io6 
Psyche 
[June-September 
campaign. When the cost of a campaign in dollars plus the losses in 
wildlife, stock or other resources destroyed begins to balance or exceed 
the benefits to be gained by eradication of the pest, then it is time to 
give thought to cutting off or drastically modifying the program. In 
such a case, side effects become main effects, and we should never 
forget it. The dangers involved in the mass use of pesticides has 
recently been dramatically recognized in Great Britain, 15 where a 
Parliamentary Investigation Committee of 43 Members has accused 
the Ministry of Agriculture of negligence in insecticide research and 
has recommended that pesticide use be intensively investigated and 
rigidly controlled, and has called for the “immediate prohibition” 
of heptachlor, dieldrin and aldrin. 
Our case histories illustrate another point: alternative control 
measures are increasingly available, and we should expect their devel- 
opment to be accelerated. The medfly and screwworm campaigns are 
shining examples of the results of real thinking and hard work, but 
most of all they point up the value of new approaches and a sound 
knowledge of the pest to be dealt with — in other words, they bear 
the stamp of thorough research. 
The issue is clearcut : in the face of a new and spreading insect 
menace, do we rush out the planes and the poison, or do we first find 
out what we ought to do and how it should be done, on the basis of 
adequate information ? 
The problem of urgency is sure to be raised in answering this ques- 
tion ; otherwise, there could be only one answer. In the light of past 
insect invasions, however, urgency has rarely been so great as to pre- 
clude some kind of research assessment of the problem before mass 
control could begin. Furthermore, research can be called upon to 
provide a sound body of general background information and princi- 
ples before the emergency occurs. Our insect control programs often 
lack this kind of a background, as the makeshift fire-ant campaign 
illustrates, but when they do have it, as in the case of the medfly, the 
success of control efforts may be rapid and brilliant. 
But in the USDA, entomological research is often hampered at the 
basic level. Even in such fundamental fields as insect taxonomy and 
morphology, USDA specialists are for the most part overworked and 
overcrowded. Daily the cartons of insects submitted for identification 
pile up on each man’s desk, and most of these highly qualifield research- 
ers must work on their own time to get any basic investigations 
completed. The same is often true of extension entomologists at the 
state level. Permanent workers in the new and vital disciplines of 
population dynamics and insect behavior have scarcely begun to be 
