Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:52:02 CDT From: "Hideka Kobayashi" <hkobayashi4@hotmail.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1559$foo@default> Subject: Research on Disease, etc
I responded to Jan since I though it was a private message. But I found it
was not, so here is my response (apparently I did not save the message I
sent to him):
Dear Jan:
<I do not know the figures exactly, but I would guess that not all ICPS
members are interested exclusively in remedies for pests of ill-managed
home-grown VFTs (BTW, there is a cp FAQ already)>
Well, I guess this would be very beneficial for somebody who 'actually'
grows Cps instead of somebody who just deals with them. Considering the lack
of response to this topic in general, you might be very right, though.
<and there may even be the odd member who is in fact interested in taxonomy
or evolution. So we should perhaps not try to polarize among the members but
rather to achieve a synthesis of all the various interests represented.>
In my previous message, I did not suggest anything like this (polarization).
I stressed out the importance of study in this area. BTW, I do not think all
molecular studies are obscure. Some are definately are, though. I support
any scientific studies that are practical, meaning there is some useful and
novel knowledge in findings. Not just economics. I went to a seminor by a
AOS research grant recepient, and I found there was a fatal flow in her
hypothesis (I won't discuss it here). In such a case, the society or a
average member does not benefit at all.
<<Considering the amount of annual due (AOS charges $40/year now), ICPS
might not have much money (this is not a criticism), but this would be
certainly they can investigate by cooperating with a univeristy diagnostic
lab.>>
<? I do not understand what is meant in the quoted sentence.>
This means that ICPS probably does not have money as much as AOS does. They
(AOS) are building the 2 million $ head quarter in Florida. They actively
advertise to the general public. They are also very good at generating money
for whatever they are interested. They are also involved in CITES
regulations, and some actually attend the CITES conference. Ned Nash (of
stewart Orchids fame) from AOS was interviewed for the segment on '60
minutes' last month. I guess ICPS does not have to imitate whatever AOS
does, but certainly there is no need to restrict activity as you suggest.
In US (I think it is true outside of US as well), many studies have been
done by researchers who are interested in the subject. For example, the
reason I worked on the daylily disease is, my advisor was interested. If
somebody at a university is interested in diseases and insects of CP (or
something else), that would be great help to find out about such problems. I
already talked to somebody I know for a cooperation even if he does not care
much about CPs to find out insect problems.
<How about looking for a grant from industries rather than from the ICPS,
especially if you want to study products that can reasonably be sold in a
market? We are a non-profit society (at least we are approaching this
status), and it would at least look strange if we were directly involved in
the production or improvement of pesticides (products with which millions of
US$$ are earned each year).>
This probably won't happen. You need to think about the size of the
industry. Orchids are in the process of becoming the major floriculture crop
(that's what they say), but they don't have such money. In addition, the
chemical industry won't be interested in developing something excusive for
CPs. There won't be too much revenue out of this. The pesticide companies
have to literally pour money to develop a new product, and there's a chance
that it won't be approved. They do make money, but not that easy for them.
I did not even mention the direct involvement of ICPS (remember? I am not a
member yet) in fungicide/pesticide test. I don't think it would look odd
even ICPS supports some fungicide or pesticide trials. AHS and PPS
(Perennial Plant Association) both supported my fungicide trials for
daylilies. I am sure both of them maintain the non-profit status. Needless
to say, we did not get money from companies that made those fungicides. Some
people have a weird idea, but researchers do this kind of study to reduce
the amount of fungicide used.
Probably, the most reasonable thing that we can do is survey. Yes, there
would be some inaccuracy but this would be still better than what is
available now. AHS (American Hemerocallis Society) has a scientific
committee and Round Robin (It's like a discussion group, I think) that does
a survey like this. But then again, it really depends on who is interested
and how many are interested. I think we need to move forward, or at least do
something.
Regards,
Hideka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:08 PST