158 

 m. SCIENCE AND PLANNING 



It only takes a quick glimpse of the history of agricultural 

 research facilities funding to understand that it has been erratic, 

 plagued by lack of planning (Graph 2, page 15). 



Since the inid-1960s, numerous external and internal reports 

 have urged federal and state agricultural research programs to 

 undertake more effective planning and coordination. In 1981, the 

 GAO reported that long-range planning could greatly improve the 

 efficiency of agricultural research and development. Beginning in 

 1982, the UAB has repeatedly urged greater planning of research, 

 especially of research facilities. 



But the science community continues to resist. Speaking for 

 many, Michael Polanyi, argues that "any authority which would 

 undertake to direct the work of a scientist centrally would bring 

 the progress of science virtually to a standstill." 



While the scientific community contends that science cannot be 

 planned, several observers suspect that part of the opposition to 

 planning comes from a reluctance of opening the research process to 

 scrutiny and shared control of the agenda. Ruttan asks, "Should 

 research be planned? The answer to this question often depends on 

 the interpretation that the respondent attaches to planning. The 

 response is frequently confounded by the respondent's perception to 

 the second question: Who will have the authority for research 

 planning?" Hadwiger concurs with this view and argues that "Lofty 

 national research missions have to be reconciled with mundane human 

 and organizational needs:" 



Behind the arguments over the virtues of coordinating 

 management were struggles over who should control agricultural 

 research. After 1972 there were several new legislative 

 directives, new machinery for planning and coordination, 

 agency reorganizations, and new legislative mandates. 



14 



