Advertisement

Strategies I

Integrated Pest Management
  • John H. Perkins

Abstract

Entomology departments and Washington bureaucracies alike were alive with the hum of ”integrated pest management” (IPM) during the 1970s. Both scientists and government officials saw ways out of the pesticide crisis through this strategy in which chemicals and nonchemical methods of control were used to keep pests below damaging numbers. IPM was not a control technique for insects per se, rather a concept of how insect control should be researched and conducted. Numerous studies were guided by an IPM-like philosophy during the period 1900–1970, but usually they were conducted in isolation from one another. They never constituted a major public policy issue, nor was their underlying conceptual base made explicit. The contemporary IPM concept became a political and intellectual entity through a major research program during the 1970’s, ”The Huf faker Project,” named after its director, Carl Barton Huffaker.

Keywords

Biological Control Natural Enemy Integrate Pest Management Classical Biological Control Boll Weevil 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Carl B. Huffaker, personal interview, Mar. 17–18, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    James K. Holloway, “Projects in Biological Control of Weeds,” in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, Paul DeBach, ed. (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1964), pp. 656–658.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. B. Huffaker and C. E. Kennett, Experimental studies on prédation, Hilgardia 26 (1956): 191–222.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huffaker, personal interview.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ray F. Smith, “Development of Integrated Control in California,” 18 pp. plus 7 pp. references, mimeo, 1972Google Scholar
  6. 5a.
    William W. Allen, H. Nakakihara and G. A. Schaefers, The effectiveness of various pesticides against the cyclamen mite on strawberries,J. Econ. Entomol. 50 (1957): 648–652.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    C. B. Huffaker, C. E. Kennett, and G. L. Finney, Biological control of the olive scale, Parlatoria oleae (Colvée), in California by imported Aphytis maculicornis (Masi) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Hilgardia 32 (1962): 541–636Google Scholar
  8. 6a.
    C. B. Huffaker and C. E. Kennett, Biological control of Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) through the compensatory action of two introduced parasites, Hilgardia 37 (1966): 283–335.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    A. L. Turnbull and Donald A. Chant argued for introducing only the single best parasite in The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada, Can. J. Zool. 39 (1961): 697–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    Council on Environmental Quality, Scientific review of the Huffaker project for integrated pest management—the principles, strategies, and tactics of pest population regulation in major crop ecosystems, unpublished report, Sept. 15, 1977 (hereafter cited as CEQ, Scientific review).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Curtis P. Clausen, Entomophagous Insects (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1940), 688 pp.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Harry S. Smith, The role of biotic factors in the determination of population densities, J. Econ. Entomol. 28 (1935): 873–898.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    C. P. Clausen to K. A. Bartlett, Nov. 22, 1939; C. P. Clausen to P. N. Annand, Nov. 22, 1941; both in Record Group 7, National Archives (RG7NA).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    C. F. W. Muesebeck to F. C. Bishopp, July 7, 1952, RG7NA; U. S. Budget, 1939 through 1951 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office); Reece I. Sailer, personal interview, May, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    Ibid.; R. I. Sailer, ARS agencies involved in Biological Control Research, rough draft, May 24, 1971, copy supplied by R. I. SailerGoogle Scholar
  16. 13a.
    K. S. Hagen and J. M. Franz, “A history of biological control,” in History of Entomology, Ray F. Smith, Thomas E. Mittler, and Carroll N. Smith, eds. (Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1973), pp. 433–476 (hereafter cited as Hagen and Franz, History). Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Donald Lerch, Search for biological controls poses threat to Nation’s food supply, Agric. Chem. (Nov., 1964): 21–22, 103–104.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    The brief recapitulation of the history of biological control given here in no way does justice to the field as a whole. For more complete studies, see Hagen and Franz, History; Richard L. Doutt, “The historical development of biological control,” in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, Paul DeBach, ed. (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1964), pp. 21–42Google Scholar
  19. 15a.
    F. J. Simmonds, J. M. Franz, and R. I. Sailer, “History of biological control,” in Theory and Practice of Biological Control, C. B. Huffaker, ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 17–39.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Paul H. DeBach, personal interview, Mar., 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    Paul DeBach, ed., Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1964), 844 pp.Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    E. F. Knipling to P. W. Oman, Oct. 31, 1955, files of R. I. Sailer.Google Scholar
  23. 19.
    Sailer, personal interview. Knipling received support for such a laboratory from the California State Board of Agriculture in 1958 (see Romain Young to Ezra Taft Benson, Mar. 18, 1958 and E. F. Knipling to M. R. Clarkson, Apr. 8, 1958, files of R. I. Sailer).Google Scholar
  24. 20.
    Sailer, personal interview; R. I. Sailer to B. P. Beirne, Jan. 14, 1964, files of R. I. Sailer. See also the Quarterly Reports, Biological Control of Insects Research Laboratory, USDA, 1965–1972, copies held at USDA Biological Control of Weeds, Albany, Calif.Google Scholar
  25. 21.
    Hagen and Franz, History. Google Scholar
  26. 22.
    A. S. Balachowsky, La Commission Internationale de Lutte Biologique contre les Enemis des Cultures (CILB), Entomophaga 1 (1956): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 23.
    E. F. Knipling to A. S. Balachowsky, Feb. 20, 1957, files of R. I. Sailer. Knipling promised full cooperation with CILB even though USDA did not join.Google Scholar
  28. 24.
    International Advisory Committee for Biological Control, Biological Control Information Bulletin No. 1, Oct. 1965.Google Scholar
  29. 25.
    R. I. Sailer to W. H. Anderson, Sept. 9, 1965, files of R. I. Sauer.Google Scholar
  30. 26.
    P. DeBach to Members of IUBS Ad Hoc Committee for IOBC, Oct. 15, 1970, files of R. I. Sailer; F. Wilson, Conference Report, International Organization for Biological Control, PANS 16 (1970): 393–395.Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    By-Laws of the Council of IOBC passed at its meeting, Rome, Apr. 2, 1971, 3 pp., mimeo, files of R. I. Sailer.Google Scholar
  32. 28.
    Huffaker, personal interview. The U. S. National Committee for the International Biological Program began operations at the National Academy of Sciences in 1965 (U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, International Biological Program, Hearings, 91st Congress, 2nd sess., 1970, p. 16).Google Scholar
  33. 29.
    Paul DeBach and Carl Huffaker, A proposal to establish an International Center of Biological Control at the University of California, unpublished paper, Berkeley and Riverside, California, May, 1967.Google Scholar
  34. 30.
    U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, International Biological Program, Hearings, 91st Congress, 2nd sess., 1970, p. 17.Google Scholar
  35. 31.
    August G. Manza to Program Director, Ecosystem Director, Oct. 29, 1979, files of C. B. Huffaker. The full title of the proposal was “Management of an Integrated, Inter-Institutional Program in Biological Control, as part of the U.S./International Biological Program (IBP).”Google Scholar
  36. 32.
    Charles F. Cooper to Carl B. Huffaker, Dec. 1, 1969, files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    Huffaker, personal interview; Carl B. Huffaker to Charles Cooper, Mar. 20, 1970; Carl B. Huffaker to Frank Blair, Apr. 23, 1970. Letters from the files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  38. 34.
    Richard G. Wiegert, “Simulation model of ecosystems,” in Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., Richard F. Johnston, Peter W. Frank, and Charles D. Michener, eds., 6 (1975): 311–338Google Scholar
  39. 34a.
    Orie L. Loucks, Emergence of research on agroecosystems, in Ibid., 8 (1977): 173–192 (hereafter cited as Loucks, Emergence).Google Scholar
  40. 35.
    A pioneering effort was R. W. Stark and Ray F. Smith, “Systems analysis and pest management,” in Biological Control, C. B. Huffaker, ed. (New York: Plenum Press, 1971), pp. 331–345.Google Scholar
  41. 36.
    Loucks, Emergence.Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    Major developers of classical biological control, such as Harry Scott Smith, were not opposed to some of the practices of “biological control” in the broad sense of the term. Indeed, Smith and some of his colleagues, especially Stanley E. Flanders, were developers and proponents of mass releases of parasites during the early 1930s. They cautioned, however, that such mass releases had to be based on a sound knowledge of the biology of the host and parasite. Effectiveness was the exception, not the norm, for most release programs. See H. S. Smith and S. E. Flanders, Is Trichogramtna becoming a fad?,J. Econ. Entomol. 24 (1931): 666–672Google Scholar
  43. 37a.
    Paul DeBach and K. S. Hagen, “Manipulations of entomophagous species,” in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, Paul DeBach, ed. (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1964), pp. 429–458.Google Scholar
  44. 38.
    Huffaker, personal interview; C. B. Huffaker, Status of U.S./IBP project in biological control, unpublished report, July, 1970.Google Scholar
  45. 39.
    Wilbur W. Bolton, Jr. to Loy L. Sammet, June 3, 1970, NSF grant GB-19519, from the files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  46. 40.
