The U.S. agricultural research establishment has been severely criticized by biological and physical scientists, humanists, and various activist groups. The scientists have criticized concentration on short-run problems to the neglect of basic hard science research. The humanists have criticized agricultural researchers for failing to give adequate attention to such basic values as equity, the value of family farms, environmental values, etc. Closely related to the humanists' criticisms are those of activists who have railed against (1) an alleged alliance between big agribusinesses, the agricultural research establishment, and large farmers, (2) multinational corporations, (3) alleged premature development of labor-saving technology in order to dispossess small farmers and eliminate jobs for farm laborers, and (4) the creation of technology unduly emphasizing fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels derived from exhaustible fossil energy. These activists' criticisms have been offset, in part, by activists who support the status quo. This paper demonstrates that logical positivism mitigates against the objective research of intrinsic (as opposed to exchange) values needed to satisfy such criticisms. Attention is given to the advantages of placing greater reliance on pragmatism and various forms of normativism. These philosophies have distinct advantages as guides for structuring and understanding the problem-solving and issue-oriented research that the land-grant colleges of agriculture are uniquely qualified to conduct. Such practical problems and issues will be numerous as we expand land use 50 to 100 million acres, double yields, and intensify land use in the next 50 years.
