Ahhh, now I understand what you were trying to say. I haven't see a lot of research that's been very persuasive. Most of the research I've seen has been done by the pet food industry.
As for the second point, I totally agree - studies would have to be "twin studies" or clone studies to rule out genetics as much as possible. And personally, I wouldn't like to see a bunch of dogs undergo a classic study if it means suffering. I mean, decisions and conclusions are made about human nutrition without locking humans up in cages - so either it's done via computer model, via knowledge, or it's done anecdotally and with chem panels. And for me I guess - the study has *already* been done anecdotally - first for millions and millions of years, and then when kibble was invented. So, my "wish" list would be that either vets acknowledge this (somehow) or they design some sort of anecdotal study with health outcomes to show that raw diets or cooked or kibble diet or whatever are healthy/unhealthy.
You'd probably find this interesting:
Incestuous Pet Food Regulation Allows Consumers to Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes