Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
scientific assistance in developing alternative farming systems. The inten-
tional rotational graziers and PFI expressed something akin to “buyer's
remorse,” because they had tried the dominant, industrial high produc-
tion systems designed by LGU scientific experts and found their
“unanticipated” consequences unacceptable.
The narratives in this topic relate how farmers have set out to create
alternatives to conventional, LGU designed farming systems. The farm-
ers and their organizations were not anti-science, but instead demanded
a different kind of science, a more holistic form, integrating social and
environmental considerations. The clamor for alternative, agroecological
farming systems grew out of multiple critiques of the LGUs' scientific
products, their conceptualization of their clientele, and their approach to
conducting extension.
Latour's model (figure 1.3 above) helps us interpret the socio-scientific
dynamics underlying these conflicts. Latour created this model because
all too many scientists and science policy administrators believe that
science consists exclusively of the knowledge circulating between loops 2
and 5, scientific colleagues and scientific content. So long as some clients
(in loop 3) are content with their products, they are generally uncon-
scious or unconcerned about the social implications of their science
work. The industrial grain and dairy production systems designed by
LGU scientists were remarkably productive, and thus initially considered
a success. The LGUs have sustained decades of criticism because their
products and extension processes have generally failed to consider nega-
tive environmental (loop 1) and social (loop 4) impacts. The fruits
of LGU work certainly have benefited some agricultural clients (in loop
3), generally helping large operations become more efficient, pushing
smaller farmers out of farming, and furthering the economic concentra-
tion of agricultural production in the hands of a few. Critics drew
attention to these consequences and asked the public (which was paying
the bills, and located just outside loop 4) to support alternatives. When
LGU scientists and administrators have admitted that their products and
extension processes are in part responsible for these negative conse-
quences, it has generally been under public pressure. The persistent
controversies dogging the LGU system turn around questions of what
kind of scientific knowledge is produced for whose benefit, and how that
knowledge shapes both society and nature.
