Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Hopkin, John A.

English

Research Papers in Economics

SOUTHERN  JOURNAL  OF  AGRICULTURAL  ECONOMICS  JULY,  1983
DISCUSSION:  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY  IN  AGRICULTURAL  RESEARCH
John A.  Hopkin
My experience  in this assignment  confirms Agnes'  I must  not  take time  to  identify  or comment  about.
law  that "almost  anything  is easier to get into than to  Some  of his  conclusions  I  found  both  hopeful  and
get out of."  In his timely and well-organized  paper, Dr.  comforting,  albeit in places,  somewhat utopian.
Ruttan  addresses  increasingly  serious  problems  and  Dr.  Ruttan  is  aware  of the  dilemma  faced  by  re-
raises issues at the heart of research  and development  search  managers  and  scientists  growing  out  of  the
policy.  "technology  assessment  movement"  which  requires
He begins  with the generally accepted  statement that  that they understand  and  measure  the  social  welfare
modem agricultural  productivity  results  from  the  fu-  function  before it is  revealed  in  the  political  and/or
sion of technology and science.  However, questioning  economic  market place.  He  suggests  that  "research
of some of the by-products of technical change is gen-  leading  to a better understanding  of the discrepancies
erating a growing  scepticism over the role of science  or the  disequilibrium  in the  economic,  political,  and
in our society,  leading to a rising demand for more ef-  social weighting system is essential.  But the objective
fective social control over the development and use of  of such research should  not be to provide research di-
agricultural  technology.  He  argues  that  agricultural  rectors with the weighting system for internal research
scientists  must assume responsibility for both the cost  resource  allocation.  The objective  should  be to con-
and benefits of technical  change,  but feels that it is in  tribute to a political dialogue  that will result in insti-
society's interest to let the burden of responsibility rest  tutional changes leading to convergence  of the several
lightly  on  scientists,  as  long  as  they  maintain  their  weighting  systems."  In  a pluralistic  society  such  as
commitment  to expand the productive capacity  of the  ours,  consensus  is  highly unlikely.  Not  only will
resources  used in agricultural production.  Otherwise,  weights  differ,  but  they  will  change  over time,  and
their selection of research projects will be biased away  conflicts  will continue  to prevail.  In  this  sense,  Rut-
from areas  with high potential benefits  that also have  tan's suggestion is utopian.  Moreover,  I would argue
a high  risk of conflicts.  Nevertheless,  he argues that  that research  that helps  us better  understand  the  dis-
society  should  insist  that  agricultural  scientists  em-  equilibrium in the economic,  political,  and social
brace an agenda that includes a concern for (1) the ef-  weighting  system  will  not  only  provide  a more  in-
fects of agricultural technology  on the health and safety  formed basis  for the continuing  dialogue,  but should
of agricultural  producers;  (2) the  nutrition and health  also improve internal research  allocation.  My point is
of consumers;  (3)  the impact of agricultural practices  that we  should not expect,  nor can we wait  for, con-
on the aesthetic  qualities of both natural and man-made  sensus.  Instead,  we enter the dialogue  with the inten-
environments;  (4)  the quality of life in rural commu-  tion  of injecting  as  much economic  rationality  as
nities; and (5) the implications of technical choices for  possible into the allocation of research resources.  The
the future.  In return,  the agricultural  scientist  should  product of this dialogue  should be particularly useful
expect  that society will  acquire  a more  sophisticated  to research directors  and,  if appropriately  used in this
perception of the contributions of agricultural technol-  latter capacity, can have a significant beneficial effect.
ogy  to the  balance  between  man  and  nature and  that  There is no end to the list of problems that might arise
procedures  for resolving conflicts leading to a rational  with no  clear resolutions.  The tomato  harvester  is  a
allocation  will be forthcoming.  classic  case  for which  Ruttan's  prescriptions  have
As the strongest of all possible endorsements of how  merit. Let me pose the problem in more general terms.
well  this fusion  process  has  gone  in agriculture,  Dr.  Suppose a new technology developed through socially
Ruttan  argues  that  the  pattern  developed  by  agricul-  funded research  benefits farmers who adopt it early by,
tural  scientists in embracing the fusion of science and  say,  $10 million and improves profits to farm suppliers
technology should be followed by the general science  by $5 million, while decreasing revenues to farm labor
community.  by  $20  million.  However,  suppose  this  technology
Most of us feel quite comfortable with Dr.  Ruttan's  generates consumer surpluses of $70 million.  Clearly,
identification  and  description  of the  issues.  He  pro-  the benefit/cost  ratio is positive.  But if farm workers
vides a number of insights  and makes contributions  that  are compensated for their loss,  who should do it? Ob-
John A.  Hopkin is  a Stiles Professor of Agricultural  Finance  and head of the Department of Agricultural Economics,  Texas A&M  University.
Invited discussion  presented at the annual  meeting of the Southern Agricultural  Economics Association, Feb.  6-9,  1983 Atlanta. Invited discussions are routinely published in the July SJAE
without editorial  council  review but with review by the copy  editor (as per Executive  Committee action June 25,  1982).
81viously, the combined gains by farmers and farm sup-  contribution  is to say that it is a difficult task. Perhaps
pliers  are  insufficient,  and  taxing  the  public  would  geneticists  and  statisticians  can  make probabilistic
surely create  inequities  since  (let us say) only 20 per-  statements  about  possible  outcomes  of bioengineer-
cent  of consumers  use  the  commodity.  Although  he  ing,  but  they probably  have little  basis for  assessing
doesn't supply  answers,  Ruttan's  discussion  is  rele-  probabilities  of social  and economic  gains  and losses
vant and helpful.  or of changes in social structure and values. Yet this is
As we look to the future, the issues Ruttan raises be-  the kind of information research directors need.
come even more poignant.  Some of you are already in-  I found  less than  I expected  in Ruttan's paper  that
volved in trying to assess the possible impacts of such  would either guide or comfort me when getting into bed
high-technology  research  as  bioengineering  and  bio-  with philosophers,  as I am arguing  we  must now do.
genetics,  which  probably  have tremendous  potential.  He  did,  however,  clearly  point  us  in  that  direction.
Some of this research  may  well  also have  very pro-  Ruttan's rich experience with both physical and other
found revolutionary  impacts.  Neither Pareto-Opti-  social scientists gives him a vantage point from which
mum nor positive  benefit-cost  rati6s  (in economic  to more fully address  this pressing issue.  Let me add
terms)  provide  sufficient  criteria  for  decisions  con-  that  I  found  nothing  in his  paper  that  suggests  a re-
cerning  research  resource  allocation  with  such  alter-  luctance  to address this broader problem.  It simply was
natives.  I think Ruttan would agree that to better cope  not, unfortunately,  included in his treatise.  I am con-
with  these  emerging  issues,  we  must  move  beyond  vinced that economists must be an integral part of the
economic positivism (if he doesn't  he ought to).  decision process that charts the course and allocates re-
But normative analysis  is philosophy, not econom-  sources for high-technology research-along with phi-
ics,  sociology,  or  anthropology.  These  latter  social  losophers  and other social  scientists (including  political
disciplines  provide tools  for understanding  and possi-  scientists) and  physical and  biological scientists.  The
ble quantifying what society's welfare  function is and  central question  is: how do we intermarry these disci-
how  it got there.  This we will always  need to know.  plines? Since plural marriage is illegal in the U.S., I hope
However, by themselves they will not tell us what this  that Dr. Ruttan and others will not only continue their
function ought to  be.  In this area,  we can  gain from  flirtations with both philosophy  and the basic physical
methods  found  useful in philosophy.  And  it is  quite  and biological sciences,  but will let them expand and
possible (even probable) that decisions on resource al-  blossom into a full-blown intellectual  and professional
location in research  during the  next few decades  will  infidelity leading  to cross-fertilization.  Those who do
profoundly influence the very structure of our society.  this could well be the research pioneers in the closing
Hence, it is incumbent on us as research economists  decade  of the  twentieth  century,  with all the  profes-
and research  resource allocators to explore,  ponder, and  sional  hazards  and  potential  rewards  this  status  im-
assess  the  total possible  impacts of research  alterna-  plies.
tives  early  on. Not  only must the  alternatives  be ex-  In the last decade or two, our profession  has devel-
plored,  their impacts must be identified and measured,  oped rather powerful quantitative  tools and  computer
as Ruttan explicitly states,  in terms of a defined utility  techniques  to  move  rapidly  in  research  analysis  and
function.  He does not, however,  adequately  address the  synthesis.  Dr.  Ruttan seems  to be  in total agreement
problem  of  assigning  probabilities  to  possible  out-  with me that  we now  can afford to be less concerned
comes from alternative research actions.  Having made  about getting  there faster, but must be more concerned
this accusation,  I must confess that my only additional  about where we're going.
82

DISCUSSION: MORAL RESPONSIBILITY IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics