Revised August 22, 1997

Soil Doctor® System

The Precision Agriculture Bill

& Under-Funding the Public Sector

Over the last decade, many USDA offices and Agriculture Departments of Land Grant Universities have been underfunded. This underfunding has created an environment that is ripe for inappropriate, scientifically-insupportable, and even unlawful events.

Perhaps the most important of these events is the Precision Agriculture Bill (H.R. 725 and S.485 "Precision Agriculture Research, Education, and Information Dissemination Act of 1997"). The term "Right Message, Wrong Messenger" (coined by Modern Agriculture Magazine editor Greg Thomason in his April/May 1997 editorial) aptly describes a bill, which on the surface seems to be the much-needed Boon to U. S. Agriculture. Upon closer examination, however, it is more of a Boon to others. Authors of the Bill include the Fertilizer Industry and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL, managed by Department of Defense contractor Lockheed Martin). Representatives of each were called by Mr. Thomason for their public position on this Bill for his June 1997 editorial, but neither party was interested in being directly quoted.

Invariably, when discussing this Bill, someone will reasonably ask: "And what does the Bill itself say?" While the wording is indeed important, as it reflect's the wishes and good intent of Congress; the language of the Bill does not accurately reflect the intent of those individuals and organizations to whom this Bill directly applies, nor their practices. The importance of this distinction becomes apparent when one realizes that these organizations (the USDA and the DoE) do not always follow the language nor the intent of federal law, codes, etc. This bill promises to be no exception, more importantly however, this bill may actually serve to encourage more such inappropriate, scientifically-insupportable and even unlawful activities.

For Precision Agriculture to progress as everyone wants and expects, research so Fundamental, so Risky that no patent protection is available, must first be conducted to form the firm foundation of this progress. Private industry cannot afford to undertake such research, but more importantly . . . .

The Purpose of Government is to conduct High Risk, Fundamental, Research. In Agriculture, these include --but are not limited to-- long term regional studies on Nutrient and Manure Management, pH Management, Complex Cause and Effect Relationships (Small Plots), Water Quality Impact, Reducing Chemical Concentrations (Herbicide, Pesticide, etc.) --Now Against Federal Regulations-- , etc., etc. The information from all such efforts is critical to Science, Progress, and the Welfare of our Nation. Because the direct financial return to those who undertake such efforts is --by its nature-- limited, only Government can conduct such high risk research.

Free Enterprise, a cornerstone of this country, is based upon private funds benefiting private interests. Beyond Government, only a privileged few can afford an investment which benefits --Society as a Whole-- not just themselves. Unfortunately, the Precision Agriculture Bill is less about such fundamental research and more about a privileged few in the Public Sector "Competing" against the Private Sector with the Most Unfair Competitive Advantage Imaginable.

Socializing Technology, a cornerstone of communism, is based upon exploiting the accomplishments of individuals to place them under the control of a few. The Precision Agriculture Bill is more about exploiting the investments of the private sector to supposedly benefit --Society as a Whole--, as a privileged few in the public sector set out to benefit themselves in the process.

Regardless of its beneficial language, the Precision Agriculture Bill is about Government looking over the shoulders of the private sector, assuring Society that private industry's technology is inadequate, using that same disparaged technology as a base for Government's so-called "New" developments, and assuring Society that Government's technology is superior to that of private industry --All on Federal Funds.

To jump to the Troubling Aspects of the Bill, which follows.
 

Underfunding Agriculture's Public Sector

Accumulating momentum for this disoriented bill began over two years ago. It has been quite successful due, in part, to the Instability resulting from Underfunding Agriculture's Public Sector. While some universities have still been able to provide some of its staff with respectable research budgets, others have not. So, what, if anything, has occurred as a result of this underfunding?

Something far more intensive that the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) philosohy of dispensing advice to growers.

Less Funding of Agriculture Research Means
More Dependence Upon the Private Sector ---
More Dependence Upon the Private Sector Means
Not-So Unbiased Test Results and Technical Conferences
What value do you place upon studies of fertilizer "need" that were funded by the fertilizer industry? What value do you place on hybrid performance that was funded by just one hybrid seed company? What value do you place on No-Till studies that were funded, directly or indirectly, by a heavy machinery company? And what value should you place on the countless Precision Agriculture conferences which are heavily funded by the Fertilizer Industry and which never present any tangible signs of a "Precision" technology reliably increasing a grower's net profit by more efficiently distributing his fertilizer?
 
If a researcher perceives a choice of 1) An Unsure Future with Virtually No Research Budget vs. 2) A Secure Future with a Steady, Ongoing Research Budget, he is likely to at least subconsciously incorporate that choice into his test protocol, design, and even his data analysis. Similarly, if a conference organizer perceives a choice of 1) An Insecure Future for his Conference vs. 2) Secured, Sponsored, Annual Conferences; he too is likely to at least subconsciously incorporate that choice into the list of guests he invites to participate.

