Are producers and agri-scientists led
by the nose?
Pieter Raath 1 &Kobus Louw2
1 Department of Viticulture and Oenology, University of Stellenbosch, pjraath@sun.ac.za
2 Sapex, Stellenbosch
During an informal conversation with a well-known member of the table grape industry, the following comment is made:
“One can quickly make a lot of money out of the table grape industry. Just don't worry too much about your reputation and
don't have any hope to do business again in the same industry.” While trying to analyse this comment, I instinctively recalled
the new (or maybe old by this time) sound-wave devices that are supposed to cure any illness or kill any pest in vineyards or
orchards. By this I do not claim that this apparatus is ineffective, just that there is no scientific proof that it will work, and yet
someone has made a great deal of money out of it!
Is it a problem that the producers of table grapes (and of other crops) get exploited by agents selling gimmicks? If so, how can a
producer tell the difference between nonsense and credible products/practices? How can they distinguish between
exploiters and people telling the truth? And what about me as a scientist? How must I react on all the claims of astronomical
yield and quality improvements and the arguments which make me doubt my own knowledge?
Fact is, it is staggering how few people really critically evaluate their environment and consequently believe too easily any
creative ideas from agents, input providers or the media. Prospering businesses have developed in the agriculture based on
pseudoscience. Millions of dollars are annually put in the pockets of creative inventors who mislead producers and agriscientists with promises and quick solutions for all of the table grape producer's problems. The word “pseudo” means false,
derived from the Greek word pseudein – to lie. The practice of pseudo-science involves scientific claims based on false
assumptions, research practices or thumb-sucking of results.
To possess scientific knowledge does not imply the mere knowledge of scientific facts like the optimal N-content of vine
leaves, the water holding capacity of a clayey soil or the physiology of colour development of the fruit. It involves knowledge of
the nature of science – the criteria of evidence, the design of significant experiments, the many aspects of scientific methods
which make it possible to make credible deductions, etc.
Too many agents and input providers bombard producers with nonsense. It is therefore useful to look at characteristics of
pseudo-science. Here are a few examples of typical characteristics of pseudo-science for which producers and agri-scientists
must be on the lookout:
•
Untidy “research results” based on hear-say evidence, actions and wisdom of forefathers, newspaper cuttings, ancient
religions (at the moment the biodynamic farming approach is an excellent example referring to Druidism), or sources
of the past. Independent investigations to verify their sources/claims are very seldom done.
•
Pseudo- science begins with a hypothesis – usually one that can solve a critical problem for producers, and then
search for items or scientific arguments which seem to support the claims.
•
Pseudo- science call on false authorities, emotions, sentiment and causes doubt in existing facts. A medical doctor
calls himself a knowledgeable person in plant nutrition and soil management. He encourages the emotions of others:
“If it feels right, then it must be right”. Pseudo-scientists love imaginary conspiracies where the objectives of
authorities and other establishments are questioned. For example, the claims that the agri-chemical companies
dictate what happens in the agricultural world and must take the blame for the ostensible decline in the nutritional
value of food. “They restrain the general producer from the insight involving true sustainable farming practices for
their own benefit”, is regularly alleged, just to stir the emotions of producers.
•
Pseudo-science appears reckless against the criteria of genuine evidence. The emphasis is shifted from significantly
controlled, repeatable scientific experiments to unverifiable eye witness reports (or photographs), stories,
anecdotes and reports (don't we all recognize one or more of these?). True scientific literature is ignored, or wrongly
interpreted, just to be beneficial to the message one wants to convey. Pseudo-scientists can also use the
“Galileo argument”.
•
The pseudo-scientist compares himself to Galileo. Just like the pseudo-scientist is seen wrong, Galileo was also not
believed by his contemporaries and therefore the pseudo-scientist must be correct, because Galileo was correct...
The pseudo-scientist, however, keeps secret the fact that it was not Galileo's contemporaries who doubted his findings,
but the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church – also a bunch of pseudo-scientists of their time?
•
Pseudo-science also creates their own vocabulary as trademark, some of it ambiguous or not clearly defined. Examples of
new terms in the last few years are: “soil food web”, “compost tea”, “air- and water roots”, all of which are now general
terms in the table grape industry and strongly associated with individuals.
“Pathology that Adds Value”
•
Pseudo-science avoids to subject its claims to a meaningful test. (The best method to test the credibility of a product
and its agent, is to offer to use the product at no cost for a season to affirm the claims that have been made – it is
amazing how quickly you can get unwelcome visitors off your neck!) In contrast to science, where scientists all over
the world repeat decisive experiments with increasing precision, pseudo-scientists who claim a completed
experiment with exceptional results, would not be able to repeat it or to verify the procedure.
•
Pseudo-science deliberately creates mystery (for example the fuss about soil biology where the amazing complexity
of soil ecosystems is seen as a mystery which can only be understood by the “chosen selected few”), while the most
important detail is left out.
•
Pseudo-science does not show any growth or progression (it rather refers back to “the wisdom of my grandfather”).
Pseudo-sciences follow crazes and switch from the one craze to the other. It never progresses to more knowledge
because the older the idea, the more respect it gets. The pseudo-scientist will present old ideas as if no one else has
before, except himself, discovered the actual, full value of the “old truth”. In reality, pseudo-scientists practically always
get involved in phenomena that are well known by scientists, but not familiar to the public or producers. Then the
producers can swallow everything that is claimed by the pseudo-scientist. One example is where so-called innovative
methods of the production of compost are “discovered” which is based on the methods of forefathers (while the
producer himself is familiar with the method of his own grandfather). Another example is the claims about the “intimate”
knowledge about the use of weeds as indication of the physical and chemical condition of agricultural soil (and all this
while the producer already has a soil report in his desk's drawer which he never uses....)
How must we as producers and agri-scientists react against pseudo-science? Often, researchers and agri-scientists see
pseudo-science and its products as far-fetched and senseless, and consequently they see it for humour rather than danger.
Unfortunately pseudo-science can be very dangerous for a fragile table grape industry. I am reminded of the words of the late
prof. Theron of the University of Stellenbosch's Viticulture Department: “A farmer loves a new thing, even if it is a new
disease...” In the search of survival and more effective farming results, producers make themselves open for “new solutions”
to their daily practical challenges. In the existing climate, where industries which provide our bread and butter are under
enormous pressure, producers and agri-scientists cannot succumb to the temptations of pseudo-scientific claims. Too many
producers have already brought about their final downfall by devoting their last resources to unfounded practices and
products. And sometimes this happens with the support of interested “scientists”. Often pseudo-scientists use these
producers' farms in an extremely irresponsible manner to “proof” their product without any meaningful control to compare
the results with. Furthermore, the producer does not get proper information about the risks involved in the use of the
“miracle-product”.
As a self-reminder and as help for our colleagues in the table grape- and other agricultural industries, we propose the
following criteria according to which management- and other inputs need to be evaluated:
1. Pay attention to the character of pseudo-science, as spelled out above, and do not give in to this type of mind-set.
2. Realize that scientists can be wrong, but that true scientists will admit it and will quickly be prepared to look for further
answers.
3. True science delivers repeatable results and clearly spelled out methods that can be duplicated with identical or better
results. One must be suspicious when experimental results are kept secret, or are not found, or experiments are
conducted by some obscure institution. Insist on results from approved institutions.
4. True scientific findings are primarily made known in scientific journals which are subjected to evaluation by peers with
strict standards of honesty and accuracy. Only after that, is it presented in a popular format for implementation
by the industry.
5. Watch out for the seemingly innocent product that “can enhance plant growth”, but that is not registered. A single
occurrence of exceeding MRL's by such a substance, can cost the producer (or the industry) millions. A product with an
obscure origin can create a negative image of the industry if it is published in the press. All sorts of extracts are nowadays
sprayed. Do we always know what this extract is made of?
In conclusion, as agri-scientists and table grape producers, we can do the industry and ourselves a great favour by always
making sure that our thoughts, perspectives and practices are based on pure, true science. Then we can rest assured that we
do not waste time, energy or resources and will we be able to progress as an industry. We must support our local credible
research institutions and not easily accept “bought” results of other institutions.
This article is based on an article titled “Oogklappe van kwasiwetenskap ken geen perke” (“Eye-shields of quasi-science know no limits”) by George Claassen
which appeared in Die Burger (2001). With George's permission the article is adapted to give it a strong agricultural flavour. With thanks, we want to
acknowledge the original work by George Claassen.