Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Research Prospects

and the hrst half of the XX''• they enjoyed a gl'Owing social considc-r:uion, more on the basis of hopes tlmn on actual .. chicvements. Between 1850 ond 1900, on autho•· like Jules Vcmc was describing ｦｩｭｾｲＧ＠ (and not actual) wclfurc benchtt of the "fai ry electricity", aerial transpormtions Ol' video, even if some early applications made these progresses likely. By now, the research program that Jules Verne had in mind has produeed all its ourcomes, and people have the impression of still being f..ced with the same obsmde as before against welfal't and happiness .... The above ｲ ･ ｭＺｾｲｫｳ＠ ;1pply to sciences in general, but c.he picrure for agronomy is quire similar. Nobody can imagine :a famine, food is always too t-xpensive, in11.ipid 1\ and unintel'C$ting. The only prob-lem with agriculture is that it is now costly 10 c.u.payer, while every· thing wa.< so nice in the good old time ... ｏｦｾＮ＠ aJI..,ch ideas ate disastrously wrong. but d>cy ore deeply <nu-.nehed imo most of developed countries ciriun's minds. The social demand to agro· nomic research changes acrordingJy. With respect to &mines, I would be cxrremely pmdent before suring thar we have escaped the Malthusian ttop. The next cenru· ry may reserve very bad surprises m this respea, whtn it wiU be roo !are to quickly lind adequar. remedies. "O.tap food" is still a ''erY valid objtctive in many countries. In dE'\·eloping counrries, food still represent a very signiftcam share of the oonsurntr's budget, so rhar a small change in the cost of food may be associated with an enormous improvement in welfare. Even in developed counrm, this obja:rivc is not deprived of significance for the poorest segmenu of the popubtion. Bu1 with • "subsidized" ogriculrure. who could "'late cheap food with Ｚｾｧ ｲｯｮｭｩ｣＠ ｲ ･＾Ｚｾｲ｣ ｨ＠ in developed countries? And in dtvdoping countrie.s, how could the poor rake advantage of cheap food and technical prog•·cs.<, whence they are praccisingsubsisccnce agriculrure withoul, in SOil1c ｯ｣｡ｳｩｮｾ＠ even a spade? In addition. the main c:ost of food in modern socieries is not in agriculture stri(t(J smsu anymore. Until recently, the bulk of the pop· 14 At kasc in the view of Latin people, who, in (hi! rrspo:t, miglu b«:n )oignil'i· cantly diff'«mt ftom ｮ ｯｲ ｾ ｨｴｲｮ＠ &!rope: or Amc:ric:.n dti.<fn.t, AGRICULTURAL, FOOD, AND ENV IRO MENTAL RESEARC H PROS PECTS 195 ularion was living in rural areas, physically close from primary producers. Probl ems of ｣ｯ ｮｳ ｾ ｲｶ｡ｩｯｮ＠ were reduced to minimum. Identifying origins was relariv "ly easy. By now, with rhe increased role of urbanisation, nor only rh · links between farm and consumer are definitively cur, bur keeping a fermente cibfe milieu safe though distance and rime is more and more difficult- the difficulty being alleviated , precisely, thanks ro technical progress and knowledge improvement. Bur few customers are capable of relating the advantage of a safe and relatively cheap food with progress and modernity 1 'i . In effect, for the wealthier part of the population in developed countries, "quality" is probably the master word. Bur quality is difficult to define. For many, it means "more tasty", often identified with "traditional". Bur actual traditional food is rarely tasty: for instance, nobody would now drink the XJXrh wine, made into dubious caskets whose conservation was short. This means that it is neccs ary to reinvent high-tech process for making traditional food ... bur without saying it roo loudly in order not to destroy the charm. But, then , how could the charmed public express irs gratefulness? ... Tied with quality, food safety is also a major concern for the publi . But Olltnt£ r ｾ＠ what could have been expected, Science is ftO( at all viewed as a reassuring in num ibtt ｾｴ ｨｬ＠ of avoiding or ｡ｬ ｾ＠ iating natural hazard, bur rnther as a risk generating pr • ., of its own 16 • As a consequence, the detrimental co n equcnccs of th foolish activity of mad scientists should be fought on by coming back into Mother Nature's bosom 17 • In any case, again, food quality and food safety improvements are more likely to be feasible in food industry than in agriculture stricto sensu. Finally, another remarkable concern of our time is environment. Agriculture is obviously a very important component of th e envi- Ｑ ｾ＠ 11 ' 1 - In recent opinion pool over 1500 ｰ･ｲｷｮｾ＠ reprcsclllarivc of French adult population, only 33% of respondents considered rhar "scientific progress is good for food ". For 53%, it was "bad ", while for 12%, it was "without co nnexion" (2% "did nor know"). Cfr. Boy and Witkowski (2001). Those who may nor be co nvinced of rhe reality of rhis evolution should read th e extraord inary book by Ulri ch Beck (1992). Iro ni ca ll y, the weapons used in this fight are deri ved from scienti sts acrivi ry: for instance , population generics is invo ked against ｣ｾＱｯＧｳ Ｎ＠ ronnaent, if nor for any other rc.1son, b«;;.1use il occupies the l:uges1 pnn of the geographical space. With their biological rulrure, eninto "narural .sciences·. agronomists arc wc:U placed to speak of en,;ronment and to bring progresses in uodmt•nding ir. Yer, u fot food quaJiry and sakry, they >t< viewed with suspicion in this field •lso. The best ex:unpk is the Europc1n anitude rowards CMO:<, indistinctly accused to be a threat over Nature, while, if it is true thou &Omc of them may be dangerous, other can on che comrary help •voiding very harmful pe.uicidcs and fertilizers. 