In the long run, it costs this country a lot less to fund these scientists directly with our federal tax dollar, than to have private industry appear to do it for us.

Less Funding of Agronomic Research Means
Less Agronomic Progress
Since 1991, CTI has visited with a number of respected, objective Midwest agronomists seeking to add to the body of unbiased, independent work conducted by Dr. Lloyd Murdock (University of Kentucky at Princeton). Time and time again CTI was told that the funding was just too tight to undertake such a study. Research budgets have been so tight, for so long, in so many universities; that some young journalists actually believe that if a manufacturer is not prepared to essentially pay-off universities to conduct "whatever" tests so that the universities will say nice things about the technology, that those manufacturers have "No Business" being in Agriculture, because "That's the way things work in Agriculture."
 
Less funding means less fundamental research and less technology evaluations which can be conducted. That, in turn, means less technology test results and less agronomic progress which can be attained. Nonetheless, one tactic used for gaining momentum for the PA Bill, as intended, was to imply and insinuate Laziness, Lack of Insight, and Disinterest in essential agronomic fundamentals and precision agriculture technologies on the part of the Agronomists and plant and soil scientists of the Land Grant Universities, Extension, and other USDA office.
 
Hence, a gross "need" for outside intervention into Agriculture, as contemplated by the intent of H.R. 725, was put forth.

More direct federal funding to our nation's agronomists and plant and soil scientists is the simple solution. Besides, the public must conduct this fundamental research, because 1) Fundamental Research is essential to the Progress of all Agriculture and 2) Fundamental Research is far too risky for the private sector to want, or to be able, to undertake.

Less Funding of Ag-Engineers Creates
An Uneasy, Often Biased Atmosphere
Logically, less funding means less fundamental technology R&D that can be done by scientists whose specific career objectives include such R&D. As such, what is the incentive for these scientists to look at pioneering private industry accomplishments with a fair, objective eye, to pat private industry on the back for an innovative job, truly well done? What purpose would that serve? To endure perhaps an even smaller research budget? For THAT is the real possibility. Still, some in Ag don't seem to understand such straight-forward issues of career survival when they favor the negative opinions of some of these engineers over the dramatically positive opinions of the growers who actually rely upon the same technologies, year-after-year.

More direct federal funding to fundamental technical research --research Truly Innovative by today's standards-- is, again, the simple solution.

A Decade of Under-Funding Motivates
The Public Sector To Wholly Ignore
The Innovative Accomplishments of the Private Sector
Asked above: What purpose would acknowledging the innovations of the private sector serve? --Especially since some of these public sector offices have been funded, for many, many years; with considerable funding to develop technologies Directly Competitive to those of the private sector, without the knowledge of Congress and without attaining any tangible technical success.
 
Consequently, USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and other bureaucratic public sector offices pretend as if many of the current innovative technologies of Precision Agriculture either Do Not Exist or Are Beneath Their Technical Standards (of which they themselves have None, having never successfully developed such technologies by themselves).
 
In addition to explaining the ready acceptance of HR 725, over a Decade of Under-Funding the public offices of Agriculture explains a number of otherwise "illogical" events, such as why the ARS will still not publicly release official water quality data collected from 1993 to 1995, which validates the substantial environmental benefits that the Soil Doctor® System can and does uniquely provide to U.S. agriculture.
 
Again: The public must conduct fundamental research, because 1) Fundamental Research is Essential to the Progress of all Agriculture (precision and otherwise) and 2) Fundamental Research is far too risky for the private sector to want or to be able to undertake.
 
Hence, more Direct Federal Funding to conduct Fundamental (Not Competitive, Developmental) Research --Research Truly Innovative by Today's Standards-- is the simple, straight-forward solution to the current maladies of U.S. Agriculture. (Also see Real Scientists)

Troubling Aspects

of the Proposed Precision Ag Bill

 

Stated earlier, this "Right Message, Wrong Messenger" bill, at face value, appears to be the much-needed Boon to U. S. Agriculture, but --as of July 1997-- the intent for H.R. 725 is severely flawed.
 
Consortia are to be favored for Grant Award. And, it just so happens that, the U. S. DoE and the USDA comprise a Complex Consortia, the most formidable Complex Consortia imaginable. Realistically-speaking, who exactly could "compete" against that? Favoring complex consortia makes "competitive" grants not quite as "competitive" as they sound?
 
Further, the DoE, through the subject legislation, has placed themselves into the "Matchmaker" role in this nation's Precision Agriculture Industry. DoE has prepared a data base of its pre-conceived notions of who would partner best with whom to formulate the companies that should and should not work together.
 
Obviously, if a company is not on the list, then it is "out of luck". "Officially" it is not in existence, much less a "valid" member of Precision Agriculture, and will therefore not even be informed of these so-called "Competitive" grants.
 
