Who Do You Trust?

-
Whenever I take the time to comment on an article, or discuss GM in a public forum, I get barraged by opposition-- but "__________" says...

So who is  "_______________"?   Why does their perspective count more than mine?

The irony is that those of us that work in public service are labeled as pawns and stooges, dupes of higher corporate interests, and not 'real' experts-- but we are public-sector scientists that don't have anything to do with the GMO discussion as a primary part of our positions. It is not our day job.

Yet we are frequently classified as "shills" or scientists with conflicts of interest.  However, the main voices critical of the technology seem to be closer to such conflicting financial and career incentives. It may be good to point out to those making "shill" accusations.

So who are the voices of science in the GMO discussion? Who do they work for, how are they compensated, and what are their "day jobs"?



Who do you trust for information on transgenic crops?  The information on this table comes from Google Scholar, and information gained from internet searches.  If any information is incorrect, or if you think there is something or someone that needs to be added, I'm happy to fix it. The (*) means that while Dr. Chassy is retired, he was a public-sector scientist.


This is only a start.  I expect that as we learn more we'll make additions and adjustments. It is an important table and critical contrast. 

Any suggestions for helpful columns or additions? 

Maybe someone can make one about journalists and their credentials? 




Popular posts from this blog

Film Review: The Need to Grow

-
Image
The recurring ads on Facebook pulled at me to watch The Need to Grow , a documentary film about food and farming.  As someone connected with these areas professionally and personally, I thought it would be worth a watch.  Here is a review. First the good things.  The film is nicely shot and well written.  The majority of the work builds on themes such as nutritious diets healthy soils, and efficient energy. Those are the central underlying values of the film, and ones that I wholly endorse.  However, where the film falls apart is in its approaches to achieve those end points.  Two of the "experts" recruited for the film are none other than Jeffrey Smith and Vandana Shiva, two people with little training in science or farming (and no, Vandana Shiva is not a physicist as the film claims).  The narrator is actress Rosario Dawson, who early in the film makes the proclamation, "Agriculture is the most destructive human activity on the planet." It is...
Read more

Food Babe Visits My University

-
Image
It was 6:30 pm in the lab and I was just thinking about the last things I'd need to get done before I could go home.  Typical night.  Usually I'm riding home about 7 pm, but an email popped up asking me if I was going to go watch the Food Babe.  A click on a link would take me to the note on a UF Dean for Students Good Food Revolution Events website.  Vani Hari would be spreading her corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism here at the University of Florida. Oh joy. There's something that dies inside when you are a faculty member that works hard to teach about food, farming and science, and your own university brings in a crackpot to unravel all of the information you have brought to students. She might have started from honest roots.  Her story says she was duped by an organic yogurt stand (join the club) into buying taro toppings that were filled with artificial, non-organic colors.  She realized that she could use social m...
Read more

Shame on Pediatrics. Rejecting Scientist's Comments

-
 A lot has been said about the journal Pediatrics December 2023 Clinical Report on "Using GMOs on Children". The poor scholarship and citation bias are alarming, and the bias against safe technology is clear.  When I wrote to editor-in-chief Dr. Lewis First, he indicated that I was invited to submit a response to the article that would be posted below the article on its website. I submitted my response, and it was not published on the site. My guess is that it illuminated the bankruptcies of the article in a manner that ran counter to the authors', editor's and journal's narrative.  So I'll publish my comment here.  Dear Pediatrics Readership,  The article by Abrams et al. represents a stunning example of how misinformation spreads- even through a credible conduit. Pediatrics is a respected journal, so when a paper implies a technology is dangerous, physicians and the general public take note. That’s good. But if the message runs counter to the scientific con...
Read more