itself, with production at its center. The externalized costs of unintended and/or unanticipated negative social and en­vironmental consequences of AKST have been dealt with largely through post hoc regulatory and policy approaches. Although such post hoc responses have in some cases en­couraged or compelled positive technological innovation, they have often failed to resolve important problems that might have been better addressed at an earlier stage in the creation, design and implementation of AKST. There will be advantages for such broad anticipatory approaches to complement more narrowly focused R&D. Agriculture and AKST development could be re-conceptualized within the entire context of society and environment, introducing new levels of complexity in understanding and responding to fu­ture needs. This requires recognition of a paradigm shift in the way AKST is to be produced and delivered. Elements of this shift are already in process and have appeared through­out the NAE.
     Shaping a newly recognized paradigm shift and learn­ing to work successfully within it will require continuing work on the integration of knowledge across a wide range of disciplines. Researchers and policy makers will require new conceptual tools to better address complex questions and help in understanding the dynamic and interactive rela­tionships among multiple relevant factors.
     Working more effectively within the new paradigm will also likely require new institutional arrangements. These ar­rangements could be designed to support a more integrated approach to the development and dissemination of AKST. Methods for such integration will include the creation of multidisciplinary research programs, the involvement of stakeholders in defining such agendas and the provision of education, training and advisory programs to support the exchange of knowledge competencies to deal with these new complexities. In addition, it will be necessary to carry on a continual re-evaluation of the proper balance between pub­lic and private interests and investments in the development of AKST.

6.1.2 New research approaches and supportive institutional change
Universities, other research organizations, training insti­tutes and extension services may frequently find it advisable to renew and upgrade their capabilities to operate effec­tively within a new paradigm recognizing the complexity of agricultural AKST. The nature of the new challenges calls on universities and other organizations to greatly increase the emphasis on multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary re­search. This can be done without sacrificing disciplinary excellence, which is the foundation for successful multidis­ciplinary work. Much of this work could be focused directly on meeting development and sustainability goals.
     Agricultural research and education, in all its forms, is faced with the challenge presented by what has been termed the "disaggregation" or "disintegration" of agricultural sci­ence. In recent decades there has been a strong tendency for many of the most important advances in AKST to come from the basic science and social science disciplines outside of the agricultural sciences. This trend creates an impera­tive for the agricultural sciences to interact more with the other disciplines both to fully capture the advantages that

such contributions from outside the agricultural sciences of­fer and to help guide the research in directions most useful for agriculture. Organizations and institutions have some­times recognized and should continue to consider that this cannot depend on individual researchers alone, but comes from changes in the ways that research and educational or­ganizations are structured. Changes in the incentive systems for educators and researchers, such that multidisciplinary efforts are properly recognized and rewarded rather than ignored or punished, facilitates multidisciplinarity.
     The development and pursuit of research agendas could involve interactive knowledge systems that call on the more active and effective participation of people outside academic disciplines. The multiple functions of agriculture and the im­perative to rise to new challenges can only be met if there is active and effective participation by farmers, farm labor, consumers, environmentalists and other interested parties in the development of AKST. Links between research develop­ment on the one hand and education, training and exten­sion on the other could be reinforced and where necessary redesigned. Multiple entry points for farmers and other agricultural practitioners into the AKST system can aid in both the identification of new research needs as well as in the implementation and application of new AKST. The role of farmer-to-farmer education and increased interaction of farmers and researchers with consumers, farm workers and environmentalists are some options that could be more seri­ously incorporated into the AKST system. Such increasingly interactive systems of research, education and extension will be essential in the innovation necessary to achieve develop­ment and sustainability goals.

6.1.3 Achieving the proper balance between the public and the private sectors

Working successfully on a new agenda for agriculture will necessitate ongoing attention to achieving the proper bal­ance between public and private involvement in AKST with respect to funding, property regimes, delivery and overall governance. The recent trend toward privatization of agri­cultural goods and services has contributed to competitive­ness, innovation and efficiency in many aspects of AKST development. However, there are compelling reasons for ongoing reconsideration of how to best protect the specifi­cally public interest aspects of AKST development.
     Agricultural production has its foundation directly in the biological world. It is also rooted in particular patterns of culture and economic organization that are specific to agriculture but vary in important ways from region to re­gion. For this and other reasons, the balance of public and private interests and investments in agriculture is different from that in other economic activities. In the last century, government agencies, public organizations and publicly-funded universities and research institutions have worked in partnerships with private organizations and firms in a way that both served private interests and protected certain key public interests, such as relatively open access to seed vari­eties. Shifting the balance with regard to property regimes and governance within that partnership towards stronger private control has special implications for agriculture. For example, the increasing private ownership of intellectual property rights to seed varieties and genetic material has