5 ms·

I gave up reading the article about halfway when they hadn't mentioned at all how the program committee of the conference is assembled. That corporations sponso

by yuliyp 2y ago

I gave up reading the article about halfway when they hadn't mentioned at all how the program committee of the conference is assembled. That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural: there are a lot of reasons it's useful: recruiting, networking, cooperating with other researchers, etc. And they're the part of those scientific communities that has the spare money to be able to provide sponsorships. That the article spent so long trying to convince me that this was sinister is bizarre.

fabian2k 2y ago
I also found the article to be far too verbose and the parts I read mostly tried to imply some malfeasance, but there was hardly any specific accusations. Industry sponsorship is entirely normal for scientific conferences, they would not really be possible without it. This also isn't an issue usually, the sponsors get some advertisment on the conference and some space to represent themselves. If sponsors actually would affect the talk selection that certainly would be a very serious problem, but I didn't see any real evidence of that in the article.
- gerdesj 2y ago
  They spell out that: "This face of Corteva Agriscience, ... that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the organization ... " and: "However, during hundreds of sessions on these subjects, a significant topic went missing: scholarly research on one of Corteva’s products – neonicotinoids, a factor in one of the most controversial, high-profile areas of research in entomology." The article discusses quite a few angles about neonics. Close to the conclusion it quotes a researcher from the Uni of Minnesota: "I don’t think the scientific meetings are run by them or overrun by them," she said. ... "You donate money, you get a perk. . . . It doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t." So, an issue that even I (a civilian) have heard of fails to be mentioned at a massive conference that should be discussing it (int al). That conference has a major sponsor who also manufacturer's said "issue". Also it seems to be accepted that if you pay, you get perks.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - yuliyp 2y ago
    That's an insinuation, not an accusation of anything specific at all. There are lots of reasons that in that particular year neonicotinoids were under-represented at the conference. The article basically presents one possible hand-wavy explanation as if it must be the explanation, and then offers no evidence of a link at all. Yes those companies sponsor the organizers of the conference, and yes the topic in question was under-represented relative to the article's expectations. No there is not necessarily a causal link between those statements.
    - gerdesj 2y ago
      A lot of arguments are hand wavy these days but neonics are nasty in my opinion. I live in a UK county that is quite rural and there is a lot of farming here. It was also a testing ground for blasting badgers into the middle of next week 'cause bovine TB. Yay, go: Somerset (we also bring you the Glastonbury music festy and Chedder cheese and possibly "England" if you squint hard enough - that's a D Trump grade assertion!) We can debate cause and effect but I suspect if I suggested you sniff a neonic, you might politely refuse on health grounds. They are not nice compounds and there is damn good evidence that neonics damage insects and may cause damage further up the food chain. This conference should discuss all interested issues, regardless of sponsors. It didn't and you and I both know why not. There is no if or but.
JMiao 2y ago
useful for careers, maybe
KennyBlanken 2y ago
The article extensively details how insecticide companies, and neonic producers in particular, have a huge role in the organization leadership, funding, and its conferences. It quotes people who describe how industry infiltrates professional and academic organizations and influence. At that "halfway" mark, the author describes employees of these companies gish-galloping conference presenters. Then the author describes a couple of scientists in the ESA describing how neonic research isn't selected because it doesn't "add anything new." except the author then shows that neonic research and citations are both growing - the complete opposite of what several ESA people said. These insecticide companies are getting to keep their cake (aggressively challenging neonic research as poorly supported) and eat it too (suppress representation of neonic research at their conferences because "it doesn't add anything new" and "is settled science.")
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the author describes a couple of scientists in the ESA describing how neonic research isn't selected because it doesn't "add anything new." except the author then shows that neonic research and citations are both growing I suppose this needs to be expanded on. It could be that neonic research is growing, but that the papers being submitted aren't adding anything novel. OP's point stands. Burying the lede after, essentially, a series of paragraphs that filters the readership to a particular political bent is bad writing.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural There is a vocal minority that treats "corporation" as a dirty word. This sort of writing is fodder for them. It doesn't actually have to make a point, just point out that corporations exist. It's helps campaigns get out the vote and electeds' staffers filter out stupid feedback.
- mbostleman 2y ago
  Yes, along with capitalism, free markets, anti-union - once you have enough positive confirmation bias momentum on words already agreed upon as bad, then all you need is a little ad hominem implication nudge and you captured a large number of readers.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > along with capitalism, free markets, anti-union On the other side you have socialism, DEI and cisgender. You really don't have to make a point to get that section riled up, just mention the term. (One could literally start a speech to the respective crowds by repeating a single word, e.g. corporations or socialism, taking a dramatic pause, and get a strong response.) And again, it's safe to toss out policy feedback that obsesses over these terms. (Both the far left and right also have a weird obsession with capitalising random words. I think it seems evocative of Enlightenment-era English?)
    - mbostleman 2y ago
      Absolutely. It goes both ways. I just realized I may have implied otherwise. I was sticking to the negative words that go with corporation.
swatcoder 2y ago
> That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural But of course, not all "natural" things are ideal. Pervasive corporate influence over scientific communication and funding puts a really big thumb on the scale of which programs get pursued and which findings get acknowledged and explored. It doesn't make sense to forbid corporate participation in research altogether (that would be bad too), but it's prudent to look at real-world examples in real research domains to see if important work contrary to moneyed interests is being stifled or misrepresented by way of these money+power dynamics.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- fieldcny 2y ago
  Why would eliminating corporate funding in academic research be bad? The way it stands now is that it’s a nice tax write of the the company and a great way to play the heads I win tails you lose game.
  - kaashif 2y ago
    > The way it stands now is that it’s a nice tax write of the the company and a great way to play the heads I win tails you lose game. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?
    - gruez 2y ago
      Presumably he means you can use company funds to donate to a pro-pesticide charity/NGO, and then use that donation to claim a tax credit (around 50%, subject to some limits). It's not really a "heads I win tails you lose" situation though. If you donate $100k, and claim the tax credits, you're still out $50k. You might get back more than $50k worth of monetary benefits from whatever the NGO/charity does, but that's not really guaranteed. It's like buying some junk on wish.com with a 50% coupon and saying that it's a "heads I win tails you lose" because if it turns out to be not junk, then you win, but if it's shit you still saved 50%. A far more straightforward and honest way of describing it would just be to say that they get a discount on their charity spend.
pessimizer 2y ago
> That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural: there are a lot of reasons it's useful: recruiting, networking, cooperating with other researchers, etc. And for manipulating the scientific consensus, for rewarding scholars that agree with them, etc. But who actually cares? I don't think anyone was saying that sponsoring scientific conferences wasn't useful for corporations. It's a straw man. The question is whether it's good for science and public health, specifically in the case of neonicotinoids. > And they're the part of those scientific communities that has the spare money to be able to provide sponsorships. The fewer challenges to what is currently profitable to them, the more spare money they have.
486sx33 2y ago
This kind of “it must be sinister because … look at all the things that weren’t there!” Is highly damaging to the pursuit of science. It’s like gas lighting … so disappointing . The absence of anything is NOT proof that was purposely omitted
coin 2y ago
That’s because USRTK is an organic industry funded PR group. They get paid to attack conventional agriculture. They are quick to point out corporate sponsors yet they themselves are a corporate sponsor.

by yuliyp 2y ago

fabian2k 2y ago

I also found the article to be far too verbose and the parts I read mostly tried to imply some malfeasance, but there was hardly any specific accusations. Industry sponsorship is entirely normal for scientific conferences, they would not really be possible without it. This also isn't an issue usually, the sponsors get some advertisment on the conference and some space to represent themselves. If sponsors actually would affect the talk selection that certainly would be a very serious problem, but I didn't see any real evidence of that in the article.

gerdesj 2y ago
They spell out that: "This face of Corteva Agriscience, ... that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the organization ... " and: "However, during hundreds of sessions on these subjects, a significant topic went missing: scholarly research on one of Corteva’s products – neonicotinoids, a factor in one of the most controversial, high-profile areas of research in entomology." The article discusses quite a few angles about neonics. Close to the conclusion it quotes a researcher from the Uni of Minnesota: "I don’t think the scientific meetings are run by them or overrun by them," she said. ... "You donate money, you get a perk. . . . It doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t." So, an issue that even I (a civilian) have heard of fails to be mentioned at a massive conference that should be discussing it (int al). That conference has a major sponsor who also manufacturer's said "issue". Also it seems to be accepted that if you pay, you get perks.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yuliyp 2y ago
  That's an insinuation, not an accusation of anything specific at all. There are lots of reasons that in that particular year neonicotinoids were under-represented at the conference. The article basically presents one possible hand-wavy explanation as if it must be the explanation, and then offers no evidence of a link at all. Yes those companies sponsor the organizers of the conference, and yes the topic in question was under-represented relative to the article's expectations. No there is not necessarily a causal link between those statements.
  - gerdesj 2y ago
    A lot of arguments are hand wavy these days but neonics are nasty in my opinion. I live in a UK county that is quite rural and there is a lot of farming here. It was also a testing ground for blasting badgers into the middle of next week 'cause bovine TB. Yay, go: Somerset (we also bring you the Glastonbury music festy and Chedder cheese and possibly "England" if you squint hard enough - that's a D Trump grade assertion!) We can debate cause and effect but I suspect if I suggested you sniff a neonic, you might politely refuse on health grounds. They are not nice compounds and there is damn good evidence that neonics damage insects and may cause damage further up the food chain. This conference should discuss all interested issues, regardless of sponsors. It didn't and you and I both know why not. There is no if or but.

