Branding is a remarkably powerful tool. The use of consistent terminology, images and themes build a brand- a recognized style associated with a product or service.
The website GMOAnswers is relatively new, but has rapidly established itself as the much needed centerpiece of biotech information. The criticism of the biotech industry is that they never answered the questions or had input from independent scientific voices. Now they do. Instead of having expert comments strewn throughout comments sections of crazy websites or have thoughtful information deleted because it contained too much evidence, at GMOAnswers scientific information is archived for future readers and current inquirers.
GMOAnswers.com has emerged as a clearinghouse of useful information about transgenic technology.
Yesterday I wrote about Scientific Identity Theft and how anti-GM interests are impersonating scientists and scientific websites with an intent to harm reputations and defame scientists and scientific content.
Today's issue is another phase of Scientific Identity Theft-- scientific brand hijacking. Just like Itty Bitty Machines decided to leech off of IBM's reputation, other well-established biotech critics now are borrowing from GMOAnswers.com.
Who would do such a thing? Our old buddy Jeffrey Smith, the non-scientist that is revered by many as an expert in science more than scientists. What is the evidence?
After blogging about Scientific Identity Theft I checked to see who owned other GMO-friendly URLs.
GMOAnswers.com, .org and .net are under control of the GMOAnswers admins and were established on April 19, 2013.
GMOAnswers.info and .co were purchased by Jeffrey Smith on July 29, 2013. If you type in either of them they redirect to the facade organization the Institute for Responsible Technology.
Both domains registered three months after the original site and redirect to Smith's alarmist propaganda site.
Again, if Smith had excellent information, solid evidence, compelling science... why would he have to misdirect inquiring minds by tricking them? Why does he seed deception? This is blatant, clear and perhaps alarming misrepresentation that sucks onto the credibility of an established brand in order to bolster a scientifically empty campaign that lacks hard scientific credibility.