Suppression of Scientists On Pesticides

In a typical case, a scientist does research that is potentially threatening to the pesticide industry or speaks out critically about pesticides, and is attacked in some fashion. Common methods include withdrawal of research funding, threats, and attempts at dismissal. Suppression of scientist critics of pesticides appears to serve the interests of the agrichemical industry. 

Also See:

Dr. Moss' Story | Dr. Shafey's Story

Click Here to Add Comment

 

Subject:   Suppression of Scientists On Pesticides
Date:       Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:51:17 -0400
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
          Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read an article I received via e-mail entitled:  Suppression of Scientists On Pesticides - Published in Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 7, edited by William R. Freudenburg and Ted I. K. Youn (Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999), pp. 105-135.

This version may have slight differences from the published version.  Suppression of dissent in science - Brian Martin.

Abstract

There are numerous documented cases of attacks on dissident scientists, yet there is no established body of literature or standard theoretical frameworks for dealing with this phenomenon. Cases in three contentious areas - pesticides, fluoridation, and nuclear power - are used to illustrate processes and patterns of suppression. The evidence in these areas shows the possibilities and difficulties in drawing links between suppression and corporate, professional, and state power, respectively. Studies of suppression can provide a convenient probe into the exercise of power in science and more generally into the dynamics of expertise and legitimacy in a technological society.

Pesticides

Pesticides are chemicals designed to kill insects, plants, fungi, and other life that is considered to be undesirable for human purposes, especially agriculture and public health. Supporters argue that pesticides are essential for these purposes whereas critics argue that many uses of pesticides are unnecessary or harmful to the environment and human health.

The debate over pesticides has raged since the 1960s (Bosso 1987; Hay 1982; Ordish 1976; Perkins 1982). - Dr Melvin Dwaine Reuber is a research scientist who became one of the world's leading critics of pesticides through his studies of their link with cancer. Through the 1960s and 1970s he had a productive and successful career, publishing over 100 scientific papers and establishing himself as a top scientist in a well-paying job. In 1981 he was head of the Experimental Pathology Laboratory at the Frederick Cancer Research Center, part of the National Cancer Institute in the United States.

Then, suddenly, he received a blistering attack on his performance and professional behavior from the director of the Center, Dr Michael G. Hanna, Jr - who had previously given him the highest commendations. The reprimand from Hanna questioned the quality of Reuber's studies of carcinogenicity of pesticides and also called him to task for using Center letterhead for a letter that allegedly reported his private work.

Even more seriously for Reuber, the substance of Hanna's letter appeared shortly afterwards in Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News (1981), a newsletter of the petrochemical industry. Copies were circulated widely and used by industry to discredit Reuber and his work (Honorof 1988; Marshall 1984; Martin 1996a; Nelson 1981; Rushford 1990; Schneider 1982). The attack on Reuber served the interests of the pesticide industry, given that his work was a serious threat to it.

His studies were important in bans placed on leading pesticides aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor, and his work was used around the country by opponents of pesticides. He was willing to write letters about his results, realizing that they would be used in local anti-pesticide campaigns. Reuber subsequently sued Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. (He won substantial damages in a lower court but finally, a decade later, lost on appeal.

Whether winning or losing a court case tells anything about whether suppression is involved is something that has to be examined in each individual instance.) The court case revealed that pesticide interests had complained to the National Cancer Institute about Reuber. One of these complaints had led Hanna to make an investigation that led to his reprimand.

Clyde Manwell, professor of zoology at the University of Adelaide in South Australia, coauthored a letter published in the local newspaper which questioned some aspects of government spraying for fruit fly. He was fiercely attacked in state parliament and the university initiated an attempt to dismiss him (Baker 1986).

Robert L. Rudd's book Pesticides and the Living Landscape (Rudd 1964), which raised concerns similar to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) and was completed earlier, was delayed and excessively scrutinized "by 18 reviewers" before being published by the University of Wisconsin Press. "He lost a promotion, and his very position with the University [of California] was threatened" (Graham 1970, p. 168).

After BioScience published an article by Frank E. Egler (1964) that criticized pesticides, both the journal and author were censured in a motion at a meeting of the Entomological Society of America, a professional body supported by pesticide manufacturers, even though the article would not have been seen by most of those present (Graham 1970, p. 171; Judson 1965; van den Bosch 1978, p. 71). These are a few of the many documented cases of attacks on scientist critics of pesticides (see also Baker and Manwell 1988; Boffey 1968, pp. 632-633; Carr 1986; Coppolino 1994; Epstein 1978; Freeman 1993; Graham 1970; Martin 1996a; Martin, Baker, Manwell, and Pugh 1986, pp. 123-163; McKenna 1992; van den Bosch 1978, pp. 47, 61-71, 102-107, 119-137, 196-197).

