governmental sectors. It is important to correct this
situation.

 A typical example of the way the agricultural research
community of the land-grant system absents itself from
the total scientific establishment is its lack of participa-
tion, interest in and attendance at the annual meetings
of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS). These are the most prestigious of the
science meetings in the nation and they receive the best
press coverage. Yet the agricultural meetings in Section
0, where questions affecting the survival of the ARE are
discussed, are poorly attended by administrators and
scientists from the ARE. This has not changed in 20 years
and is a severe indictment of the agricultural research
community, both private and public. The entire agri-
cultural research community appears satisfied to pro-
mote its own diverse professional activities at annual
meetings for its own professionals, where there is little
if any press coverage, and where they are isolated from
the remainder of the scientific community and the public
they are designated to serve. Consortia of professional
agricultural societies have been formed, but these have
little decision-making impact. They are viewed by those
outside the system as advocacy groups promoting only
their special interests.

 Agricultural scientists and administrators have to
assume some responsibility for this lack of contact with
those who advertently or inadvertently chart much of
the path of disciplinary research in agricultural and food
research and development in the nation. There is much
truth in the statement by Jean and Andre Mayer (1973)
that agriculture is an empire unto itself, with little con-


tact with the rest of the scientific community, even
within land-grant universities.
 To make that contact and bridge the gap is not easy.
Improved communications are needed with the non-
land-grant universities and colleges, the National
Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, the
National Science Foundation, the International Coun-
cil of Scientific Unions, the Overseas Development
Council, the International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, the Nutrition Foundation, the Office of
Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress, Resources
for the Future, World Watch, the Conservation Founda-
tion, the Brookings Institute, the Department of Energy,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
National Institutes of Health, and the International
Agricultural Research Centers, to name a few.
 It is incumbent upon ARE personnel to establish con-
tact and active communication with key representatives
of the above groups. They should be invited and used
by the ARE as consultants, speakers and seminar par-
ticipants to acquaint them with the unique endowments
and research accomplishments associated with publicly
supported agricultural research at the state and federal
levels. In turn, agricultural researchers in the ARE must
also take the time, when invited, to serve as consultants
and to be active and aggressive participants on the com-
mittees, boards, workshops and conferences that exert
such a great influence on DISC research relevant for
agriculture. We must extend ourselves beyond the
classical and traditional agricultural research commu-
nity. This is increasingly important if the ARE is to make
a full and proper contribution to the increased produc-
tive capacity of U.S. agriculture in the next 50 years.