Thought Police
Charles Benbrook (benbrook@hillnet.com)
Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:56:16 -0400
I too have some personal experience with what happens to individuals who
challenge conventional thinking too directly. It amazes me still the power
of some interests, and how thoroughly they can intimidate and manipulate
public institutions by threatening, and occasionally actually, cutting off
funding.
But to the here and now. I have a request -- and challenge -- for
this list.
Mark Arax is a reporter for the L.A. Times. He is working, in is
spare time, on an investigative piece for Mother Jones on how agribusiness
influences research, and people's careers, at land grant universities, ARS,
etc, especially people assessing non-chemical, non-drug based systems.
He called me two months ago, early in his research, to ask if there
was any truth to general allegations he had heard. I said absolutely yes,
since I had just heard a half-dozen astounding me examples at the Weed
Science Annual meeting in Feb., 1996, told to me either by the people who
went through them, or close associates. I also know many other examples. I
put Mark onto the trail of these stories/examples, very gingerly, and told
him to not be surprised if most people are reticent to talk, because if any
do that still are in the system (and need to earn a living within it), they
would be foolish, and self-distructive, to talk.
He called yesterday and has run into a total brick wall. Nobody
will talk to him, no one wants their story told, because of the
ramifications. I can understand why.
Yesterday, in a meeting at a meeting with a senior, and honest
leader of a commodity association in a state, like the ex. dir. of the
Ontario Corn Growers (example only), he told a small group of D.C. people
working on IPM that at the land grant in his state, a major chemical company
was able to cut off all research funding for a plant pathologist because his
research was used as the basis, in the state, for a firm recommendation by
the grower association not to use a new fungicide on blight. His research
showed it did not work!!! And yet the company persuaded various powers to
be that this person was not the farmer's friend, was a bad scientists, and a
threat to the viability of the industry. Just another episode, so common we
all just shrug our shoulders and say, oh well, that's the way it is. Until
people step forward and tell their stories, on the record, in person, that
is the way it will remain.
If anyone is willing to help Mark get some concrete, verifiable
examples, call him at 209-432-5447. One of the challenges in this is that
an article in Mother Jones, even a great one, is not worth getting fired
over. So, sometimes it is important to be careful how, and by whom,
information is passed along. There are ways to protect individuals, as I
did above. The names do not matter, but editors have a responsibility to be
sure writers do not just make stuff up, and most take this responsibility
seriously.
I also have proposed to a few ag system leaders that there should be
special symposia on this topic at the Agronomy Society, ESA, Plant Path.,
and Weed Science meetings, but alas, I doubt these organizations have the
ability to sponsor such events. Might put a damper on the social hours.
Plus, there is still the problem of professional ridicule, unemployment,
black lists, etc.
Charles Benbrook 202-546-5089 (voice)
Benbrook Consulting Services 202-546-5028 (fax)
409 First Street S.E. benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
Washington, D.C. 20003