John H. Perkins

Morphogenesis in Schizophyllum commune

SummaryIn the basidiomycete Schizophyllum commune, a mutation in a locus coh-1 prevents the formation of cohensive masses of hyphae and thus precludes the development of fruiting bodies. The mutation does not interfere with dikaryosis. coh-1- is recessive to its wild-type allele and is unlinked to either the B factor or to the modifying mutation M14.

Boll weevil eradication.

Some representatives of the cotton industry and of the entomological profession advocate efforts to eradicate the boll weevil. This coalition originated in 1958 from a complex of socioeconomic changes in cotton production and scientific developments in entomology. The results of a pilot eradication experiment (1971 to 1973) were controversial, and the debate was inhibited by social pressures upon the entomological profession. Substantial conceptual difficulties also attend evaluations of eradication experiments. A new trial eradication program is under way. If its evaluation is not to be warped by problems similar to the earlier ones, both the social and scientific aspects of eradication must be recognized and steps must be taken to ensure a full and open debate.

Reshaping technology in wartime: the effect of military goals on entomological research and insect-control practices.

The insecticidal properties of DDT, a chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide,1 were discovered by Paul Herman Mueller of the Swiss firm J. R. Geigy S.A. in 1939. The material was introduced into the United States in 1942 in the midst of World War II. The subsequent development and adoption of DDT substantially altered insect-control technologies and practicies. The developmental work leading to DDTs adoption provides an interesting case study for examining major questions facing students of technology. What motivates the people doing research and development on potential new technologies? How do external social influences impinge upon scientists and affect the advances internal to the technology? The hope for economic gain has clearly been a major external factor, but it is not the only one. Aesthetic considerations and the world view of the inventor as formed by previous technologies have also been cited as significant external forces.2 In this paper, I will argue that yet another factor, the desire to achieve victory in World War II, was paramount to American entomologists in developing DDT. The stimulus given to the rapid development of DDT by mili-

A New Technology

Insecticides are the foundations of most insect control strategies in agriculture, particularly in the industrialized countries. Their present status as an integral part of agricultural technology reflects many successes in the invention and development of particular compounds for use by the farming industries. Moreover, reliance on insecticides presupposes a stable chemical industry to manufacture, formulate, and market the toxic materials. This chapter outlines the major events in the invention of insecticides and the development of the insecticide industry.

The Rockefeller Foundation and the green revolution, 1941–1956

High yielding agriculture in less-industrialized countries, the green revolution, has been both honored and criticized over the past twenty years. Supporters point to the increased food supplies produced with the new practices, but detractors argue that the new technologies are environmentally destructive, unsustainable, and socially inequitable. This paper explores the origins of high yielding agriculture in order better to understand how the arguments over sustainability and equity originated. The Rockefeller Foundation was an important agency in promoting the development of the new agricultural science. Its programs in Mexico and India, initiated in 1941 and 1956, were key building blocks in creating high yielding agricultural practices. The Foundation scientists saw rapid population growth as the main source of hunger and communist subversion. In order to alleviate hunger and instability, they created a strategy of agricultural development based on increased yields but paid no attention to the problem of distribution of harvested food. Sustainability was not recognized as a problem at the time Foundation scientists began their work. Indeed the technical successes of their programs prompted the development of concerns about sustainability. Equity of distribution was brought to the attention of the Foundation before it began its work, but the scientists paid no attention to the issue.

The Philosophical Foundations

We are now ready to reconstruct the philosophical foundations of entomology since 1945. Of particular importance are the presuppositions and concepts that were fundamental components of each of the major paradigms: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Total Population Management (TPM), and chemical control.

Pesticides: Historical Changes Demand Ethical Choices

Controversy over pesticides and pest control is no stranger to American life. Since the 19th century, public concerns have periodically ricocheted around the use of pesticides and other means of pest control. Frequently the criticisms have asserted in a moral tone that the action in question was wrong in some fundamental fashion. Understanding the moral dimensions of the use of pesticides, however, requires an understanding of the context of pest control actions. This context is complex and consists of (1) modernization and its impacts, (2) changes in American agriculture after 1945, (3) the obligations of pest control experts as professionals, and (4) how entomology developed in the United States. We discuss each of these contextual areas before turning to an examination of major ethical issues involving insect control.

