Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 483–496 | Cite as

The decline of public interest agricultural science and the dubious future of crop biological control in California

  • Keith D. Warner
  • Kent M. Daane
  • Christina M. Getz
  • Stephen P. Maurano
  • Sandra Calderon
  • Kathleen A. Powers
Article

Abstract

Drawing from a four-year study of US science institutions that support biological control of arthropods, this article examines the decline in biological control institutional capacity in California within the context of both declining public interest science and declining agricultural research activism. After explaining how debates over the public interest character of biological control science have shaped institutions in California, we use scientometric methods to assess the present status and trends in biological control programs within both the University of California Land Grant System and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. We present available data on the number of scientific positions and the types of positions to discuss the impact on the amount of public interest research on biological control in California. We use sociograms to depict how biological control science networks have been reconfigured over time. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that the following factors contributed to the decline of biological control science in California over the 45-year period analyzed: (1) the institutional reconfiguration of university research priorities; (2) the fraying networks within and increasing specialization of biological control science; (3) the transformation of the social organization of the life science work, including privatization; and (4) the abandonment of this thematic area by civil society activist groups. This broad array of forces suggests that biological control, as a public interest science, will require a deliberate intervention, based on advocacy of clear public interest criteria.

Keywords

Pest control Agricultural science Biological control Public interest science Institutional capacity Social networks 

Abbreviations

CDFA

California Department of Food and Agriculture

CE

Cooperative Extension

IPM

Integrated pest management

LGU

Land grant university

PCA

Pest Control Advisor

SRAs

Staff research assistants

SYs

Scientist years

UC

University of California

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and National Science Foundation award 0646658. This report would not have been possible without the active interest of many members of these institutions helping us to understand the history and organization of biological control in California. John Steggall, Michael Pitcairn, Charles Pickett, Mark Hoddle, Daniel Sullivan, and David Headrick provided important insights on these data. Laurie Allen at UC Riverside, Louise Meyer Ozawa at UC Berkeley and Brenda Wing at UC Davis were particularly helpful in tracking down data about biological control scientists.

References

  1. Allen, P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, and K.D. Warner. 2003. Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93(1/3): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altieri, M.A. 1984. Pest-management technologies for peasants: A farming systems approach. Crop Protection 3(1): 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andow, D.A. 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annual Review of Entomology 36: 561–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, B. 1988. Pest control in the public interest: Crop protection in California. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law 8(1): 31–71.Google Scholar
  6. Busch, L. 2005. Commentary on: Ever since Hightower: The politics of agricultural research in the molecular age. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busch, L., and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, agriculture, and the politics of research. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  8. Buttel, F. 2001. Land-grant/industry relationships and the institutional relationships of technological innovation in agriculture. In Knowledge generation and technological change, ed. S. Wolf, and D. Zilberman, 151–176. Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buttel, F. 2005. Ever since Hightower: The politics of agricultural research activism in the molecular age. Agriculture and Human Values 22(3): 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buttel, F., O. Larson, and G. Gillespie. 1990. The sociology of agriculture: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M., J. Law, and A. Rip. 1986. Quantitative scientometrics. In Mapping the dynamics of science and technology, ed. M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip, 103–123. London: The MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Caltagirone, L.E. 1981. Landmark examples in classical biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 26: 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caltagirone, L.E., and R.L. Doutt. 1989. The history of the vedalia beetle importation to California and its impact on the development of biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 34: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, D. 2001. Conviction seeking efficacy: Sustainable agriculture and the politics of co-optation. Agriculture and Human Values 18: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  16. Compere, H. 1969. Changing trends and objectives in biological control. Proceedings, 1st International Citrus Symposium, 755–764. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
  17. Croissant, J., and S. Restivo. 2001. Degrees of compromise: Industrial interests and academic values. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dahlberg, K.A., and M. Koc. 1999. The restructuring of food systems: Trends, research, and policy issues. Agriculture and Human Values 16(2): 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Bach, P., and E.I. Schlinger. 1964. Biological control of insect pests and weeds. New York: Reinhold Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Delborne, J. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: Scientific dissent as heterogenous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4): 509–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doutt, R.L. 1964. The historical development of biological control. In Biological control of insect pests and weeds, ed. P. Debach, and E.I. Schlinger, 21–42. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporations.Google Scholar
  22. Ehler, L.E. 2005. Integrated pest management: A national goal? Issues in Science and Technology 22: 25–26.Google Scholar
  23. Eilenberg, J., and H.M.T. Hokkanen. 2006. An ecological and societal approach to biological control. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedland, W.H. 1991. “Engineering” social change in agriculture. University of Dayton Review 21(1): 25–42.Google Scholar
  25. Glenna, L., W.B. Lacy, R. Welsh, and D. Biscotti. 2007a. University administrators, agricultural biotechnology, and academic capitalism: Defining the public good to promote university-industry relationships. The Sociological Quarterly 48(1): 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glenna, L., R. Welsh, W.B. Lacy, and D. Biscotti. 2007b. Industry perceptions of university-industry relationships related to agricultural biotechnology research. Rural Sociology 72(4): 608–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greathead, D.J., and P. Neuenschwander. 2003. Historical overview of biological control in Africa. Biological control in IPM systems in Africa 1–26.Google Scholar
  28. Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten, and M.A. Altieri. 2003. Ecological engineering for enhanced pest management: Towards a rigorous science. In Ecological engineering for pest management: Advances in habitat manipulation for arthropods, ed. G.M. Gurr, S.D. Wratten, and M.A. Altieri, 219–225. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Gurr, G.M., N.D. Barlow, J. Memmott, S.D. Wratten, and D.J. Greathead. 2000. A history of methodological, theoretical, and empirical approaches to biological control. In Biological control: Measures of success, ed. G.M. Gurr, and S.D. Wratten, 3–37. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The politics of agricultural research. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hightower, J. 1973. Hard tomatoes, hard times. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Huffaker, C.B., and P.S. Messenger. 1976. Theory and practice of biological control. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jennings, B.H. 1997. The killing fields: Science and politics at Berkeley, California, USA. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleinman, D.L. 2003. Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kloppenburg, J.R. 2004. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  37. Lacy, W., and L. Glenna. 2006. Democratizing science in an era of expert and private knowledge. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society 1(3): 37–45.Google Scholar
  38. Leydesdorff, L. 2001. The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Lounsburyi, C.P. 1940. The pioneering period of economic entomology in South Africa. Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa 3: 9–29.Google Scholar
  40. Luck, R.F., and D.L. Dahlsten. 1975. Natural decline of pine needle scale (Chionaspis pinfoliae (Fitch)), outbreak at South Lake Tahoe, California following cessation of adult mosquito control with malathion. Ecology 56: 893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDowell, G. 2001. Land-grant universities and extension into the 21st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nechols, J.R., L.A. Andres, J.W. Beardsley, R.D. Goeden, and C.G. Jackson. 1992. Biological control in the Western United States: Accomplishments and benefits of regional research project W-84, 19641989. Oakland, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3361.Google Scholar
  43. Palladino, P. 1996. Entomology, ecology, and agriculture: The making of scientific careers in North America, 1885–1985. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Perkins, J.H. 1982. Insects, experts, and the insecticide crisis. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  45. Perkins, J.H., and R. Garcia. 1999. Social and economic factors affecting research and implementation of biological control. In Handbook of biological control, ed. T. Bellows, and T. Fisher, 993–1104. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Raffensperger, C., S. Peters, F. Kirschenmann, T. Schettler, K. Barrett, M. Hendrickson, D. Jackson, R. Voland, K. Leval, and D. Butcher. 1999. Defining public interest research. http://www.sehn.org/defpirpaper.html. Accessed 12 April 2010.
  47. Ridgway, R.L., and M.N. Inscoe. 1998. Mass-reared natural enemies for pest control: Trends and challenges. In Mass-reared natural enemies: Application, regulation, needs, ed. R.L. Ridgway, M.P. Hoffman, M.N. Inscoe, and C.S. Glenister, 1–26. Lanham, MD: Entomological Society of America.Google Scholar
  48. Rudy, A.P., D. Coppin, J. Konefal, B.T. Shaw, T. Ten Eyck, C. Harris, and L. Busch. 2007. Universities in the age of corporate science: The UC Berkeley-Novartis controversy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sawyer, R.C. 1996. To make a spotless orange: Biological control in California. Ames IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sawyer, R.C. 1990. Monopolizing the insect trade: Biological control in the USDA 1888–1951. Agricultural History 64(2): 271–285.Google Scholar
  51. Simmonds, F.J., J.M. Franz, and R.I. Sailer. 1976. History of biological control. In Theory and practice of biological control, ed. C.B. Huffaker, and P.S. Messenger, 17–39. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, H.S. 1919. On some phases of insect control by the biological method. Journal of Economic Entomology 12: 1–13.Google Scholar
  53. Stoll, S. 1998. The fruits of natural advantage: Making the industrial countryside in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  54. Stoll, S. 1995. Insects and institutions: University science and the fruit business in California. Agricultural History 69(2): 216–239.Google Scholar
  55. Turnbull, A.L., and D.A. Chant. 1961. Practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 39(5): 697–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van den Bosch, R. 1978. The pesticide conspiracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  57. van den Bosch, R., P.S. Messenger, and A.P. Gutierrez. 1982. An introduction to biological control. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  58. Van Driesche, R.G., and D.N. Ferro. 1990. Will the benefits of classical biological control be lost in the “biotechnology stampede”? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(50): 50.Google Scholar
  59. Viggiani, G. 2000. The role of parasitic Hymenoptera in integrated pest management in fruit orchards. Crop Protection 19(8–10): 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warner, K.D. 2008. Agroecology as participatory science: Emerging alternatives to technology transfer extension practice. Science, Technology & Human Values 33(6): 754–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Warner, K.D. 2007. Agroecology in action: Extending alternative agriculture through social networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Warner, K.D., and C. Getz. 2007. A socio-economic analysis of the North American commercial natural enemy industry and implications for augmentative biological control. Biological Control 45: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Warner, K.D., C. Getz, S. Maurano, and K. Powers. 2009. An analysis of historical trends in classical biological control of arthropods suggests need for a new centralized database in the USA. Biocontrol Science and Technology 45: 1–10.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, F. 1960. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control Technology and Communications 1: 1–102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith D. Warner
    • 1
  • Kent M. Daane
    • 2
  • Christina M. Getz
    • 2
  • Stephen P. Maurano
    • 3
  • Sandra Calderon
    • 3
  • Kathleen A. Powers
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Religious Studies and Center for Science, Technology, and SocietySanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Studies InstituteSanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations