North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Anton Callaway <marillen@earthlink.net>]

That was a pretty good summary, Tom.  Makes me think you went to grad school. 
 There is one other major (the biggest?) factor that determines whether or 
not work is published... politics within the Ivory Tower.  If you belong to 
the "club" your work will be published with little difficulty.  Once you are 
a "made man", you are untouchable.  If you are outside the club, you'll be 
lucky to get even groundbreaking work in a significant journal.  There are 
still excellent scientists in academia, but they are becoming fewer and fewer 
as politics takes the front seat.  It's a real shame.  America was once the 
unquestioned leader in the sciences.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Amlie & Hayas <tamlie@netscape.com>
>Sent: Mar 28, 2009 8:01 AM
>To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
>Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Fw:  mychorizal fungal rip off?
>
>We can generalize this even further (beyond the area of "funded research") 
>to academic research in general.
>
>Almost all academic research is done to either (a) get tenure at a 
>university, (b) get promotion at a university, or (c) pad the resume. 
>Published research is the "coin of the realm" in academia.  With it, your 
>career blossoms.  Without it, you're on the street.
>
>What gets published?  Well, sound scientific usually stands a good chance, 
>but more important is the sensational "man bites dog" story, or research 
>which confirms the journal editors' prejudices.  (I'm trying to resist the 
>urge to take a gratuitous swipe at much of the global warming research or 
>some of the other cause-celebre research issues.)
>
>Every now and then we hear about "scientific studies" from some academic(s) 
>where you think "why in the world did someone research this?".  To usage 
>imagery from "It's a Wonderful Life", every time you see questionable 
>research published (every time a bell rings) an asistant professor somewhere 
>gets tenure.
>
>Tom Amlie
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Max Robinson" <maxrobinson@wv-cis.net>
>To: "North American Fruit Explorers" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 8:40 PM
>Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Fw: mychorizal fungal rip off?
>
>
>> There is a great deal of deception in marketing products, but the faith 
>> that
>> I see in "scientific research" is more troubling to me. I worked for 12
>> years as a Research Assistant at a Medical School, and before that 2 years
>> as a Graduate Student. I confess that I am disillusioned. It's not that
>> there is not great deal of important and reliable research out there, but
>> the system is open to abuse, and the faith that we as a culture put in
>> research makes it an attractive target for deception.
>>
>> Research is usually very expensive, and researchers usually do not have
>> funds given to them by their employer to undertake research on their own. 
>> So
>> they must become grant writers.
>>
>> The entity that gives the grant controls the research, not directly, but 
>> in
>> two important ways. First, they decide what questions get asked. If the
>> researcher has a question of his own, he must find someone with money to 
>> be
>> made from his question, or he is out of luck.
>>
>> Second, the grantor retains the right to decide if, and where,  the 
>> results
>> will be published. So trials that don't find a result that the money 
>> source
>> is interested in never see the light of print.
>>
>> This is even worsetham it sounds, becausse the way a researcher wins 
>> grants
>> is by showing all the successful research he's done that has been 
>> published
>> in the past. If his past few projects didn't find something that his grant
>> source wanted to publish, he probably won't get any more grants, and his
>> career grinds to a halt. There is tremendous pressure to make sure he
>> designs his experiment to find a "good" result.
>>
>> And even if his research finds something great, and it gets published, if
>> someone doesn't pay to get it into the mass media, the public never knows
>> about it.
>>
>> I'm a blueberry grower. About 20 years ago, the large blueberry growers
>> decided to "tax" themselves a small percent of every pound sold for 
>> research
>> and development. They paid several researchers to find something wonderful
>> about blueberries, and several did (of course). These were published in
>> scientific journals, and then millions of dollars were spent to get the 
>> news
>> into every possible outlet. And now we all know that blueberries have
>> antioxidants, and hundreds of people show up at my farm to pick because
>> they've been told that blueberries will add years to their lives.
>>
>> I'm sure that blueberries are good for you, and we should eat more fresh
>> fruit; but this process was not the finding of some independent, 
>> altruistic
>> researcher; it was a very expensive, high-tech advertising ploy to rescue 
>> an
>> overproductive agricultural industry from price collapse. It worked, by 
>> the
>> way. And most of the research that you see every day is part of the same
>> process. Someone has an agenda.
>>
>> Most of us know not to trust advertising; we should also be skeptical of
>> advertising with a Ph.D.
>>
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mark Angermayer" <hangermayer@isp.com>
>> To: "NAFEX" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:55 PM
>> Subject: [NAFEX] Fw: mychorizal fungal rip off?
>>
>>
>>> Strangely, I find myself agreeing with both Bill and Donna, and thought
>>> they
>>> both had some very good points, even though the points seemed somewhat
>>> conflicting.  On the one hand, black and white research has limitations
>>> because of statistical variance (it's sometimes amazing how conclusions
>>> are
>>> drawn from such tiny samples), or not considering enough variables in
>>> setting up the research (i.e. testing mychorizal on numerous different
>>> soil
>>> types).  Sometimes it seems research limitations are built in because
>>> there
>>> is rarely enough funding to do exhaustive research.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, it is frustrating to sometimes see whole industries
>>> built
>>> on nothing but anecdotal evidence.  Some industry selling foo foo powder
>>> will jerry rig their own research to support their conclusions.  Then,
>>> when
>>> there is no MAINSTREAM research to support them, they claim the
>>> universities, corporations, doctors, government, etc. are being paid-off.
>>> Supposedly, it's all one big conspiracy. Our human mind is very tricky.
>>> It
>>> will accept what we "want to believe" first, then rationalize the facts 
>>> to
>>> fit, all the while fooling us into thinking we have found the truth of 
>>> the
>>> matter.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> KS
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "William C. Garthright" <>
>>> To: "North American Fruit Explorers" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] mychorizal fungal rip off?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > There have been discussions of foliar feeds on this group with many
>>>> > folks saying they do nothing.  Well, nothing compared to what?
>>>> > Nothing compared to a garden in Iowa soil I can understand.  But with
>>>> > worthless soil, anything a plant can get is noticeably helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a very good point, Donna. Our situations are all different. But
>>>> one big problem with this kind of discussion, from my point of view, is
>>>> simply that anecdotes aren't evidence. Without peer-reviewed, duplicable
>>>> scientific research - with careful controls and, if possible,
>>>> double-blind precautions - it's really hard to know for sure what's real
>>>> and what's just an artifact of our expectations, beliefs, and hopes. And
>>>> I must add that much of what I hear about mycorrhizal fungi and foliar
>>>> sprays is from people who are selling the stuff (not that I think that
>>>> they're lying, only that it's even easier in such a case to fool
>>> ourselves).
>>>>
>>>> Let me be clear that I know NOTHING about mycorrhizal fungi (the
>>>> original topic here) myself. I did use it when I planted my fruit trees,
>>>> vines, and bushes in my backyard, because I figured that it couldn't
>>>> hurt. But I have no idea if it was a waste of money or not. So I am not
>>>> criticizing the practice. I just don't know.
>>>>
>>>> But I do know that I like the scientific approach at this Horticultural
>>>> Myths website:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/index.html
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6d8ye6
>>>>
>>>> At a quick glance, I don't see any articles about mycorrhiza, but here's
>>>> a good example of an article about compost tea which clearly explains
>>>> about scientific research:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/magazine%20pdfs/CompostTea.pdf
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ct8lmq
>>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to say - in my own long-winded way - that I'd prefer
>>>> scientific evidence, one way or another, about mycorrhizal fungi,
>>>> compost tea, and pretty much everything else that I might use in my
>>>> life. It's not always available, in which case we must do the best we
>>>> can. But there are always so many other factors that can affect personal
>>>> anecdotes - including our own individual situations, as you note, but
>>>> also our different levels of expertise, attention, expectations, and
>>>> even chance.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm,... maybe I'll send an email to Dr. Chalker-Scott requesting an
>>>> article about mycorrhizal fungi. I really would like to know what
>>>> scientific research there's been on adding it to new plantings. (As you
>>>> suggest, I suspect that it depends on WHERE you're doing the planting.)
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> Lincoln, NE (zone 5)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Last September I gave my Jack Russell terrier, Daisy, all of my money to
>>>> invest. She promptly dug a hole in my backyard and buried my entire nest
>>>> egg. Since then, I've beaten the S & P 500 by more than 50 percent. Now,
>>>> you're probably wondering, what if your dog isn't as smart as Daisy? No
>>>> worries. He's probably still smarter than you. - Andy Borowitz
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nafex mailing list
>>>> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>
>>>> Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
>>>> This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web
>>> sites.
>>>> Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have
>>> permission!
>>>>
>>>> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
>>>> Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
>>>> No exceptions.
>>>> ----
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be
>>> used to change other email options):
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>>>>
>>>> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
>>>> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
>>>> Please do not send binary files.
>>>> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>>>>
>>>> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nafex mailing list
>>> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>>>
>>> Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
>>> This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web
>>> sites.
>>> Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have
>>> permission!
>>>
>>> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
>>> Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
>>> No exceptions.
>>> ----
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be
>>> used to change other email options):
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>>>
>>> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
>>> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
>>> Please do not send binary files.
>>> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>>>
>>> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nafex mailing list
>> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
>> This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web 
>> sites.
>> Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have 
>> permission!
>>
>> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
>> Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
>> No exceptions.
>> ----
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be 
>> used to change other email options):
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>>
>> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
>> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
>> Please do not send binary files.
>> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>>
>> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>nafex mailing list 
>nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>
>Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
>This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites.
>Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!
>
>**YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
>Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
>No exceptions.  
>----
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used 
>to change other email options):
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>
>File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
>TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
>Please do not send binary files.
>Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>
>NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/