Despite years of research and supportive research and promotion, the concept of integrated pest management (IPM) to control insects, weeds and plant disease simply isn't being put into widespread use, says a UC Davis entomologist. "It's time that we dispense with the IPM illusion and develop a federal policy for pest management that is focused on a more definable goal such as pesticide-reduction," said Lester Ehler, a professor of entomology and noted authority on biological controls of insect pests. Ehler and Dale G. Bottrell, an entomology professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, published the paper "The Illusion of Integrated Pest Management" in Issues in Science and Technology Online this spring. It can be found on the Web at . IPM is based on the concept that the best way to control insects and other agricultural pests is by monitoring both pest and natural-enemy populations, and applying chemical pesticides only when the pest populations approach a threshold level that would cause significant economic losses to the farmer. IPM also promotes the use of cultural practices and naturally occurring microbes that work to check the growth of pest populations, in order to avoid use of chemical pesticides. But what tends to be missing in most so-called IPM programs is integration or compatibility among management tactics, according to Ehler and Bottrell. "Despite three decades of research, there is very little 'I' left in IPM," they write. Ehler and Bottrell contend that integrated pest management is currently being used on a very small percentage of all crop acreage in the United States, and that its global application is even lower. The management system has not been used, they say, because insect-monitoring schemes tend to be too complicated, chemical pesticides are still seen as attractive "quick fixes" to pest problems, and researchers have failed to develop the integration component of IPM.