This paper examines three claims of inefficient allocation of public expenditure in publicly funded agricultural research in the United States. It has been argued by analysts of research policy that: 1. The overall level of public investment in agricultural research is less than what would be socially optimal. 2. The present composition of public research investment is excessively myopic in that too little basic research is performed relative to the level of applied research. 3. The allocation of research resources among commodities is inconsistent with economic efficiency. A nonlinear optimal growth model of the U.S. economy was employed to test these propositions. Strong support was found for the claim that the overall level of investment has been adequate. No support was found for the contention that basic research has been relatively underfunded compared to applied research. Weak support was found for the view that crop research has suffered from more acute underfunding than has livestock research.