a couple of Paul Hosticka snips followed by > my comments

The article is  a disservice to thoughtful readers, careful beekeepers, well intended growers, committed scientists, and dare I say chemical companies. All I gather from the hub-bub is that conspiracy theorist are not restricted to either side of the political spectrum.

>Personally I do not see much wrong with the article.  Of course in most things like this I figure out a writer bias and purpose and do not look to be personally offended that their view may be different from my own.  There is nothing conspiracy in informing the public of the personal and monetary links between scientist or government officials and the corporate business for whom they are either 1) doing basic science on effect and safety or 2) the regulators who are there to enforce whatever rules apply.

>It seems folks comments on the 'disservice to scientist' is about the public being fully informed.  Basically if I was setting in the shoes of the 'scientist' noted in the article I would had likely done exactly as they had done and had the same mental reservation. 

Probably overused and plenty of room for improvement. To think that global agriculture can go without crop protection is naive in the extreme.

>Not all that is best for agriculture (at the micro or macro scale) is self evident.  At the basic producer level agricultural products are classified as 'inferior good'. This basically means their supply/demand price relation may not act as most individual would expect. That is a sharp drop in supply means total revenue (at the macro scale) increase. Possible better stated the world rising population needs some form of crop protection to insure the quantity and price (cheap) food.

>The first question should be is the product effective and the second should be is it now being overused < as to the second question the time lapse graphic of the US and the use of the product presents a pretty powerful message. I have no idea if it is or is not accurate???  You might think the graph would make folks reflect and reconsider their criticisms of what is expressed in lab experiment as a 'field realistic dose'. I suspect (do not know but am speculation here) that many folks are not really capable of self reflection which means they are dug into some position (science or politics) that no amount of facts will alter.   

The notion that all corporate contributions to research are corrupt is a distortion of the facts and would have a huge negative impact on university and private research. The anti neonic side refuse to believe that it is in the chemical companies self interest to improve conditions and populations for pollinators and beneficial insects.

> And yet money does grants you access and to some degree a message that suits the buyer's agenda. Certainly at one time this was less so (not totally absent either) but certainly has grown more powerful since the individual citizens has decided NOT to fund education at any levels*.  Consequently promotion and tenure (does not really mean what it use to) is now highly determined by just how much grant and funding you bring in...

> Often times at the motivation level...every business entity now wants to paint itself as 'green' and the bottom line of any corporation is still the bottom line. 

Gene in Central Texs...

*I think the numbers here are in or about 1975 (basically when I did my MS) the state and federal government funded about 85% of this institution budget. Now it seems the state and federal contribution to this institution budget is about 15%.

             ***********************************************
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