1rusted Thus, Lhe recent development of ngricul tural sciences shows some continuity with previous periods in problems setting: the role of life sciences, the discussion bet:ween engineers and fundameotalisu, the ever lasting growtl> of the cosr and complcxiry of research endc:n·· ｯｵｴｾＬ＠ and the sustained produaion of ouuunding applicable results. lr also shows Striking ruptures. We have identified the probkms tied with the 'indusmalisarion cf rcsc:on:h', wbkh are not all blessinv. but the moot striking diffen:ooo between our epoch and the previous one is rbe a11irude of the ｰｵ｢ｾ｣Ｎ＠ And the real problem is in the dis· crep:tncy bc:twa:n the: continuity in the knowledge productiorl S)l'$-o tern, and the changing expectation of the Society as a wbole. In view of 1he above remarks. predicting the future of agronomy and its orgoniz.ation as a disciplinary body u dearly impossible. !tither, we shall try to identifY the kC) issues shaping the future of the discipline. This inquiry will be tockled from three points of view: disciplinary, ｯｲｧ｡ｮｩｾｴＲｬＮ＠ and socicral. a) Which nJ(1/u1ion for agr011omy 111 a disdplim? h is dear rhar the fromiers'of rhe discipline arc cxu:nding, now ｩｮｾ＠ eluding food sciences and cnvironmenr. in addidon (() traditiona.l agronomy. 1l1is is not. the consequence of any imperialistic attirudc of agriculrural scicnli>ts, but of their abiliry. by culrur< and ttaditioo, to im·ostigate opplied questions in life science.< dom;uru. This observation is banal, and do<s not need much funhcr developments. Less crivi;t,l b the observation of the growing role of human S(;i｣ｮｾ＠ in the held. Far from dc:crc:a.sing. the irnporr:mce ｲｵＺｾＱ＠ or ［ｾｧｲｩ｣ｵｬﾭ economics and sociology deparuncnrs or researcb institutions is increasing, even if tbey are often renamed as •resources economThcic are at least •wo reasons for ia"' or •t:twironmemal ｳｯ｣ｩｬｧｹｾＮ＠ c.h e food and environmenral system, probably mon: dun due: ｾｲｳ｣Ｌ＠ any ochers, neccs..nlr relies on policy and public decision making and decision making is obviously so complex and intricate thAt pncticioncrs !ttl tbe nCC<SSity of being helped by social sciences ex· pens. Second, the e>vlution of the public attitude wich resp«c to agri<.·uhun:: 2.nd environment is disconcerting for m;my decision makers. and they S<c economics and sociologr as • p<>S$ible source of remedy. TillL.\, applied social 5Cicnces constituu: now a definite e:ncnsion of agronomy, jttn ｡Ｎｾ＠ was the case of genetics or microbiolog in the po.<t century. These ch:tnp in focus are in continuity with the evolution of di.cipincs. ::rnd ju.n indicate thac ours is scicncifically and inccllcc.....0· Gving. The question which arise is rather the followin& one: r;"m d1c R•ndcncy of disciplines 10 breakdown in subdiscipline, .411d givel1 the wide specLrum of the fundame:nt3J disciplines which an: put in action whenever any agronomical problem is encoun· rem!, will agronomy stiU deserve the name of a discipline? In my view, the answer is posi tivc. bcc:a\l.SC of the speci6c ｮ｡ｵｾ＠ <:Lagricultural problems, which require specific solutions. Jwt as for tl..;r appljcation ro human health in medicine. the application of sciences to food supply and cnvironmcnral imprO\'<'mcm in agron· omy mjuitcS ｳｰﾫｩｾ＠ potntS of v.ew, which are best tackled by •pec:ial..1> of the$<! specific problems. In gcncr.U scitncific congrc$Ses, ic is fn:qucm to have ipeci.tl sessions on application to agricuJcur.1l, food and environmcnru.J problems. Ironically, the attendance in such sasions is gencra.lly m>de of those that an: usually met in ordimry meeting$ of agriculturnl scientists" ... This ccndcncy will be reinforced by another circumstance: fun .. d:une:mal re.o;;earch in life scicnc;;cs hn.s to get legitimacy and fi1nds. Ul At Jeast, thi!i is what I have ror Jon,g ｾ｢ｊ･ｮＧｃ､＠ in M)' own di.scipl_int, economics. l h:avc: no indic:trion il i• no1 pouible ro ｾﾷ＠ .. For this purpose, ffiOSl scientisiS advenia: maJocd Wicorinn>, because they are obviously hig)Uy c:lcnwldal. .and IEW2Riiog. in ruch a way there is a sor1 of syrnbiosis between mcdicioc: .and fundamental life scicn= Bu1 of course. the 1\ian >pe0e is one ｾ＠ many others. so th<u many other applicatioru of lill: ｾ｡ｲ･＠ ...,..iblc outside medicine: this is • suong jt ostilicatioo fOr """ .....J.icoJ •1>plicd life science$ ro survive"- However, maltiJll: ..., of ....:h mional for agricuhural research has 10 COp<: with o prcn:quisitc agronomy should cominue to g<:t the same kind of support .. ｾ＠ in 1hc public. Thus. we havc to answer to tbe fullowiug question: As indicated abo-•c, rhe prospects here moy be ........bot &foomy. But "'" ' have ro w>clcrsrand where tbe problem comes from. For some authors. it originates imo a new ｰｨｩｾ＠ of the rdations between man and ruture. Agronomists would odhctt to the ｒ｣ｮｾ＠ ｄ ｲｳｾｮ｣＠ program of l'llling Narure, ｷｨ｡ｾ＠ ｾ＠ pbiltk<ophy, ofispring of tbe German Romantic school. would ntbcr iruin on and Larrh-e. 1997) 11tus, tbae would be a keeping it S>ft Ｈｌ｡ｲｾ｣＠ radical, rdisious-like. point ofview dilkrcnoe betw<m. ogrooomi>ts and e.nvironmemalisu. \\lhile such a situation may expl1_in a few faas- fOr instance, chc cultural diffc:rencc, throughout the World. bcowa:o mioislrics of agriculUll'C' and minlsrriesofenvlronune.nr-, I ｡ｭｾｸｰＺｩ｣ｬ Ｌ＠ ｢･ ｾ＠ cause I arn so SU1'C of the real power of •be Gam:m RM.>ntic school as • new tdigion, :md because o<hcr expbnotiom mwith as well Among the lncrer:. J am inclined to give cnxli1 ro d1c idea [har scientists arc victims of their own power. As scm aboYe. during previous centuries, &cicncc Ius sold pledges, not rc:dil)'. What society bough at that time was dream, no• rcol achK:.ancna. Now that tbc achievements ore therc. they give crcdi1 to rhc plcdg<.\. The public is t:h1Ls co11vine<d that scientists are almigbry"', and here is r..u " 20 Thus. fc< insunc<, }. Craie Vmr<f (2001), 11>< "pop<" of _.;a"" olwiou.s.Jy CQunf.ing on n_t«ikinc ro jusrify and fund htt uUvity. bur w:u nor in· diffcrcnt [0 rhc intemr taka. io. it by the (;IMWYT. 'Tht- rremendous f>uccc:u of 1/mry l'ritkr- the young wilard ｾ｡ｬ＠ rhe ex- rhe. problem: fo r i f any rumighq• wizard leaves anything going wrong, ir mwa be evil minded, and probably dangerous. This is not d1e case of 1nedicines, whose goodwill is casy'to c.hcc.k almost every day. Bur rh.is is ccrcainly t rue of physisists, who have demonｩ｣＠ bomb, and cer· strarcd their noxiousness by exploding the ｾｴｯｭ tainly also for -agronom.i.srs, who.se acti,·ities ate mysterious, concern rhe hean of 1m, aod deal wirh things which arc better left co God ... l would not say that rh.is line of reasoning is clearly and publicly expressed, bur I am pretty sure it stays in rhe background, and plays a large role in rhe diJliculties mentioned above. If this analysis is correct, it has many implications for agronomic research management and communic:uion. c) How will ｴｨ･ Ｂｾ＠ spwn btｦｯｮ､ｾＬ＠ and wiJen will the imJidiUfor trsaJrch ｣ｯｭ ｯｲｧ｡ｴｾｩｳ ｾ＠ ･､Ｌ＠ fiwn? T he communication str.IIt:!\f, of course, plays a role in shaping rhe image of any political body, ioduding Sciencc:s in general, and agronomy in particular. In tbc past:, it used to be oricm<'d to carry the image of the ｷｶｾｴｩｓＬ＠ the "he who knows", rhat nobody Gould comradict. Of cowsc. people were not so S[Upld as to believe in scientisL infallibility. Bur it wa."> just as for Harry Potter: nothing more than a dxcam. not so much impomnr after all. Now 1hat ｴ ｨｩ ｮ ｾ＠ are ｳ･ＺｲｩｯｵＮｾ＠ rhe probkm is differem. Scientific knowlcx.tgc is as:soci.1ted with power. Now, since Montcsquicu, we koow that any power holder is generally bound to abuse it. As a COil.Sil!quence" in 3 wdl organised sociecy, any power must be matched by a OOWJrcrvailiog power. Unfortunately, there is no ooumervailing pc:tWCr for Science - ar least, no one Jikely co be credible. In dli:ct, because of the very nature of Science, rhe scien- dfic counrerv-..iling power cannot come from any other source than Science: itself. But how to sectuc the ex.isrcncc: of cotuu:ervailing powers into applied scientific institutions? Ic will be the main task Ｈｾ ｭ ＺＮ ｬ＠ :mribuce of a s;vmt schob.r and a fu(urt: $Citmist - illusu-:uti 1ht identification bet'tVe'(n science and magic in most ofour eonrempor;uie$• minds. of the next century to answer chis question. Only a few p1't'liminary remarks can be: made here. The fiand ing is.suc is important. ｜ｾ ｣＠ have seen that philanthropy has been an imporunt source of funding in our disciplines during the last cemury. [,·en the CGIAil is an offipring of rhe Rockfdltt and Ford Foundarioru., and is still d>tp"ndem upon dtariry. l'rivare, profit orienred ""eareh has never been negligible, while public fimding has been determinant. N()w. philanthropy cannot be seriously considered as ｾｬ＠ significant soutee. first because: of rhe in.. creased cosr of rese;uch, and second, because nobody would ghe money to bodies swp<aed of ｾｲ＠ abuse. Thus, funds must comes eirher from proht orienrtd irutitutions. or from wcs. R«:endy, a frcqucndy expressed idea has been th'l profit orient- ed insrirutions would produce bcner orienced resulcs, because they would be driven by a measurable solvoble demand. This is in line with the liberal doctrine. assuming th:u market stands as the •invisible hand" which make Society as c:fficienr and adapted to o>teds as possible. It does make SCXlSI:, since we know th;u the imrisiblc hand acruaUy pcrformJ its taSk in many occasions. ln add1tion, we know dun ｾ ﾷ ･ｮ＠ public research has never been independent From market signals1 1• But any economist is familiar with "mnrkcr fuilurQ"- that is, cases where the invisible hnnd is awkward - . In the case of agronomic l'tltCarch, there exis-r ar la.st three reasons for that it fails. First, becau!C muket will produce research benefiting the rich, while improving food supply is m•inly inrended for the poo .... Scrond, becau>c n:scarch is a highly unceruin activity. ｷｨｩ｣ｾ＠ consequently, will be under produced by risk averse ､｣ ｩ ｾ ｩｯｮ＠ m:llms. And third , last but nor leO$<, becousc large compani.,. likely co rund research for Lheir own ｰｵｲｯ ｾ･ｳＬ＠ in the ey.,. of public ll lbt: "'tbtory o( induced innorarion·. rhc- •mporun« orwhich ｨｾ＠ Mtn ckmorutr.U«< by rruny fCQfiOtnis.u. ｾ･Ｌ＠ i.n p;a.rutuloar. the lasr book hy V. , . , .. IS Ruot..n (2001). 'J Here is the only scrimu: (.tnd Jufficienc) ｾＺＱＡＰ｜＠ robe extn'tudy prudent when providing plant ｢ｾ･＼ｬｦ＠ with J'atcnt anrl simil:.r rights, while other ·ethar :11gumcnu ("life cannoc he patwtetf'. ･ｴ｣ ｾＩ＠ arc in f.;!ct atttmely "'flk. In t:f. fra, be-fore allowing such rithl$. it would advisabk to consider to ""h.u o · tmc thty j_re l'l(ttSU'Y for ｡ｾ＠ ｾｴｲｵｮＮｭｯ＠ of tbt ｾｲ｣･ｳＮ＠ opinion, are already holding too much power from their financial ｳｴｾｮ､ｩ ｮｧ Ｎ＠ Adding scienti fic to financial power will cerrainly not improve their im.-ge.(, :1nd make sociaJ relations easier. Only one of these chr.:e reasons woul9 mffia to juscify a brge l)ublic commitment in ｾｮｯｭｴ｣＠ research. All three ｴｯｧｾｨ｣ｲ＠ mJke chc condwion incsca)nble. the more a.<· the main argument in f.tvou.r of research privatlsatjon- the better fl.t of results co market expre.<sed demand - is far from being nbsent of public res"orch. as noticed by authon such o.s Vernon Runan (2001). H owc..:r, ful\d• ing research by large burcaucracits, either public or private, r.uscs .serious management problems. In drca, ro derermmc research ｰｲｯｾ ｳ＠ rn large organisations, cwo options are opt:n. One is to start from problems: fo r instnnce, ..there :arc coo much ｮｩｴｲｯ･Ｎｾｬ＠ in chis rlvcr"'. T hen, set up a ta.sk force, with one pedologist, one anim:1l scientist, one ph}'topathologlst, and one cx:onomiSL. Let thc:.m talk ro e.ach other, and cen:ainly the best available solution will emerge from che discussion. AJ. chough aliule sketchy, chis is the kind ofani tude on which presently rdy many *research ｡､ｭｩｲｾｳｮｯﾷＮ＠ In dTtct, this anitudc: is ｲ･ｾ＠ :lSJiuring for any admini.strawr having to report )uccesse$, and seck· ing to maximise the chanct'S of being in position to say char "a soJudon W.IS found•. ft is rOOted i.n the Jdca I hat research is a productiOn process :t$ many otflcr, so thai if rhe right ma.n is pur :u tht right place, then there is no doubt that the proper outcome will emerge. Str.lllgdy enough, this is a sdf fulfilling prophecy, because, whacC\cr the solution chus found, no other can emerge in the ab· .scna: of any anempc in ocher directions. Ar the opposite of this attitude is 11'1 e w:ay ﾷ｣ｯ ｭｾｮ､･＠ by a very f.unous economist, Alfred Marshall ( 1920), but which applies to any disciplil\e. Let us quote him: Though wt" ue bound. before cntt"ring on any n udy, to considc:r ｣Ｚｴｾ＠ fully ｾｨ｡Ｇ＠ ll :an: ia uses. we "houJd nor pl:ane our work with direct f(f• Norioc .such a .statement im1>he5 2 certain m10unt of ｫｮｯｷｬｾ＠ rtgardinc maJ•y oonciU''CtSW3Sp<CI> of fund>mcnal ph)'>;a.!Molocr and mcdicin<, » wcll ... &ood Jl<3Cric< at chan;..! """";,. r86 ｊｅａｎ ｾ ｍａｒｃ＠ 80t)$.5A.RJ) specially acute in the case of Agricu1turc, Food Sciences and ｅ ｮ ｶｩｾ＠ ronrnent. And, of course, rhe :mswers thar could be bn>ughc co the two prccx:ding sets of question depend largely on the way the public eonJidenoe problem wiU be solved. Thus, ler us taclde it 6rsc. Bm tackling such a problem frontally, as if it was completely new, is probably the best way to miss the solution, if any. It will be much wiser to try an indirect :'lpprooch. and understand where it does come f.-om. l1>us, let us draw the lessons of IUstory, before projecting our vision into the future. LOOKING ON TH.£ ｉ ｾ ｕｔｒｅ＠ FROM 'rli£ l'AST Agronomic research, probably, begun before the Neolithic era. Adv:l.nccd agrieulcural practices from 2500 B.Chr are illusrrated on the walls of the pyramide of Saqqara, Egypt, and practices could nor have been designed wirhout some sorr of rc:sc:a.n:h system- involving both experiments - at least> trials tO disc:over alremati,•e methods> and information storing and l'{."tricving ｾｏＧｬＮｓＬ＠ tO keep memory of rhem. The Larin writers and policy makcrs1 were aware of its necessity: we arc all the daughters and sous of Virgil, Ovid, Pliny, and many others. During the middle age, clerks and monasteries played the cole of research institutions', with outSClnding successes, which made possible a significant population growth at least in Europe, and probably, elsewhere also'. Yet, a bteak occurrod during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Ar chac rirne> research was often considered suspiciously by auchorities, who (somecime rightly) were t\01 e:xpeaing anything ''"il 1 One the Pli.ny's lcnc.rs contains precise qucsciom on how to buikl up <1 ｙｲＮｾ ｾ＠ «:rworks in /\n:uolb. tog.ethet witJt the amv.rt:r of the rc:igning empcfor (more ｰｲｯｾ｢ｴｹＬ＠ Ｂｗｯｾ､＠ "l ｊｬ［ ｯｾ of the compete"t tecllnic:al !tdvisory oomminc:c), very much ﾷ＠ •'>'le. The Benedictine monk W-alter de Henley, who wrote a uearisc of agi'Qnomy at tbc beginning of the 13..;, <:entury, is sliD pr«<:m in memorje,s. See ｏ Ｎｳ｣ｨｩｮｾ＠ d.y (1971). or Duby (2002). The ｾ ｩ ｴｷＮ｣ｩｯｮ＠ in China and in India wa.s probably similar. although, of ｯｵｴＺｓｾ･Ｎ＠ the ｩｮｳ ｴ ｩｴ ｵｴｬｯ ｮ ｾ＠ sttUng w:u diffcre1n. ertnc:c to them. For by 1o0 doing. v.>e are lc:mpto:l «>break off exh ｬｩｮｾ＠ it ceases co tu¥t a.n IDUI'Icd.We bating on dut JWticular aim we h2w in ｶｾ＠ at the time: the direct puuuic. of prac.tic:al :aims ｬｾ､ｳ＠ us ro group tof1thtr bit' of all sort of knowledge whit:h have no oonnexion wilh one ｡ｮ ｯ ｣､ｴ ｾ＠ exapt for the immedinte ｰｵｲ ｯｳ･Ｎｾ＠ of the moment. .. The best STOuping. :. is that which coJiects together all those facu. and reasoning, which arr similar to one: ;mOthe-r in ｮｾｴｵｲ･Ｎ＠ so tha1 the ｾｵ､ｹ＠ of One' mzy throw light on iu ntisJ:tbow. By "-'Of'king a:hu.s (Of :a kmg t.imc: u ones« of COO$ic:kruioru. v-c gtt graduallt ncattt to those fianc:b.mt-ntal unities which arc called Na.. tun··, l.lws. o( though as soon ｡Ｎｾ＠ Any actual researcher knows how deeply true is this m.rcmcot, and how efficient, in the long run, is this method. Y<t, wr know how f.tr from ir '"'>' the basic culture of retearch insriruriom, especially those belonging ro the agronomic world, genuindy and his<Orically more problem than theory oriented. The existence of large ｵｳｴｩｲ ｾ＠ tions, with heavy capital inpur, and large bodies of personnd, is largdy responsible for rhis sii:U3tion. By nccessil)', such insmurions mUSt be managed by resarch adminisrrarors. who are nor resean:hm rhenudws (or who used robe =rchers, bur arc nor anymore). Now, any normal manager becomes nervous in d1c ttbsence of ccrriwde with regard ro rhc outcome of any cfforr, CSJ"-'Cially financial. I lc (or she) will always prefer a modest, bur sure benclit ro a large, bur unccrrain one. 