The clear implication of this headline is that pesticide research was deliberately covered up. A few paragraphs in the writer makes it obvious that faceless corporations are to blame. Here's the lede:

>Only four papers and posters that examined [the effects of neonicotinoids on bees] made it into the conference, out of nearly 100 papers, posters and symposia on bee science.

(Now it makes sense why the headline says all but vanished)

Specifically, this is referring to a conference of the Entomologist Society of America. "Entomology" being the study of all insects. Bees, ants, katydids, flies, etc. How much out of a sample of 100 papers/posts/symposia should insect scientists be presenting new research on neonicotinoids and bees? Should it be more or less than 4%? Should it be 30%? 50%? I don't know, how on earth would I know that?

Actual entomologists quoted: "I’ve never had a problem getting a neonic paper in a symposium", "For any given subject within entomology, what is covered in ESA conference programs reflects the ebb and flow of interest in it among the community and the focus of research being conducted in the field."

However, this writer knows it's a lot more than 4%. How does she know this? Well here's an extensive study of a (probably nefarious) corporate partnership program by the ESA that accounts for... 3 to 3.5 percent of the society’s total annual revenue, and here's some people who argue that corporations are too involved with science. You do the math!

The writer also repeats some variation of "pipeline to industry" six times in an attempt to horrify the reader. Why you should be surprised or angry that entomologists are by and large working regular jobs for private businesses after graduating, is also left as an exercise for the reader.

Including this particular anecdote is also pretty telling:

>Emily May, a pollinator conservation biologist who studies pesticides for the Xerces Society, a Portland, Ore.-based nonprofit group, recounted facing intimidation by agrochemical industry attendees after her talk.

>She spoke at the meeting about how government regulators focus on the effects of individual pesticides on pollinators without factoring in the cumulative effects of a range of chemicals.

>After she spoke, she said, five people from the audience stepped up and fired off highly technical questions, such as whether she had completed indexes of cumulative effects.

>“Questions came in with ‘Have you done indexes about toxicity?’ . . . They were just getting very technical in their specific pushback on approaches to looking at cumulative toxicity,” May said.

>“It was like my worst-case scenario, really. It made me nervous about the next conference I presented at, to be honest. It’s hard. People wanted to make me look bad.”

>The source of that onslaught of technical questions: Employees of agrochemical companies, May said.

Am I crazy to think that a conference is not where you get your ideas uncritically accepted, but challenged on a "specific" and "technical" level? Am I crazy for thinking that agrochemical industry stooges should probably be torn to shreds when up against a biologist who has done the research?

We don't need to close our eyes and pretend like there's nothing to fear from corporations. There was an entomologist quoted saying "I’m not going to deny that there is an uninterest, or a bias, to not talk about pesticides and bees", which isn't nothing, but this was clearly drawn out as a response to some kind of pointed question from the writer about the ESA and neonicotonoids.

I get that it gets clicks and eyeballs to play into certain narratives. Are we even slightly worried that if you rely on lazy and dishonest innuendo too much, everyone will become just as lazy and won't believe you when you finally break an important story that goes against their priors?