After working on topics related to sustainable agriculture in four
different land grant institutions, for the State Dept of Food and
Agriculture in California, and with researchers at the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, I must disagree with the
comments about the value of issues discussion on SANET. For years, I
have heard the same arguments put forward by "influential" people
regarding the need to ignore commentary in favor of "facts." This
arises over and over in environmental, food safety issues and
biotechnology issues. My observation is that these people turn out
not to have as much "influence" as they thought, mainly because they
ignore the public policy, psychology, sociology and economics of the
technologies they seek to foster. These people can sometimes be
found in an agency or a university, still bemoaning the loss of the
good old days when scientists talked and the public listened (and
believed).
As a scientist (after graduating B.S. in agronomy I worked as a lab
tech in agronomy, and have graduate coursework in soil chemistry as
well as my graduate degrees in agricultural economics), a former
extension specialist, and an avid reader on history and philosophy of
science, I firmly believe there is no such thing as unbiased science.
Choice of method, data interpretation, even the research questions to
be asked are influenced by educational training, personal values and
ethics. There is no real problem with this, as long as every
scientists recognizes that such bias exists and acknowledges that
there are other ways to view each problem we tackle.
My concern is that we only talk technique and result, but forget
about why we are working on the problem to begin with. The public
has as much right to provide input on the scientific process and
future direction of research as any expert or "very influential"
person. We experts are hired to look further into the future,
identify needs for that time and work on behalf of a broader
public to make current and future problems go away, but to do this we
must hear what people right now are saying about their needs. And,
frankly, many people at land grant schools, as well as in the
government, ignore this, saying the average person's perceptions are
not valid because they go against "scientific fact." It would be a
more positive response to acknowledge those concerns, and try to
address what exactly causes the credibility gap, rather than
continually throwing back "facts" and "credentials" of experts and
failing to communicate.
I found the exchange between Lara Wiggert and Basil Eastwood (with
comment by other sanetters) quite enlightening from a public policy
standpoint. I hope there are more exchanges that deal with policy
issues, and more pointedly with the "facts" - and who decides which
set of "facts" is appropriate for this network.
In sympathy with Dr. Rasmussen and those he claims to represent, I am
sorry that public policy discussion is not neater and cleaner. Yes,
it can be downright frustrating. However, it is NOT enough to know
the "facts" - how does one know they are the *right* facts? A
technology can only work in a social context; if society reject the
technology, it disappears. It seems that everyone, from extension
field staff to university researcher to USDA branch chief, can learn
what it is people (remember our "clientele"?) care about. The
problem with SANET right now is that it does not reach enough of
these "others." Since we cannot separate science from the world and
social context in which it must exist, why should we separate our
discussion of sustainability from those it is going to affect? And,
why should we separate our facts from the discussion of where they
came from and what value they have? To do so is to risk even greater
loss of support for technologies that are going in the wrong
direction.
Lastly, regarding Dr. Rasmussen's concern about wanting sustainable
agriculture to become "mainstream," how can it become mainstream if
it does not "enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a
whole" (U.S. Congress, 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act, Title XVI, Research, Subtitle A, Section 1603)? Of
course there are going to be public policy disagreements about what
is best for farmers AND society. Scientists, perhaps more than
anyone, need to be aware of the concerns and disagreements that
arise, not run away because they fear controversy and conflict. We
no longer have the luxury of speaking from on high, and we better get
used to it.
It eludes me how this network can remain "holistic" if we ignore
society in some paternalistic (or maternalistic) gesture to do what's
best for them without consulting them. Average citizens might not
have training to perform the research or extend the results to large
groups, but they can give us feedback on our research and tell us
what they think we should be working on. Without advocating knee-jerk
responses to the problem of the week, I believe we do have
a responsibility to listen.
And now, I'm prepared to do just that. You can send a personal
response to me at llohr@agecon.conner.uga.edu.
Regards,
Luanne Lohr
____________________________________________________________________
Dept. of Agricultural & Applied Economics Phone: 706-542-0847
Room 312A Conner Hall University of Georgia FAX: 706-542-0739
Athens, GA 30602-7509 e-mail: llohr@agecon.conner.uga.edu