Skip to main content

Pseudoscience to Shine at Houston Museum


Houston, we have a problem.  Well, you have a problem. 

The Houston Museum of Natural Science (Twitter: @HMNS) is sponsoring an event that slams science, denigrates technology, and lends its credibility to a non-scientific movement.

HMNS is now an accessory to a disturbing trend.  Activist-inspired pseudoscientific nonsense is creeping into legitimate scientific forums.  Reputable museums, conferences, and science centers are cleverly co-opted into hosting or sponsoring non-scientific events, typically as part of an otherwise scientific program.  Activists do it for one reason-- to steal the credibility of the event or institution, exploiting its scientific reputation to add a patina of legitimacy to a non-scientific agenda.

The false claims of a crooked movement have now infected the Houston Museum of Natural History. On March 29, 2016 they will host Dr. TheirryVrain, a former molecular biologist that hung up the lab coat for speaking junkets in an intense mission of supporting pseudo-scientific claims.  As you can see from the website above, the lecture is titled “The Poison in Our Food Supply”, and it talks about the “damage done to our bodies” by genetic engineering of crops and associated weed control. 


$18 to hear false information?  Why would a science museum let activists hijack their credibility? 


This is especially disturbing for a science museum, because there is no credible evidence to back these claims.

Vrain is no stranger to pseudoscience. His talks feature the usual fallacies of arguments from ignorance and outdated understanding of biotechnology.  You can find them on YouTube. I even was asked to discuss one and dismantled it with a scientific a play-by-play debunking.  He says exactly what activists want to hear, and does so from the credible platform of a once-published scientist.  He is one of the darlings of the anti-GMO movement because he’s willing to look the other way at evidence to push an activist agenda and/or cash a check.

It is like the museum supporting a talk by Creationist Ken Hamm, allowing him to say that the earth is 6,000 years old, in the center of the universe and flat as a pool table.  It is like the museum sponsoring climate change deniers that say that glacial retreat and rising thermometers are a conspiracy.  

Yes, it is that bad, even worse.  This movement has a body count from denying technology to those that desperately need it. 

A few years ago when the South Florida Science Center sponsored such an event I lost all respect for them.  Members from their Executive Board spoke with me and said, “It is important to teach the controversy.” 

I could not believe what I was hearing.  Science museum?  We should not teach the controversy, we should teach the evidence, then debate that.   It should not be a loud and credible megaphone for activists that want to spew nonsense.  

My hope is that the museum just was snookered into sponsoring an event without due diligence.  If they have any scientific integrity they should cancel the event, or at the very least write a strong condemnation of the event along with a scientific statement that indicates the event is not based on science, that it is an activist event and should not be mistaken for credible science.  They must withdraw any financial sponsorship, or at least be subject to some donor shaming.   

Pseudoscience is creeping into our reputable venues.  It is imperative that we monitor those that attempt to weave denial of science, whether it is climate change denial, anti-vaccination, ant-GMO, or any one of a dozen topics activists seek to legitimize. 


Don’t  give them your credibility.

Originally posted on Science 2.0

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…