Investing in Postdocs and Giving Thanks

I received an email yesterday from someone I had not spoken two in probably six months.

Back in April I gave a presentation to the postdocs at the University of Florida.  It was advice about communicating their science, sharing their science, and thoughts on job interviews.

Such things are sorely needed.  We produce way more Ph.D.s than the number of jobs to support them, so we end up with a large number of postdocs in circulation. These folks are professional scientists, as good as they get.

We just don't have enough jobs for all of them, so it is not unusual for a Ph.D. scientist to be making $35,000 a year, six years after the degree is over, with no hard promise of a job.  Interviews are ultra competitive and skilled scientists often fail at that last critical moment-- impress the committee on paper and get the interview, but fall short in person and don't land the job.

After the seminar I was approached by a 5th year postdoc.  We can call him Dr. S, since he has a very distinct name and I don't want to embarrass him.  He said that he has a great record on paper, that he gets interviewed for every job he applies to, but never gets selected for the position.

Clearly, Dr. S has some academic firepower but was lacking tools and coaching on how to communicate his science.

We spent three sessions going through his job talk.  The first one revealed why he was never chosen.  He talked over my head, lost me in the first slide, and his entire presentation was good, but didn't connect.  I didn't fall in love with his science and didn't imagine him as a good colleague.

Over two more sessions we adjusted the talk.  We changed his approach to the talk, developed a sense of audience, helped him connect as a person, built a new philosophy toward the interview, and talked about how to answer questions.

I received this yesterday:

One of the many days lately where I need a science kleenex.

This is just a reminder that science needs to flow in order to work.  How many talented scientists are trapped in jobs they don't want because they simply lack the courage and training to tell others about their passions and ideas in a human way?   How many could land the job if they realized that a job seminar is not about beating scientists to death with data-- they want a clever colleague, a friend, a solution maker, someone to complement their department's expertise. 

It is a classic case of forgetting why you are doing a job talk and who the audience is.  They want you to succeed, they want a new colleague, they asked you to try out for that part!  Rather than blinding them with brilliance and science-- simply share the work you care about.  

Don't be the unreachable scientist on a stage. Be the clever friend down the hall. 

It worked for Dr. S, and maybe it was just his time and had nothing to do with my help.  However, I was grateful for the letter.  It turns out to be probably the best three hours I invested in 2014. 

De-Nye-Al.

A few weeks ago I wrote a note to Bill Nye about his incorrect opinions on transgenic technology.  No response.  Sort of.

I got an email and was told I could share the content, but not the name, and no screen shots or direct quotes.  Apparently this is someone that knows about Bill Nye, his production group and his handlers.  The feeling is that it is from someone close to him, or someone on his team. It could be completely false too.  I'm about 50/50 on authenticity.

I would just post the whole thing. But, he said I could use only paraphrased information in a blog, and asked me to not use his name, so I won't.  The note says that if I play by these rules maybe I'll get more info, and that as a science fan he's hoping for the debate.  Weird.

The note said that Nye's associates seek to use him as a political wedge, and that Nye himself is right on board. It is apparently a transition of Nye from a media science communicator to a political figure to work against right-leaning causes like creationism and climate change denial.  Those are his new political issues.

This note also told me that his group is a cluster of Hollywood advisors that have strong feelings about GMOs and actually have encouraged him to speak out for labeling and against the technology.

According to the short note, Nye does what his people tell him to do, and that is defusing climate and creationism.  They want the GMO issue to go away fast. Apparently he will not make public comments on this going forward, even though a complete ban is what his handlers want.

So there you go.  It may be complete crap, but let's see what the next communication looks like.  No news from Nye's camp, so the thoughts in the email are consistent with what is unfolding.

Stay tuned.

Deadly Aviation Pretzel Gas: Foodbabeliness in Action

Today while flying home from a scientific conference I could not help but remember the Food Babe’s warnings about commercial aviation.  Her recent post warns of recirculated filth and high amounts of nitrogen, somewhere like 50%.  Of course, that’s about 30% less than ambient air.   Her claims were widely, and appropriately criticized.

Today I took a good look at the inside of that cylinder in the sky and noticed hazards that Vani didn’t catch. She failed to account for other airborne dangers on the plane, problems that likely contribute to the deadly quality of cabin air more than anything she may ever fear.

But before I start, we all know that commercial aviation is plagued with funny odors.  While we sit in a chair in the sky the nose is treated to a parade of organic funk, wafting through the cabin.  Whether it is the chronically unshowered and unsleeved, the woman that insists on taking off her shoes and putting her feet all over everything, or the folks that secrete gaseous effluvia, the plane's atmosphere is a sea of tasty gases.

To combat plane stink I get into my seat and build the “Odor Free Cone”.  I direct the air jet directly on me at full blast, constructing an impenetrable current of air that no random air biscuit can cross.

My air travel strategy- careful positioning of the overhead air nozzle provides an

 invisible cone free of olfactory insults. 

It occurred to me that I need to alert Vani to a threat she had not anticipated.  Pretzel Gas.

From here I’m going to really exercise Food Babe Logic here so bear with me.

Every bag of pretzels contains about eleven pretzels in a slightly puffed, airtight package.  There is no reason for a company to actively inject some pretzel preservative gas into the package, so it must be composed of gases emitted from the pretzels themselves.  A quick read of the package say that they have been fortified with Folic Acid, so it could be a gas containing acid.

The tiny pillow's puffiness should remind you that there is a colorless, odorless substance inside that bag-- and it has not been proven safe in long term studies.  

When released into the cabin atmosphere, the salty air may be linked to many health problems.

Since the advent of commercial aviation pretzel service we have seen a rise in autism, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease. 

When the package is opened and the gas escapes, the air of the cabin is skewed toward higher pretzel gas concentrations, concentrations that have never been proven safe!

And lest we forget, if you actually eat the pretzels your insulin levels will rise, showing clear evidence of hormone disruption. 

The vast airline-snack food conspiracy knows this.  It is why you are not given pretzels while boarding (or pre-boarding) the plane. Everyone would sit and open them at the same time.  Instead a flight attendant, moving at the speed of a tree sloth, pushes her Cart of Death down the aisle, handing out packets of doom to the unsuspecting passengers.

To make this worse, the carbonation in soda raises the CO2 levels in the cabin, and carbon dioxide is almost the same thing as carbon monoxide, and we all know how dangerous that is.

The tiny bubbles in your soda raise cabin carbon dioxide levels potentially leading to exogenous semiotic entropy.  If you are getting sleepy, it is because carbon dioxide in your beverages is displacing air in the cabin and causing a micro-greenhouse effect.

So when Vani flies she must be a wreck, and hopefully she’ll read this and start to think of more things to complain about.  Maybe she’ll get the Food Babe Army to boycott Big Pretzel.

The most frightening part is, I can almost be a better Food Babe than the Food Babe. 

A Letter to Support My Claims Against The Food Babe

A few weeks ago I attended the Food Babe's talk at the University of Florida. I listened to her talk about herself and provide lots of false information to my students, and waited for the opportunity to ask dismantling questions from one of the two microphones in the room.

She did not take questions from the audience. The event ended and the audience left.

She was paid $6000 for over an hour's time to promote her brand and spread her filth.  Now scientists and educators have to fix it.

I first wrote about the night and the lack of a Q&A period here.  The story spread quickly through social media, the place with a love-hate relationship with Hari.

Vani Hari responded by claiming that there was in fact a Q&A session, that she did answer questions from the audience.

So it is my word against hers.  Via social media she explained to her followers that she did answer questions.  We know she didn't.

The answer may be that she knows nothing about scientific presentations and that we are asked to publicly defend our claims.  She may have answered questions from adoring fans that met her by the stage afterwards, but there was no formal public Q&A, which is what we do when we make public claims.  We defend them.

In another thread she encourages those curious to call the university, because "a certain professor who promotes Monsanto... has spread a lot of nonsense".

Again, she speaks from no evidence, leveling false allegations against a public scientist that only wants her to back her claims with science.  How do I 'support Monsanto'?

So how do we end this controversy? 

I requested a letter from a neutral party, someone close to the event.  I received a letter from one of the central instructors of the First Year Florida course. The university hosts a series of events and readings for all incoming freshmen, and The Food Babe was one of those events (hurts to write that).

She was happy to give me a letter, and has given me permission to share it here. I am withholding her name here to protect her from harassment or allegations of her connection to Hari's imagined Monsanto Conspiracy.  However, if you would like to talk to her directly I can arrange that.

Here are some key excepts. The whole letter may be accessed here.

This one is the introduction (click to augmentify)

Here the microphones are noted, the fact that she would not be taking public questions because the event "ran long"  (click to embiggen)

Here the author indicates her disappointment in the lack of a Q&A

(click to enlargenate)

Looks Like Vani Isn't Being Exactly Truthful

The letter affirms my claim that there was not Q&A period.  One could say that she ran overtime and could not stay.  That's not my problem and is unfair to a student audience that has questions about her radical claims.  That should be budgeted into her time.  It was 8:30 pm on a college campus, the venue was open at least until the next morning. 

If she wanted to answer questions, she could have answered questions. It might have just been some exogenous semiotic entropy. 

The best part is:

It is a rare day that an invited nationally-recognized speaker is referred to as a mistake.

Conclusion

So there you have it.  Hari did not hold a public Q&A as she claimed.  She also took the liberty of making a false association between a public scientist and university professor to a company that does not exist, purely to discredit him.

Here are two clear falsehoods that Hari stands by.  Why anyone would take any advice from her, ever, is beyond me.

Science Center : Opinion and Activism are the New Science?

I am not happy. 

Opinion is the new science. 

Activism is the new science.

Undocumented claims are the new science.

Arguments from ignorance are the new science. 

That is, if you are a speaker at an event held by the South Florida Science Center and Aquarium.  You can watch the video here.  I'll wait. 

Or I can save you 1:21 of your life you'll never get back. 

First of all I can say that I totally predicted this.  I predicted exactly what this would be, that it would start out with some neutral and credible (well, undeniable) science and then degenerate into a scientific abortion ending in a rallying cry for food labeling and a "right to know". 

I'm like a damn psychic. It is pretty amazing.  Not really.  These things are incredibly predictable, and while I warned them, they suggested that 'teaching all sides' is a good move.  Ugh. 

Hey dude, science is whatever you think it is, your opinion is as good as evidence! 

After all, science is about hearing all viewpoints. 

The part that just makes me so mad is that a "Science Center" supported this.  It is an appeal to fear, ignorance and the typical trash.  Some of the quotes are priceless, and make me wonder what kind of half-cocked science you have to poop out on a test to be an RD in Florida.  

Really?  ""If some of the bigger chunks of protein are still left over chances are they could be an allergen."

Really?  

REEEEEALLY? 

Science Center, don't we turn off a microphone at this point?

Read Anna's comments... You guys are doing great work.  Keep fueling misinformation!

From 29 min to 39 min of her 25 min allotted time she goes off on labeling.  No evidence, no science, just her political, activist rant.  

When she finally provides references, not one is peer reviewed, and GMO Myths and Truths is her major source, and activist rag that has been completely discredited by mainstream science. 

Another major reference for evidence was, well, JURASSIC PARK!  The movie.  Yes, everything we know about science can be discounted by a campy horror flick. 

Then if you watch the question and answer section you'll see an activist grab the microphone and spew on without moderation about Monsanto, Monsanto, Monsanto.  Nobody stops her. She goes on about the well discounted claims about Indian suicides and other myths. 

I'm blown away.  Can we please remove "Science" from your name?  

There is a fine line between a Science Center and Junk Science Center.  You just crossed it.

If it seems like I'm being too harsh it is only because I see how these solutions have helped farmers and the environment, and see what we can do going forward.  When a Science Center promotes an event where a non-scientist is allowed to make false statements and force a political agenda (as predicted), it destroys their credibility.  We need Science Centers.  Unfortunately this one has a lax idea about what science actually is. 

Science Schmience. A Science Center Update

Today was interesting in that the angry emails and a few phone calls have come in to me and the hire-ups where I work.  Seems some folks are not happy that I've recommended, as a scientist, that a Science Center might best serve its reputation and credibility by endorsing events that have a basis in science-based evidence.

They still are moving forward with the Science on Tap event, where a local dietitian with apparent intentions will grace the audience with her interpretations of transgenic crop science.

To review, last week I was alerted by a South Florida farmer that the South Florida Science Center and Aquarium  (SFSC) was hosting a “Science on Tap” talk, held at a local bar.  The topic was entitled, “GMO’s (sic) Exposed” and was to be delivered by Michelle Parenti Lewis, a local dietitian.  I wondered what she might be exposing.

The original story was posted on my blog, Illumination.  After I was notified of this event, a little google search revealed that the event was being billed to show  “potentially harmful effects”, and likely would be an anti-GMO fear fest.  Which is fine.  Anyone that wants to make crazy claims is welcome to do so, and do it with a bullhorn and on a high mountaintop. 

The problem here is that what appears to be a veiled political endorsement of food labeling is being billed as a scientific event.   Worse, it is being endorsed by SFSC.   Hitching their wagon to a presentation not backed by science is a dangerous place for a scientific venue to go.   My blog detailed the problem with a science center sponsoring a political event masquerading as a scientific talk.

Within hours social media carried the story and several folks from the SFSC reached out.  They noted how important it was to “hear all sides”, in essence, let someone provide a non-scientific viewpoint because it is important to the debate (that those of us in science know does not exist).   You know, “Teach the Controversy”. Creationists must be salivating.

I recommended it be cancelled until they were sure it was a scientific event.  After a few polite exchanges and some good dialog they did not cancel the event, but agreed to change the name.  Yes, the SFSC will still allow what likely will be a biased talk that uses fear and uncertainty to promote an agenda to label foods.  That’s just my guess from her previous talks and posts.

The science center did reach out and asked me to join, but I’m busy with a visiting speaker in Gainesville and “Science on Tap is four hours away.

Luckily others have been identified to step in.  Chris Miller, an outstanding extension agent from Palm Beach County will be in attendance.  Chris has seen my recent presentations and he knows farming.  While molecular biology and transgenic crops are not his specialty, he’ll keep it real.   A number of faculty from the Biotechnology Program at Palm Beach State University will be in attendance also, and they have been excellent communicators of the technology.

The presentation will be posted online, and I’m going to make a prediction here.  Her talk will mirror those from Michael Hanson of the Consumer’s Union.  She’ll talk about the technology with some accuracy and then key on the vague language that can be twisted to satisfy agenda. 

Watch for :

"Monsanto owns all the scientists and regulates all the research"-- which is complete garbage, but the refuge of those that like to make statements without seeking evidence. 

“voluntary consultation”  -  Opponents of biotech key off of this statement, suggesting that approval is a rubber stamp, not noting that this is a lengthy and expensive process.

Arguments from Ignorance, like “we just don’t know…” = We see these every time. Of course, they don’t acknowledge safe use for almost 20 years and no evidence of harm.

“There have been no long-term tests on humans.” – Not noting that we don’t do any tests on humans unless there is substantial reason suggesting potential for harm.

“Don’t you want to know what your children are eating?” – The appeal to the Middle Moms that are manipulated with fear and uncertainty. 

“These foods have not been proven safe”  -- Of course, nothing in the history of the world has been proven safe.  We can only demonstrate evidence of harm.

The whole thing will conclude with a call for labels and this will somehow be called science.

My interaction with SFSC has been pleasant and I’m grateful that they’ve attempted some corrective action.  Maybe Ms. Parenti-Lewis will nail the science and give an evidence-based presentation on transgenic plant technology, why farmers use it, and a complete coverage of benefits and limitations.   That would be great.

On the other hand, if she uses the credibility of SFSC to make sweeping generalizations to build fear of sound science, it will be a major fail for SFSC.  My prediction- they've been duped, and are now attached to an Earth and Water Watch surrogate using this opportunity to misrepresent agriculture, twist science, and trivialize a rigorous approval process.  She’ll promote a position of denigrating transgenic science and push for food labeling that is not supported by science and reason.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Protecting Bill Nye from De-nye-al

Yesterday's letter on Keith Kloor's Collide-a-Scape Blog was intended to illuminate inconsistency in Bill Nye's application of science.   While many critics hammered at his credentials and trashed him as a kid's entertainer, I defended him.  I respect Bill Nye and his ability to connect science to people.  It is something I wish I did better and something I am learning by watching experts like Nye.

This is why I challenged him.  I need him to survive.  I need the Bill Nye brand to be successful.  We need him to be the friendly and approachable stuff in the interface between the public and the science.

My letter to Nye was out of respect -- to help sharpen

his impacts and protect his brand. 

Right now there are many not happy with Nye, and they come from positions in climate denial and creationism.  They need Bill Nye to fail.  They seek to erode his credibility.

What better way to harm his reputation as an objective science steward than to show that he has taken a position that is not backed by data or the scientific consensus?  What better way to harm his brand than to show that it is not consistent with the world's leading scientific organizations?


Nye's Next Steps

In a perfect world Bill Nye might seek some experts out in LA to sit down and help him understand why his comments were incorrect, and maybe how they have damaging effects. Maybe he'll come out and clarify his remarks and change his position, or else succumb to exogenous semiotic entropy.

That would be the best move.  He could show the world that scientists are humans that make mistakes, stand up when challenged, and accept evidence to adjust their views.

Let's hope it goes that way.

Women in Science, Revisited

This post is here because earlier today someone asked me to think of a reason to build a scholarship. I thought of Jessie.

Jessica Justice was a dishwasher that became a scientist.  This is what I wrote about her, and it was published on April 7, 2010 on Skepchick.  Make sure you read the next post tomorrow.  If this moves you at all, tomorrow will bring tears.

The topic is important today as it was then, and your note is still priceless Jessie.

Science Needs Women

Kevin M. Folta

In three weeks I will put on the cap-and-gown professor outfit I bought on Ebay and witness something that probably never should have happened: the graduation of a self-described dumb blonde. Jessie came to my laboratory looking to make some extra cash as a dishwasher. Little did she know that she would be remolded, repackaged and refocused by a cadre of women that identified a change that needed to happen, then took the initiative to make it so.

In my laboratory the ratio of X to Y chromosomes is traditionally skewed to about twelve to one. The reason is not clear, but the majority of the technicians, postdocs, grad students and undergraduates in my program are female, and it has always been that way. One residue of the phenomenon has been that I get to observe the powerful influence that strong women have in shaping the career, and sometimes personal, choices of young women entering science.

It happens every semester, but Jessie was the most stunning example. She would take on simple tasks like dishwashing and lab maintenance with a certain care and precision not seen in most twenty year olds. But when I asked her if she’d like to take on a laboratory project all she would say is, “I probably can’t do it, I’m not smart enough.”

That sentiment was echoed every time she was assigned a task. She had self esteem that was so low it defied accurate analogy. Yet every time I would show her a technique, computer program or protocol she would execute it flawlessly after a flurry of “I probably can’t do it” and “I’m not smart enough.” I don’t know why she was so eternally self-deprecating, but it was sad to see her downplay, if not completely discount, her inherent talents and abilities.

The women in my lab took special notice of this situation. At the time there was a technician and three graduate students, all balanced, opinionated and strong. Most of all they were complete, with good relationships overlaid with conspicuous hint of glamour. They were maybe four years older than Jess, making their influence especially strong. They dug one layer deeper into Jessie than I would want to; discovering her dysfunctional relationships with males, her horrendous daily decisions and the penetrance of her miserable self perception that negatively impacted many facets of her life.

Leading by example, they showed her that women could drive science and lead a high-powered research team. They cultured her talents, supported her good decisions and taught her flawless execution of advanced scientific tests. Their influence would escape the walls of the lab, as they’d reprimand her when she’d talk about the dopes she’d date and the poor decisions she’d make at home. Soon, the growth was visible and rapid. The self-described ugly duckling was changing.

After a year in my lab with Dawn, Stef, Denise and Thelma, Jessie left to pursue advanced training within her major. She wrote up her work, turning in a graduate-level synopsis of the literature and her results. She had a visible sense of confidence, a new maturity and poise that contrasted so starkly against that of the “dumb blonde” that started in my lab only a year before.

Last week, years after she left my lab, I received a tiny card in my university mailbox buried amongst the junk mail. Inside was an invitation to a graduation. From Jessie. Adjacent to the time, date and event details was a handwritten note. “Thank you for teaching me how to think critically.”

One of the most important messages I ever received.

Sure, maybe I had a hand in it, but the best thing I did was mentor four stellar women scientists that took the initiative to guide her.

The rare success of a grant funded, a scholarly paper accepted, or putting the hood on a new Ph.D. are all wonderful, memorable moments in the life of an academic scientist. However, this victory was especially sweet. I folded that card inside-out, permanently wedged it into the frame of my office bulletin board, and then sent congratulatory emails to the four women that changed Jess’s thinking, influenced her decisions, and maybe even saved her life.

****  This post was first online in April of 2010.  In January 2012 we would suffer a tremendous loss. The next post details that tragedy ***

Event Renamed, Maybe Postponed. Needs to be Cancelled.

I was blown away to see that the South Florida Science Center and Aquarium was sponsoring "Science on Tap" an event at a local bar that featured a speaker on a scientific topic. However, the speaker for November 13th was a local dietitian with clear activist leanings, planning what appeared to be a baseless criticism of transgenic crop technology in her talk "GMO's (sic) Exposed". 

My analysis of the speaker and the situation here.

A few emails and notes on social media brought a first wave of responses that suggested bringing in "all views" was the job of science and that her talk was appropriate. 

My head almost exploded.  Since when is a "science center" promoting "teach the controversy"? 

Science Center endorses a local dietitian to speak on the dangers of GMO foods. 

Zero illnesses or deaths in 18 years.  88,000 deaths a year from alcohol.

Finally tonight I received word from their CEO that they'd be "pushing  back the start date of the event until we have secured an appropriate speaker who can represent the other side of the issue."

The other side (head hits desk).  They still don't get it, but we're moving in the right direction. Creationists everywhere got excited that the science center is now accepting talks for scientifically defunct ideas in an effort to hear all sides. 

From their website, a changed title, no notice that the event has been postponed. 

I advised to simply uncouple the South Florida Science Center and Aquarium from the event.  That's the best move.  They'd never bring in a psychic, a UFO expert, or a moon-landing hoaxer, or a Holocaust Denier, and then bring in a real  expert to show "both sides".  It falls directly into the creationist scheme of teach the controversy, when science clearly shows there's no controversy to teach.  

We'll see what happens next.  

It is hard to believe that a Science Center needs to be reminded about how science works.  It is not about presenting opinions of anyone that has one.  It is about hypothesis-driven data, good experiments, solid statistics and hard data.  It is not what a dietitian thinks and how she'll advance an activist agenda. 

That's the stuff for the Whole Foods Community Room. Go there and spew nonsense. However, the endorsement of a Science Center must only be used to endorse science backed by the scholarly literature and the scientific consensus. 

As it is said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.  Period. 

You've Been Fooled, Science Center!

If you are planning to visit the South Florida Science Center and Aquarium, you might not see Jesus riding a T. rex,  or a model of the earth with expanding glaciers.  These are the things that crackpot pseudo-science museums might promote.  Nothing like that could happen here... or could it?

An event next week was brought to my attention.  The South Florida Science Center and Aquarium is sponsoring Science on Tap- GMOs Exposed!  

November 13th you can go hear about how GMOs are 'exposed', whatever that means... Maybe we should dig a little deeper...

The presenter is Michelle Parenti Lewis, a local RD.  So what can an apparently trained RD "expose"? 

A quick google search shows that the South Florida Science Center and Aquarium has been duped.  They have scheduled what will likely not be a scientific talk, but an activist parasite posing as science.  This is the most disgusting of all scams. And they fell for it.

A little poking around shows that Ms. Lewis is an anti-GMO advocate.  In a local promotion for the same event on SouthFlorida.com they show the event's true colors: 

Blinded by Science?  But the $3 Irish Car Bombs will "kill any GMO in a radius of 17 feet from the food on your plate."  Science is awesome?  Sounds like something a Science Center might endorse? 

The promotion claims that Lewis will describe "their potentially harmful effects", which is code for "these have no documented health effects over 17 years, but that's not scary so we'll talk about potential effects". This sure looks like an activist rant posing as a scientific presentation. 

*** and alcohol kills 88,000 in the USA every year. That's exactly 88,000 more than GMOs in 17 years ***

There still is no hard evidence that this is a credulous activist talk posing as science.  It could be a typo, or the work of some intern that has been since fired for besmirching science. Or not.

It does not take too long to see that Ms. Lewis is steeped in naturalistic fallacy, and uses that platform to raise activist issues.  The website dietbalance.net  cites the November 13th event and provides a brief dossier.  It seems reasonable at first, but then gets to "She is an advocate for locally sourced organic food production and the labeling of genetically engineered foods and cloned foods".  

Cloned foods?  I guess those organic bananas, strawberries, citrus, and dozens of other crops are off the table. 

A little more digging and it's clear that she's in cahoots with Food and Water Watch, an activist hive that spends a lot of time trashing sound transgenic technology.  She has spoken at several events in support of food labeling.  Read this and weep, science lovers:

Wow, same old junk.

And if you poke around more you can find even more evidence that the proposed speaker adheres to the naturalist fallacy, and therefore has to deny, and fight, the science of biotechnology. 

So congratulations South Florida Science Center and Aquarium, you've been bamboozled by activists posing as scientists.  You've been tricked by someone with a lot of letters after her name that chooses to ignore the scientific literature, and that should be frightening.  

I would strongly recommend canceling the event, or at least taking away your endorsement and leave that to the crystal rubbers and ear candlers. This is not science and you are being used. 

Of course, if you like this kind of thing I can get a Jesus on a T. rex stature for your foyer... 

This is No Victory.

Hearts fluttered and hearts sank.  Election returns brought some to ballrooms and others to bathrooms. Others remained too close to call.

It appears that the ballot initiatives mandating labels on foods containing ingredients derived from transgenic crops did not pass. But it is no victory.

Many will disagree.  Grocery manufacturers, seed companies and farmers will claim victory because voters will not mandate what seed they use, or force unneeded hassles of separating products depending on if they contain a single gene or not.

However, the anti-farmer, anti-scientific voters that use a ballot box to vote on if science is true will return to the drawing board for two more years.  That's a temporary victory to those that spent (wasted) millions to push them back.  It should never have gotten that far.

Once again a comma defines the sentiment. 

Worse in watching the persuasive ads for YES and NO, both camps manipulated fear and emotion to influence voters.  There was no education, no reason.  Voting decisions were driven by an appeal to the lesser of two non-existent evils.

No matter how these results fall, it is not a victory for science and reason.  It reminds us that those of us that work in education have a long way to go.

It also deteriorates my faith in the wisdom of our nation's citizens. When they fall for the lies of activists over the evidence of science, it says we don't deserve a democracy. These votes should have been 100% NO, 0% YES, if we were listening to science.

The fact that it is 50-50 is tremendously disheartening.

How can we trust our fellow citizens to make good choices on complex issues like healthcare, taxes, foreign policy and other intricate issues when we half of people think their food is poison and that farmers are killing them-- and there's not a shred of science to support that claim?

And I'm not letting the other 50% off of the hook, as a large portion of that group voted based on a commercial that scared them about what would happen if "YES" passed.

Can we please have a national science-based dialog?  Can politicians have the backbone to bring science and scientists into this conversation in a big bold way?  Can we make some hard federal law that just puts this nonsense to bed?

The amount spent on defeating these measures would pay for a lot of research.  It is a shame it is spent on television ads to scare someone into voting a certain way.  This needs to change, and change now.

The Right to Know Begins with Learning

I just get sick when I hear proponents of Oregon 92 and Colorado 105 claim that they demand food labeling because they deserve a right to know.

In reality, there is no need for a right to know, at least as imparted by a clunky, expensive, and scientifically invalid law or amendment.  The right to know begins with a desire to learn.  A right to know begins with a willingness to listen to, and understand science.

