There are a variety of definitions of science: as a methodology, a tool, a process of discovery… Since the time of Copernicus, scientists have always challenged their own theories and paradigms, while provoking religious and political dogmas.
Today we are living in provocative times, but the pressure is coming from the food puritans, particularly in the United States, leaving certain scientific communities under existential pressure. What should researchers do in a world where their expertise, technologies and innovations are largely unwelcome by the political powers and societal influencers?
Science as Problem Solving?
Science is first and foremost a problem-solving endeavour. Where problems are identified, sciences exist to postulate solutions. Scientists continually iterate and innovate to manage the solutions.
The threats to global food supply are immense, as plant biologists and agronomists confront challenges posed by growing populations, climate change, and ecological concerns. However, innovations in seed and agriculture have led to exponential increases in yields and well-being, reductions in cultivated land, enhanced nutritional qualities, and advancements in soil and water preservation
This is a continuous iterative process.
When Seed Research Became the Problem
The innovations that solved important food chain challenges from the time of Norman Borlaug hit an eco-religious wall. Seed solutions were seen as unnatural and as industrial agriculture coexisting with pesticide applications. Organic food industry marketers used this perception as a means to grow their brand opportunities and agroecologists used these confrontations to advance their anti-capitalist political dogma.
Wider issues in the food industry and their lack of commitment to defend the agriculture value chain led to a public backlash toward conventional food, farming and land use. What started as a fringe activist campaign against agrotechnologies quickly moved policies to ban synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, gene editing, food processing and industrial-scale farming in the United States.
Two months into the second Trump administration, Robert F Kennedy Jr. is weaponizing the HHS, FDA and NIH to remove any non-natural processes in the food chain. He has taken his anti-science campaign activists, armies of moms and agroecologists on a mission to radically change the U.S. food system.
Many large food corporations, in protecting their brands, are bowing to RFK Jr’s pressure tactics, vowing to replace the solutions their scientists had developed with natural alternatives that activists have campaigned for. Agency scientific panel members will change, and public research funding grants will be directed toward naturopathic alternatives.
The problem in the U.S. today is the seed researcher, the agronomist and the biotech company, while the political solution is to go back to 19th century practices.
What Research Needs or What Society Wants?
Science has always identified the problems and developed the best solutions. The greatest names in the history of science have stood up and fought against the institutions of their time (mostly religions) who viewed their endeavours as heresy. Should they bow to the demands of the eco-religious cults in power today and only find answers to the problems dictated by the naturopaths?
Science is not democratic. If a majority vote against the laws of gravity, it does not mean we will suddenly be suspended in air. But should the will of the people apply to future research innovations? If seed research solves important problems but goes against the interests of a loud representation of a population, should those views be respected above the problem solvers?
For 30 years, our response against biotech reluctance was better communications. If we explained to the public why this research was important, then they would accept the innovations. But the loudest voices of dissent never listen. Now with the likes of RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz controlling important U.S. health, food and research departments and agencies, they don’t need to listen. More communication won’t solve this problem.
This implies that research then is to be in service not to the needs of society, but to the will of the people. Should seed researchers be looking for all natural solutions to the food supply — ecological — economic challenges? Should they become social scientists first?
Only When Bellies are Full
In meeting the demands of food puritans, people will sadly go hungry in less advanced economies. As the ethical values of social justice, anti-capitalist activists hold sway only when bellies are full, there is a moral imperative for the scientific community to continue to find the best solutions while waiting for reason and sanity to purge the food conspiracies and superstitions.
Copernicus and Newton continued their work while forced to bow to the religious elites of their day. Likewise, the seed research community must not waiver in pursuing the best solutions to pressing food challenges, despite the dogma of the present political elites. Sadly though, like Lysenko’s Soviet Union or Vandana Shiva’s Sri Lanka, common sense and respect for evidence will only return when the cupboard is bare.
David Zaruk is a professor based in Brussels writing on environmental-health risk policy within the EU Bubble. He writes a blog under the name: The Risk-Monger.
The post Rational Research in a World Gone Mad appeared first on Seed World.