This is an interesting topic and one worthy of "research." How about an
anonymous survey type instrument to conduct an unbiased type study of undo
influence on scientists at the land-grants? I'm concerned about bias,
whether it be from the center, left or right. The study could be costly
but perhaps Mother Jones would foot the bill? Questions could be
addressed to all scienctists and segmented by discipline by someone who
has skill in constucting questionaires. (I do not know how to do this,
but there are those that do.) Influence (or lack of influence) by
disclipline could be determined. Some organization or institute outside
of academia and outside of an organized lobby, interest or influence group
would be most appropriate and least biased in the administration of such a
questionaire. If a fair assessment is what he's after, this might be the
best way to get it.
auauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauaua
James L. Novak
Extension Economist and Professor Phone: (334) 844-3512
Dept. of Ag. Econ. & Rural Soc. Fax: (334) 844-5639
Rm 304 Comer Hall e-mail: jnovak@acenet.auburn.edu
Auburn University, AL 36849
auauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauauaua
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Charles Benbrook wrote:
> 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
>
>