Thank you, Peter Boettke, for your statement of optimism about the future of HET! I see the field flourishing in exactly the spots you identify: in interdisciplinary, policy-related work. Of course that doesn't mean everyone needs to do that kind of work. (and of course "flourishing" is a relative term.) I find it astonishing that we, as an intellectual society, can be driven to such soul-searching by a bureaucratic exercise conducted by a statistical agency. Yes, we needed to respond to them, but we don't need to be quite so desperate to "fix" one another. If heterodoxy is responsible for our current status, as Roy (unconvincingly....) argues, then so be it. Heterodoxy is an undeniable part of who we are as a field. let's see where it takes us as a field. If Eric believes the implications of such an argument "unfitting of a serious intellectual enterprise", good for him. (Although even he ought to see the humour in making such a statement as part of a plea for tolerance) But please someone tell me: when was this golden era when HET was at its apogee? Did subfields in economics really exist before the 1950s and 1960s? And haven't we always been a rather small collection of voices in the wilderness? Isn't that precisely what attracted most of us to the field in the first place? Don't we relish our eccentricity? Evelyn L. Forget