The Social Impact
In his intro, Chuck Curtis of Ohio State described a course he teaches:
"...on social impact of plant diseases for science and non-science students... various cultural issues, worldviews, ancient and post-modern history, and several case studies."
The social impact of plant diseases can of course be trememdous; consider ergot, wheat rusts, and late blight of potato. Karnal bunt will not cause famine, mass emigration, or hallucination, but already local and international markets are disrupted.
Is it too early to add to Dr. Curtis' students' workload?
Gerald Holmes - 11:21am Jul 11, 1996 EDT (#1 of 8)
Univ. Calif. Coop. Ext. Imperial Co.
At a hearing before the
California Senate Committee on Agric. and Water Resouces, the
Calif. Wheat Commission mentioned that all the media coverage of
KB in the US is causing many countries to rethink their stance
regarding KB. These are countries that initially said they had no
problem accepting wheat from Imperial Co. (e.g., Italy) or
countries that have no wheat industry to threaten (e.g.,
Venezuela). Quick, drastic action by APHIS caused many to sit up
and take note. This drastic action coupled with media coverage
and ignorance can go a long way towards creating unnecessary
fears.
Chuck Curtis - 10:27pm Jul 12, 1996 EDT (#2 of 8)
Dramatic social impact
events are emerging here from the Karnal symposium papers and
participant comments. The interactions among significant national
and international political groups are quite telling about the
importance of the science of plant pathology. Stimulating a
lively student classoom debate via a case study would be easy
with some of these topics. For example, Dick Smiley presents very
interesting comments on our train transport system and potential
for regional contamination. Gerald Holmes also raises the
international complications and potential negative economic
impact on the usa prompted by less than informative media
coverage. This is interactive social impact the students would
enjoy and rarely hear about!!
Taylor Walsh - 01:45pm Jul 13, 1996 EDT (#3 of 8)
OnSite Interactive Productions
Chuck, you say:
"Dramatic social impact events are emerging here from the Karnal symposium papers and participant comments."
I take it from what you say that we're watching the first unfolding of whater the full impact is going to be.
I don't quite get a sense that it is yet "dramatic," but perhaps you can amplify on what you mean by characterizing this little forum in that way.
To the untutored like me, there sure seems to be quite a commotion over this affliction, and obviously people, companies, and research entities have shaped their work around it...and more will do so. This is a little hillock on the landscape, is it not?
Thanks.
Chuck Curtis - 07:55pm Jul 13, 1996 EDT (#4 of 8)
Taylor,
Yup, you got it! The drama is unfolding before us now in full public view thanks to this symposium and online coverage.
I am using 'dramatic' here in the sense of a sort of theatrical melodrama,--an exaggeration in dramatic effect to be more exact. We have seen a kind of theatrical production going on over the KB issue for a long time now with many actors (Much Ado About Nothing,... or is it?). Whether the drama finally plays out as a tragedy or a comedy we do not know just yet. But it is interesting to follow the events and debate on the interactions of science and struggles toward an appropriate social policy. In my experience, students love to hear about these types of issues that are often so common to us in the field.
In any case, these discussions certainly provide an excellent basis for interesting teaching material *smile* Thanks for your insightful comments. Chuck
Taylor Walsh - 11:34am Jul 15, 1996 EDT (#5 of 8)
OnSite Interactive Productions
Chuck,
I can't help but feel that whatever drama is in play here reflects standard tensions that arise in a situation in which people are not sure: a) what is going to happen, and b) what ought to happen. Which happens countless millions of times a day.
There seems to be agreement, at least among the participants here, that for this affliction of wheat, current quarantine policy is outmoded, or at least being executed in an inappropriate manner. As the impact of KB and the policy around it affect how business is conducted...which means jobs and trade issues...the whole thing starts to slide into the political soup.
As it starts that slide, the media may start to identify - or invent - "sides," and spot or foment points of tension. And then the drama, even though it is standard stuff, grows larger and more acute.
Is this what we are about to see happen?
Seems to me important not
to let the conversation (not just here, but all along the KB
front...) be overwhelemd by an overdramatized characterization.
Chuck Curtis - 10:29am Jul 16, 1996 EDT (#6 of 8)
Taylor, you have put your finger right on a sensitive contemporary issue with your comments on the 'political soup' and "...the media may start to identify - or invent - "sides," and spot or foment points of tension. And then the drama, even though it is standard stuff, grows larger and more acute. Is this what we are about to see happen?"
In my view, the really important features about the KB debate are not the scientific questions but the social impact it is causing with us. However, it is critical for us as scientists to fully understand and appreciate the news media's role. The journalist reporting on KB may be totally unfamiliar with plant pathology, underpaid, overworked, and know nothing about something called "Karnal Bunt." (!)
We need to deal with news reporters carefully if the real message is to be accurately conveyed by the media to the public. Rather than having 'pro and con' adversarial sides reported, there are steps we can take with the news media before we get labeled as a "menace to the public health." Getting the story right the first time is the key to understanding this risk, if indeed it is a risk.
The social impact is even
much more instructive, then, than the science of KB. The debate
provides us with the teachable moment. :)
Jack Riesselman - 11:55am Jul 16, 1996 EDT (#7 of 8)
Chuck: Greetings. I have a difficult time sorting out social and ecnomic impact of this fiasco. The dollars spent, directly are staggering, but I'm told it was necessary to protect our export market. If thats so, ok since Montana exports nearly 80% of its grain. But, in reality I'm not sure it was necessary.
No one has really looked
at the adverse economic aspects of this quarintine and overall KB
scare. It goes well beyond our borders. For example, just last
week an international plant breeder and seed supplier spent
several hours in my office relating his frustration. One country,
of many, recently canceled a million dollar order for seed
produced in AZ, tested clean, They were scared out by all of the
publicity. Its possible that APHIS will provide aid for direct
lost profit but since he makes aproximately 80% of his profit
from future royalities that direct aid does not go far in
compensation. But there is more, this country needs good, high
yielding, varieties to replace traditional lines that do not
perform as well in order to help feed their population. The KB
scare has currently stopped this introduction and thus production
will likely remain level. How will they acquire the grain they
need? Probably with assistance from USAID. I suspect this is both
a social and economic issue. Best regards!
Chuck Curtis - 10:40pm Jul 24, 1996 EDT (#8 of 8)
Jack, I appreciate that you raised an important point in your statement "No one has really looked at the adverse economic aspects" of this quarantine and overall KB scare.
One wonders how the costs of such an adverse
quarantine are actually measured...are they real dollars, and has
this ever been done before? -Chuck
© Copyright 1996 by the American Phytopathological Society