From benbrook@hillnet.comFri Jun 21 22:05:13 1996 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:56:16 -0400 From: Charles Benbrook To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Thought Police 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 From jnovak@acenet.auburn.eduMon Jun 24 23:09:57 1996 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:12:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "James L. Novak" To: Charles Benbrook Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Thought Police Charles, 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 > > From stevef@ceresgroup.comTue Jun 25 23:06:38 1996 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:27:47 -0700 From: Stephen Flanagan To: Rob Gordon Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Food for Thought >Over the last couple of days there have been threads regarding 'Thought Police' >and government mandated spraying. As sort of an outsider, not a practitioner, >and certainly not an expert, I am shocked by reading about this prejudice >bordering on totalitarian rejection of 'alternatives' to conventional I've also followed this thread with interest. As an independent crop consultant, I've spent most of the last twelve years working with growers making the difficult decisions which consititue modern farming. What bothers me about the tone of this discussion is that it paints growers as some kind of chemophilian robots marching to the drum of chemical companies. There are certainly abuses in the system, but let's not paint things with too broad a brush. In my experience, growers are keenly aware of the risk/benefit balance of crop chemicals and view the chemical companies, research establishment, and sustainability camps, with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my years in the field I've never personally been "mandated" by the government to apply a chemical. I'm curious if others with actual field experience have different experiences? My comments are only based on my experience in field level production, I'm not a researcher or product developer. It's certainly disturbing to hear these reports, but how long can a chemical company stay in business promoting a product which doesn't work? Steve F. .. Stephen R. Flanagan .... Director of Internet Services Ceres Online............ The Business of Agriculture http://www.ceresgroup.com/col From Pmadden1@aol.comTue Jun 25 23:09:01 1996 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:15:29 -0400 From: Pmadden1@aol.com To: aclark@crop.uoguelph.ca Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Attacks on organic researchers? Ann Clark points out the background pressure to conform, ie. stay out of the organic farming research arena. My personal experience in this regard while a professor at Penn State University (1967-87) was quite good. I got support from the Experiment Station, and felt no threats -- as a full prof that was not a problem. During the formative stages of the LISA program, (currently called Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, SARE) however, it was a different story, with many attacks from chemical companies the their surrogates, as well as from reactionary elements in USDA and some (a minority of) land grant university administrators. And this program remains in jeopardy of becoming co-opted into "business as usual." The regional and national leaders of the program have their work cut out for them, and they are staying the course quite well. But the pressure is always there. My primary motivation in keeping this issue salient stems not from what happened to me (because by and large I fared rather well), but from a sense of empathy for others -- especially not-yet-tenured or otherwise vulnerable scientists and educators in universities and government. My wish list is that (1) a good survey should be done to document the extent of perceived discrimination against sustainable agriculture work in publicly supported organizations, (2) compensatory incentives be provided to overwhelm such perceptions; (The LISA and later the SARE programs were designed to provide some of this incentive.) and (3) reform of the rewards systems and procedures for allocation of funds, lab space, grad student stipends, etc. This is perhaps an impossible dream, but without visions of a better world, how can we hope to attain progress? Patrick Madden World Sustainable Agriculture Association From robert.gordon@central.sun.comTue Jun 25 23:12:28 1996 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:37:00 -0600 From: Rob Gordon To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Food for Thought Over the last couple of days there have been threads regarding 'Thought Police' and government mandated spraying. As sort of an outsider, not a practitioner, and certainly not an expert, I am shocked by reading about this prejudice bordering on totalitarian rejection of 'alternatives' to conventional agriculture. Well, imagine my surprise, when just last night I read the following passage from _Unsettling of America_ by Wendell Berry. "Whether recognized or not, there is in the workings of agricultural specialization an implicit waiting for the total state power that will permit experimentally derived , technologically pure solutions to be imposed by force." Most likely everybody on this mailing list has read this passage. But for a novice to have read it literally the day of learning of mandated spraying was like being hit in the head with a 2x4. Had I read that passage a week ago, or a year ago, I would have maybe thought Berry was being an alarmist. That he wrote it almost 20 years ago shows he is the visionary everybody says he is. Rob From benbrook@hillnet.comSun Jun 30 18:48:00 1996 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:37:30 -0400 From: Charles Benbrook To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Follow-up: Thought Police I have received a number of phone calls and e-mail messages from individuals who wish this dialog will go on, and lead to an open discussion of the growing influence of private sector money and interests on public sector research priorities, and the ways scientists are allowed to use and report on data from experiments done with products, or relevant to products. The issues people have raised include influence on hiring, firing, and tenure decisions; ability of private companies to shape R+D agendas when public funding is shrinking, and departments are trying to avoid laying people off; effectiveness of fungicides on major diseases, and pressure on extension to recommend products with spotty, at best, efficacy (and at worst, documented ineffectiveness); in weed science, the consequences of herbicide tolerant plants -- research on them, objectivity, are negative results -- carryover concerns, restrictions on rotations, impacts on filter strips/grassed waterways, plant damage in the field happening this summer, poor yields from depressed P uptake -- being reported by extension to the extent they should be, or does the money flowing into weed science departments from companies sponsoring/developing such systems dampen enthusiasm for passing along such information; the science-base for so-called "resistance management" plans for Bt-transgenic plant varieties (A senior USDA pest management expert told me a few weeks ago, "There is no science base for the resistance management plans approved by EPA"). Good ideas have been offered for next steps. A survey would be good -- who could do it, who will fund it? Maybe the Leopold Center, U.C. Davis sus ag program, Wallace Institute and others could "team up" to carry it out. Maybe a foundation like Kellogg or Northwest Area would fund it, along with a workshop to discuss the results. Other analytical efforts could be commissioned, and reported at the workshop, to get a handle on how big the problem is, where it is growing, what can be done about it. The workshop could be challenged to produce an agenda for the major professional