> I read the transcript, and didn't notice anything 
> that would suggest that Pettis became a target 
> due to something that he said.

The article explains, citing the transcript:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

...in [Jeff Pettis'] opening remarks before Congress, he focused on the
threat posed by the varroa mite, often put forward by chemical company
representatives as the main culprit behind bee deaths.

Only under questioning by subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott (R-Ga.) did
Pettis shift. Even if varroa were eliminated tomorrow, he told Scott, "we'd
still have a problem." Neonics raise pesticide concerns for bees "to a new
level," he said.

About two months later, Pettis was demoted, losing all management
responsibilities for the Beltsville lab.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

So, by varying from the narrative (the "script") that varroa mites were the
sole cause of all problems in beekeeping, and that pesticides were not a
problem at all, he ran into the problem of at least no longer appearing to
be as "politically astute" as he had seemed, a lesson one hopes Jay Evans
will not ignore.  (In my view, the clue that Jeff missed was when he was
asked by a committee member a pointed question about Australia, were varroa
are not found.  It was an argumentative question, one intended to argue that
varroa were the sole proximate cause of all woes of bees and beekeepers. 

> My understanding was that his "demotion" was due 
> to a local bureaucratic political issue having nothing
> to do with either his research, testimony, or publications.

While accurate in-context quotes from named sources , if provided, might add
perspective, there is no need to gain any "understanding" from 3rd parties,
as we have Jeff Pettis' own FIRST-HAND account of his own experience:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
But, Pettis said, the USDA's congressional liaison told him that the
Agriculture Committee wanted him to restrict his testimony to the varroa
mite. "In my naivete," he said, "I thought there were going to be other
people addressing different parts of the pie. I felt used by the whole
process, used by Congress."

The hearing was "heavily weighted toward industry," he said, "and they tried
to use me as a scientist, as a way of saying, 'See, it's the varroa mite,'
when that's not how I see it."

As for his demotion, Pettis called himself a "bad administrator." But did he
think the hearing played a role?

Pettis delivers an elliptical answer. He said he walked up to Scott
afterward, to make small talk, and the congressman "said something about how
I hadn't 'followed the script.' "

"In my gut," said Pettis, "I feel I pissed someone off with my testimony.
Beyond that I have not felt or seen the big hand of industry saying, 'We're
going to make you pay for this.' I have seen more direct evidence that
Congress was influenced by industry than I ever felt with regard to the
USDA."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Beekeeper Jeff Anderson, with the financial 
> support of myself and others, is trying to 
> resolve this [pesticide seed treatments] 
> loophole with a lawsuit against the EPA.

So while it is perfectly acceptable to drag the EPA into court to correct
their unexpected and implausible "blind spot" towards seed treatments, it is
not possible to imagine that the same level and type of influence might have
also been exerted on the USDA ARS?  How could this be? 

Remember, we now have TWO management-level ARS staffers, both Lungren's
manager, and Jeff Pettis, saying essentially the same things, so we appear
to have the "repeatable results" that are so desired, and very similar
methodologies have been used.

Canada recently had the same problem with researchers being marginalized by
their own management chains over studies related to climate change.  This
was dubbed "The Silence of the Labs":
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2013-2014/the-silence-of-the-labs
http://tinyurl.com/lzrsjhz

When companies donate money to re-elect politicians, and spend money on
lobbying, they spend that money because they expect it to have a tangible
beneficial effect.  The current Democratic Party presidential debates are
addressing much of this under the rubric of "campaign finance reform".  A
video clip of the basic points is here: https://youtu.be/wdzPrYAjjG8

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html