'In is is complerdy conrradictory with the ｡ｬｸｮＮｾ＠ pm><p< of lening research guided by facr.s and theory rather thon by problems, since nobody can predicr where are properly grouped F..c., leading us. Thus, the future of our discipline will bear least partially determined by our abilil)• to overcome the difficulty of mixing rhc advan rages oflarges insrirurions and the necessity of taking risks, and accq>ting the uncenainry of outcomes>'. J( JronkaUy, while llt2king risks- i' a quite common l't()()mmeodacjons u-ation oomm.isUons and U(cring commirt«S, on the ground of..ｭｯｵｾｮｧ＠ or c:wl- efficiency", in m(kSl meuch organUaOO.os. ｃ｜ｾ＠ U; dont m ft'Witd confonnity 10 norm. md. ｾ＠ •"'Ofllt. to pu.oish Wfun:. ｾｲ｣ｨ＠ ｲｷｴＮｾｰＺｳ＠ dtoutd undmuod that f.Wurc, JWI a.s success,. iJ a not'ma.l outcome of t:&.kmg risk. dpCttoally if the n:wardJ o( rue suo:ases lu'l,.ocly outwt'ighs tlte oa:urrencc: of numerous f.illurcs. AGIU(:U I.TtJllAI.• R)O l) , ANO ENVUtONMENTAI. kESEAJtCH ｉ ＧｒＰｓｬｾＺ＼［ｔ＠ 203 For that very reason, it is impossible to prediCt, as was perhaps imended by the organizers of this session, the next probable break.through in applied knowledge, or the ｢･Ｎｾｴ＠ avenues (or future researches. This is the key problem of research administrators: how can we define priorities and decide where co put out resources in without such informacion? But it is completely impossible tO give an answer: research - especially applied research - is nor a business where inputs yield output with cecraincy. Of course, without inpurs, there. are no outputs. But it is quicc possible to spend a considerable quanticy of inpuL-. without the least resuJc. .. ... In summary. agronomic research, at the condidon of not being confined m agriculture stricto smsu, bm co extend its competence co any applied life sciences othet d>an medicine, has a very wide and promising future ahead. It is much more demand driven than com· monJy assumed. In bet, it is roo much demand driven, at the poim of losing efficiency: significant gains in this respect could be made by leaving more inidative to researchers in deciding cheir programs and priorities. Yet, this optimistic view ｳｨｯｴｾ､＠ be balanced by considering the new developments in the relationships between Science and Soci.. ecy. 11le very successes of past century make apparem the limits of what can be achieved through scientific research only. Even more importantly> dley point ouc che risk of power abuse by scientists. Therefore> a prerequisite for funher progresses will be a new ap· proach of che "scientific power issue", including the institution of credible countervailing powers. Will old academies have any role to play in this respect:? Because they are made of old people, for whom gaining power has lost most of its appea.J, while they arc experienced, and fairly knowledgeable of the main iSS\Ies o( their disciplines, they would be ideally sujted to speak without being suspect of conflict of interest. At the. same time, for precisely these same reasons•, they are powerless, and cannot expect being made in charge of this responsibility but if the social body is wise enough to forger shore term power collsiderations, 'vhile adopcing a long ru11 prospective view of manhood. BIBLIOGRAPHY BECK U. ( 1992): Risikogeself.,·d,aft: mif de111 W'eg i11 andere /ldodeme, Suhrkamp, Franfurr; English translation: Risk Sociezy: to1uards a new 111odemity, London, ｾａ＼＠ :F. Bov D. and \X!ITKOWSKY D. (200 1): Les attitudes des jim1rais lt l'r!gmd de Ia science, mimeo (note de sy nth ese), Pari s, ｾｯ ｩ Ｚ ｒｅｾＮ＠ Duro o DE DINECIIIN B. ( 1999): DuiJmml du Mo11ceau, Paris, CME. DuBY C. (2002) : Quest ce que Ia societe fi!odale?, Paris, Flam marion. FoURASTIE J. ( 19 5 1): MachilliSIIIe et bien fire, Paris, Les ed itions de Minuit. LARRERE R. ct LARRERE C. ( 1997): Le uo11 usage de Ia nature, Paris, Le Seuil. LATO R B. ( 1994): Le 111etier de rherdmn; ｮｾｦＡＬｲｬ､＠ rl'u11 rllltiJropologue, Paris, INRAEditi o n. 0SCIII NSKY D. (I 97 1): Waltn of Hmii:J' a ncl other trfrll ises 011 estate 111anagement Oxford, MARSIIALL A. ( 1920): Pri11ciples of Economics, London, Me Millan, p. 39. RuTTAN V. (200 I ): Technology, growtiJ, rmd develop111mt: a11 incluad iJIIW/lf11ioll perspecti11e, New York, Oxford University Press. VENTER J. C. (200 I ): CmoiiJics:frollllllicrobes to Mr111, Sir John C rawfo rd Memori.Ji Lecture, Ams terd am.< t. I \1(. from it but politicul troubles and social upsurge. Becawe all available land was under control, detks and monks were Jc.s interested in "colonisation» :and rhc associated rechnictl pro'blcms, whjlc civil· ian thinkers - most of them Im:ruited among rich and idle landownen - began co play a significant tole in all sons of sciences and arrs. They felt the necessity of periodic ｭ･ｴｩｮｾ＠ to exchange ideas, and get audience>. This i.s the reason for having established academies, ar rhe origin designed for thor sole purpose. These academics ｜ｾｲｴＧ＠ lim interested in any sort of sciences, but it became quickly clear that communicorion was difficult be1wect1 different kinds of scientists. This induced members to organiz.c: meeting!\ specialized by disciplines and cencres of irHcresr. Here js certainly the origin of the Academi> dci Grorgofili, weU in advance of many similar institutions in Europe and elsewhere. !kcausc they quickly beame a necessary point of passage 10 acand fame. ac>dcmies gained power and inRuence. A quire ｾｰｵｴ･＠ miking difference between this period :llld now is thac scientific re«atch - being agronomic or no• - was completely independent &om educational institutions. To some exrcnt, this refleas rhe Socit!)''• focus of intemc: e-.-.:ry timoe, '"'"!)'When: in the world, programs of education focus on what is considered imporuanr 3t a p3r· ricular ｴｩｾｮ＼Ｚ＠ and place. In the 1700's, rhetoric, bw, history, and above :all. theology were imponanr matters, allowing practitionert 10 gain consideration and, in some case. power. But dearly. such W'JS not the case of sc-iences in general, and even less :tgronomy. Rath<r than • potential sourc:c of personal wealth and politicul power, they were consideccd as innocuous hobbies. This is b«e>wc, with the exception of a few visionary, nobody imagined d\;u scientific knowledge could bring any good '" b.1d. Yet. pioneers in agricultura1 research were driven by a variety of amsiderarions. Some of them were aware dur privarc: enrichment was made possible by discovering and >pplying new methods. Ochers more philanthropic and animated by the will of alleviating poverty, (which was pervasive >rottnd them) through incrc:lScd fOod supply. Some were prcocxupicd only by imdlecc.W curiosity, and cackled agriculrural problems fonuicously. only as n prctcxr (cometime., a souroe of floods), in undcnaking rcscorch for iu own sake. Mosc, if not all of them, adhered to the idet according to which, "= along with rhc ｢ｩｾ｣｡ｬ＠ reoommcndarion rlut men should "fill chc earr:h and subdue it", Nature was designed to be ramed by Man. \'Qh:uevcr rhe variety or motivations, chcy congregated at ｊ･｡Ｎｾ＠ on mechods: fir«, rely on controlled experimentS; second, make usc of pm>ious results, but oe"o-a take them for r:hcir f..ce ｶＺｾｬｵ･Ｌ＠ and ques· tion them all the rime. Such scoemilic precq>IS, ot tbc rime, wm: fur from g2ining common acccprance, and II= was a major inno>-ation. Nor was dear the F.ocr th>t biolog>• was ultjmaody ruled out by the same fundnmenml laws as rhc physical wodd, :Ulother point ro be credited ro this end of the XVUI*1' century gene-ration. Ye1, very quickly, ronfli<:u :uosc: ｢｣ｴｷｾｮ＠ "fund>mento!i"s· whooe interest was in pure knowledge, •nd "engineers·, more art'""""' by opplic:l· tion•. Anotller important F.Gtor explaining the <b>dopmcm of agroｨ＠ a[ the I urn of che XVJJl'lt Century is tbc i.ntroduetion of new instruments, coming from other discipline: nobody. for in· stance, could overestimate: the role of microscope on biology. Jr is dif· 6cult ro know whether these tools themselv.:s wen: the cause or the corucqucncc of progt<S$CS in limd:unento! oacnas: to t:alu: again the microscope example, if the original set of twO kmc:s was probobly due 10 the 3Ctivil)• of. scnial handyman, subscquau de.dopmcnts were made possible hy u conscious ･ｸ ｰｬｯｩｴ ｾｵｩｯ ｮ＠ of fundamenr..J knowledge regarding mathematical waves and tbc narurc oflight. ln this contcxt, the economic and political benefits to be derived from 2 vivid scientific oesearch -especially in •gronomy- bee• me progressively evident'. For g<'Deral .Oenccs, !be point W2S noade apparent by the progress of weapons, the q!Uliry ofwhich W» dearly a ddinirc advantage in any war endeavour. Bur good 1Neapons do nor guarantee victory wichour soldiers to ope1':1.1e 1hem. Thus, rhe sc-rengrh of a nation WolS also determined by irs ability co sustain a nomic ｉ Ｇｃｓｾｲ｣ • 1 ..or ｡Ｎｭｰｬ･ｾ＠ the dispute bttVo'ttn the nuthemmcim d"Akmbcn :and 'he roresuy and n.av:ll engiue('t Duhamd du ｍｯｮ｣Ｎｾｵ＠ is famous m Fran«. Cfr. Din«hin (1999). A pi.onttt in dti1 field i., prolxlbly Lhc F•cmh Minisrry Colbt•t. who tlltab· ltshed publidy Fun<kd schools o.f rorc$try 4llld :mim:tl husl.».ndty ｡ｾ＠ u rly a$ during tb< nUci-XVll' anrury. Utge poplbtion, From which many soldiers could be extracted. At this ｾＮ＠ princes could not ignore chc fact rh ar improving crop ｾ＠ .....tivarion and cattle raising methods was <t basic in.gredienr for ro build their own glory'. Here is probably the source of rhc mention paid by governmencs to our· disciplines. Later on> republicaJt (or democr:uic monarchies) chiefs became aware that food shortage-s were putcing their rcMelcction at jeopardy, ＰＬ ｾ ＬＮＭ＠ and such considerations led them co a similar condwdon 7. T hey were juSt rediscovering a fuct reported in the Bible abour 4000 years ago: rhc political legitimacy of a political body is ac least partially founded on irs ability to guaranty food security". But as soon as states became involved in che funding and oper.. at[on of agronomic reseatc.h, or.her problems arose. Who should make decisions regarding research targets and strategies? Who should recruit researchers, and on which criteria? C learly, such problems cannoc be submicrcd to rhe J(jng himsel£ He muse delegate power tO bureaucrnciC'S. But if burc.auaades aK often cfficiem in managing routine works, such as armfes or postal services, they perform very poorly when in fuce of innovation, with situations conswuly moving., and while imagination should be given pdority. Since the beginning of the XJXili century, this problem is poisoning the world research system, especially in agronomy. D(.'·spire this difficulty, the sta[e funding of agronol'nic research yielded outscandiug results. Everybody knows the progresses allowed by applying sciences - e.