Skip to main content

Supporting FOIA Resistance

It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need to lock our doors.  It would be great if we didn't need passwords to protect our personal accounts online.  I would be overjoyed if we could be free, open and fully transparent in all aspect of our lives.  All open book. 

There is one minor problem. We can't trust everyone to do the right thing.  Some people are truly evil, and will hurt others for fun and profit, or sometimes to achieve a political motivation.  Because of this, we're forced to take steps to insulate ourselves from their malevolence.  Whether it is encrypted passwords or taking off your shoes at the airport screening line, we take steps to limit the harm from others acting unethically. 

US-Right to Know (USRTK) is a front group for interests sworn to end modern food production practices, contemporary genetics and safe approved chemicals. While claiming to act angelically in the public interest, they clearly act as a mallet of defamation, seeking to destroy the careers of scientists that teach evidence-based science. 

Their weapon is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and its ability to confiscate personal emails from public employees.  That's not the problem.  Our daily interactions should be transparent and open to public scrutiny.  That's not the problem. 

The problem is when sentences are lifted from their native context and reformatted into outrageous narratives with an intent to harm others.  They get what they want through our transparency, and then use it maliciously. 

If you don't believe it has an effect, google my name.  I'm smeared for life though search engines.  The people that want me silent have polluted the first 10 pages with misinformation, and it matters. 

Last week I spoke in Quebec City, and the host said that many called her concerned that I was invited. 

"Didn't you read about him on the web and how bad he is?"

That was a legit conversation, luckily my host had the guts to dig in her heels and say that we would stick with science and evidence. The person they have created is not who I am, but it is a narrative they were able to construct because of free access to my emails. 




Apparently USRTK is going to have to sue UC Davis for the emails for about a dozen faculty, at least according to their website. 

I fully endorse UC-Davis not cooperating in this case with this organization.  USRTK is not interested in checking for malfeasance, they want to use this resource to harm scientists that did their jobs.  If they just were looking for cases of impropriety they never would have made a big deal of my situation. I did my job, well.  They called it "corruption" and inspired tremendous personal and professional harm.  No laws or rules broken, nothing even unethical. 

Because we cannot trust them to do the right thing, it is reasonable to not cooperate.  Why give them the ammunition to forever hurt public faculty at a Land Grant institution?  If they found something unethical or criminal, great.  That's what FOIA is for.  But this is to harm people with their words out of context.  They have demonstrated that well. 

Again, in a perfect world we could be clear as crystal.  However, USRTK showed that they are evil people that will cherry pick those emails for sentences to harm, sentences that in context are completely innocent.  

In their raids of my records I have been 100% compliant and fully transparent-- and they used it maliciously. 

Congrats to UC-Davis for fighting back.  My institution will turn over 680 more pages on Monday, bringing the total to over 20,000. I feel that when someone acts immorally, we should never provide them more opportunity to continue their behaviors.  

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…