    Huffaker, personal interview; C. B. Huffaker, “Summary of a pest-management conference—a critique,” in Concepts of Pest Management, R. L. Rabb and F. E. Guthrie, eds. (Raleigh: North Carolina State Univ. Press, 1970), pp. 227–242.Google Scholar
  47. 41.
    A. D. Pickett, W. L. Putnam, and E. J. LeRoux, “Progress in harmonizing biological and chemical control of orchard pests in eastern Canada,” in Proceedings Tenth Inter-national Congress of Entomology, 1956, Vol. 3, (Ottawa? 1958), pp. 169–174.Google Scholar
  48. 42.
    Ray F. Smith, The origins of integrated control in California: An account of the contributions of Charles W. Woodworth, Pan-Pac. Entomol. 50 (1974): 426–440 (hereafter cited as Smith, Origins)Google Scholar
  49. 42a.
    C. W. Woodworth, The theory of the parasitic control of insect pests, Science 28 (1908): 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 43.
    C. W. Woodworth, Spray and band treatment for the codling moth, Cal. Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep., 1891, pp. 308–312.Google Scholar
  51. 44.
    Smith, Origins.Google Scholar
  52. 45.
    Department of Entomological Sciences, Documentation for Departmental Review, unpublished report, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Oct., 1975, p. 5; biographical data on Michelbacher from American Men of Science (New York: Jacques Cattell Press).Google Scholar
  53. 46.
    A. E. Michelbacher and Ray F. Smith, Some natural factors limiting the abundance of the alfalfa butterfly, Hilgardia 15 (1943): 369–397.Google Scholar
  54. 47.
    A. E. Michelbacher, The importance of ecology in insect control, J. Econ. Entomol. 38 (1945): 129–130.Google Scholar
  55. 48.
    A. E. Michelbacher and O. G. Bacon, Walnut insect and spider-mite control in northern California, J. Econ. Entomol. 45 (1952): 1020–1027.I thank K. S. Hagen for bringing this article to my attention.Google Scholar
  56. 49.
    [K. S. Hagen and R. F. Smith], First annual report of the entomologist for the Westside Alfalfa Pest Control Association, mimeo, Jan., 1947; K. S. Hagen, personal communication, June, 1979.Google Scholar
  57. 50.
    D. E. Bryan and R. F. Smith, First report of the entomologist for the Westley Pest Control Association, mimeo, 1948Google Scholar
  58. 50a.
    R. E. Beer, Ray F. Smith, V. M. Stern, and R. van den Bosch, Second annual report of the entomologists for the Westside Alfalfa Pest Control Association, mimeo, 1948Google Scholar
  59. 50b.
    E. Goldsworthy and Ray F. Smith, First annual report of the entomologist for the Tracy Pest Control Group, mimeo, 1948Google Scholar
  60. 50c.
    V. M. Stern and Ray F. Smith, What has supervised control done for the Westside Alfalfa Pest Control Association? mimeo, 1948Google Scholar
  61. 50d.
    L. A. Bascom and Ray F. Smith, Second annual report of the entomologist for the Westley Pest Control Association, mimeo, 1949.Google Scholar
  62. 51.
    Ray F. Smith and William W. Allen, Chemical control of the alfalfa caterpillar in California, J. Econ. Entomol. 42 (1949): 487–495.Google Scholar
  63. 52.
    Ray F. Smith to P. N. Annand, Nov. 25, 1947, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  64. 53.
    P. N. Annand, Preventive entomology, J. Econ. Entomol. 40 (1947): 461–468.Google Scholar
  65. 54.
    P. N. Annand to Ray F. Smith, Dec. 5, 1947, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  66. 55.
    K. S. Hagen, personal communication, June, 1979.Google Scholar
  67. 56.
    R. L. Doutt and Ray F. Smith, “The pesticide syndrome-diagnosis and suggested prophylaxis,” in Biological Control, C. B. Huffaker, ed. (New York: Plenum Press, 1971), pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  68. 57.
    Ray F. Smith, John E. Swift, and Jack Dibble, Rapid spread of alfalfa pest, Calif. Agric. 10 (Feb. 1956): 5, 15.Google Scholar
  69. 58.
    Vernon M. Stern and Robert van den Bosch, Field experiments on the effects of insecticides, Hilgardia 29 (1959): 103–130 (hereafter cited as Stern and van den Bosch, Field experiments).Google Scholar
  70. 59.
  71. 59a.
    R. van den Bosch, E. I. Schlinger, E. J. Dietrick, and I. M. Hall, The role of imported parasites in the biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid in southern California, J. Econ. Entomol. 52 (1959): 142–154Google Scholar
  72. 59b.
