“We're Number 1” has become an oft-repeated claim in sports, but agricultural research in the United States must admit to being only a poor Number 2 (9). The Soviet Union exceeds the United States 3.4 to 2.2 in percent of gross national product invested in agricultural research, 60000 to 12000 in numbers of agricultural scientists, and 150000 to 13000 in support personnel (9). Furthermore, agricultural scientists hold eminent positions in the Soviet Union and are regularly admitted to the Soviet Academy of Science, whereas few United States agriculturists are elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences. This disparity is hard to understand in view of the importance of agriculture in the United States. For example, it is anticipated that in 1982 the United States will pay $60 billion for imported oil and that two-thirds of this will be paid for by agricultural exports (6). According to Schultz (8) in his address on socio-economic aspects of agriculture, “the future food supply is dependent in large measure on achievements in agricultural research”. It would appear that accepting second place to the Soviet Union in agricultural research is even more unacceptable than second place in space. This audience does not need to be convinced of the importance of agricultural research. We might, however, profit by enumerating some of the characteristics of a high quality research program. The comments I am going to make are not intended to be all inclusive and are primarily based on my observations of agricultural research in land-grant universities. Most of the comments are, however, equally applicable to other fields of research and to other agencies.