This is a most timely question because of the importance of herbicides in modern agriculture, the quantity of resources in industry and the public institutions devoted to testing, and the sizeable number of new materials appearing each year. Before examining the role of the experiment stations in herbicidal testing, let me make clear that I am restricting my comments to known materials. Testing so-called unknown materials to identify potential herbicides is clearly incompatible with the teaching and research role of a university. Such research, if it may be called research, is oriented to products whereas the stations' applied research in this area should be oriented to problems faced by the agriculture and homeowners of the state.

All will agree testing is necessary to determine if a herbicide will do the job under local conditions. In brief, the present program involves: (1) screening for herbicidal activity and preliminary determination of effective rate and crop tolerance by industry; (2) research by university personnel on rate and method of application and on crop tolerance, and; (3) demonstrations or field tests by university and industry personnel to further test the material and to promote use of it by farmers. There is some duplication among these three. Furthermore, steps 2 and 3 are essentially repeated in each state having the particular weed and crop situation. Yet, we find that recommendations among these states are frequently the same. Where this is the case, it is apparent that all states need not have done the testing. In view of this duplication and of changes taking place in universitites and the pesticide industry, an honest appraisal of the overall testing program and of stations' role in it seems in order. Let us look at some of the things which bear on the stations' involvement in testing programs.