Illumination 2.0

When I read it I think, "No S-- Sherlock." But to Carrie Gillam this is rhetorical red meat, another way to sell a book, put dollars in her pocket, and advance a cause --- by exploiting credulous media and readers.  Her second recent article in the Guardian says that the herbicide formulation Roundup is more toxic to human cells than glyphosate alone.  This revelation has been published many times before in actual journals, so this is not new information, just time to stoke the fear fire a bit more. Yes, products formulated to penetrate cells are usually toxic to cells-- in a petri dish.  Use of the product on crops means your cells do not get the same exposure, and your body is not a layer of slime in a Petri dish.    Researchers have examined glyphosate for toxicity or endocrine disruption potential against tissue culture cells. These limited systems are great ways to start understanding how a compound might affect cells, which can then inform later studies in

This week's podcast is an important clarifier about the issue of farmer suicides in India.  It is a complex issue that is unraveled by this week's guest.  Activists like Vandanda Shiva claim that it is all due to biotech (GMO) cotton and other crops.  This week's guest tells a much more nuanced story based on her studies. 

The other day on Twitter I saw an unusual entry that led a popcorn trail to a new level of public records abuse at new taxpayer expense.      Thacker says that you should trust UCSF, a top medical school, and its archive on me in the "Chemical Industry Documents".  Hosted by taxpayers to attack taxpayer-funded scientists.  It’s my old buddy Paul Thacker, the guy that writesunfortunately inaccurate articles about me and others that ultimately endretracted or sporting corrections . He always seeks a way rub his stink on me, in a clear attempt to harm a public, academic scientist that teaches from the literature. And in this case he does not disappoint.   He posts a curious website, the Industry Documents Library  at the University of California San Francisco.   To Thacker and his buddies at US-RTK (the industry-funded hate group that seeks to silence and/or harm public scientists) this database has become a new repository for their “evidence” of foul connec

Paul Thacker fancies himself a journalist that exposes unethical industry-academic collusion and impropriety.  The problem is, he's easily fooled.  He spawns false information that upon publication is frequently either retracted or corrected after publication.  Less credible media leave his word puddle uncorrected.  He's not very smart, and is an incredibly boring, rambling writer.  He is not analytical, not scientific-- instead he actively cherry picks and warps information to conform to the narrative he (or his sponsors?) wants told.  His hit pieces get a pathetically few retweets and shares.  He's largely irrelevant, even to anti-biotech folks, which is why I never wanted to give him the sick glee, exposure, or personal jollies by publishing a critical analysis of one of his (boring) tomes.   However, with the intent to harass, he continually uses social media to cite his own shoddy work as authoritative evidence that others (especially me) are corporate pawns, swo

When scientists Monday-morning quarterback the lack of public acceptance of any technology, the usual conclusion is that we fumbled the communication. From refrigerators to in vitro fertilization, from antibiotics to biotech, rocky beginnings can be blamed on the fact that nobody bothered to simply talk to concerned people.  Over the years scientists and science communicators, sociologists and psychologists have kibbutzed about this problem, and clearly we have determined that the right kind of information did not flow through the right channels in the right way.  Communications efforts were confined to big companies talking to farmers, and nobody talking to the public.  One possible strategy would be to have science students engage in proper, evidence-based discussion.  It would provide solid, publication-backed science-- and do it in social media and newspaper comments sections, the places where these conversations were taking place. We've discussed this is a dozen differen

This week's podcast is on rice domestication. Rice represents a huge amount of calories consumed on the planet, and it has an amazing history. This is worth a listen, with Dr. Susan McCouch from Cornell University. 

This week I was stunned by an article in Mother Jones .   Author and Senior Editor  Kiera Butler wrote an article about the IARC decision against glyphosate, and how the panel knowingly omitted data from a massive study that did not support the panel's predetermined conclusion that links the herbicide to cancer.  Scientists and regulatory agencies have long recognized that glyphosate is benign relative to other week killers, and extremely safe at levels used. Activists claim that it is a deadly poison and its immense toxicity is covered up by a deep cabal between companies, regulators and every scientist and farmer in the world.  Keeping readership trust in the long term requires discussion of of evidence when it is blatant or insurmountable.  The comments section is priceless, including claims that Monsanto paid for this article. Mother Jones has a history of supporting less-than-scientific positions, including work that they have written about me personally.   The p