Cornell Report - Industry Response

[Neil Jones]

In message <374B562B.5FA0 at concentric.net> Paul Cherubini writes:
> Neil Jones wrote:
>  
> > The question isn't just whether there is a toxic effect, it is also whether
> > there is an ecological effect.
> > It is clear that distributing Bacillus thurigiensis "toxin" into the
> > environment will have effects on the predator prey system.
> 
> Neil, the Cornell researchers said this:
> 
>  ``It's certainly a serious potential problem,''[for the monarch
> butterfly] John Losey, of Cornell University, said in a telephone
> interview.
> 
>  ``If it's really having an impact on a large proportion of the
> population
> (of monarch butterflies) I think it is a very serious problem.'' [Losey
> said]
> 
>  ``Monarchs are considered to be a flagship species for conservation.
> This
> is a warning bell,'' said Linda Rayor, a co-author of the study.


This is where you fall down in examining the evidence.

Frist of all this is a _telephone_interview_. I have a great deal
of experience in talking to the press about the biology of butterflies.
I know that some UK members of this list noticed that I was quoted
in an article in the national newspaper "The Independent" recently.
Perhaps it would help if I were to explain my experience on that occasion.
I was telephoned by a reporter and asked lots of details on a butterfly
result that had been destroyed. I spent at least ten minutes on the phone
to him giving techincal explanations of the biology in my best layman's
terms. Describing the habitat explaining why in terms of its history
it was unique and the special plant communities that occured with the
rare butterflies. A little while after I got another call asking me
for more details on a point. I had to leave the phone to find a report
filed in another room in order to give detailed figures.

What got in the paper? A one line quote saying how abundant the flowers
were in the meadow! The rare butterfly at the site didn't get a mention.
(It was mentioned in a different context later in the article.)

At least this time the quote was accurate. I was quoted in the Times
(That is the London not New York Times)and only realised when a friend gave
me the tiny article weeks later that I had been totally misquoted. 

The reporter will have chosen the quotes to fit in with the general theme
of the story. Even then they do not support the connotation that you put on 
them. One says IF there is an impact there is a problem. Not there is an
impact so there must be a problem. It is a POTENTIAL serious problem
notice the conditional words. This is very typical of a trained scientist
examining the evidence carefully.

<snip> 
> Do you agree with the Cornell researchers and Professor Chip Taylor who
> insist it's conceivable that Bt corn pollen could have "an impact on a
> large proportion of the population of monarch butterflies"? (or as Chip
> Taylor said, reduce the size of the monarch fall migratory population
> "up to 100,000,000 butterflies" which is equivalent to approximately 50%
> of that population being wiped out)?

Where on earth did you get the Chip Taylor quote from?!!
 I have searched through all his postings and never once did I find this 
quote. Furthermore he consistently seems to be saying quite the opposite.

The quote from the researchers doesn't appear in the published paper
either.

I don't know what the impact is and _it_isn't_only_monarchs that might
be affected. For my part I a quite happy to see more research done
so we can increase our understanding of the issue.

Folks,

I have refrained from posting this information before. It is not
indended as an ad-hominem attack but rather as background information
for those unaware of a particular poster's reputation.

This is not the first time that Mr. Paul Cherubini has come up with the
idea that scientists are conspiring to misrepresent science for
personal financial gain.

I am also subscribed to the Monarch list Dplex-l. Mr Paul Cherubini has
acquired a reputation there for vitriolic attacks accusing scientists 
who disagree with his own personal pet theories of fraud. This has
had the effect of diminishing the input of professional biologists
much to the list's detriment.


The example below is the response of one eminent researcher who has gathered
up the courage to reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Brower replies to Mr. Cherubini's posting on Monarch Watch dplex
for 27 September 1998.

<snip>
Finally, you are very misinforming and misleading the readers of this web
page that, again quoting you:  "In my (= Mr. Cherubini's) opinion,
successful coexistence is a fact to find comforting, not one to feel
alarmed by [though it could be troubling for scientists who's success in
obtaining grants and donations to finance their research programs hinges on
their ability to sell the alarmist....." .

Mr. Cherubini, please stick to science and to concrete, documented
evidence.  Cease unfounded diatribes against me and my colleagues in the
scientific community.   Your insinuations that our motivation in promoting
protection of the monarch butterfly forests is based on desires to obtain
funding border on the libelous.

You have every right to promote  "factories, universities, subdivisions,
golf courses, pesticide maintained orchards, row crops, cattle ranches,
etc. in and around their ((the Mexican)) monarch habitats".   But Mr.
Cherubini, please do this at the ballot box or in some other appropriate
political arena.  We do not need pseudo-science and politicization to
diminish these good web pages.

Professor Lincoln P. Brower
Research Professor of Biology
Sweet Briar College
Sweet Briar, VA 24595
(Distinguished Service
   Professor of Zoology Emeritus,
   University of Florida)

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve