{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019896193771626297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.1419753086419755, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SIMULATION in the SERVICE of SOCIETY

Much of the current discussion about ethics and values in the agricultural sciences is put in terms of individual responsibilities. This paper takes a contrasting perspective, contending that the institutional hegemony [leadership; predominant influence exercised over others] of publicly funded entities such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the land-grant agricultural colleges, experimental stations, and extension services insulates individual scientists from confronting the social consequences of their work. Occasional scientists who formulate issues that transcend existing institutional understandings find themselves in organizational or career difficulties. Far from sustaining an &dquo;open system&dquo; of scientific inquiry dedicated to such lofty goals as academic freedom, agricultural science in the United States has become narrow and constrained, geared almost exclusively to the single goal of productivity, with even this goal narrowly defined. The insulation of the agricultural sciences is demonstrated using case materials from agricultural engineering, tomato studies, and entomology.