Skip to main content

Forward.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. 
-- Dr. Martin Luther King


Dr. King would not be proud of me.  I'm not proud of me. My decision to disappear from an important discussion was made from misery and expediency, pragmatism and convenience. I experienced many pressures to seek silence, from evil people and friends alike. Much of it was being sick of fighting. Some of it was the threats and hate. Much of it was being tired of reading about myself on posts with thousands of likes and shares-- knowing that what I was reading was not true.

The time off was valuable in that it taught me to refocus. Teaching the science of agricultural innovations is not going to happen in discussions with Vani Hari, Mike Adams, Nassim Taleb or Jeffery Smith.  These folks have empires built on misinformation, and accepting science harms their brands. 

The changes will not come from rehashing tired fables spread by lazy or corrupt journalists that want to cash a check before accepting reality, even if their spin hurts real people.  I will not talk about Monsanto, donations to my communications program, Vern Blazek or any other failed experiment. 

It also is nice to be able to say that I now have absolutely no relationship with Monsanto, at least outside of a few friends that work for the company.  Big Ag is running from science communicators, thanks to the abuse of important transparency laws, and deliberate misinterpretations of emails. 

Someone told me that they were at a dinner with Big Ag company people and someone said, "The irony is that science communicators like Folta are worth more to us if we make sure they are 100% independent."  Essentially they are saying that communication efforts should be done on the public dime, despite the potential benefit of an informed public to their industries.

Back to King's quotation above.  Forced silence destroyed me more than participation in a vicious dialog. It broke my heart to know the answer and not be able to respond.  It was horrible to get my wrist slapped when I thanked someone publicly for a kind comment.  

Most of all, it was painful to not be able to interpret new, cool science.  I wrote a dozen blogs over the silence period, all about breakthroughs I wanted to share.  I don't know that they'll ever be published here.  I had to write about science, because that's what I do, even if I was the only audience. 

The silence did teach me to use the "mute" and "block" buttons, as well the joy of not feeding a troll.  I learned that some folks can't be changed and that there is sweet peace in remaining above a mindless fray.

What you can expect from me going forward:

Improved podcasts with great guests on the Talking Biotech Podcast.  Not a day has passed where I didn't hear its theme song or think of a cool topic.  The new ones are wonderful, starting February 20. 

Big, visible outreach around plants and food.  I'm planning to send test tubes and seeds to kids, along with experiments they can do.  They'll watch seeds develop into plants and then foster their care into the garden, then hopefully will care for the plant and enjoy the products. MyScienceGarden.com starts soon, and will be done with some donated materials and other costs I'm personally covering.

Continuing unprecedented transparency.  It was not enough to be compliant, I have to be obvious. All of my speaking activities, reimbursements, etc will continue to be posted online and updated quarterly. 

Sustained leadership.  Working as Chair of a leading department in crop sciences, I work with the world's best scientists doing top-flight research. 

More articles about food and farming in popular press, helping the public understand their food, its genetics, and challenges to production. 

Big research, and a surprise!  My students and postdocs will keep working on improving flavors of fruits and vegetables and finding ways to improve product quality and nutrition with light. BUT we have a new technology that will make waves.  It is somewhere between trash can and Nobel Prize, probably closer to the former. However, there is enormous potential that hopefully will be published in 2016. 

***
I just returned from a conference where dozens of scientists asked me how I survived the abuse, and why I want to continue in science communication.  It is clear the community is not interested, maybe avoiding it.  However, we need to remember that we're telling the truth and that time will be kind. 

It also is good that 2015 had a few solid mistakes that I learned from, and won't repeat going forward.  I'll leave that open for new mistakes!  

The last year has been a challenge, posed mostly from evil people with a despicable agenda.  But for every mean email I receive, every hate-filled tweet, there are a dozen kind messages of support. The words of complete strangers have been comforting and revitalizing.  That has been amazing.

After all of this, I am not a victim.  This attack was a strange gift, giving me a bigger stage and refined message. We will create the changes we want to see together.  While silence was painful, it was helpful, and going forward I think I will be more effective as a scientist, communicator, and person. 

Kevin Folta




Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…