Sustainability Claims in Agricultural Genomics Often Lack Clear Definitions

Analysis by University of Adelaide researchers has found that claims about sustainability are increasing in agricultural genomics research, but the term is often not well-defined, leading to potential concerns about the impact and credibility of the research.

The term 'sustainability' is often used in academic papers as a buzzword rather than a scientific concept or used uncritically without reflecting on implications or metrics associated with the definitions utilized."

Chris Wenzl, lead author from the University of Adelaide's Food Values Research Group and the ARC Centre for Future Crops

"Sustainability, as a concept, has evolved over time and is now commonly viewed through three lenses: social, economic, and environmental. These perspectives are often referred to as the 'three pillars of sustainability' or the 'triple bottom line'.

"However, some forms of agriculture may be economically sustainable and contribute to social sustainability, especially in rural communities, but be in tension with common definitions of environmental sustainability, and vice versa.

"Because of the concept's wide and increasingly popularized usage yet competing definitions, it is critical that academics ensure their claims about sustainability are grounded in clear definitions and explications, particularly with regard to how it is being assessed and measured."

Wenzl suggests academics could use concrete measures to ensure claims about concepts such as sustainability are communicated and understood more clearly by what is likely an increasingly diverse readership, including the public.

"Our analysis of 214 research papers found that most sustainability claims in agricultural genomics publications are causal claims, rather than being merely descriptive or general. These types of claims propose a cause-and-effect relationship, which sets a very high bar for proof and evidence," says Wenzl, whose study was published in The Plant Journal.

"In the best-case scenarios, researchers would define multifaceted and complex concepts like sustainability by explicitly citing credible academic sources in their work and providing details about how this definition relates specifically to their scientific results."

While Wenzl's study focuses on agricultural genomics, the concerns it raises about lack of grounding for sustainability claims could be applied to other scientific concepts and fields.

"Claims such as efficiency, climate resilience, food security, and many of the concepts associated with the United Nations' sustainable development goals, can mean different things depending on the context and should not be simply used as buzzwords to justify or amplify scientific research without clear definitions and evidence-based arguments," Wenzl says.

"Using clear, foundational questions – who, what, where, when, why, and how – can make complex concepts more understandable and concrete. These questions also encourage deeper engagement with key concepts throughout a paper, not just in the title, abstract, introduction and conclusion.

"Collaborating across disciplines can also add valuable perspectives and tools that help refine claims, strengthen evidence, and enhance the real-world impact of research."