<pecially chemistry - and scientific method to agriculcure. In the 1820's, Robert Mal thus viewed food shortage as the basic. rcguJarion princ.iplc in econornics, because ' 1 C'ir. the haliw/French writer fl"ll'K() Galjanj (1770. p. 32}: ole bled Ｑ ｾ ｵｬ＠ ｾ ｬ ｲ･＠ reg:udt comme unc: prodoetioo du SCtl, ec SOtiS oene vue:.:, il appa.nicm au rom· merce ... iJ ck.il ｾｲ･＠ en me1nc.temp:; regard.C commt' Ia mat.iefe de: premiere nCﾫｾ ｩ ｴｃＬ＠ c:t SOU$ C<" point de vue. iJ apparric:nt a La fbljtique Cl a b r.Usoo d'Etato. This is the reason for which the Nobel prf7.e i.n economics, Am:trl)-:t Sen w.t.S abk to say that .. &mine d o not occur in democr:ui' ＤＰ｣ｩ･ｴ ｩ ･ｳｾ＾Ｎ＠ Soe. '3t the end of che Genc:si.s book. the story ofJoseph, prime minister of the Ph.::u:wh, 2nd proWl>ly the i.nvtncor of th t food ann: by pl'iletisi.ng a $Ound stockpiling polky. he created a liquidity crisis in rhc ]!.fiddle Ease. which. ｾ｜ ﾷ ｴ ｮｴｵ｡ｬ ｬｹＬ＠ aUowed the King ro d ai.m hegemony over the region. scuv.u:ion w.u due co ｲｍｾｯｶ･＠ any .,xccss supply of labour. This sad theory, which made economic. deserving to be called "the disnwl science'", is by now deemed irrelevant by all re:xtbooks ｾ ｢ ･｣｡ｵｳ＠ it does not take account of tt<:hnical progress". One could not im:ag· inc a more mass-ive justification of agronomic research. ln effect, the ""no more f.a.mine" objtetivt of agronomic resc:uc:h was achieved - ot lease in <he absence of political trouble - in che 1850's', dcspi« population growth. At the beginning of the xx•• century, <he demand shifted ftom "no shoruge" ro "chcop food". Although food i• never cheap enough, the progrc.sse• in ch is field arc 2lso enormous. and ccrt".ainly undercsrimmcd. For instance, l'ournstic (195 1, quoling d'Avcud), seeking estimations of che per day wJge of an unskilled worker in Fr:lncc bc:twcc:n 1600 and 1800 reaches <he conclusion that che figure Auctuated betwttn 4 and 6 kg of whcar per doy. In 2003, che 76 € lcg>l <Uily minimum wage in France (for 8 houn work) allows the :IC<JUisition of about 100 kg ofwheat at f.um gaceprice (dependling upon current price), or, even more significanrly, of 63 kg of "spaghmi" ar 0,6 € per 500 gr (observed price downtown l'aris, march 2003). Even if these indicators :are crude and discussibleJ the evidence is overwhelming: t:hc real cost of food has been divided by more than 10 (very conscn·ati•·e CSlimatc) since 1800. in developed countries. Of course, rhis achiC'\'cmcm is lllOt ascribabk 10 :agriculruraJ re.. search alone. For itUt3nce, fmncrs in AITia luve ac:cas to the same public knowledge as we h>vc, and yet, in Afric-J, the decrcose in che real COSt of food is far less than in Europe. T hi5 i• bcc-"'as<:, for lack of capital (itself tied with a low starring point coupk>d wicl1 very unwi.5e jX)licies), the producrivily of African fiumcr remains Jow. Bur whatever the policy, and the quantity of available capital, the inCrC'.Jse in productivity would not luvc been possible: without mak· ing use oft he ourcome of a nrong agronomic rc:scarch. In addilion, agronomic research, during ｴｨ･ｾ＠ and the XX"' was not absent of fundarnenml sci.-nQ, progresses: it is certainly nor wrong ro say that mnd<rn generics is an outcome of agronomy, even if the ., Whh the 1848-J849lti3h ("lminc. Even so. thto lach·r w;u rdicved chanb to r:h.at t.ime. rhc inrroduccjon o( p04:<HOC:S W)tior.uion, a novelty at . sorucnue itself '""" elucidated by a group of fundamental physi- .;.... In dfocr, agronomy always standcd as both a field of applicatioa< (without whid>, often, funding would have been difficulr1') and a mu.ro: of stimulating questions for fimdamental sciences. Nowadays, the picture is somewhat different. The number of "scienrific med iaS, each wirh its specific audi .. ene<: targets, and disciplinary specificity, is simply inerediblt. For that reason. the role of academics in lhe cirruJarion of ideas and in .. fonn ation is somewhat reduced, while they gain 31\ 0theJ' function: becau.se very few (if any) people are capable of synthesising the enonnous flow of knowledge and in formation coming from many specialized sources, they represent at leaSt a chance of oollecrively elaborating such an overview of scientific dcvclopmcnrs and appJi.. cations. In agronomy, they art gt:J\uinely multidisciplinary, whjch i.s not a small quality. as we shall s<-c. The tools now available fo1·research are innumerable. Let us mencion computt.fS, the power of which was multiplied by mi1lions in 50 years. electronic microscop)', measurement instruments ... All these and difficult ro use, •'C<)uiring ｩ ｮ｣ｲ･ＺｴＮｾ＠ professiollthings are ｣ｯｳｴｬｹｾ＠ alism from operators, but they arc absolutdy necessary to have any chance of bringing any novelcy about. And because they at'e powe1·ful, at the same time, the productivity of reseatchcts (whatever the merh<Xi for measuring it11} is increased by an enormous facror. ° 1 11 For ii\Sl:mce, Hruno l:ltour (1994) qw>•et :1 juicy lett-er by louis P..ts-teur tO the Napoleon 111'$ Minjsoy of Education in the 1860's, explaining, in a time of uade libcralisarion, how important to the elCtecnal babnce of France are his rc:se.atches on ye:uts, Ｚｾｮ､＠ begging 2000 Fr:1nc.s lO spend nexl summer in AIbois (where be:: h.1d :t f.1.mjJy hou.se, ｾｭ､＠ C<lnnc:.xjon$ with wine ｭ｣ｨＺｾ ｮ ｴＤ＠ ...). I am ptrliOn.alJy extrem-ely $Ceptical with respeCt tO ｴｾ･＠ famou$..number of publications'" mt'aSUrcmtnt. Ac the time wheu Maurict Allais was awarded Nobel Prize, (N!V. W'JS considering C5tablish.ing an aulomacic .scoring of resc:arcbcrs quality. The lNM. scoring proj<:cr w:ls applied to AJhis· publictrion lin . h W'.lS !hen dj$CO\'crc:d 1lut he w:lS '\'Ct)' mc:di(l(rc:..., and should have been "excluded from labor:.tOJ)I' in tv>'() O<:C<J.