Posts

Anti-GMO Data Stokes Alarm!

Image
"Proof is boring, proof is tiresome, proof is an irrelevance.  People would far rather be handed an easy lie than search for a difficult truth, especially if it suits their own purposes" Joe Abercrombie, Last Argument of Kings I got a note on Facebook from a friend... "Kevin, what do you make of this?"  He must have smelled a rat.  He also must have known that I was enjoying a nice Friday night working on a nearly-complete manuscript and was one-third through a 12-pack of Sierra Nevada.  I had my favorite sweatshirt on and warm socks. It was a peaceful night, until his email.  A click on the link would make veins pulse in my head, as a misrepresentation / fabrication of data was presented as a new argument against transgenic technology. The anti-GM goofballs bought it, hook, line and sinker. The website is shown below, and claims "Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO Versus Non-GMO".   True to its word, it did not disappoint.  It was stunning.  Stunning

An Anti-Intellectual Attack Against Young Women

Image
A petition has gone viral.   Spawned from an ambitious, maybe eight year old girl Alicia Serratos of Orange County, CA, a petition has been launched on Change.org to persuade the Girl Scouts of America to remove transgenic (GMO) ingredients from girl scout cookies.  Alicia claims (well, her parents claim) that "GMOs studies (sic) (in animals) have linked them to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system." The page from Alica's anti-GMO cookie petition.  It is hard to get a hunger for cookies when you have been fed full of deception.   Of course, there is no real evidence to support her claims of health problems that is accepted by the scientific community.  Scientific consensus is that transgenic crops have an outstanding safety record and have no plausible mechanism of harm. While her parents should be congratulated about raising a daughter that is inspired to take a

Never Agree to Disagree in Science

Image
Every now and then I'll be in a discussion with someone on a scientific topic.  There are three conversation enders that I abhor.  1.  "You are just a shill for (insert company, political party, etc here), how much are they paying you?"   Read about that one here.   2.   "What-ever."  Which is code for "I got nuthin'"  3.   "We'll just have to agree to disagree."  I just hate that last one, and it is the typical refuge of someone intelligent that has walled off their desire, but not ability, to learn about a given topic.  For me, I can't "Agree to Disagree" about a scientific topic. If I'm wrong, please show me the evidence-- convince me. If you're wrong, it is important that I show you my evidence and convince you.  Open hearts and minds can agree to find Truth,  and discussion of evidence is the first step.  Scientists and teachers are,  by nature,  compelled to do this   Hair combing p

Leaving the Limbaughs of the Left: Parting Thoughts on Prop37

Image
Over the last month I've had a lot to think about.  I visited several 3rd grade classes to teach kids about plant biology.  They all learned what makes plants unique from animals and how plants grow and develop.  In each class we did a simple experiment with two test tubes, two seeds, and two pieces of foil. Each tube contained a milliliter of water/agar. The kids would add one seed to each tube. They would wrap one in foil, leave the other uncovered, then scrunch up the other piece of foil as a base. Thirty minutes, a few cents of science surplus, and a huge retreat from book science for the kids. The elegant simplicity of plant development. The happiness that comes when someone that is not their teacher brings them stuff! They went nuts, as always. They loved the test tubes, the seeds, and any  science stuff you could give them. They were all excited to participate in science . In third grade science is still cool. Special guest talks at local schools remind me about ho

Comments Blocked by the "Right to Know"

Image
Awesome.  For the second time in as many days I have been blocked from providing scientific content to rants on YouTube regarding California Proposition 37.  After all, it is about the Right to Know, as long as it is something they want to hear! The situation happened on a YouTube video " That Monsanto does not want you to see, Brought to you by Nutiva and Elevate" .  It presents Danny DeVito, Bill (don't vaccinate your kids) Maher, and other Hollywood luminaries that I don't recognize.  They tell us that it is a 'right to know' what's in our food, a point I don't organically disagree with, yet maintain that prop37 is an inappropriate, highly flawed, vehicle. So I begin to comment in the 'comments' section under the name "Swampwaffle".  You can see, my comments are scientific, concise, polite and engaging.  I invite opportunities to share evidence and partake in a scholarly discussion.  With one particularly energetic person who r

Lost Rebuttal from Dr. Ena

Dr. Ena Valikov is a Veterinarian from Huntington Beach, CA.  She frequently comments on posts, usually those regarding transgenic technologies, and presents coherent arguments that elevate the discussion.  She has a background in biochemistry so she speaks science well and can discuss the literature. Yesterday morning my gmail account posted several responses to my September 21 post. There were two there from Dr. Ena.  I was excited to read them and prepare my responses. Yet when I looked at the comment section of the article one of her comments was not there.  Instead, there was an appropriately cynical comment from Dr. Ena about censoring the comments. I have no idea what happened or where her comment disappeared to.  However, I was disappointed and upset for several reasons.  First, I appreciate an informed rebuttal because I am the first to admit, I might be wrong.   I'm glad to consider all evidence in my synthesis.  Second, I would never, and have never censored a comme

Rats, Tumors and Critical Assessment of Science

Image
My email box exploded with new messages.  A flurry of notes contained a link to a new peer-reviewed paper, a work showing that rats fed “GMO” corn developed massive tumors and died early, compared to controls.  Immediately I smelled a Seralini paper. A click on the link did not disappoint-- it's Seralini again.  I was electronically whisked to a PDF of the whole text and began to read.  Within minutes I was blown away by the lack of rigor, poor experimental design, attention to controls and loose statistics.  Most of all, I was blown away by the conclusions drawn by a study with tiny numbers of subjects in a rat line known to grow endochrine tumors. The anti-GMO interests were quick to anoint this new work as a rigorous pillar of exceptional science, a hard-science detailing of the danger of transgenic food.  They want this to influence public policy. I was really impressed by how the scientific media and the science blogosphere pounced.  The best names in the busin