Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
results, and that the model needed to be further refi ned before the full
system was commercially viable. Over the course of the next few years, I
continued to collect data on the progress of this system, both from the
plant pathology advisor and from other informants who were involved or
at least familiar with the project. In all, the factors mentioned in this fi rst
interview excerpt—the important connection between economics and
environment, the diverse coalition of actors involved, and diffi culties with
the system's implementation—combined to cause confl ict and controversy
over the DM project.
I spoke briefl y with the director of the Lettuce Board about the DM
project, and he emphasized the many different people working on the
system: Lettuce Board members, university researchers, and equipment
manufacturers. He told me that this mix was unusual because these differ-
ent groups have various interests and would not usually cooperate. My
research, however, shows that these various and divergent interests were
the most important elements of the confl ict involved in this project.
Because these interests played such a large part in the story, it is important
to identify and detail the complex cast of characters. I have already men-
tioned that the plant pathology advisor (PlantPath) was involved in the
project, but the primary researcher based at Davis (DavisSci) developed the
computer model to predict DM from climatic factors. A former UC scientist
(IndustrySci) left the university for a job with a private company that
wanted to market the weather stations commercially (AgCo). Finally, there
was the Lettuce Board, which provided funding to both the plant pathol-
ogy advisor and the Davis researcher to develop and test the DM prediction
system. The Lettuce Board's director as well as a subcommittee of industry
representatives oversaw the implementation of the system.
The initial source of tension within this project came from a confl ict
between the Davis researcher and the Lettuce Board. After the researcher
developed an initial model for DM prediction and found some positive
results in the laboratory, the Lettuce Board wanted to begin fi eld-testing
the system. The researches believed that further campus-based tests were
required before fi eld trials could begin. Eventually, after members of the
Lettuce Board had asked her several times to fi eld-test the model and were
refused, the Lettuce Board discontinued her funding and asked the plant
pathology advisor to fi eld-test the system for them. In an interview with
another advisor who was
not
involved in the DM project, this falling-out
