Skip to main content

Blowing the Lid off the Conspiracy

Last week I was spending a lot of time on flights, so I picked a few podcasts outside of my normal queue to fill my head with new ideas.  I read on Twitter about Take Out, a podcast hosted by Robyn O'Brien and Ashley Koff RD, so decided to give it a listen. One of the episodes features Carey Gillam. 

Ms. Gillam works for US-RTK, the activist organization claiming to be looking for crimes and collusion between Big Ag and university scientists, while they really are a well-financed front group for Organic Consumer Association that is out to facilitate the libeling of scientists that teach about evidence-based food technology. While serving on the activist payroll, she writes for several outlets trashing scientists and technology, ironically, calling them paid shills. 

She's been especially harsh on me, reiterating especially Eric Lipton's lies from his article.  But that will be fixed with time.  Let's see what's up here... 



The Take Out podcast makes claims designed to erode confidence in public scientists, without evidence. 


She makes a lot of claims that universities "support one industry" and plays the same boring cards that are not simply true. My department, and certainly my lab, work with dozens of industries, and almost all of them are in the conventional/organic specialty crop (fruits and veggies) space, and there's little/none done with Big Ag.  However, they like to paint us that way.  

But I was interested in what Gillam was saying. She made a lot of claims that pointed to conspiracy. It was the same indictment of public researchers made solely to erode public trust in what we do.  I work with a very dedicated group of professionals that could have double the salary and much more access to resources if we did actually work for industry. We chose public science to serve a greater mission. The parking lot here is full, seven days a week.

Let's focus on two of the claims that were made:


@24:00   One claim was that someone in a University of Illinois  "grad program" was apparently conducting research that provided one result twenty times, but the funder, Monsanto, "didn't like" the result, so they kept repeating until they got the results the company wanted. Then they'd publish the one result "that promotes corporate interest". 

@24:50  Someone in the University of Missouri working for USDA found negative information about glyposate and that was allegedly not allowed to publish the work. 

So my question is:

US-RTK has stopped at nothing to obtain public records from any scientist that speaks publicly about the science and technology of genetic engineering.  Why do they not use the same FOIA laws to obtain the records associated with these two allegations? 

I'll make Ms. Gillam a promise to work with her to address the issue at University of Illinois.  If companies are forcing, coercing, or influencing graduate students to perform academic misconduct and scholarly fraud, then this needs to be discovered, reported widely, and remedied. Anyone associated with such misconduct is to be identified and driven from public science. 

I ask for cooperation between Ms. Gillam, her contacts, and anyone else necessary to investigate this fully, and obtain any and all protections for any whistleblowers involved.  If students were threatened, then the scientific community will get behind them. It would be unethical for Ms. Gillam to not report this, and for the future of these students, I'm glad to work with her to expose these facts behind this allegation.

Next, the allegation about the University of Missouri person with the USDA.  Ask them to provide me with the data that show clearly that glyphosate is dangerous or has some negative effect.  They may do this through Gillam without exposing their identity.  

If the data are real and experiments sound, I'll publish them under my name.  Then once published, we'll expose the conspiracy.  The scientist will be protected from his/her agency and when the work survives peer review, they will have a tremendous lawsuit on their hands against their employer. 

Frankly, I don't think these stories are true.  However, if she is telling the truth then it is necessary for all of us to stand up, stand with her and these suppressed/harassed researchers.  I promise full cooperation.  It would not bother me to have a common interest in exposing the truth.  I don't think she'll warm to this offer, nor do I think there every will be any evidence to support these allegations. 

This is not the first time I've made such offers. In 2010 or so, I was at the TAM8 Conference and a speaker claimed to have a friend with definitive evidence that climate change was a hoax, but his data were suppressed, and he was not allowed to publish them.  I offered to publish them under my name. Nobody could not suppress me-- his "friend" would just have to give me the data and assist in writing the paper.  We'd do the test and expose the suppression!

I'm still waiting. 

My guess is that both of these cases are "well I heard" claims that frame scientists as weak pawns of corporations, and stooges that put financial interests ahead of the truth. It fits with the theme of Take Out and their parade of guests that aren't scientists or accepting of science. 

But let's give her the benefit of the doubt, which is more than they ever do for me.  If either of these cases is true, then they need full attention, fast remedies, and appropriate disciplinary action.  We need to take such allegations extremely seriously, and I promise to do my best to work with her to expose such cases.

We should do everything we can to expose bogus claims, and chastise those that make them. 


*** Ms. Gillam has been invited to discuss on the Talking Biotech podcast, and I'd be glad to discuss this, and any issue with her. 









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…