$iOO$ duri11g his ea.rder, for bek of publie:.tioo..s. At the same time, chis means th:u research budgets ::are enormous, ouc of reach of at'ly individual researcher. Thus, in agronomy as ln other disciplines. the implic:1don of govcrrunems in reseuch is csscnrial, and cos1ly co taxpayer, ､｣ｳｰ ｩ ｵｾ＠ the effons m:adc: ro pass a growing shart of the burden ro private c;ntcrprise. In ｡ｮｹｾＮ＠ re-search is a .. big business'", the more as even public rcsea.rcb i.nMitu· tions are d•p<ncbnt from "thin! mollq'". Mosc t<S<3rch """"'" applied - is p<rformtd within me framework of universities and sim- ilar inStirution.s 11, thtu ooming back co what could be described as a "mcdic:val" si<uation, wim highly hiemrchic:U administrorive bodies driving ｲｨ｣Ｚｳｾｴ･ｭＮ＠ Even whe.n privatdy oper.tted, research is sddom an individual endeavour. Only large finm, like Syngena or Nesde in our field, can afford to pay for a rubsystcm. 1\J • consequence, scientists are monitOred, clusilit'd. a.st: in prcddincd moulds. sliced into disciplines. and this m•y be d<trimcnt:il tO ere •tivity - in such • way mat there renainly exists a thn:shold for the size: of resc2rdt instarution.s, beyond >A'hich productiviry decreast'S, despite increased me:an.s of research. hl addition, [he growing importance of t11c private sector in funding entails " shirt in focus: snort run pronmbility is preferred ••search tO ｬｯｾｴｧ＠ run invcnmen1s in fundamenu.l J<.tivitics.. The: conse· qucnccs arc not alv.'3ys visibJc:. because research I) not a foreseeable inpuc/output system, with results in conformity with intended aC· tions. Thus, ""'Y important ｦｵｮ､｡ｭ･ｴＺｾ＠ resultS may ""l}' well come our of a sho" term profit resc:acch pl:1n, just as public money can easily buquandert:d in blind avenues. This i1 the more likely <1.< most researchers are expc:ru in disguisirtg their ullimate g03ls. often masking an imerc-.st in fun damental rcsuh.s they know that, in case ｳｵ｣｡Ｚｾ＠ ､Ｇｵｾｹ＠ wilJ bring consideration and honours to them. ｵｮｾ＠ der me doth of immedia1ely wcful and ｳＺｕｾ｢ｬ･＠ f?dgcu. Yet, s•a•isｴｩ｣ｾｬｹＬ＠ profit seeking dcci>ion makers sdca re1CVCh projects in order to get a positive rerum, ｾ｜Ｂｴｮ＠ current market conc.litions. Since markt signal rarely ><hertise long run possible bcnc6u. mere >re •ncreastng chances of neglecting long run considem1ions. or ll f'nr insClllcc, in t h t- us. 01 tkchive impetus was giwn ro 111)plicd ｾｏｍｭｩ｣＠ re.'!C!lh::h by the H:nch act, at the (.)rigjn of rh.C' "land gr2n1 culkgn". u dte ｾＮ＠ gimting ur l.hc XX"' etmury AGR!CUt:rURAL, FOOD, AND E V!RONMENTAL RESEARC !l PROSPECTS 193 Another consequence of the new environmem for scienrists is · ien is omnipresenr in day to day life. "Ex perrs" (assumed ro r·ly on a sharp knowledge of almost eve rything) are continuously consulted, even if regularly conrested by "counrer-experrs" . Be it in medicine, nuclear sciences or agronomy (for instance in the case of the Ct'>to's), sc ienriflc conrroversies are turning in ro political issues. Yet, here is th e problem . For this increa ing l(}Q"'"(t]; of scienrists is growing at the poinr of contradicting the scienriflc method! itself. A symprom of this evolution is the new developmenrs in th e ffiuun:damentalists/e ngineers quarrel: because application is acrion, whi dh requires faith, and conrinuous dTorr, it may imply neglecting dou bt and conrroversy. Thus, engineers, when they get power (which happens more ;l!H' more frequcnrly, in response to the increased technkaliry of p ﾷ ｯｾ＠ le demand) are tempted ro neglect doubt, and avoid controve rsy. Now, doubt and conrroversy is precisely at the origin of scienriflc de,·elopment, in such a way that any scientist cannot be but suspicions with respect ro anybody- even a n engineer - who avoids them. Ironically, these developmenrs and quarrels are now jeopardizing the future of science and scienriflc research 13 . Su han evoluti on is a sym ptom of a dramatic change in people expectations and attirude toward science. As noticed above, during the xvrn•h entury, scientists progressively conquered the audience of sovere ign. and political bodies. But they were considered as in nocuous cranks by the vast majority of citizens. During the XIX'" ｴｨ ｾｩＭ 11 respecr, 1 he .'>rory of ｃｲｾ ﾷ ｧｯｲｹ＠ l.yssenko is exemp lary. In the 1940's, he genes any physical support. Such a claim was perfectly receivable at rhat tune, an_d he ce1-rainly ca n nor be b!Jmed for having l.'nvisagcd exp lorin g exCII! ng ｉ ｔｾｬＧＢｲ｣ｨ＠ · • ·Jve11 Llt:s •• new and . , • ours1· cIe r11e " ma1· nsrrcam " . even 1·f., rcrrospecr_Ively, we arc now confident that rhese ｡ｶ･ｮｵｾ＠ were blind ｯ ｮ ･ｾＮ＠ Bur he 1'1 HI\ I:-: h\11 • rhat linL·. ccrrainly_shou}d not ha ve ohliged all '><win ｾ｣ ｩ ｴﾷ ｭ ｬｾ｜＠ ar_rhe pouu of sending some of'tlw111 in ｾｲｨ･ｩＺｊＬ＠ which was a ｳ｣｡ ｮ､ ｾｊｯｵｳ＠ ｷ｡ ｾ＠ 1ol resources, in ad dition oi' a moral sham e. ｌｹｾ･ｮｫｯＧｳ＠ story, if"extrenll'. ｩｾ＠ nor cxceprional. Similar squandering of human and money ｲ｣ｾｯｵ＠ occur everyday in most agricultural resea rch in sriturrons, simp ly ｢･｣ｴｵｾ＠ applicat ion actions, in many cases, arc co nrradi crory with true research. Indeed, such drifts are jusr as unavoidable as is heat dissi-pation in a hear engine. Bur jusr a.., hear dissipation in a heat engin e, rhey must be reduced rn the minimum. ､･ｮ 1n ｴｾＱ｡＠ Ｑ ･ｾ＠