[compost_tea] Re:pretty close to compost tea!

From: tomjasz <tom_at_livesoil.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:59:30 -0000

Your argument appears to be that there would be no funding of
research without the probability of commercial funding.

(TOM)I'm not aware of any significant private funding. I am
missing
something?

If that were true, it would be a sad, sad commentary on just how far
our government has sold out to the commercial world.

(TOM)Perhaps, but again, doesn't most of the research these days
some
from University partnership with the Ag/Hort industry?

I think it is in very poor taste that you attempt to taint my
objections to this commercialism by suggesting I'm demonizing
something that should be objected to by every tax payer in the US.
  
(TOM)I am just not willing to color this process with politics. I was
not attempting to "taint" your objections, rather to simply
point out
I am not willing to take a stand until such time as there is an
alternative source of funding for this work. I can't afford the
research, and it seems to me any successes will do us no harm and
perhaps even further our cause.

I am not demonizing these people's work, I am objecting to people
using US tax payer dollars to patent materials, and/or processes,
which those of us who actually paid to have the research done will
now have to pay extra to be able to use those very products that our
dollars went to develop.

(TOM)Patents on Cornell developed strain of beneficial fungus
Trichoderma harzianum (T-22) do not prevent us from adding to our tea
nor does it limit our access. That research was funded by tax dollars
either directly or indirectly. From my view it gives me data showing
a common soil bacteria can assist in disease control. I used it 11
years ago and in fact started the journey to SFI with that body of
work.

This product is in commercial development, which is what the "conduct =
further tests" means.
Don't you see the ethical impropriety with these sorts of situations?

(TOM)Again from my view to stop good research that can only benefit
our goals to me is representing the process as evil or diabolic.

When research grants are awarded, there is NO requirement that
commercial development occur.  There is no improved chances of
getting the funding because commercial development might be possible.
 
(TOM)I can't speak to the specific requirements for the funding
in
this case. But would argue that potential commercial development
would certainly improve chances of funding. Regardless of how
community minded we are, I believe, we all are interested in the
commercial success of ACT. I think I would be naïve to believe
that
ACT will not at some junction become a commercial success and many of
the corporate players will take notice and make investments.

At the very least, once the product is on the market, the company
ought to pay tax payers back for the development money.  
I'm struggling to find any case where this has happened.

That would supply money to allow true researchers to continue working
on aspects of science that possibly don't have any commercial
potentials. 

(TOM)You seem to imply that ARS and any commercial interests will not
practice good science. I don't agree. None of the life enhancing
medications I take was developed out of the good in researchers
hearts.

Regards,
Tom

tom_at_livesoil.com
702-595-7012




Yahoo! Groups Spons= or
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 15:10:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:30 EST