Unfortunately, there are a lot of scientists out there that don't seem to
realize that "what" the research question asks and "how" it asks it
influences very heavily the research "facts" and "answers" obtained. Note
this does not say that the research is not conducted objectively or meet peer
review. Research questions are never asked to get the "whole" truth but only
that portion of the "truth" addressable with available funds. Isn't this the
basic tenet of sust ag that the broad holistic "truth" may be somewhat
different than the sum of its "component truths"?
I think that if Monsanto funds research to "questions" that are in their
particular interest; the results ("answers") will be quite different than the
"answers" obtained to research "questions" asked by the Sierra Club or other
specialized groups. The research conducted may be completely objective in
addressing the questions asked in both cases. The "answers" may also meet
the standard of "peer review".
In the past 10, 20, 30 years we have seen a lot of research indicating that
ag chemicals had a minor, if any, effect on ground water quality. It was
good research but we didn't know (had not asked the right questions) about
bypass flow and other phenomena in soil water dynamics that could cause quite
different results; in other words, we only obtained that part of the "truth"
directly asked. I suspect that there are some farmers out there who have to
buy bottled water that wish someone had raised different and better questions
about some of the earlier research, even though it was peer reviewed. The
proportion of contaminated ground water is very significant in some states.
I also agree that agriculture may lose the sustainable ag flag. Although
unfortunate, I'm not sure that it is of major concern to society or humanity.
The agricultural community lost the environmental initiative in the '70s
because of their parochialism and feeling that they had the "answers". The
result was EPA which will attain Departmental status and in many ways now
controls agriculture. The SCS of USDA spends more funds and effort to
support environmental issues, not directed by the traditional USDA, than it
does on farm production etc. of the traditional USDA. It is quite possible
that sustainable ag will be lost by the agricultural community to the
environmental or ecological community. I question whether that will
necessarily be bad for US society.
As a person who has spent my professional life in agriculture, in this
country and internationally, it is sad to me that we don't have more "vision"
in our upper level agricultural research management. Change is often
painful, unfortunately those most hurt by change have little control over it.