As it stands, proponents of the ballot initiatives hope the right to know is a punitive tool.  It does not teach, it does not inform. It simply provides a means to distinguish food produced from certain farmers that chose specific seeds. It will be a way for them to conjure fear around perfectly safe foods, based on no real information. That's some powerful right to know.  What good is a right to know, if you know nothing, or worse, know false information?

What good is a right to know if you use it to harm farmers, consumers and the environment, let alone the needy that could benefit from advances in biotechnology?

Is it was really about a right to know?  

It if was, one could simply pick up a book and learn. 

The problem with demanding a right to know is that there is no "know".  There's no knowledge. There's no education.  It is plunging into idocracy where loud mobs of the uninformed shun independent, reproducible science, clinging tightly to the flimsy claims of one-off reports and activist fear tactics. But the TV doctor and the guy selling the book say these foods are dangerous.  Why are they dangerous?   Doesn't matter. It fits the construct they want to believe, so that's good enough.

Nobody really wants to know. They want to hear what reinforces their beliefs. 

So it is not about a right to know.  It is about a right to not know, to retain ignorance, to continue in darkness of fear and distrust. It is about a desire to shield from science, a hard choice to shun facts and trust beliefs of charlatans that profit from manufactured fear.

The beauty of the internet is that these reports should be rather durable and history will write itself around these events.  My hope is that we'll use these corny social demands for non-scientific changes as benchmarks of our primitive ineptitude.  We'll remember that we had many among us that voted if science was true or not.  We can see who is behind the stigmatization of good science as evil, and maybe quantify the body count and suffering they caused by fighting science.

It is not about a right to know.  It is about a want    to     not    know.  It is about sticking fingers in the ears and shutting out science.  The well fed and the affluent want a right to know, which is ironic, because they think they know everything already.

Manipulating Malleable Minds

One big difference between scientists and activists is that the latter have no problem using manipulating language to scare the public.  The former uses information to help the public make sound decisions.

Here's a stellar example from GMO Awareness.com.  It features fossil biotechnologist Dr. Theirry Vrain, a guy that used to work on the genetics of nematodes and used some molecular biology tools in the process.  Since his retirement, he's enjoyed the stage as one of the handful of sort-of-scientist darlings of the anti-scientific, anti-GM movement.

It bothers me when guys like Vrain and Huber use their former credentials to perpetuate bad science today.  Maybe I'm a little pointy because I was asked to analyze his YouTube video and it cost me an hour of my life I'll never get back.

However, it did help me understand who he is and why the anti-GMs love him so.

The sure love Thierry.  He tells them what they want to hear, and aside from a good 1980's understanding of molecular biology, almost all of it is wrong, and packaged to be cleverly deceptive. 

At least he starts out by saying "I refute" rather than making statements that claim to represent broader science.  Of course, the data show that yields are often better (despite no genes added to increase yield) require fewer insecticides and safer herbicides, which are of positive impact for the environment.

No evidence has ever shown them to be unsafe to eat. 

The last line is the winner-- Yes, they have been shown to contain allergens, the same allergens as in non-transgenic corn and soy!  Plants make allergens!  
In this little blurb it is cleverly stated to induce the freak-out factor, to manipulate the malleable mommy middle that will make decisions on fear over logic. 

So why does the anti-GMO movement love Vrain?   Simple. He has some technical knowledge of the techniques, that's quite clear.   He's the closest thing they have to a scientist with a clue, and he tells them exactly what they want to hear. 

So where did he go goofy?   According to web-based sources, about 10 years ago he retired and "reinvented" himself.  He now lives with his herbalist partner, and they teach workshops on organic farming.  So there you go.  Cultural Cognition 101.  If you are into curing your problems with herbs and organic farming, then you have to hate transgenic technology. 

Here's an excerpt from a radio interview that 'splains it-

An online bio gives some sense of where this nonsense all comes from.

The good news is that the dollars of the credulous will finance his appearances well into the next decade, as they line up to hear him slam good technology.  The bad news is that carefully crafted deception as seen above, will continue to plague scientific decision making, clouding the atmosphere on this important issue.