Given a choice between marketing a 10 megapixel back that does things correctly - i.e. oversamples by a factor of three or so and then digitally dithers, bandlimits and downsizes - or a 90 megapixel back that 'resolves' more, albeit at the expense of some aliasing, I can't think of a photographic supplier or user that won't take the second option. Astronomers, microscopists and the CIA, all of whom know what true resolution is, might prefer the former, but the photographic industry beyond the factory doors of the optics houses has simultaneously fetished 'sharpness' while failing to understand what it really is.
A bit of aliasing isn't all bad. In fact, a lot of people prefer the edge effects you get in non-periodic images. But when it bites, it bites hard. I have seen some truly hideous photographs of textiles with fine-scale structure such as Thai silk. There again, I'm a probe microscopist, and not getting fooled by aliased 'atoms' is part of the job description.
Glenn, I too would be interested in seeing your results, although my wallet tells me that in my case the information will remain purely theoretical :-)