Skip to main content

My New Hat

Science sure is cool.  However, when I talk about science in public places, and that science doesn't mesh with someone's beliefs, they tend to get prickly.  I'd like to think that scholarly, evidence-based discussion can bring those in disagreement to a common ground based on data and its interpretations. However, when all they have is photoshop and time on their hands- they don't talk science- they give me a funny hat.

Better yet, they juxtapose me next to woo-woo former scientist David Suzuki.  This gem was floating around the internet, thanks to the folks over at GMO Free USA. 



To opponents of transgenic technology, the words they agree with define their allegiance, not critical consideration of data, interpretations or scientific consensus.  And to call a publishing scientist "Anti-science" while calling Suzuki "Pro science" when he's the guy on record of being "ashamed by geneticists"... 

Plus they gave me a demotion to "Interim Chairman".  Geez.  Plus they fail to realize that a guy that even is an interim chairman among high-caliber scientists in crop science might know a little more about crop biotech than a guy that published fruit fly genetics papers on  in the 1970s. No hard disrespect to Suzuki-- he wrote my favorite Genetics textbook in the 80's and clearly had a distinguished career. But his contemporary understanding of biotech crops is all ideology and not science-based. Sometimes scientists just go batty when they get old and irrelevant.

And what do the comments say?  Well there are over 700 Facebook 'shares' of this image, so lots of my stupid mug getting around.  Here are just a few comments:




And the bummer is that I'm blocked from GMO-USA, so I can't even respond.  Of course, nobody realizes that my lab's research is not funded by Monsanto, never was. In fact over the last five years our University received $21,000 total grant support to one faculty member.  That is distributed over three research projects!  Clueless.

It reminds us that they speak without evidence and are willing to fabricate information to appease each other and their common beliefs. 



Plus I like this one!

I don't remember when the government told us that Agent Orange was safe.  Maybe right after they told us not to drink coke and eat pop rocks at the same time.


And what's up with Suzuki?  They best video is here. Shows his surfacy treatment of the subject.

 http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/suzuki's-clueless/2695393091001

Watch at 4 minutes and listen to him make up insane junk about strawberries, Puzstai and Mick Jagger, rambling in an argument from ignorance-- and then he gets owned.  It is fun to watch him squirm, because he's their hero. To his credit, he says he's open to be convinced-- he might just see how taking such stances harm his reputation.

Let's see what happens.

The bottom line is I must be doing something right.  When the GMO USA folks take the time to smear a public scientist for talking about science, you know they are on the ropes, and fight their battle using photoshop over facts. 



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…