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

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.

Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology

“…Conversely, the history of biocontrol research from the 1920s to the 1980s suggests that its success depended on institutional support by the University of California system (Warner et al, 2011). Biocontrol research once had its own departments, research facilities, and faculty at the land-grant universities of UC Berkeley, UC Riverside, and UC Davis, combined with an experiment station at the Albany Gill Tract.…”

An ethical framework for integrating biological control into conservation practice

“…By this definition, public interest science necessarily relies upon some expression of public consent and results in a non-commodity product (Warner et al, 2011). Raffensperger et al's (1999) definition was originally created for agricultural, rather than environmental sciences, but its key points are nonetheless helpful for the purposes of this chapter.…”

“…Five decades ago, few people considered the environmental consequences of their food and fiber choices; now many do. Many biological control scientists were inspired to join this field by Carson's work (Perkins, 1982;Palladino, 1996;Warner, 2007;Warner et al, 2011). Her critiques of the devastating impact of pesticide pollution on wildlife, and more broadly of the science, technology, and public policy that facilitated this widespread use of toxins, had broad impacts on American thought and institutions for a generation (Perkins, 1982;Andrews, 1999;Warner, 2007).…”

“…The rise of DDT and synthetic insecticides in the post-World War II era led to marked decline in biological control research (Gurr et al, 2000). The publication of Silent Spring and the rise of the environmental movement prompted a renewed interest in biological control research and its application (Warner et al, 2011). In Australia, the problems caused by the introduction of the cane toad (Rhinella marina [L.]) raised the public profile of species introductions.…”

The status of biological control and recommendations for improving uptake for the future

“…In California, USA, Warner et al (2011) reviewed public interest in biological control in institutions and attributed the decline of biocontrol activity to revised priorities for universities, increasing specialisation of biocontrol science combined with difficulties that growers and interest groups have in influencing science. DiTomaso et al (2017) referred to regulatory and political 'hurdles' which hinder biological control practice in the USA.…”