JMiao 2y ago

useful for careers, maybe

KennyBlanken 2y ago

The article extensively details how insecticide companies, and neonic producers in particular, have a huge role in the organization leadership, funding, and its conferences. It quotes people who describe how industry infiltrates professional and academic organizations and influence. At that "halfway" mark, the author describes employees of these companies gish-galloping conference presenters. Then the author describes a couple of scientists in the ESA describing how neonic research isn't selected because it doesn't "add anything new." except the author then shows that neonic research and citations are both growing - the complete opposite of what several ESA people said. These insecticide companies are getting to keep their cake (aggressively challenging neonic research as poorly supported) and eat it too (suppress representation of neonic research at their conferences because "it doesn't add anything new" and "is settled science.")

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the author describes a couple of scientists in the ESA describing how neonic research isn't selected because it doesn't "add anything new." except the author then shows that neonic research and citations are both growing I suppose this needs to be expanded on. It could be that neonic research is growing, but that the papers being submitted aren't adding anything novel. OP's point stands. Burying the lede after, essentially, a series of paragraphs that filters the readership to a particular political bent is bad writing.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural There is a vocal minority that treats "corporation" as a dirty word. This sort of writing is fodder for them. It doesn't actually have to make a point, just point out that corporations exist. It's helps campaigns get out the vote and electeds' staffers filter out stupid feedback.

mbostleman 2y ago
Yes, along with capitalism, free markets, anti-union - once you have enough positive confirmation bias momentum on words already agreed upon as bad, then all you need is a little ad hominem implication nudge and you captured a large number of readers.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > along with capitalism, free markets, anti-union On the other side you have socialism, DEI and cisgender. You really don't have to make a point to get that section riled up, just mention the term. (One could literally start a speech to the respective crowds by repeating a single word, e.g. corporations or socialism, taking a dramatic pause, and get a strong response.) And again, it's safe to toss out policy feedback that obsesses over these terms. (Both the far left and right also have a weird obsession with capitalising random words. I think it seems evocative of Enlightenment-era English?)
  - mbostleman 2y ago
    Absolutely. It goes both ways. I just realized I may have implied otherwise. I was sticking to the negative words that go with corporation.

swatcoder 2y ago

> That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural But of course, not all "natural" things are ideal. Pervasive corporate influence over scientific communication and funding puts a really big thumb on the scale of which programs get pursued and which findings get acknowledged and explored. It doesn't make sense to forbid corporate participation in research altogether (that would be bad too), but it's prudent to look at real-world examples in real research domains to see if important work contrary to moneyed interests is being stifled or misrepresented by way of these money+power dynamics.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fieldcny 2y ago
Why would eliminating corporate funding in academic research be bad? The way it stands now is that it’s a nice tax write of the the company and a great way to play the heads I win tails you lose game.
- kaashif 2y ago
  > The way it stands now is that it’s a nice tax write of the the company and a great way to play the heads I win tails you lose game. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?
  - gruez 2y ago
    Presumably he means you can use company funds to donate to a pro-pesticide charity/NGO, and then use that donation to claim a tax credit (around 50%, subject to some limits). It's not really a "heads I win tails you lose" situation though. If you donate $100k, and claim the tax credits, you're still out $50k. You might get back more than $50k worth of monetary benefits from whatever the NGO/charity does, but that's not really guaranteed. It's like buying some junk on wish.com with a 50% coupon and saying that it's a "heads I win tails you lose" because if it turns out to be not junk, then you win, but if it's shit you still saved 50%. A far more straightforward and honest way of describing it would just be to say that they get a discount on their charity spend.

pessimizer 2y ago

> That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural: there are a lot of reasons it's useful: recruiting, networking, cooperating with other researchers, etc. And for manipulating the scientific consensus, for rewarding scholars that agree with them, etc. But who actually cares? I don't think anyone was saying that sponsoring scientific conferences wasn't useful for corporations. It's a straw man. The question is whether it's good for science and public health, specifically in the case of neonicotinoids. > And they're the part of those scientific communities that has the spare money to be able to provide sponsorships. The fewer challenges to what is currently profitable to them, the more spare money they have.

486sx33 2y ago

This kind of “it must be sinister because … look at all the things that weren’t there!” Is highly damaging to the pursuit of science. It’s like gas lighting … so disappointing . The absence of anything is NOT proof that was purposely omitted

coin 2y ago

That’s because USRTK is an organic industry funded PR group. They get paid to attack conventional agriculture. They are quick to point out corporate sponsors yet they themselves are a corporate sponsor.