Every historian of economics who contributed to the discussion on the Australian reclassification of the History of Economic Thought on this list seems to agree that HET should maintain a strong connection, both theoretically and academically, with economics. This contrasts with the HET-as-science-studies program that has been at the centre of the debate in last few years, and that has been supported by several leading scholars in the field. As is probably familiar to the readers of this list, one of the main tenets of the HET-as-science-studies program is the belief that historians of economics could break away from economists and economic departments, and be welcomed by different scholarly communities such as those of historians, philosophers, political scientists, or sociologists. To a certain extent the decision of the Australian Bureau of Statistics may be seen as an implementation of the HET-as-science-studies program, and the strong reaction of HET scholars to that decision may be read as a manifestation of the awareness that this program is not a winning strategy for our field. An alternative strategy, much more in line with the letters sent in opposition to the Australian relocation of HET, emerges in contributions to the symposium on ?The Future of the History of Economics: Young Scholars? Perspective? that was organized by Paola Tubaro and Erik Angner at the ESHET 2006 Conference, and which is to appear in the Journal of the History of Economic Thought. The symposium contains an Introduction by Tubaro and Angner, a paper by Nuno Palma on ?History of Economics or Selected History of Economics??, a paper by Eric Schliesser on ?Philosophy and a Scientific Future of the History of Economics?, and a contribution by myself entitled ?More Economics, Please: We?re Historians of Economics?. The entire symposium in a pre-print version can be found at http://www.dpo.uab.edu/~angner/future.html Ivan Moscati