In this Agriculture budget, the middle-men are to be the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and its Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab (INEEL) contractor, Lockheed Martin. They are perceived "partners" of the USDA.
 
We all recognize the fact that Middle-Men automatically jack-up the cost of almost anything that we purchase. But in this case the impact is perhaps far greater than most would imagine and than some could actually comprehend.
 
This Indirect, Trickle-Down Funding of Agriculture, with Agriculture funds from the PA Bill was recently acknowledged at "Successful Farming" Magazine's @griculture on-line chat line by Neil Havermale (President of Farmer's Software, Fort Collins, Colorado and contributor to "Successful Farming" Magazine). In attempting to defend the DoE plan, he admitted that not all Agriculture funding (which he called "the DOE Precision Farming budget" would flow directly into the universities and other public agriculture offices. He confirmed that only the left-overs would "flow back into" those public Ag offices instead.(June 1997)
 
With government contracting, the simple Middle-man process can instantly result in perhaps as little as 1 out of every 5 Agriculture dollars eventually filtering its way down to Agriculture. That's 4 out of every 5 Ag dollars going to Non-Ag expenditures, like Middle-man overhead. Such overhead can include cafeteria operation and maintenance; paving parking lots; employee vacations, health benefits, and retirement plans; etc. of Lockheed Martin --or of whomever is to manage those grants for the DoE.

While CTI still regards Rockwell, International as a competitor, CTI believes in giving credit where credit is due. Rockwell, like Lockheed Martin (the Energy Department's partner in this Bill) is an Aerospace and Defense Contractor; but unlike Lockheed, Rockwell has invested in Agriculture, using its own internal funds, and has made a contribution to Agriculture through its equipment and its software. If Lockheed Martin is convinced that it has so much "expertise" to give Agriculture, then it can do as Rockwell has done and use its own money --not federal tax dollars-- to make its "contribution" to U.S. Agriculture.

To U.S. growers who are accustomed to "make do", to quickly and inexpensively repair $160,000 combines by themselves, using just a few hundred dollars of parts and their own labor, it may be next to impossible to comprehend or accept the practice of others --Middle-Men-- charging the U.S. government $200 for a mere hammer, $500 for a toilet seat, thousands for facility maintenance, etc. That, however, is the rate at which federal dollars can disappear when such Middle-Men are added to federal spending plans.
 
Evaluation decisions can be wholly arbitrary. Technologies can be either targeted, or their existence ignored altogether. Further, regardless of the language of the Bill, the results of the "evaluations" can be suppressed for years, just as the Agricultural Research Service is suppressing results of their Soil Doctor® Water Quality Study in central Illinois (data from 1993-1995), and as the DoE is suppressing reports of at least two precision technologies which it has managed, as of the writing of this page.
The emphasis will not be on directly funding Ag-Engineers to develop technologies which are Truly Innovative by today's standards.
 
Instead, the emphasis will be for Ag-Engineers to have the unusual opportunity to "evaluate" technologies that they themselves have been developing for decades (without any tangible successes) and to "evaluate" the current Precision Agriculture technologies (used and appreciated by real growers) of those against whom they aspire to compete....All on Federal Funds.
Funding for technology development is highly desirable, but in recent years has been in very short supply.
 
Further, funding for technology development will of course be based upon the perceived societal "need" for technologies which perform better than those just "evaluated". In other words, highly coveted development funding will not be forthcoming in the event that the findings are positive, that the products are found to perform well in the "evaluations".
With the arrogant attitude "Nothing Exists Until I Choose to Look at it and Choose to Report on it", dismissing the Existance and Validity of technologies upon which growers have been relying for as long as a decade has become an all too prevalent abuse among some in the public sector of Agriculture.
 
All the above combined Construct a Machine guaranteed to churn out Negative evaluations of certain technologies, simply because positive findings would not be in the best, special interests of some "evaluators".
 
Engineering Analyses have been proposed as essential components of these "evaluations". However, the only purpose for conducting engineering analyses --as opposed to adhering to Consumer Report-type testing-- is to learn exactly "How" or "Why" a technology works, including uncovering manufacturer trade secrets, to generate Knock-Offs of those technologies, not to generate technologies which are Truly Innovative by today's technical standards.
 
"Healthy competition",as it is being promoted, does not 1) Exploit public resources --resources which are infinitely greater than the limited ones available to private industry-- in order to 2) Compete against technologies funded through limited private means by private tax payers, by 3) Exploiting knowledge accessed directly through federally-funded, so-called "Official Evaluations".
 
Competition is a wonderful thing; but clearly, This is not competition.
 
On the Contrary, funding Trusted Public Servants to "evaluate" those against whom they aspire to compete (or against whom they have already been competing) and to "evaluate" themselves, then funding them to write an "Unbiased" Trusted Report of their "findings" (which will determine their future development funding), and then funding those same Trusted Public Servants to Develop Products Directly Competitive to those just "evaluated" --All on Federal Funds-- is perhaps the Best Example of the government providing some with "An Unfair Competitive Advantage" over privately-funded technologies.
 
What better way to discourage further private research and development?
The section which follows addresses that question.
 
The U.S. lab targeted to manage PA Agriculture Bill funds and the individual scientists planning to participate in these evaluations have a track-record of either taking or asserting boldly arbitrary, unscientific technical positions about alleged "scientific" tests.
and, with snide statements such as "We're Not the EPA, Mary!"(1988) , that the impact on U.S. Environment can also be deemed "Irrelevant" to a federal agency's technical inquiry. Only in 1997, did INEEL (formerly INEL) add the extra "E" to its name, which stands for "Environmental".
Such analyses, however, would be of no value whatsoever to those who simply want to know "If" a technology will work for them, not "How" it works on the inside --from a competitor's nuts and bolts viewpoint. That's correct, Those "evaluations" would be of No Practical Use whatsoever to those for whom that federal project was promoted to, and funded by, U.S. Congress to benefit --U.S. Growers.
From jumping up and down on system components, to installing key cables backwards, to asserting that the technology "must" do something that it was never intended, and will never be used, to do; results of such "Definitive Evaluations" can --in truth-- be wholly irrelevant to the true-life efficacy of the product. Simply ignoring straight-forward installation, operation, and maintainence guidelines can instantly, but artificially, "discredit" anything, including the best hybrid seed from the "best" hybrid company, and it happens all the time, in the arduous field of Agriculture. (See "Due Diligence")
 
Such arbitrary practices empower "evaluators" to give their "Seals of Approval" to the dismal failures of their friends and their "Poor Bills of Health" to the successful technologies of those against whom they aspire to compete --and over whom they then have achieved a Clear Unfair Competitive Advantage. Such evaluations would, in truth, serve no good purpose.
Recently, it has been expressed, over and over again, in Agriculture --by non inventors-- that it is wrong, even immoral, for inventors to maintain a proprietary right of ownership to their own inventions (to their own property) for the Good of Society, of course.
 
From reports asserting that patents enable inventors to charge outrageous prices, to the advice to boycott and blacklist products sold by technologists who keep their trade secrets Secret, to the mob postings on the @griculture chat line that echo the same socialistic "rights" to information; at present, Agriculture's public is constantly being advised that "Society Needs" complete access (the same as "ownership") to the proprietary intellectual property of private, Precision Agriculture companies, and that stating otherwise was "exhibiting paranoia", not defending ones legal right to ones lawful property.
 
A representative from Cenex Land O Lakes (a Major Fertilizer Distributor) even asserted that the smaller private companies need to divest themselves of their property (their trade secrets and patents) to give it to competitors for "the well-being of everyone" because that "is called progress".
 
That dialogue prompted the author of this web page to write and post "Society Needs", as a reminder of what it is that society actually does need, and from whom. That document was received with equal rancor from @griculture chat line frequent posters.
 
Hence, even if the history and intent of the "evaluators" were not as described previously, the current prattle could still be perceived as a popular "Mandate" to exploit the intellectual property of Precision Agriculture's private companies.
 
The vox populi alone could prompt those "evaluators" to act as "needed", prying trade secrets and other intellectual property out of the manufacturers and --through the resources of the federal government-- even challenging the more important lawful U.S. Patents --for the Good of Society, of course-- of course.
 
As such, Congress must take specific, written measures of oversight or the abuse described above will most definitely recur and occur through the well-intentioned bill. Further, such "evaluations" --on federal funding-- are Unconstitutional, and would result in an onslaught of litigation against offending parties.
 
Since 1982, the USDA has had repeated opportunities to invest and participate in pioneering Precision Agriculture technologies, but decided against it. (These include receiving numerous written offers of cooperation from certain private industries, for many years until the present.)
 
In 1982, the USDA chose instead to defer to the Fertilizer Industry and its expertise as its official position on the Precision Agriculture technology proposed. The Fertilizer Industry derided both the premise and the technology, asserting that there was No Need for such technologies, because there was No Need for more Efficient Usage of Fertilizer, and presumably of other agricultural inputs as well, and that such efficient usage was simply Not Physically Possible. As such, the USDA, by deferring to the Fertilizer Industry for its official position on precision agriculture technologies, discouraged other government offices from participating in the development of at least one of the current Precision Agriculture technologies.
 
More than a decade later, the derision continues, although the story and the motives are quite different.
 
Today, the derision is not to dissuade a federal agency from investing in one or more PA technologies. Today the derision is to prompt Congress and the public into funding the USDA and others such that they can enter the market to displace the PA technologies pioneered by private industry. Step One of this Displacement is to conduct Engineering Examinations of those Much-Derided products, regardless of the economic benefits documented by its grower-purchasers, a process that can only serve to generate knock-off technologies, not technologies which are Truly Innovative by today's standards.
 
After having just stood in the sideline for years, waiting for private industry --on its own, limited, private funds/private investment-- to develop, from ground level, innovative products and a ready market for those products; the USDA decided several years ago that it wanted to Dominate Precision Agriculture by getting the federal government to bank-roll the USDA's entree into PA, by putting-up far more tax payer resources for federal PA "evaluations" and development than private industry was capable of mustering for its innovative, pioneering endeavor in the first place.
 
The USDA, with the DoE, has decided to compete against private industry in the private industry-created field of Precision Agriculture, after private industry conducted almost all the ground work.
 
"Almost"? That's Right, private industry could not afford to conduct the necessary Fundamental Research, the research that the USDA is morally obliged to undertake, that Agriculture sorely needs, and that the Land Grant Universities Extension, and other USDA offices are eager to pursue.
 
Granted, the USDA has gone from having no interest in PA, to now wanting to dominate PA. And that looks like progress from where the USDA stood back in 1982. However, the Acting Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics in the Department of Agriculture recently stated, in a decline to yet another offer from a private PA company to cooperate with the USDA in its related endeavors and to help the USDA address the Hypoxia Zone in the Gulf of Mexico--, "reducing inputs of agricultural chemicals may not always result in long-term water quality improvements".
 
Her simple recent rejection is uncomfortably similar to the Fertilizer Industry's rejection of a method to more efficiently distribute nitrogen fertilizer back in 1982, an official position to which the USDA automatically deferred. The remark prompts one to wonder about the USDA's Strategy for and Sincerity in Improving Water Quality throughout the Midwest and regions downstream. (Also see Hypoxic Zone in the Gulf.)
 
Because those individuals and organizations who will be directly involved with this Bill do not always follow the code of federal rules and regulations, their practice and their intent more accurately reflect the future of the Bill, than does the Bill's actual language, which only reflect's Congress's good intent.
 
DoE has manipulated research funding and technology development for the purpose of funneling/"Transferring" promising technology and its R&D, --technology to which DoE has no legal right-- away from its legal owners, to the private organization which DoE feels should have the competitive advantage over the lawful owners OR to the contractor of DoE's choice. DoE has called upon the USDA to assist them in making such choices.(1986)
 
DoE has manipulated test criteria away from the project objective, for the purpose of wrongfully discrediting the promising technologies which DoE was unsuccessful at immediately "transferring". (1988, 1989, David Blanchfield, now at DoE Technology Development, Golden. Colorado)
 
DoE has manipulated the timing of project funding such that absolute, crop season test deadlines were almost impossible to meet, for the purpose of wrongfully discrediting the promising technologies which DoE was unsuccessful at immediately "transferring". (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, David Blanchfield)
 
DoE has contracted USDA employees to misrepresent themselves to private industry as caring, trusted public servants wishing to purchase a PA technology, to investigate it, and to "endorse" it (provided it performs for the grower as its developers claim), and to misrepresent themselves as caring, trusted public servants concerned with preventing a waste of tax payer dollars through "duplicating the effort", through developing technologies which have already been developed by the Private sector. The true purpose of the inquiry, however, was to enrich the competitive R&D efforts that the same USDA scientist was already conducting.(1991, John Hummel, Ubana, Illinois) Rather than something he sought to avoid (as he specifically mis-represented), "Duplicating the effort", with the unfair competitive advantage of using federal tax payer dollars to do so, was the actual intent the 1991 inquiry.
 
DoE has contracted other contractors to misrepresent themselves to private industry as sincere, typical grower-customers, interested in purchasing a technology for use as it was intended by the manufacturer. The true purpose of the purchase, however, was to gain full access to the technology, including engineering access, to enrich the competitive R&D efforts (knock-off efforts) that the same DoE contractor (the one favored by DoE over the lawful owners of the technology) was to conduct for the following three years, with the cooperation of the USDA.(1992-1995, John Hess, Ashton, Idaho, father of Richard Hess of DoE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab, INEEL, Idaho Falls, Idaho)
 
In those three years:
Nothing tangible was achieved with those many, many federal tax dollars; Nothing, not even a mere map. Meanwhile, the original contractors (the lawful owners of the technology) remain the only company in Precision Agriculture with independent, third-party corroboration that their technology reliably, year-after-year, increases grower net profit, as well as generates the most detailed soil maps available in the world today.
 
Keeping DoE's costly Ashton, Idaho failure in mind; it becomes easier to understand why a frustrated John Hess, in 1992, upon learning that the technology he was seeking to procure was not then agronomically proven for his region and would therefore not be sold for his agronomic application with DOE; bellowed to the private manufacturer, the lawful owners of the technology: "WE WILL BURY YOU!"
 
Ironically, had the USDA or the Land Grant universities had Adequate Funding to conduct the obviously-needed, High Risk, Fundamental Research, they might have proven --by that time-- that John Hess's intended use was an agronomically sound, proven one, and John and Richard Hess's quest, to procure the technology --against which they intend to compete with a knock-off they would call their own-- would not have been so thwarted.
 
Note: The lawful owners of the technology (the ones with grower-documented economic benefits) made numerous offers --in writing-- to the USDA, to cooperate with the USDA in its current research efforts, but the USDA repeatedly declined those offers, preferring instead to work with those who infringe upon, rather than with those who hold, the lawful U.S. patents.

Considering the Actual Practices Illustrated Above,

The following is a reasonable scenario to anticipate, over and over again, from

The Precision Agriculture Bill, regardless of its explicit, beneficial language:

 
A small Kentucky farmer develops an amazing, precise, cultivator controller; one superior to all others on the market at precise weed control, capable of varying cultivator sweeps in response to soil characteristics, with both minimal soil erosion potential and minimal horsepower consumption. The inspiration to create such a technology came from his personal need on his very rough and rolling fields and from his long-time dream to be a modern day Edison, Bessemer, or John Deere, to bring something of lasting value to Agriculture and to share the American Dream, that is supposed to come with all such events, with his loving family.
 
He privately develops the technology, through his personal sacrifices and those of his family, spending the greater part of his late fall, complete winter, and early spring spare time with his CAD/CAM system, breadboards, torch, welder, etc.; and investing his personal savings, his children's college fund, and his small retirement savings, year after year, for five solid years. DoE, through the competitive grants provided in the PA Bill, also provides some assistance.
 
As soon as DoE test findings appear promising, however; the DoE calls the USDA to confirm which large manufacturer should take ownership of the technology for future marketing and calls upon its favorite contractor to ask them to "complete" technology development. The calls are made --without consent of the lawful owner of the cultivator controller technology.
 
Simply put: the small Kentucky farmer is just not one of those envisioned by DoE to participate in the partnerships it planned. He simply does not "fit" with the Energy Department's profile of who should partner with whom in Precision Agriculture. The DoE and USDA are firm: "The farmer has none of the marketing resources available to the large manufacturer, he has none of the R&D facilities available to the massive Energy Labs, and, quite frankly, he just isn't qualified to take the technology any further." Without debate, the small farmer just can't compete with the others, and it is determined that he would only "stand in the way of the progress" (of his own technology). So he must go.
 
Nobody at the DoE or the USDA feels obliged to answer the farmer's simple question: "Why is it that --with their impressive resources and their impressive facilities-- the large manufacturer and the large contractor, who are so 'unequivocally superior' to the small farmer, didn't come up with the innovative technology in the first place?" The DoE and the USDA persist that the small farmer will just get in the way of "the progress that this nation needs". "Besides", they remind, "The second test proved the first test to be completely wrong and proved that the farmer's technology was actually ineffective." (Unlike the first tests, however, the second round of "testing" had nothing to do with cultivating.)
 
The farmer protests, asserting that the government is discriminating against him because he is small, but the government confidently counters with a list of small business "Partners" to "prove" the farmer's allegation wrong. Among others, the list includes a software vendor from Colorado, a computer peripheral vendor from Washington, a Magazine from Iowa, a grower from Idaho, and others who the small farmer vaguely remembers as quietly encouraging the bill past the public. The "disqualified" farmer asks the government what exactly are the technical contributions made by those Partners which qualifies them as "Partners", and the government claims that these are all determined on a case by case basis and asserts that it would be unfair to discuss their many complex contributions to the nation with him. He comes to the end of his side of the debate in defense of his ownership to his own property.
 
With the compassion typical of a cold, invasive government, DoE and USDA protest: "Why's he whining? . . He got money from us, didn't he? . . Well then. . . Besides, his technology actually proved useless in the real test." The project is then transferred to the contractor.
 
A couple of years pass. Minor modifications have been made to the technology, and results from a third test series --not unlike the first-- are again positive; however, current performance by the knock-off is not nearly as high as the performance, two years prior, by the original. All Partners notice the disparity, but as "team players" no one documents the results such that the public could ever detect the whole truth of those three test series.
 
The technology attributed to the Partnership is hailed a complete success, as is the DoE-conceived Partnership itself. It is is then confidently and authoritatively "transferred" from "government" to private industry, by the Federal Government, with the lawful owner receiving no credit for his creation or his property --with both credits going to the "brilliantly creative Partnership" for "all development, from the ground on up".
 
Within two years of marketing (Five years after original testing), the large manufacturer abandons the Partnership modifications. As a result, the technology performs well, the large manufacturer capitalizes upon the resulting testimonials, and the technology greatly enriches the income of the large manufacturer. Windfall profits are possible because the manufacturer pays only tiny licensing fees to the Partners (since income generation is not the purpose of the Bill's efforts) and because the selling price of the controller does not reflect the low R&D expenditures by the large manufacturer. This success and others are exclusively announced first in the Iowa Ag-magazine, then in the others. Congress is impressed, and votes to allocate significantly more funds for these Partnerships.
 
Fundamental science research by Land Grant Universities, Extension, and other public offices is still deemed less important, so many complex cause and affect relationships remain addressed, and the public remains under the impression that the plant and soil scientists are still Lazy or Out of Touch.
 
And the Small farmer's Major Role in all this "Success"? Less than a footnote in the government's "Official" findings.
 
Although the small farmer did take the wise precaution of filing a patent, following all the bureaucratic rules and regulations and paying all the steep filing and maintenance fees, U.S. Patent law as of 1994 entitles the DoE contractor (or anyone who knows of the patent filing's existence) to review the unissued patent well before award and to subsequently dedicate countless costly man hours in preparing a more refined, professional-looking patent, which is exactly what the DoE contractor does. The resources of the Federal government are then called upon to assist the federal lab in successfully challenging and defeating the perceived liability to "progress" (the small contractor and his patent) immediately upon patent issuance.
 
About three years after being "disqualified" from participating in one of DoE's much-hailed Partnerships, an ARS engineer calls the Kentucky farmer about the farmer's variable rate planter controller development, which he had briefly mentioned to one of the Partners those years before. It is the fourth such call from a Partner.
 
The first was from an engineering professor who said they should develop a relationship together such that they could both "share and exchange" technical information and ideas. The professor was told: "No, thank you." The second was from a DoE/NASA contractor. He insisted he had to have one for "official" government business. He was told: "I don't think so. And the third was the Idaho growers who said he would like to test the controller in Idaho --as a kind of a favor to the farmer. He offered immediate cash payment, and became threatening when the farmer insisted that the VR planter controller was just not ready for Idaho conditions.
 
The fourth, the ARS engineer, says he is calling to find out about the farmer's progress; stating that if the farmer's controller tests well for him, the Partners would not want to "endorse" the technology and avoid conducting comparable technology development because they wouldn't want to "duplicate the effort". The truth, however, is that the Partnership has been working on a VR planter controller for years (a fact the farmer knew for years), and is stuck for some effective, innovative, technical approaches.
 
Recognizing an obtainable carrot when he sees one, the farmer tells the engineer to just forget about his controller. He reminds the ARS engineer that there are other VR controllers --by private industry-- , that they have been on the market for many years, and he asks the ARS engineer why the Partners want to compete against them. "Forget about mine", he says. "Why duplicate their efforts?" The farmer is told:"The government has many obligations and responsibilities you just wouldn't understand", and the conversation is ended. Finally, it appears that the farmer will be left alone, finally. Although subjected to derisive claims of "paranoia" by a few "Partners", the now wary farmer recognizes their motives and continues to avoid all such further "help" from his federal government.
 
A couple of years later, the farmer releases his VR planter controller to the market and --because it incorporates some of the winning aspects of his cultivator controller, for the rough and rolling grounds-- his customers are thrilled with the product. As for the original VR controller, on the market for many years; although it is still much admired by its customers, it is "Officially" found by government engineers to be "inadequate", wholly contradicting documented grower praise. The "evaluations" found that the controller developed by the Partnership --although absent any grower corroboration-- performed infinitely better than the one with grower corroboration and developed through private funds.
 
And what about the "Official" findings on the small farmer's controller, the one over which the Partners obsessed, using almost every ploy imaginable except for "Candy-Gram" ? "Officially", neither the grower nor his controller exist. Unofficially, the ARS engineer --who addresses perhaps thousands of motivated grower-buyers every year-- assures the public "It doesn't work", counsels them to "Wait till ours is on the market.", and further advises:"If it really worked, they would ask me to evaluate it." The Iowa farm magazine and other Partners help maintain the full illusion, and the Partnership (the DoE, USDA, and others), from --the Offices of the U.S. Department Secretaries on down-- maintains that they have never done anything to interfere with, or undermine, the small farmer's business, progress, or life.
 
That's right. With the arrogant attitude "Nothing Exists Until I Say it Does", a technology which they plotted and plotted to attain, using one ploy, then another, is instantly, "Officially" buried. The obsession over the technology was so strong, so reckless, that years before, within forty eight hours of those government scientists receiving a confidential proposal from the farmer regarding that technology, a Canadian engineer called the farmer, told him that he was too small to sell anything he had invented, revealed confidential details found only in the new proposal, and insisted --insisted-- that the farmer must get out of the way of the progress of his own technology, that he must let the Saskatoon engineer's company have the techology to market it. In a conversation with renowned scientist J. Julian Smith, PhD, (now with Ag-Chem), the farmer learns that the Canadian engineer cornered Dr. Smith in a trip he was pushed into taking to Saskatoon, to pump him about the farmer and the farmer's technology. After hearing that the Canadian claimed to be big enough to professionally market any technology, Dr. Smith laughed and said: "But Rogers Engineering is only Barry and his dog."
 
Yes, the Partners were as reckless as they were obsessive over the farmer's controller, and still "Officially" the technology does not Exist.
 
As for the farmer's patent protecting the proprietary aspects of his rough terrain VR planter controller; Well, having refused further "help" --both technical and financial-- from his government, the farmer is successfully issued that patent. Unfortunately, the Partnership is ramping-up, spending an amazing number of manhours to challenge it, with the resources of the federal government, of course.
 
Although clearly unlawful; all such activities, including transmitting confidential technical material out of the country, fall beneath the interest threshold of the Inspector General's office, which is primarily concerned with contractors who steal from the government, not vice versa.
 

So Goes the American Dream, Disillusioned and Almost shattered,

As all such things occur

--"For the Good of the Country"-- of course.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

No, this isn't "Competition". This isn't "Free Enterprise".

This is Socializing Technology,

where a Privileged Few in the public sector

Exploit private investments --through public funds-- to benefit themselves.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

And what about those Technological Innovators

Who never thought they would need a patent or anything

To protect them and their property from their own federal government?

Well, They were the Easiest Ones to Exploit, "Bury", and Take Credit for.

=======================================================

 
In the non-theoretical case preceding the theoretical one above, the DoE did lose its fight to "transfer" and postponed their challenge or "march in" of the patent (perhaps waiting for this Bill to pass); but only through the persistent and exhaustive efforts of the small contractor and the extraordinary intervention by a powerful, senior Congressional figure.
 
In the collective mind of DoE, however, they claimed that they lost that fight --not because they were attempting to do something that was clearly unlawful-- but because the supposedly "unethical" contractor "got Special Treatment, through their Very Special Friend". That warped perception, which denies the illegalities DoE attempted and instead projects malfeasance --as unethical as nepotism-- on the part of the contractor, is perhaps the saddest aspect of that story and, so too, of the future of the PA Bill.
 
The DoE's behavior in these matters is exemplary of its Practice and its Mind Set, and therefore is the way U.S. tax payers can and should expect DoE to manage funds from the Precision Agriculture Bill. Regardless of the explicit, beneficial language of the Bill, the present focus (1997) --by those actually targeted to conduct the work-- on engineering analyses (instead of practical, in-use testing for the benefit of growers) and on "Definitive Evaluations" taking on whatever shape might please the "evaluators" (also 1997) certifies the intended use of the Bill, again, regardless of the Bill's explicit beneficial language.
 
Without explicit instructions and strong oversight by Congress; given all of the above, there will be no such thing as objective, fair award and administration of the "Competitive Grants" provided for in the Precision Agriculture Bill by DoE-INEEL or by those who have assisted them in the above abuse.
 
Unlike today, those public servant administrators and scientists need to feel, to clearly understand, that if any "public servant" uses the Precision Agriculture Bill to behave in an unethical manner, whether similar to that illustrated above or not, the penalties to them --by the federal government-- will be swift and certain, and the immunity they enjoyed in the past will be just that --in the past.
 
From Requisite Middle-Men, to Competitors "evaluating" Competitors and further Funding Dependent fully upon the Outcome of their "findings", to "Evaluations" which can have virtually Nothing to do with the Purpose for which the technology was conceived, developed, sold, and bought to do, Do we really want to establish such a pattern for future bills?
 
Neil Havermale (President of Farmer's Software and contributor to "Successful Farming" Magazine) asked Crop Technology, Inc.(June 1997) on the @griculture chat line, what it feared from this Bill.
 
The answer is simple: What all U.S. citizens should fear from this and any other bill . . .
to be perpetuated in future bills in Agriculture and beyond. Such practices must be stopped, not perpetuated.
 

The Precision Agriculture Bill can

Serve the Public, as Intended by Congress, or

Serve Only those Administering the Funds, as Revealed above.

 

Congress must take specific, written measures of oversight to prevent the above abuse from recurring through the well-intentioned bill; particularly since these organizations have claimed themselves and their decisions to be "sovereign", above all legal authority, even that of their own Washington review board, by the power granted them by the "Magna Carta". Yes, England's England's "Magna Carta".(1992)

===============================================

For an independent view of what constitutes proper scientific conduct; the following, prepared by the National Academy of Science, is offered:

On Being a Scientist

Responsible Conduct in Research
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

PREFACE
"The scientific research enterprise, like other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. SCIENTISTS TRUST that the results reported by others are valid. SOCIETY TRUSTS that the results of research reflect An Honest Attempt by scientists to describe the world Accurately And Without Bias. The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT."


1 800 N DR - CROP (800 637-2767)
FAX: 281 370-2470
E-Mail: colburn@soildoctor.com


Copyright 1997, 1998 Crop Technology, Inc.
All Rights Reserved