Four articles address different aspects of ecosystems, particularly in relation to scientific integrity, the gap between theory and practice, and the impact of upscaling. Let’s examine each aspect separately, focusing on their similarities and differences:

1. Science Under Pressure:

The article on the protein transition [1-29] describes how the direction of research and innovation within a mission-oriented innovation system (MIS) is influenced by various factors such as market forces, consumer preferences, and regulations. This implicitly illustrates the pressure on scientists to produce results aligned with specific agendas. The focus on rapid market growth and the development of meat substitutes can be seen as a form of “directionality” that may overshadow other potentially equally important research directions.
The blog “Science Under Pressure“ [30-43] explicitly highlights the pressures on scientists, driven by political agendas, societal values, and financial interests. The author describes the shift towards “post-normal science,” where consensus is prioritized over critical debate, warning of the consequences of groupthink and the suppression of dissenting opinions. This is directly relevant to the protein transition, where a strong focus on meat replacement could limit the diversity of solutions and perspectives.

2. The Gap Between Theory and Practice:

The protein transition article [1-29] demonstrates how theoretical models (such as the MIS framework) and policy goals (like the National Protein Strategy) are interpreted and implemented in practice by various actors. Differences in goals, motivations, and capabilities between researchers, businesses, and policymakers create tensions between theory and practice. The article highlights the importance of understanding these interactions at different levels (transition paths and search directions).
The blog “Bridging the Gap“ [44-68] delves deeper into the growing divide between theoretical and practical education in society. The author describes this gap from three perspectives: the new segmentation between highly educated and practically trained individuals, the internal gap between theorists and practical doers within the highly educated group, and the role of researchers as connectors rather than change-makers. This strongly relates to the protein transition, where policy and technological development do not always align with the practical realities of farmers and other stakeholders.

3. Upscaling and Monoculture in Thinking:

The protein transition article [1-29] shows how a strong focus on one dominant transition path (meat replacement) limits the diversity of solutions. While there is some diversity within this path, technology focused on meat analogs dominates. This illustrates the risk of monoculture in thinking, which can hinder innovation. The article suggests that greater diversity in transition pathways is needed to enhance system resilience and adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
The blog “Ostwald Ripening“ [69-83] describes a process of upscaling where small systems disappear in favor of large players. Applied to research, this process could lead to a monoculture in thinking, where dominant narratives and methods displace smaller, potentially more innovative approaches. The blog presents several strategies to counter this dominance, such as fostering innovation, strengthening cooperative models, and promoting societal awareness. These strategies are equally relevant to the protein transition, where the dominance of large companies can limit diversity and innovation.

In Summary:
The four texts illustrate how complex the landscape of innovation and science is. The pressures on scientists, the gap between theory and practice, and the dangers of upscaling and monoculture in thinking are interconnected and pose challenges for achieving sustainable changes, such as in the protein transition. Emphasizing diversity in both solutions and perspectives is crucial to enhancing the resilience and effectiveness of innovation ecosystems.