IPM VOICE Workshop Raises Many Questions for Workshop Participants Soum Sanogo, Integrated Plant Disease Management Committee Chair, ssanogo@nmsu.edu At the request of APS President Barbara Christ, Soum Sanogo, chair of the APS Integrated Plant Disease Management Committee, attended the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) VOICE Workshop held December 1–2, 2009, in Phoenix, AZ. The workshop was sponsored by the NSF Center for IPM and the Participants at the IPM VOICE workshop in Phoenix, AZ. United Soybean Board. More than 30 attendees, representing industry, federal agencies (EPA, USDA NIFA, and CDC), universities, and private foundations were in attendance. The workshop was the culmination of consultations among members of the newly formed Planning Group who agreed on the need for a nonprofit organization, IPM VOICE, to provide a pedestal for advancing IPM research, education, and extension within the United States. The Planning Group, formed after the 6th International IPM Symposium, consisted of the following members: Harold Coble, USDA ARS OPMP; Marty Draper, USDA NIFA; Sherry Glick, EPA; Tom Green, IPM Institute of North America; Larry Gut, Michigan State University; Carrie Koplinka-Loehr, Northeastern IPM Center; Tom Melton, Center for IPM; Curt Petzoldt, New York IPM Program; Jim VanKirk, Southern IPM Center; and Frank Zalom, University of California-Davis. The Planning Group’s draft mission statement: “IPM VOICE advocates for progressive integrated pest management (IPM) that provides genuine environmental, social, and economic benefits. We support sound science—derived through accepted principles—that enables the best pest management choices for any current situation and continually develops new knowledge to create better choices in the future. We recognize and applaud the many advances in IPM research, implementation, and adoption to date, and also recognize the urgent need to further advance IPM by developing and adopting new techniques to address emerging environmental and social challenges. We celebrate the diversity of philosophies and approaches within the IPM community and unite in support of the broad foundation upon which we strengthen and advance IPM.” The Phoenix workshop was a follow up to the work done by the Planning Group for IPM VOICE with the purpose of discussing the idea of creating IPM VOICE and its mission. Attendees were asked to provide personal and professional hopes and hurdles as to the purpose and outcome of the workshop. Following the hopes/hurdles session, attendees were assigned to work in groups in order to tackle four questions: 1) What does progressive IPM mean?; 2) What does advocacy IPM mean?; 3) What are the top audiences for IPM?; and 4) What are our messages? From group reports and ensuing discussions, several issues were raised: 1) Definitional issue. The use of the terms “progressive” and “advocacy” generated a lot of concern. Many attendees viewed these two terms with negative connotations. These definitional issues were not resolved by the close of the workshop. 2) Lobbying issue. Lobbying was proposed as a function to be played by IPM VOICE to secure funding for IPM research, education, and extension. This issue also generated much concern because many of the potential members of IPM VOICE are already engaged in independent lobbying. Additionally, several attendees working in federal agencies indicated that they may not be members of an organization with a lobbying function. 3) Products issue. A key concern raised by some attendees pertains to the nature of products to be delivered by IPM VOICE. 4) Membership issue. Discussion was centered on how IPM VOICE will operate financially. The assessment of fees on member organizations or individuals to defray operational costs garnered much support; however, the membership of IPM VOICE, at the current time, is not known. The workshop ended without any resolution. The next step following the Phoenix workshop is to set up a committee to coordinate activities of several groups that will work on the mission statement, organizational structures, and fundraising. n
50 Phytopathology News
APS 2.0 It’s All About Networking Dija Selimi, an APS member and an associate research specialist in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is passionate about giving students the resources to find Dija Selimi the best career path for their skills and interests. Read on to find out why she started an APS “LinkedIn” group and why it is so beneficial for students and young professionals in their networking efforts.
Q:
Dija, you were instrumental in getting this page going for APS. Why did you think it was important for our society to start a group on LinkedIn?
A:
My motivation for starting the LinkedIn group was to help develop a networking resource for students that extended beyond the scientific meeting. Meetings have long been the primary opportunity to meet and connect with people in the field, but there are few opportunities to meet people who have training in the field, but work in nontraditional occupations. These professionals are a rich resource for the growing number of individuals interested in careers outside of academia. LinkedIn provides a platform for connecting with these people who may otherwise be hidden from our professional network.
Q:
What are the benefits of joining a social media site such as LinkedIn?
A:
The benefits to joining a social networking site for students is the opportunity for virtual informational interviewing. I think our professors are great role models for how to be good scientists, but they don’t always have the resources for advising about career paths outside of the tenure track. LinkedIn allows students to seek advice and information about the skills that will make them successful at a career while developing an understanding of what they need from their career path.
Q: a fad?
A:
Do you see social media as a useful tool to stay connected? Or, is it just Is social networking a fad? I don’t think social networking sites will go away,