PS and SM research that is now being neglected on the agricultural front. There is a shortage of trained scientists to focus on problems of livestock health. The NIH and the NSF have attracted many of the most talented veterinary medical scientists to work on human health problems by pro- viding funds for postdoctoral and graduate training. Many of these investigators would prefer to concentrate on animal disease problems relevant to agriculture, but there is no funding. A strategy for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and an important step forward, would be to commit funds immediately to support doctoral and postdoctoral training of scientists who have potential to contribute to research in animal health. This should bring the talents of some of our brightest young graduates in the biological sciences and veterinary medicine to bear on important animal disease problems. It would also serve to redirect some of the efforts of senior Ph.D. scientists who are currently working on human health problems. The current highly targeted assignment of research funds to work on specific diseases discourages applica- tion from some scientists with different approaches to pathogenesis. A broader approach to the study of animal diseases is needed. The personnel problems for future international agricultural research and development programs are particularly crucial (National Academy of Sciences, 1982a). There are three areas of concern that relate to human resources. The first is the increasing demands the United States will face, both at home and abroad, to train and aid agricultural scientists. The 15 top land- grant universities with enrollments of 100 or more foreign graduate students now have 20,000 alumni meeting food and agricultural research and educational needs in developing countries. Many of the more than 600 senior scientists in the international agricultural research center networks are alumni of the U.S. land- grant system. The growing demand for such scientists mandates a review of the entire training program and raises the serious question of where future international agriculturists will come from (Wharton, 1981; Johnson, 1983). Equally serious is the age status of those in U.S. universities who have established careers in international agricultural development. Most are approaching retire- ment. Who will take their places? Some institutions have training programs for Cooperative Extension Service