Conventional research on controversial issues: an exercise in futility?

Charles A. Francis

Abstract
Results from research on controversial topics are often interpreted according to the world view of the reader. With conflicting results from different researchers or institutions, it is likely that vested financial interests or adherence to conventional wisdom will lead to rejection of science-based conclusions.

An example from the past is the comparison of multiple cropping with monocrop systems, where clear advantages of complex systems are discounted by those committed to the monoculture paradigm. A current example is comparison of organic with conventional farming systems and food products, where food price, suspicion about certification and philosophy about perceived ‘non-scientific’ results cloud the technical conclusions. An emerging example is comparisons of local versus global food systems, where multiple issues including comparative advantage and food preferences obscure the key questions of energy investment, food equity and local well-being.

A proposed solution to this dilemma is to instead focus scarce research funds on improving the development of alternative agroecosystems, rather than invest human energy into futile comparisons that are unlikely to convince the skeptics. In this way, more creative alternatives can be explored and greater progress made toward food equity and sufficiency.


Source
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (2010) 25:3-7


Author Location & Affiliations
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, 279 Plant Science Building, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, NE 68583-0910, USA. E-mail cfrancis2@unl.edu


Posted February 2010