societies to pick up the task of documenting/monitoring these issues, and doing something about them. I am a believer in public-private sector collaboration, but if the community (land grant researchers and ARS'ers working with industry, and the companies/commodity groups sponsoring or participating in such collaboration) does not police itself, the small percentage of "bad apples" will spoil the barrel, and the stink will taint everyone. By "police itself", I mean that any company official or representative, or person working for a trade or commodity association, that visits or contacts a dean or department head, a state legislator running an appropriations committee, a university board member, and directly or indirectly threatens a person's career, calls into question their motives, suggests that funding be cut or not provided and/or tries to see that some individual is punished for doing their job, should be exposed, investigated, and if the facts show that unethical pressure tactics were used, severely and immediately punished. Such actions should not be tolerated, period. Let me add that I believe companies and trade associations have a legitimate roll and right to participate in setting agendas, collaborating in research, funding positions, etc, but they have to remember the difference between working with a public university and in-house staff and personnel, or contract research firms. A few do not; the more money at stake, the greater the temptation to throw weight around. It will take time and cover for this issue to come out of the closest. The people most involved (junior faculty) are the most vulnerable. A few paragraphs in an article in Mother Jones is not worth anyone's career, or livelihood (at least for the time-being). Dealing with this issue, and setting the stage for more, and positive, public-private sector collaboration, is a major challenge for the entire land grant and ag research community, and the community must find ways to counter the adverse consequences of a few private companies/groups that think that funding research entitles them to the answers they need to promote, and defend their products and positions (and when the research does not go their way, they at least expect respectful silence). I am sure a majority of ag scientists and leaders believe that private sector funding is not worth accepting if it undermines the free exchange of scientific information, as well as the quality and completeness of the information delivered to producers, other scientists and the public. If the community does not take on these issues effectively, its inaction will, in effect, condone what is going on, and in time that will affect how the public perceives the systems -- who it serves, and who should pay for it, for example. 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 From sbonney@holli.comMon Jul 1 00:14:37 1996 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:16:46 -0500 From: steve bonney To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Thought police I agree with Chuck Benbrook and his correspondents that the discussion should continue. The cases of many employed by land grant universities who have been reassigned (read demoted) for their involvement and support of sustainable agriculture are known. However, I cannot conceive any effective method of monitoring influence on deans or any other persons in positions to direct rewards or punishments on researchers. In fact, what is needed is more public control of our public institutions, especially those dedicated to education. Let's start by requiring that the not-for-profit "research foundations" which universities operate open their books to public scrutiny. These foundations secretly direct billions of dollars collectively toward salaries, expenses, research (and for many other activities) without any public input or control. Secondly, there needs to be more public input and control of the processes that determine research and teaching agendas of our public educational institutions. As it now stands, research activities are generally conducted according to the interests of individuals employed in research positions. A particular research position could be designated to be soil microbiology or plant breeding, but there is usually great latitude in the specific research agenda. Young faculty members are kept under wraps and discouraged from becoming too venturesome in research areas that are not tied to agribusiness interests. By the time they become tenured, their research is almost irreversibly directed to serve a small but very influential economic sector. It is time to select the majority of university trustees by methods other than a governor's appointment; time for university trustees to determine and set agendas through taxpayer input; time for administrators to manage and not determine policy. Our nation's universities are the last bastion of public bureaucracies that operate with very little public scrutiny or control. For the development of a sustainable agriculture, land grant accountability must move forward through grassroots activities connected to each institution and supported collectively. Steve Bonney Steve Bonney, President Indiana Sustainable Agriculture Association 100 Georgton Ct. W. Lafayette IN 47906 (317) 463-9366, fax (317) 497-0164 email sbonney@holli.com From eabird@facstaff.wisc.eduWed Jul 3 23:33:51 1996 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 16:39:33 -0500 From: Elizabeth Bird To: Charles Benbrook , sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Follow-up: Thought Police The Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education has the beginnings of a task force, chaired by Dennis Keeney, on reforming reward structures, and we are collaborating with the Science and Environmental Health Network to develop and issue (partly over SANET) a scoping survey this summer, to be followed possibly by a larger survey down the road. We have some funding prospects for a larger project, though nothing firm. As I've been following this discussion, it has seemed to me we need perhaps to expand the scope of what we were thinking, to address the question of private industry influence. I hope I speak for the others involved when I say we would love to have other partners working with us on this as well. I'd like to know what others are thinking and planning, and where we might divide labor or collaborate. Elizabeth At 12:37 PM 6/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >I have received a number of phone calls and e-mail messages from individuals >who wish this dialog will go on, and lead to an open discussion of the >growing influence of private sector money and interests on public sector >research priorities, and the ways scientists are allowed to use and report >on data from experiments done with products, or relevant to products. >....... > Good ideas have been offered for next steps. A survey would be good >-- who could do it, who will fund it? Maybe the Leopold Center, U.C. Davis >sus ag program, Wallace Institute and others could "team up" to carry it >out. Maybe a foundation like Kellogg or Northwest Area would fund it, along >with a workshop to discuss the results. Other analytical efforts could be >commissioned, and reported at the workshop, to get a handle on how big the >problem is, where it is growing, what can be done about it. The workshop >could be challenged to produce an agenda for the major professional >societies to pick up the task of documenting/monitoring these issues, and >doing something about them. >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 > > > ***************************************** Elizabeth Ann R. Bird, Ph.D. Organization and Development Director Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education c/o Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems 1450 Linden Drive, Room 146 University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706 608-265-6483 FAX 608-265-3020 eabird@facstaff.wisc.edu