Why Science

Dr. Jonathan Lundgren

Ecdysis Foundation & Blue Dasher Farm

5/31/25

“It’s a funny profession, ours, you know. It offers unparalleled opportunities for making a chump of yourself.” -James Herriot

I wish I was always right. But I am not.

That uncertainty haunts me. Even when I try to consider the short and long-term consequences of a decision from many different viewpoints, sometimes I still get it wrong.

On a daily basis, we have to make hundreds of decisions. People rely on us to do this correctly over and over again. In a moment’s notice, these decisions must be made with incomplete information and with valid support for alternative solutions. Amidst this uncertainty, self-assessment becomes a lifeline. So that we do better in the future.

Quite a few people in the regenerative space have recently asked me why we need science. What good will another scientific study do? Farmers are already doing regenerative agriculture. If we have already seen it work, what does applying the scientific method contribute? How can science change things?

Partially, this point about self-assessment gets to the heart of the matter. Amidst a world of passionate opinions and constant inundation of information (verified and not-so-verified), science experimentally tests whether our theories about ourselves and the world around us are true. It gives us one more valuable method to know whether we are running in the right direction. Essential aspects of science are replication, data, and analysis.

When confronted with claims of stellar outcomes from regenerative farms, critics might convincingly argue that “The stars aligned to make it so, and it has nothing to do with regenerative practices at all!” A number of regenerative demonstration farms (and indeed, university experiment farms) are designed to show the power of regenerative agriculture. When claims become bold, I respectfully explain that “Your farm is a sample size of 1. An important 1, but only 1”. Demonstration farms are good at measuring what their farm is capable of, but not of what farms are capable of. Their value is only maximized when others are doing the same thing, and if they get similar results: replication.

Another backbone of the scientific method is dispassionate, contextualized observations: data. The scent of lilacs during sunset when the air is still. The sound of a red-winged blackbird calling across the reeds to its mate. The soft greeting touch of our alpaca Kneesaa’s nose against my cheek. The delicate flavor of nectar in summer’s elderflower cordial. These are things that give savor to life. And when they are quantified, they are…data. Technologies may advance the depth and breadth of our perceptions, but in the end they all do one thing: observe and record.

Upon acquisition of the replicated data, we need to be able to use it to make a decision. Sure, we saw a few more bees on a regenerative farm, but is it really more than a conventional farm? To go from data and replication, one must advance experimental design and statistical analysis, to determine whether a pattern is real or a chance occurrence. These can be extravagant exercises meant to inflate the importance of the purveyor, and gate keep information from those not trained in the vernacular of science. But in their most useful forms, experimentation and statistical approaches can be simple, transparent, and less ostentatious support of the patterns at play. The 1000 Farms Initiative takes this latter approach.

So that is what science is. But what can it do?

When done right, science validates. It takes a snapshot of the world around us and turns mist into substance. With science, we don’t have to just trust someone’s word on a matter. It reassures us and gives us a sense of safety that decisions are being made with the best information we have. And when the time inevitably comes, science can be the defender of change. A lantern light as we run through a tunnel away from the reeking, staunch beast of complacency and stagnation.

But in this, science should not be alone.

After years of experiences, and more mistakes than I can count, I have come to the conclusion that… science is necessary but not sufficient.

When we have a disagreement, something that invariably drives Christina bonkers is when I dispassionately explain to her that “The data does not support your conclusion” (fellas, I don’t recommend this as an argument strategy). I have to admit that data without context has led many “data-driven people” astray…except during Christina and my arguments. Joy, love, sins, and fear are powerful influencers as we move from observation to conclusion.

The simple fact is that leaps of faith and embracing serendipity have guided my life as much as data has. And are what led me into regenerative agriculture to begin with.

I am now convinced that the best scientists strive to nervously inch along a threadbare bridge that spans between trusting their gut regardless of data, and allowing measurement and observation to guide their perception of reality. Swaying too far in either direction often leads to spurious outcomes.

The art of it is in knowing when to admit that your gut or your interpretation of data are wrong.  

An imbalance in these factors has become particularly problematic when interpreting the potential of agriculture to solve planetary scale problems. Of all of the scientific instruments that I use to measure regenerative farms, none produce numbers so compelling as does allowing oneself to feel what it is like to be on a regenerative farm. Many decision makers are not ready for such an experience. For them, I translate a feeling into numbers.

Like other weapons, science can be a dangerous thing. It can topple regimes. Rewrite history. Some of the best lies are perpetrated using science. And the tombs of history are filled with dead scientists who discovered inconvenient truths.

In the end, we aren’t going to save our place on this planet without the scientific method, and we need a generation that is trained in this self-scrutiny. But we also aren’t going to save our place on this planet without listening to our hearts, and we need a generation of scientists that is trained in accepting a sense of wonder.

Dr. Jonathan Lundgren

Executive Director

Ecdysis Foundation