In a typical case, a scientist does research that is potentially threatening to the pesticide industry or speaks out critically about pesticides, and is attacked in some fashion. Common methods include withdrawal of research funding, threats, and attempts at dismissal. Suppression of scientist critics of pesticides appears to serve the interests of the agrichemical industry.

The use of manufactured chemicals in agriculture, especially pesticides and fertilizers, became a substantial industry after World War II. This was part of a new model for agriculture, based on large monocultures, expensive machinery, less labor, and increased corporate control over the process of farming. The preferred industry solution to the problem of pests was pesticides. Vast amounts of money were poured into promotion of the "pesticide paradigm," which became the scientific as well as the commercial standard in a variety of ways (van den Bosch 1978). There were some critics of these developments, both scientists and nonscientists, but they had little impact until the rise of the environmental movement.

Rachel Carson's classic book Silent Spring (1962), a prime catalyst for the movement as a whole, was a sustained critique of the abuse of pesticides. The synergistic combination of citizen activists and scientist critics provided a formidable challenge to the pesticide establishment. Activists without scientific credentials could be dismissed as uninformed, while critical researchers without community backing could simply be ignored.

One way to undermine the combined forces of activists and scientists is to attack the scientist critics. The attacks on Reuber and others can be seen in this light. Linking the pesticide industry to attacks on "dissident" scientists seems easy enough on the surface, but a closer look shows many theoretical complications in using this process to probe links between systems of power and social action.

In most general terms, the relevant system of power is capitalism, but it would be difficult to argue that the interests of the pesticide industry are identical to those of the capitalist class as a whole. Arguably, alternatives to pesticides such as integrated pest management might be just as valuable for the overall rate of profit. (Explaining the success of pesticide interests compared to alternatives is a major research project in itself (see Perkins (1982).) So the terms need to be reduced to a sector of the capitalist class, the pesticide industry.

In most documented cases of suppression of scientist critics, the pesticide industry is involved only indirectly, if at all. A direct involvement would be the dismissal of a scientist critic who worked for a pesticide company. Such cases may exist but they are seldom documented. A plausible explanation for the lack of such cases is that scientists working for industry, as well as being self-selected and acculturated to an industry perspective, are also well aware that openly opposing their employer is likely to mean loss of their jobs. Thus, it is those who are least vulnerable to direct reprisals who are most likely to find the support and freedom to undertake critical research and to speak out.

Arguably, if Reuber had worked for the chemical industry, studies of the sort he actually did probably would not have been funded, he would not have been allowed to publish his results, and, if he had persisted in finding unwelcome results, his career would have been terminated before he became prominent.

The industry, when it is involved in attacks on scientists employed elsewhere - most commonly government or universities - typically makes complaints to the supervisor or employer of a scientist. It is a characteristic feature of suppression cases that criticisms are made not directly to the scientist, which would be a proper part of scientific dialogue and debate, but to the scientist's boss. It is undoubtedly the case that there are many more informal complaints, for example, over the telephone, than formal written complaints. When applying this sort of pressure, the industry can only succeed to the extent that it has allies or sympathizers in powerful scientific positions. Therefore, an understanding of suppression of critics of pesticides requires an understanding of the relationship between industry and the bureaucratic structure of scientific workplaces, as will be discussed later.

Yet another complication is that many attacks on critics of pesticides come from government bodies. For example, many of the attacks described by van den Bosch (1978) involve the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In a number of examples, government agencies seem more ardent in their support of pesticides than do pesticide companies themselves. This can be explained as an example of a "captured bureaucracy" (Mitnick 1980), as a feature of the "capitalist state" (Jessop 1982), or as an aspect of the inevitable state involvement in creating markets for capital (Heilbroner 1985, pp. 78-106; Moran and Wright 1991).

 In summary, in the case of pesticides, it makes sense to speak of a link between the pesticide industry and attacks on scientist critics of pesticides. Suppression can be conceived of as a means that uses and reinforces the power of a particular industry. It also highlights the many qualifications necessary in drawing a link between systems of power and social action.

Well Mr. Helliker, the article clearly shows us what the POISON "industry" wants the public to consider to be "sound science".   It also explains to me why you still will not "legally" allow the use of safe and far more effective (unregistered) alternatives.

TOP
 If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.