Re: [compost_tea] Re:pretty close to compost tea!

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:01:43 EDT

There is significant private funding of a great deal of ag-related scientific
studies. Kellogg Foundation, Pew Trust, Mellon Foundation, and a bunch of
others.

Engineering schools, and research with genetically engineered organisms and
bio-pesticide microbes are probably the places where serious private industry
involvement occurs in what most people think of as pure science.

Most research done at University does NOT partner with industry. The
National Science Foundation and USDA fund most of the biological research done at
land grant universities. Most of these grants do not have commercial linkages.

Tom used an example of Trichoderma as an organism where research at Uiversity
resulted in a patented commercial product. As a result, however, the cost of
the T-22 inoculum is higher than it needs to be. It would cost people
significantly less if royalties were not being paid. Our tax dollars paid to
isolate, identify and grow out the FUNGUS, Trichoderma harzianum. Our tax dollars
were spent to do the field trials on this organism.

But the US tax payer is not being re-paid for the development money put into
this now commercial product. I object to that.

What if that commercial company had to pay back the investment dollars that
the US tax payer put into that product? If the terms of the agreement were
reasonable, it would not be a burden on the commercial company. And if that
money were put back into a research fund that was ear-marked for more research,
then MORE research would be done than is being done now.

The fact that private individuals can hijack the American tax payer has
nothing to do with the quality of research.

Tom, you are confusing research funding with funding development of compost
tea. I was not discussing compost tea, I was discussing funding of research,
and the fact that research paid for by tax payers gets hijacked by commercial
interests. Commercial interests reap the rewards of a system where the public
is supposed to reap the rewards.

It would be very nice if you would actually read what I wrote, and did not
twist what I am saying. I did not say that companies currently pay the US
public back in any way, shape or form. For you to say in your e-mail that you are
struggling to to find a case where pay-back has occurred is nonsensical. It
is exactly the problem. Private companies are reaping the benefit of tax payer
dollars. This does not improve research being done, nor does this increase
tax payer money being put into research.

And with this statement on your part, you really go over the threshold -

"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."

What an incredible case of putting words in other people's mouths, Tom. You
are completely, and absolutely, off-base when you try to twist what I said in
the fashion that you try to do above.

The research done by pharmaceutical companies for their own financial benefit
has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Their research was not
paid for by US tax payers. They used their own corporate dollars to do the
research. Patenting something where the company paid for development is not the
topic of this discussion. There is no rip-off going on there.

Public institutions can be involved in doing studies on the efficacy of
drugs, but a clear separation of the research being done and the corporate interest
must be maintained. With alarmingly greater frequency, we hear of drug
studies that were faked, or the data altered to appease the desires of the company
funding the studies. And now, years later, and how many people's lives later,
the truth comes out that the study was not properly done.

Commercial interests have a bias. You cannot pretend that they do not.

Are researchers doing what they do out of the goodness of their hearts?
Don't be silly. They get paid to do what they do, but there must be separation of
commercial pressure from research. We have allowed that separation to be
abrogated.

How do you fix that? That's the subject of a different discussion group.

I apologize to everyone on the list serve for taking up your time on this
not-compost tea topic. Sorry. I hope that all of you see the point that I'm
trying to make. I am not making a point about the quality of research performed
by ARS, or commercial interests, or anything else. I'm making a statment
about the use of tax payer dollars. It is not right that one or two people, or
the members of a board of owners, gain from the use of our money.

Right or wrong, it is happening. But just because it is happening does not
mean it is right, or should be overlooked, or be written off.

But, I've made my points, those of you who have waded through this long,
thanks for wading with me. If my statements get mis-represented again, I've just
going to ignore his comments. Time to get back to doing some tea testing.

Oh yeah, real data.

Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa







Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 16:42:23 EDT

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