departments and in the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) seek to
divert PS and SM money from the agricultural establish-
ment by promising greater returns for the investments.
It would be difficult to prove or disprove the proposi-
tion that DISC research yields greater returns than PS
and SM research because of the complementarities
among the three types, each of which is necessary but
insufficient alone. If one necessary research component
is neglected, the output of the entire agricultural research
establishment is diminished.

 NSF and NIH support is oriented primarily toward
DISC research. These agencies are not aware of the im-
portance of, do not pay sufficient attention to and do
not exploit the complementarities between PS and SM
research in the colleges of agriculture, on one hand, and
the DISC research outside of colleges of agriculture in
both land-grant and non-land-grant universities.
Attempts to finance relevant DISC agricultural research
outside colleges of agriculture with competitive grants
must face the administrative problem of coordinating
DISC research, on one hand, with PS and SM research,
on the other. Multidisciplinary PS and SM research ef-
forts are too large and encompassing to qualify for most
competitive grants as the grants are now administered.
Furthermore, such projects are usually looked upon with
disfavor by the judges for competitive grants because of
the disciplinary orientation of the evaluators. Still
further, failure to fund competitive grants for social
science research has created a void in the social science
dimensions essential for all PS and most SM research.
 Agricultural science policy and agricultural research
budgets lack a nationally articulated effort. Numerous
models from diverse sources have been used for assess-
ing and arriving at agricultural research priorities. Con-
ferences, working groups, National Research Council
studies and reports, detailed planning and projection ex-
ercises of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service and
its national program staff, state Agricultural Experiment
Station directors and their Experiment Station Commit-
tee on Policy, regional experiment station directors, the
Joint Council, the Users Group, commissioned papers,
and inputs from a variety of commodity and special-
interest groups have been tried and are all a part of the
process. The effectiveness of these efforts is often de-
creased when it appears that they are designed to pro-
mote certain disciplines and certain kinds of SM research
and agencies to the detriment of a balanced approach
to overall needs. There is a continuing lack of coordina-
tion and focus on overall needs. Further, the agenda of
priorities arising from the agricultural research establish-
ment is usually so immense, cumbersome and obvious-
ly self-serving that it discourages those in management
and budget. It is important for constructive action that
much more discrimination be used in priority setting.


 Requests for across-the-board increases-the usual
agenda to keep each of the disciplines or departments
happy-are not convincing to either offices of manage-
ment and budget or to congressional or legislative
appropriation committees. Such requests to appropria-
tion committees appear to be a defense of the agri-
cultural research bureaucracy rather than an earnest,
honest effort to solve problems. Who will have the
courage to tell those in disfavored areas that their work
is no longer necessary or is to be de-emphasized? The
further credibility of agricultural research can be
established only if its administrative leadership will
assume this difficult task. This is a challenge that
agricultural researchers and administrators have not
faced up to. Meanwhile, others outside the agricultural
establishment are having major inputs and are begin-
ning to control the system, often to the detriment of both
the nation and its agriculture.

 Two crucial questions are: who controls U.S. agri-
cultural research policy, and who are the decision
makers supporting agricultural, food and nutrition
research? As indicated, the agricultural establishment
has the state Agricultural Experiment Station directors
and their regional directors and the Experiment Station
Committee on Policy. The Joint Council, with research
and extension inputs from the state Agricultural Experi-
ment Stations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and the Users Group spend much time planning, pro-
graming and establishing priorities for agricultural
research and until now have very little to show for it.
The Joint Council seems to be gaining in credibility and
acceptance with the USDA, the land-grant system and
key congressional committees.

 There are groups, both above and below and exter-
nal to the ARE, that profoundly affect agricultural
research. Many external forces or advocacy groups in-
fluence budget allocations, even down to the project
level, through powers exercised by congressional sub-
committees. So far these forces are in the minority. They
do, however, affect the flexibility of the ARE in adher-
ing to priorities established by users, scientists and ad-
ministrators in their research and extension roles.

 Above the ARE is also another layer that consists of
a potentially crucial set of decision makers. The tragedy
is that there is little communication between the ARE
and these decision makers-the groups do not know each
other well, and the upper layer knows more about
disciplines than agriculture. Policy on DISC research
relevant for agriculture is partially determined by about
25 people who reappear in almost every decision-making
body (Wittwer, 1980). In this upper policy cadre for
research, there is little or no representation from those
concerned with PS and SM research for the traditional
food and agricultural production, marketing and