tion in policies, regulations and markets. KST (incl. AKST) made industrialization and technological development as well as urbanization possible, but was also crucially influ­enced by these changes. The indirect drivers of NAE AKST were predominantly societal circumstances. In Europe the Second World War resulted in loss of infrastructure and in food insecurity but it also promoted industrialization and technological development throughout NAE. The war was followed by a rebuilding period characterized by a faith in technology. The establishment of larger economic and/or political structures in Europe (the EU and its predecessors) has had a marked effect on AKST in ever larger parts of Europe (as membership increases). In Eastern Europe the drastic societal restructuring in the late 1980s and the 1990s increased the risks of poverty, hunger and malnutrition for parts of the population in many of the affected countries. However, opening to the West also provided opportunities for AKST (e.g., in increasing environmental sustainability) even though positive impacts may take time to take effects. The wealth differences in the developed and developing world, intensified by wars and conflicts outside NAE, di­rectly hindered meeting the goals: Lower production costs in developing countries resulted in cheap resources for pro­cessing in NAE, thus further enhancing inequity between NAE and developing countries. Policies and search for short term returns for AKST in NAE, together with development of IPR protection, were the main drivers behind increases in privatization and introduction of increased competition to AKST management. This again created barriers for meeting the goals.
     Policy makers and governments will have a key role in developing measures that help meeting the goals. To con­tribute to meeting development and sustainability goals of the present assessment a stronger focus on a wider range of public goods and thus a paradigm shift towards a big­ger public role in AKST seems to be required alongside the emerged shift towards more comprehensive adoption, ap­plication and institutionalization of horizontal (sciences), vertical (food system actors) and contextual (societal and ecological circumstances) integration as well as collective learning (societal learning) within NAE and in the interna­tional context.

4.2 Historical Trends in the Organization of Scientific Knowledge Generation
Much of the extraordinary increase in agricultural produc­tivity in comparison with other industries during the last fifty to sixty years was achieved by rapid technological change. Agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) was a major direct driver of this change (Evenson, 1983). These advances helped greatly to overcome the food insecurity in Europe following the Second World War.
     Four decades ago, global goals were expressed such as "in ten years, no one child shall go to bed hungry" or in terms of "increasing the pile of rice on the plates of the food-short consumers" (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). World cereal production has indeed almost doubled since 1970 based on essentially the same cropping area as of 40 years ago (Falcon and Naylor, 2005) (see Chapter 2). Despite this increase in cereal production, 5 million children die from hunger-related causes per year and there are still 850 mil-

lion people worldwide suffering from undernutrition to­day. Even though there has been a considerable decline in the proportion of people undernourished in the developing world, there has not been a big change in the absolute num­bers of the undernourished since the late 1970s (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). Productivity of labor and land in NAE has increased partly at the expense of limited resources (e.g., land use for fodder export) from other regions. The carry­ing capacity of some ecosystems was seriously exploited and rural livelihoods in some regions injured. NAE AKST had a key role in this development and needs to learn from its successes and failures.
     AKST is not formed or conducted in isolation from the rest of science. There is a long history of agricultural scientists drawing on and adapting findings from the basic biological, chemical and other sciences (Pardey and Beintema, 2001). Moreover, contemporary findings (especially in genetics and information sciences) serve to blur the boundaries between AKST and other sciences (CGIAR Science Council, 2005). The societal context and trends in research and development (R&D) often apply and interact across disciplinary bound­aries. Therefore, the development in organizations and in­stitutions related to AKST should be seen in the context of trends in the organization of scientific knowledge overall.
     The contemporary organization of scientific knowledge production has its origin in the education centered scientific academies of the 17th and 18th centuries and in the inven­tion of the research university in Prussia in the early 19th century (Rhodes, 2001). European universities had close connections to the state as codifiers of national identity, while American universities had a more pragmatic orien­tation towards civil society, particularly those established as land-grant universities under the 1862 Morrill Act. By 1950 the public agricultural research system of the US had developed from very small beginnings into the world's larg­est system, a feat made possible by the expansion of public funding for research and by the decentralized state funded land-grant system (Buttel, 2005). The disciplinary organiza­tion of education and research emerged during the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century through a reorganization of universities and establishment of national and international scientific societies and journals. Academic development before Second World War was characterized by growth, specialization and fragmentation.
     After the Second World War, spending on higher edu­cation and research increased dramatically in the indus­trial countries. In the 1960s many new universities were established. Science policy was based on the so-called lin­ear model, which assumed that investments in basic sci­ence would lead automatically to technological innovations (Stokes, 1997). In the early 1970s awareness of environ­mental pollution and a range of societal problems surfaced (Klein, 1996) and the disciplinary structure of science was criticized as not adequate for solving real world problems. Concerns were already expressed in those years that the fragmentation of scientific knowledge had a negative im­pact on the capacity of people and societies to act in a co­herent way (Apostel et al., 1972). Up to the mid 1970s, corporate research was characterized by a relatively high degree of self-sufficiency and secrecy. Increased globaliza­tion has since led to a streamlining of industrial R&D, with