    R. van den Bosch, E. I. Schlinger, E. J. Dietrick, K. S. Hagen, and J. K. Holloway, The colonization and establishment of imported parasites of the spotted alfalfa aphid in California, J. Econ. Entomol. 52 (1959): 136–141Google Scholar
  73. 59c.
    K. S. Hagen, G. A. Viktorov, Keizo Yasumatsu, and Michael F. Schuster, “Biological control of pests of range, forage, and grain crops,” in Theory and Practice of Biological Control, C. B. Huffaker, ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 397–442.Google Scholar
  74. 60.
    Ray F. Smith and Kenneth S. Hagen, Impact of commercial insecticide treatments, Hilgardia 29 (1959): 131–154.Google Scholar
  75. 61.
    Stern and van den Bosch, Field experiments.Google Scholar
  76. 62.
    Vernon M. Stern, Ray F. Smith, Robert van den Bosch, and Kenneth S. Hagen, The integrated control concept, Hilgardia 29 (1959): 81–101. The companion papers are those noted in 58 and 60.Google Scholar
  77. 63.
    R. F. Smith and H. T. Reynolds, “Principles, definitions, and scope of integrated pest control,” in Proceedings of the FAO Symposium on Integrated Control (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 1966), pp. 11–17.Google Scholar
  78. 64.
    Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar
  79. 65.
    Ray F. Smith, Proposed intersociety consortium for plant protection, Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 22 (1976): 37.Google Scholar
  80. 66.
    Perry Lee Adkisson, personal interview, May 30–31, 1978. A review of pink bollworm problems in Texas can be found in Perry L. Adkisson and J. C. Gaines, Pink bollworm control as related to the total cotton insect control program of central Texas, Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-444, July 1960, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  81. 67.
    Floyd Miner, Dwight Isely, 1887–1974, J. Econ. Entomol. 69 (1976): 298–299.Google Scholar
  82. 68.
    Charles Gatewood Lincoln, personal interview, June 6–7, 1978.Google Scholar
  83. 69.
    Dwight Isely and W. J. Baerg, The boll weevil problem in Arkansas, Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 190, Jan. 1924, 29 pp.Google Scholar
  84. 70.
    Dwight Isely, Control of the boll weevil and the cotton aphid in Arkansas, Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 496, June, 1950.Google Scholar
  85. 71.
    Charles Lincoln, W. P. Boyer, and Floyd D. Miner, The evolution of insect pest management in cotton and soybeans: Past experience, present status, and future outlook in Arkansas, Environ. Entomol. 4 (1975): 1–7.Google Scholar
  86. 72.
    Leo Dale Newsom, personal interview, June 1–2, 1978; Lincoln, personal interview.Google Scholar
  87. 73.
    Lincoln, personal interview.Google Scholar
  88. 74.
    C. B. Huffaker to R. L. Doutt, R. F. Smith, C. S. Koehler, W. W. Allen, K. S. Hagen, P. S. Messenger, R. van den Bosch, Y. Tanada, D. Jensen, L. A. Falcon, W. C. Batiste, L. E. Caltagirone, D. Price, D. Wood, R. W. Stark, and D. L. Dahlsten, May 27, 1970, files of C. B. Huffaker (hereafter cited as C. B. Huffaker to Doutt et al.). Google Scholar
  89. 75.
    President’s Science Advisory Committee, Cotton Insects (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), 19 pp.Google Scholar
  90. 76.
    Adkisson, personal interview.Google Scholar
  91. 77.
    C. B. Huffaker to Doutt et al. Google Scholar
  92. 78.
    Newsom, personal interview; idem, An assessment of the potential for control of soybean insect pests with minimum use of conventional insecticides, unpublished paper delivered to the Organizing Work Conference for Proposal on The Principles of Pest Population Regulation and Control for Major Crop Ecosystems, Berkeley, Calif., Oct. 19–20, 1970, files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  93. 79.
    P. L. Adkisson to Carl B. Huffaker, Oct. 20, 1971, files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  94. 80.
    Carl B. Huffaker to Charles Cooper, Dec. 16, 1970, files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  95. 81.
    August G. Manza to National Science Foundation, Nov. 1, 1971, files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  96. 82.
    C. B. Huffaker and R. F. Smith, Application to National Science Foundation, The Principles, Strategies and Tactics of Pest Population Regulation and Control in Major Crop Ecosystems, Umbrella to the Proposal, unpublished grant proposal [Aug. 1971], pp. 33, 45–47, files of C. B. Huffaker. See also C. B. Huffaker and Ray F. Smith, “The IBP program on the strategies and tactics of pest management,” in Proceedings, Tall Timbers Conference on Ecological Animal Control by Habitat Management, No. 4, Feb. 24–25, 1972, pp. 219–236; C. B. Huffaker, personal communication, May, 1980.Google Scholar
  97. 83.
