[compost_tea] RE: There is significant private funding of a great deal of ag.doc

From: Tom Jaszewski <tom_at_livesoil.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:36:59 -0700

 

 

-----Dr E. wrote..

 

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.

 

[Tom Jaszewski]

Launched by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in 2001, the Food and Society
Initiative is inspired by a vision of a future food system that provides fo=
r
all Americans safe and nutritious foods grown in a manner that protects the
environment, promotes health, and brings economic development to both rural
and urban communities. The program is intended to last for five to six
years, with a total of $50 million being distributed over that period.

The program is designed to enhance the capacity of universities and college=
s
to work with nonprofit, government, community-based, and private sector
partners.

http://www.wkkf.org/Programming/Grants.aspx?CID=19

Much of the work is being done by universities PARTNERING WITH PRIVATE
INDUSTRY as well as industry.

 

 <http://pewagbiotech.org> The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology at
the University of Richmond is designed to help ensure that the federal
regulatory system appropriately weighs the risks and benefits of
agricultural biotechnology products. The initiative fosters independent
analysis and debate of the issues and facilitates industry and public
interest stakeholder efforts to ensure that regulatory oversight keeps pace
with the technology. The initiative has established a reputation as a
leading resource on agricultural biotechnology and its work has been cited
as a catalyst for change by governmental agencies, industry and advocates.

No work that I could find on soil biology

So, yes there is work being done but none that I could find regarding the
discussion of soil biology and disease suppressing isolates.

 

 

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.

 

Don't those students

 

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 Jaszewski] searching the internet I found LOTS of partnerships!

 

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 dollar=
s
paid to isolate, identify and grow out the FUNGUS, Trichoderma harzianum.
Our tax dollars were spent to do the field trials on this organism.

[Tom Jaszewski] The ARS has a trust funs and negotiates with the developer
for payment. BTW under most recent Congressional rewrites, small businesses
have some level of priority

 

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

[Tom Jaszewski] Not necessarily true. Please see ARS CRADA standards.

"In addition to intellectual input and proprietary information, such
participation may involve contributions of personnel, equipment, supplies,
materials, facilities, etc. CRADAs cannot be used simply as a means to brin=
g
in outside funds, nor should they be used to test, develop, or validate a
company's product. CRADAs are appropriate vehicles for 1) transfer and/or
further development of ARS technology, 2) collaboration using the
cooperator's intellectual property, or 3) merging of ARS discoveries with
the cooperator's technology. CRADAs are developed by scientists and TTCs,
approved by NPS, the AD, and line managers, and signed by OTT on behalf of
ARS. Each CRADA also has documented approval by the ARS-425 project
clearance procedures."

 

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 tha=
t
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 b=
y
commercial interests. Commercial interests reap the rewards of a system
where the public is supposed to reap the rewards.

[Tom Jaszewski] Again please review CRADA!

 

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. Yo=
u
are completely, and absolutely, off-base when you try to twist what I said
in the fashion that you try to do above.

[Tom Jaszewski] I disagree. That's not putting words in anyone's mouth!
Please reread, "you seem to imply..".

 

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 t=
o
do the research. Patenting something where the company paid for developmen=
t
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'v=
e
just going to ignore his comments. Time to get back to doing some tea
testing.

 

Oh yeah, real data.

 








Received on Sat Oct 09 2004 - 13:04:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:31 EST