Skip to main content

An Open Letter to US-RTK


To the right-wing talk show host, a scientist claiming evidence of human-induced climate change is simply running the talking points of George Soros and the anti-oil, liberal media.

To the Young Earth Creationist, scientists speaking of evolution are simply reiterating the talking points of the atheist, Darwinist movement.

To a Jenny McCarthy anti-vaccination disciple, discussion of immunology and communicable disease simply is the talking points of Big Pharma.

And it follows, that if you honestly answer questions  on agricultural biotechnology that is consistent with the peer-reviewed science, they are simply the talking points of the evil Big Ag. 


I've been accused by US-RTK of using  corporate ag "talking points" and it appears to be the principle reason why my integrity is being impeached by US-RTK. I had to go to the dictionary to see how “talking points” is defined.  I figured that was a good place to start since I have been accused of using them.  The term is defined as, “in debate or discourse is a succinct statement designed to support persuasively one side taken on an issue.

I think that definition is rather insufficient.  It should be defined as "prepared and repeatedly used arguments that substitute for actual interpretations or analysis".  That's why I don't write dictionaries. 

In other words, US-RTK believes that my words are corporate words, implanted by them, in me, to do their bidding. 

They don't know me very well. 

The Open Letter states the rationale for US-RTK’s inquiry is that “when these (publicly funded) professors are closely coordinating with agrichemical corporations and their slick PR firms to shape the public dialogue in ways that foster private gain for corporations, or when they act as the public face for industry PR, we have the right to know what they did and how they did it."


This is where they make a massive blunder.  They assume a conspiracy, just because a scientist teachers about science.  The companies they loathe use the same science.  It does not make the science incorrect, or the scientist wrong for speaking about it.  It also does not connect the scientist to the company, other than they share a similar respect for scientific evidence. 

And by the way, nobody tells me what to say, or what to think. Nobody is "coordinating" or shaping anything I say. Eff that Ess.

When you base your discussions on the peer-reviewed literature, and companies base their science on the peer-reviewed literature, there may be some overlap in the message. That does not mean there is a conspiracy.



The science, is the science, and they don't like that the science is inconsistent with an anti-corporate worldview they hold.  Since their science heroes have been dismissed as frauds and quacks, that legit data in line with their beliefs has to be statistically tortured or broadly interpreted to fit their models, and real science continues to reinforce the basic concepts in transgenic crop science, their tactic is to silence the most effective voices that take the high-quality science to lay audiences. 

I've never reported anything on GMOAnswers.com that is not consistent with the peer-reviewed literature. In fact, I simply talk about principles of recombinant DNA technology (the stuff I earned my Ph.D. in) and spend time debunking junk science.  That isn't "corporate talking points".  That's science and technology that I understand. 

Now if I were to work for a public institution and spout information counter to established science, then I should be subject to a little more inquiry.  

In US-RTK's letter to me, Gary wraps up with a quotation from James Madison. I'm not going to go dig for James Madison quotes, but I do know that he certainly noted how power, in human hands, could be easily abused.  This witch hunt is an absolute abuse of liberty, the liberty of scientists to freely discuss science. 

It is fine for US-RTK, Gary Ruskin, or anyone to hate a PR company, Big Ag, heck, even hate me.  That's cool.  There have been no words spoken on their website or anywhere else that suggest that I am doing anything outside my job as a teacher and educator.  It is science.  It is not "PR". 

So thanks for the open letter, steeped in conspiracy and innuendo, manufactured suspicion of a guy that works constantly, seven days a week to do good public work.  Yes, that's what I do.  

I spend a few hours a week answering questions for the public on transgenic technology. Those are questions concerned people want answered honestly by someone that knows the science. Regrettably, US-RTK does not like that. 

The other 100  I'm working it is for my research program, my students & postdocs, our producers, faculty, and my department.  It is all the truth, all hard science, and I'm sorry they don't accept it. 

Rather than learn it, they must stop me, and anyone like me, from communicating the science they don't find acceptable.  

Climate, evolution, vaccination... transgenic crop technology.  Solid science that activist groups want stopped, and it begins by attacking those that communicate it to a curious public. 










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…