and culture. In this sense, the "science of agriculture" of the last two centuries or so represents innovation based on a continuing and dynamic relationship with a foundation of older knowledge, even when the consequence of innova­tion is to replace older practices or knowledge. Researchers have pointed out that the categorical distinctions between "scientific" or "Western" knowledge and technologies on one hand and "traditional" or "indigenous" knowledge can thus be arbitrary and confusing and more recent research usually attempts to avoid overly dichotomous categoriza­tions (Inglis, 1993; Agrawal, 1995; Tyler, 2006).
     Important new developments in the study of traditional and indigenous knowledge have led to a heightened and more sophisticated recognition of:
•     The fact that indigenous knowledge in agriculture is sometimes a vital element for the physical and cultural survival of indigenous groups, including some within North America and Europe (Berkes, 1999; Berkes et al., 2000; World Bank, 2004b);
•     The role that indigenous and traditional knowledge plays in "adaptive management," that is, the way in which long evolved agricultural knowledge sometimes represent advantageous adaptation to specific local con­ditions and response to stresses such as lack of capital, lack of reliable access to water, flood, poor soil and pest invasion (Altieri, 1995; Berkes et al., 2000; World Bank, 2004b; Tyler, 2006);
•     The potential for a deeper understanding of traditional and indigenous knowledge to contribute to innovation in AKST, in areas ranging from plant breeding to water and soil management (Inglis, 1993; Berkes, 2000; Tyler, 2006);
•     The   important   role   of  traditional   and   indigenous knowledge in biodiversity conservation and the in situ conservation of genetic resources (Mauro and Hardi-son, 2000);
•     An understanding that valuable indigenous and tradi­tional knowledge cannot be maintained or developed without access to land and other agricultural resources by those who use it, whether they be indigenous people or commercial farmers; the situation is especially criti­cal for indigenous people, including some portion of the several million indigenous people of Europe and North America (Tyler, 2006);
•     The difficulties that sometimes exist for those trained in the AKST academic disciplines in recognizing or under­standing the existence or the underlying rationales of traditional and indigenous knowledge; such difficulties can be exacerbated by cultural or socioeconomic dis­tance between practitioners and researchers; interdisci-plinarity and special training have proven important in overcoming these difficulties (Grenier, 1998; Stephen, 2006);
•     The complexity and sensitivity of intellectual property rights with regard to the actual and potential products of traditional and indigenous knowledge and practitio­ners (Brush and Stabinsky, 1995; Mauro and Hardison, 2000); and
•     A more highly developed framework for researching and evaluating the potential of traditional and indig­enous   knowledge,   recognizing  that  traditional   and

indigenous knowledge may have either positive or neg­ative social or environmental consequences (Stephen, 2006).

This knowledge, as other forms of AKST, is necessarily context dependent with regard to its consequences. The new framework does not make a priori assumptions about the positive or negative value of traditional or indigenous knowledge, except in recognizing the positive value of pre­serving all knowledge, whether or not it forms the basis for present or future practices. In rejecting such a priori as­sumptions, respect among AKST researchers and educators and practitioners of traditional and indigenous knowledge widens opportunities for mutual learning and improved practices (Agrawal, 1995; Berkes et al., 2000; Tyler, 2006).

6.3.2 Toward meaningful interdisciplinarity

6.3.2.1  Enlarge the scope of agricultural knowledge systems
Improvement of AKS has the capability to make powerful contributions to newer and wider issues and, in many cases, new partnerships would benefit the general scientific com­munity. Interrelationships are required with the life sciences and in the economic and social sciences in terms of research, educational and extension/development work. The issue of developing successful linkages is important and can be ad­dressed across the NAE region. Moving beyond "science versus humanities" dichotomies in many national education systems and developing skills in complex systems sciences is essential. Effective interdisciplinarity should not com­promise disciplinary excellence, the base from which high quality interdisciplinary approaches to AKST issues can be developed. Meaningful interdisciplinary approaches are widely recognized as essential. Systemic barriers to their im­plementation can be addressed and overcome (Box 6-11).
     If interdisciplinary approaches are to reach the required critical mass to become a centrally effective feature of AKST, it is clear that more is required than the development of individual talent or the mere allocation of extra funding. Governments and stakeholders at local, national and trans­national levels could identify inhibitors and design correc­tive measures appropriate to their particular contexts. It would be wise for research funding bodies to further de­velop procedures to encourage rather than inhibit interdis­ciplinarity. Educational and research providers could bring their internal incentive, resource allocation and reward sys­tems (including promotion procedures and criteria) as well as their program approval procedures to be more consistent and better reflect the broader AKST aims. Substantially en­hanced funding is necessary to promote interdisciplinarity and interactive knowledge networking among AKST stake­holders. However, it is important that the systemic inhibi­tors to interdisciplinarity be simultaneously countered so that funding accelerates the "mainstreaming" and sustain-ability of the required new approach and drives it towards the "Tipping Point". In the short run it is recommended that NAE governments, AKST providers and funding agencies take steps to identify the variety of barriers to interdisciplin-arity/networking at local, national and transnational levels. It is then vital to collate and analyze examples of "good