Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:33:56.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conventional research on controversial issues: an exercise in futility?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

Charles A. Francis
Charles A. Francis*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, 279 Plant Science Building, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, NE 68583-0910, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

multiple croppingorganic farmingorganic foodlocal food systemsglobalizationresearch priorities
Type
Commentary
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Special Issue 1: “Food for Life”: Looking Beyond the Horizon , March 2010 , pp. 3 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
2.Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Publishers, New York, USA.Google Scholar
3.Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., Salomonsson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C., and Poincelot, R. 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22(3):99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Capra, F. 1996. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books, New York, USA.Google Scholar
5.Lovelock, J.E. and Margulis, L. 1974. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Springer-Verlag, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
6.Francis, C.A. (ed.). 1986. Multiple Cropping Systems. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA.Google Scholar
7.Francis, C.A., Flor, C.A., and Prager, M. 1978. Effects of bean association on yields and yield components of maize. Crop Science 18:760–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Francis, C.A., Flor, C.A., Prager, M., and Sanders, J.H. 1978. Density response of climbing beans in two cropping systems. Field Crops Research 1:255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Francis, C.A., Prager, M., Tejada, G., and Laing, D.R. 1983. Maize genotype by cropping pattern interactions: monoculture vs. intercropping. Crop Science 23:302–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Willey, R.W. and Reddy, M.S. 1981. A field technique for separating above and below ground interaction for intercropping of experiments with pearl millet/groundnut. Experimental Agriculture 17:257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Heibach, C.K. and McCollum, R.E. 1987. Area×time equivalency ratio: a method for evaluating the productivity of intercrops. Agronomy Journal 79:15–22.Google Scholar
12.Francis, C.A. and Sanders, J.H. 1978. Economic analysis of bean and maize systems: monoculture versus associated cropping. Field Crops Research 1:319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Lockeretz, W. (ed.). 2007. Organic Farming: An International History. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Avery, D.T. 2000. Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.Google Scholar
15.MacRae, R.J., Henning, J., and Hill, S.B. 1993. Strategies to overcome barriers to the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada: the role of agribusiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6:21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada.Google Scholar
17.Pirog, R. and Benjamin, A. 2003. Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for Local versus Conventional Produce Sales to Iowa Institutions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. Available at Web site http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/files/food_travel072103.pdf (verified 21 July 2009).Google Scholar
18.WCED. 1988. Our Common Future. Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar