102 
Psyche 
[June-September 
that lend themselves to simple control, methods, while others are just 
naturally tougher, faster-spreading or faster-breeding, and defy all 
control methods that have been tried. However, it is also evident that 
the four programs do differ considerably among themselves in basic 
ways, especially in the resourcefulness and insight of their planning 
and operating personnel, in the kind and amount of information upon 
which control operations are based, and in the adaptability of the 
operating plans to conditions as they are met while the campaign 
proceeds. The first factor — personnel — is of course very difficult 
for one outside of the agencies involved to evaluate, and in any case, 
judgements are bound to be influenced by hindsight according to the 
success of the particular program concerned. 
The second factor for analysis is the nature and quantity of the in- 
formation on which each program proceeded. Ideally, of course, a 
control campaign is based, on a full knowledge of the target pest, its 
life history, ecology, physiology and behavior; on a basic understand- 
ing of the efficacy of various, methods that might be used against the 
target; and on a reasonable assurance that these methods do not have 
seriously harmful effects on valuable plants, animals, microorganisms, 
inanimate human property, or on man himself. Such knowledge, of 
which we can never get enough, is provided by previous investigations, 
by pilot trials, and by continuing evaluation of operational results. 
These activities, collectively known as research, are the counterparts 
of intelligence-gathering in a military campaign. The public as well 
as the technicians involved have come to take research for granted in 
insect control programs, just as they confidently assume that the proper 
tests of safety have been applied when a new antibiotic or vaccine is 
issued by medical authorities. 
If we look at the details of the four projects as they have been dealt 
with in recent years, the differences among them, in research effort are 
very striking. The research behind the screwworm program: has been 
extensive, imaginative and persistent, and obviously it has paid off 
handsomely. The second medffy campaign, unlike the desperate, 
scorched-earth first one, was carried out with an efficiency grounded 
on solid long-term research into the bionomics of fruit flies in general, 
particularly that conducted by L. F. Steiner and his colleagues in their 
Hawaiian installation. Here again, it is clear that previous research 
was crucial in a successful eradication campaign. 
The gypsy moth campaign has the longest history, and also the 
oldest research program, of any of the four efforts considered here. 
In the years before mass air-spraying, many kinds of measures were 
tried against the moth, including the introduction of natural enemies 
