For Love or Money: This work is written from a particular point of view - mine - and I love roses. Many articles written on this subject, even some of those appearing in "American Rose Magazine", have been written by people whose main objective has been to promote the spread of RRD as a bioherbicide to control 'R. multiflora'. In some cases the authors knew little about roses grown for pleasure, and it shows. While there has been some exemplary work done in this field, I think it's time some of the work, especially the Iowa State University field tests (see chapter 8) by Epstein & Hill, receives additional scrutiny. |
I try to evaluate data objectively, but there should be no doubt where I stand on the subject of enhancing a virus to kill our National Floral Emblem - the rose. I'm against it! I am still learning. When I find out something new or that something I said is wrong, I'll post it. That's what science is about! The agenda here, quite simply, is to try to help people save their roses, to share knowledge freely, and to provide some balance in the discussion of Rose Rosette Disease. |
If my love of roses inserts a bias, so be it. I suggest it presents far less influence on my interpretation of data than the prospect of a cutoff of grant money did and possibly does for proponents of RRD (as a bioherbicide) the moment they admit it doesn't work. |
Sincerely, |
Ann Peck |