Conventional research on controversial issues: an exercise in futility?

Results from research on controversial topics are often interpreted according to the world view of the reader. Withconflicting results from different researchers or institutions, it is likely that vested financial interests or adherence toconventional wisdom will lead to rejection of science-based conclusions. An example from the past is the comparison ofmultiple cropping with monocrop systems, where clear advantages of complex systems are discounted by those committedto the monoculture paradigm. A current example is comparison of organic with conventional farming systems and foodproducts, where food price, suspicion about certification and philosophy about perceived ‘non-scientific’ results cloud thetechnical conclusions. An emerging example is comparisons of local versus global food systems, where multiple issuesincluding comparative advantage and food preferences obscure the key questions of energy investment, food equity andlocal well-being. A proposed solution to this dilemma is to instead focus scarce research funds on improving thedevelopment of alternative agroecosystems, rather than invest human energy into futile comparisons that are unlikely toconvince the skeptics. In this way, more creative alternatives can be explored and greater progress made toward food equityand sufficiency