Insects, food, and hunger: the paradox of plenty for U. S. entomology, 1920-1970.

Rachel Carsons Silent Spring (1962) is perhaps one of the best known books among all envi-ronmental historians, even the ones who have not done their research in the history of agriculture, pest control, or toxic substances. It is no exaggeration to say that Silent Spring had a catalytic effect on the creation of an environmental revivaln the U.S. and Europe during the late 1960s and the 1970s. The very fact that environmental history exists as a field of study can in part be credited to Carsons work. Despite the importance of Silent Spring and the controversy over pesticides in sparking wi de intellectual interests in environmental matters, historical investigations have just begun to reconstruct the context and substance of Carsons battle. Whortons Before Silent Spring (1974), Grahams Since Silent Spring (197U), and Dunlaps -DDT (1980) each developed im.portant aspects of the story.[1] In Efirs essay, another part of the subject is explored: the relationship among invention and innovation in pest control practices, the food supply, and hunger in the U.S. between 1920 and 1970.

The boll weevil in North America: Scientific conflicts over management of environmental resources

Abstract This paper is a historical and philosphical reconstruction of how U.S. entomologists attempted to mitigate the depradations of the boll weevil on cotton, the worlds most important natural fiber. The boll weevil caused severe losses in the U.S. after 1892. Early control methods were based on altering the cultural practices of cotton growers. The discovery in 1917 that calcium arsenate was an effective insecticide for boll weevils eventually allowed some farmers to rely on chemical control. Development of synthetic, organic insecticides allowed many U.S. growers after 1945 to rely heavily on insecticides for boll weevils. By the 1960s, resistance of boll weevils to insecticides, induction of secondary pest outbreaks, and environmental health hazards threatened cotton production practices based on insecticides. U.S. entomologists devised two new strategies to rescue cotton production from its insecticide crisis: integrated pest management (IPM) and total population management (TPM). Eradication of key insect pests such as boll weevils was envisaged by TPM entomologists with adequate technology. E.F. Knipling, the USDA entomologist who designed TPM, gave 1968 as a target for possible boll weevil eradication. The pilot boll weevil eradication experiment (PBWEE) was conducted in 1971–1973. IPM entomologists argued the futility of attempting to eradicate the boll weevil from the U.S.A., but TPM adherents argued for a second test, which was held in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina (1978–1980). A new controversy erupted over how to interpret the fact that a few boll weevils were found at the end of the second test. IPM and TPM entomologists were once again pitted against one another on three major issues: defining eradication; explaining secondary pest behavior; and drawing conclusions about the wisdom of a national boll weevil eradication program. Currently, entomologists have reached a stalemate over boll weevil eradication in the U.S. Some entomologists are attempting to synthesize opposing views in the hope of reaching a professional consensus on appropriate boll weevil suppression methods. Significant distinctions separate IPM and TPM and will make it difficult to achieve an agreement. Budgetary problems in the U.S.A. argue for a management rather than eradication stance against boll weevils. The split in the U.S. entomological profession could have adverse effects on efforts to develop insect-control science outside of the U.S.

History, Ethics, and Intensification in Agriculture

Every agricultural scientist knows that his/her specialty underwent stupendous changes between 1900 and 2000. What a century it was for the development of knowledge and a prodigious increase in the output of food and fiber for the world’s growing population. What is murkier is how ethical problems underlie the startling changes in agricultural practices and outputs. How, a good scientist might ask, can any ethical problems be associated with knowledge that can end famine and hunger? Surely it would have been immoral not to develop these sciences. Yet, often to the consternation of agricultural scientists, critics of high yielding agriculture have launched numerous ethical and moral attacks against the new practices. Are these charges true? And if so, what can agricultural scientists do about them? This chapter summarizes important historical trends affecting particularly interesting cases of agricultural change. The main argument is that science and technology are necessary but not sufficient to understand agricultural change. Other political economic, cultural, and ethical factors are also important. Scientists need to understand these issues surrounding agricultural change as they plan their future research.