The resisted rise of randomisation in experimental design: British agricultural science, c.1910–1930

Abstract

The most conspicuous form of agricultural experiment is the field trial, and within the history of such trials, the arrival of the randomised control trial (RCT) is considered revolutionary. Originating with R.A. Fisher within British agricultural science in the 1920s and 30s, the RCT has since become one of the most prodigiously used experimental techniques throughout the natural and social sciences. Philosophers of science have already scrutinised the epistemological uniqueness of RCTs, undermining their status as the 'gold standard' in experimental design. The present paper introduces a historical case study from the origins of the RCT, uncovering the initially cool reception given to this method by agricultural scientists at the University of Cambridge and the (Cambridge based) National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB). Rather than giving further attention to the RCT, the paper focuses instead on a competitor method -the half-drill strip -which both predated the RCT and remained in wide use for at least a decade beyond the latter's arrival. In telling this history, John Pickstone's Ways of Knowing is adopted, as the most flexible, and productive way to write the history of science, particularly when sciences and scientists have to work across a number of different kinds of place. It is shown that those who resisted the RCT did so in order to preserve epistemic and social goals that randomisation would have otherwise run a tractor through. KeywordsField science; Agriculture; Randomised Control Trials; Epistemic goals; Ways of knowing AcknowledgmentsFirstly my thanks to Giuditta Parolini for conceiving of this special issue and inviting my contribution. Giuditta gave extensive feedback on numerous drafts, for which I am very grateful. Two anonymous reviewers and Staffan Müller-Wille greatly improved the article with excellent criticisms and suggestions. Greg Radick, Lijing Jiang, and Carl Warom gave generously with their time scrutinising final drafts. Matt Paskins and Mike Finn discussed the paper with me on a number of occasions, suggesting important changes. Lastly I thank those at the 10th iHPS meeting in Durham (and the conference organisers) who responded to this work with exciting questions (particularly

Pest Control and Ecology

“…Crucially, this not only involved establishing 'undisturbed' areas to act as a control condition, but also applying a randomised experimental design (widely used across the agricultural and clinical sciences) to the problem. 125 Their position was summarised by Harry Thompson in 1990: At the urging of the Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis, of which UFAW is a member, authority is now being sought to carry out a proper, randomized trial to compare the effects of TB in cattle, of control of badgers versus no control, on farms where a cattle TB breakdown is attributed to the presence of the disease in badgers-not before time, it could be said. 126 When the Thatcher government fell in 1990, the change in administration initially made little difference to badger/bTB, where MAFF's policies continued as before.…”