2 ms·
The article extensively details how insecticide companies, and neonic producers in particular, have a huge role in the organization leadership, funding, and its
by 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.