> Whether Lundgren was punished for his work
> on neonics, is impossible to determine.
It is easy to determine, one can simply read what his direct superior said.
Quoting the WaPo article:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Janet Fergen, retired after 30 years at ARS and 10 years as Lundgren's lab
manager, is the one former staff member who spoke on the record. She agrees
with Lundgren's assessment that something shifted after his soybean yield
study.
"There were questions from management about how the study was conducted,"
she says. "That hadn't happened before."
She also questions the timing of the USDA's investigation, saying the
incidents they asked about had occurred "many months earlier, so if it was
so serious where was the urgency?"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [the article is] not well informed
> and [is] pushing a point of view.
Where does the article do anything more than draw entirely from the quotes
attributed to named USDA ARS employees?
Named sources, and quotes to back up the description of "what happened" is
basic good reporting.
> No one is saying pesticides are the main
> source of bee decline, not even Lundgren.
The point of the article is that being so bold/foolish as to even speculate
that ANY fraction of any "pollinator problem" might be attributable to
pesticides resulted in swift retaliation against both Dr. Lungren and Dr.
Pettis.
> [Dr.] Pettis who it seems has a different
> attitude towards the impact of neonicotinoids
> than some folks who commonly make
> comment on this board. who is one to believe????
I think it is obvious - you listen to the statements backed by hard data,
and both Dr. Pettis and Dr. Lungren did studies, wrote papers, and got those
papers published in peer-reviewed journals. The comments made "on this
board" are not backed by the combination of credentials, hands on with the
specifics of the study, years of experience in R&D, and peer-review that
support both the statements of Dr. Lungren and Dr. Pettis, who unwittingly
or not, put their careers on the line over this.
Further, no person, especially one who has chosen a career in government
service, would express anything but what they felt was the truth in a
congressional hearing, moreso when asked direct questions. Why not read the
transcripts and see just how little was required to turn Dr. Pettis from a
highly-respected lab head into a target? The prepared statements come
first, and the Q&A starts on page 22 of the hearing transcript, and the
questioning mentioned in the article is between "The Chairman" and "Dr.
Pettis" in that transcript:
https://archives-agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.g
ov/files/pdf/4.29.14%20113-12%20-%2087765.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/zrl2aeh
I always find it helpful to read the source material before offering
conclusions about such complex matters.
This is going to have the (apparently, desired) chilling effect on research,
and the willingness of any USDA ARS staff to even explain their own work to
the press, the public, or beekeepers. It is up to us to make it clear to
our various Congresspeople that we will not tolerate any infringements of
the freedom to speak about science without fear of reprisal. Back when Bob
Goodlatte was chairman, the worst thing the House Ag Committee did was
forget to FUND the USDA Bee Labs every so often.
***********************************************
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
|