    C. B. Huffaker and R. F. Smith, Management, coordination and special servicing of application, 9 pp.Google Scholar
  98. 84.
    Perry Adkisson delivered a complete copy of the proposal to Knipling on Sept. 23 in Lubbock, Texas. He reported Knipling to be unenthusiastic about funding for NSF before funding to USDA for pilot tests (P. L. Adkisson to Carl Huffaker, Oct. 5, 1971, files of C. B. Huffaker). Adkisson was probably referring to Knipling’s interest in the Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication Experiment, which had begun in August and was underfunded. Knipling’s work is covered in detail in Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  99. 85.
    U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Pest Control Research, Hearings, 92nd Congress, 1st sess., 1971, pp. 13–14 (hereafter cited as U.S. Congress, Senate, Pest Control Research). It is likely the agreement was forged in anticipation of Huffaker’s proposal.Google Scholar
  100. 86.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Cancellation of registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of products containing DDT, PR71–1, Jan. 15, 1971; copy attached to Edmund M. Sweeney, Consolidated DDT Hearing (Washington, D.C: EPA, 1972), mimeo, 439 F 2d 584 (1971) (hereafter cited as Sweeney, Consolidated DDT hearing). Cancellations were also made of products containing TDE (Md., PR71–3 and PR71–5).Google Scholar
  101. 87.
    DDT Advisory Committee, Report (Washington, D.C.: EPA, Sept. 9, 1971), 58 pp. The Report argued that “rapid and continuous decrease in the use of DDT” would accomplish the same purpose as “immediate suspension” (p. 43). The latter was the EPA’s legal tool for immediately prohibiting sales of DDT in the market place. Even though the committee was clearly in favor of reducing all significant additions of DDT to the environment, they shied from explicitly recommending “immediate suspension.” Their reasons for avoiding the legal term are not clear, but their reluctance to use it may have contributed to the EPA’s decision not to suspend DDT in the fall of 1971.Google Scholar
  102. 88.
    Sweeney, Consolidated DDT hearing.Google Scholar
  103. 89.
    U. S. Congress, House, Committee on Agriculture, Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971, Hearings, 92nd Congress, 1st sess., 1971 pp. 3–8, statement of John Quarles, Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  104. 90.
    Carl B. Huffaker to Drs. Adkisson, Armbrust, Caltagirone, DeBach, Newsom, Stark, Smith, May 17, 1971, with attachment [Gaylord Nelson], S. 1794, To provide a viable alternative to the Nation’s rigid reliance on pesticides, 8 pp., files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  105. 91.
  106. 92.
    Lincoln, personal interview.Google Scholar
  107. 93.
    U. S. Congress, Senate, Pest Control Research, pp. 1–174.Google Scholar
  108. 94.
    James R. Brazzel, personal interview, May 26–27, 1978; J. R. Brazzel to D. R. Shepherd, July 21, 1970; and Ned D. Bayley, Parathion Safety Program, Pesticide Use Management, and Related Matters, unpublished paper, Nov. 30, 1970, files of J. R. Brazzel.Google Scholar
  109. 95.
    Carl B. Huffaker to Ned Bayley, Sept. 14, 1971; C. B. Huffaker to Steering Committee, IBP/NSF Proposals, Oct. 14, 1971; files of C. B. Huffaker; Huffaker, personal interview.Google Scholar
  110. 96.
    H. T. Reynolds to Carl B. Huffaker, Oct. 22, 1971; P. L. Adkisson to Carl B. Huffaker, Oct. 20, 1971; files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  111. 97.
    H. T. Reynolds to C. B. Huffaker, Oct. 22, 1971; Robert L. Rabb to C. B. Huffaker, Oct. 21, 1971; and T. W. Fisher to C. B. Huffaker, Nov. 9, 1971; files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  112. 98.
    C. B. Huffaker to Steering Committee, IBP/NSF Proposals, Oct. 14, 1971, files of C. B. Huffaker.Google Scholar
  113. 99.
    Huffaker, personal interview.Google Scholar
  114. 100.
    Donald B. Rice to William D. McElroy, Dec. 30, 1971 and Donald B. Rice to Earl L. Butz, Dec. 30, 1971, both in files of J. T. Callahan, NSF. Quote is from latter letter.Google Scholar
  115. 101.
    Huffaker, personal communication, July, 1979.Google Scholar
  116. 102.
    CEQ, Scientific review, p. 48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Perkins
    • 1
  1. 1.The Evergreen State CollegeOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations