Illumination 2.0

The New York Times failed again, publishing a less-than-scientific ball of bias that states genetically engineered crops fail to produce as expected.  Investigative reporter Danny Hakim's opinions contrast sharply with the scholarly literature, as well as the direct experiences of the people that understand the benefits and limitations of the technologies-- farmers that use it.  As it has been said, it is easy to trash a farming technology   when your plow is a pencil . The author here returns to two well-refuted, ancient criticisms. First, that genetically engineered crops fail to yield, and next, that they don't cut "pesticides".  These are old and familiar discussions for those of us that have studied this subject for twenty years.  We could spend a lot of time reviewing the data Hakim used to reach his conclusions.  But rather than point out the flaws in his highly selective, cherry-picking analysis ( which Dr. Andrew Kniss did skillfully...

The New York Times failed again, publishing a less-than-scientific ball of bias that states genetically engineered crops fail to produce as expected.  Investigative reporter Danny Hakim's opinions contrast sharply with the scholarly literature, as well as the direct experiences of the people that understand the benefits and limitations of the technologies-- the farmers that use it.  As it has been said, it is easy to trash a farming technology   when your plow is a pencil . The author here returns to two well-refuted, ancient criticisms. First, that genetically engineered crops fail to yield, and next, that they don't cut "pesticides".  These are old and familiar discussions for those of us that have studied this subject for their whole careers.  We could spend a lot of time reviewing the data Hakim used to reach his conclusions.  But rather than point out the flaws in his highly selective, cherry-picked analysis ( which Dr. Andrew Kniss did ...

When you ask people what a postdoctoral researcher does, few people have a realistic answer.  These are professional scientists with Ph.D. degrees that seek additional training to hone their skills and build a scientific portfolio. They are overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid. They frequently have little to no voice in departmental or university decisions, ironic, because they drive the front edge of the discovery. They are frequently the engines of our laboratories. They do it because jobs are few and can only be realistically approached with the training, exposure and career development that a good postdoctoral research experience can provide.  This long introduction sets the stage for a tragic tale of Sharon Gray.  I never met Sharon.  But as an advisor of postdocs and a supporter of developing scientists in our field, I'm shocked by the story of her horrifying and untimely demise. She was a young professional developing her art, and in the course ...

In poking through my Twitter feed I find a curious post. It is being circulated that I agreed to do a debate, but then backed out.  What?   As a guy that studied rhetoric, loves a debate, and coached debaters for a long time, I relish the opportunity to debate, especially scientific topics.  I've debated evolution, climate and genetic engineering issues over the last decade.  So to read online that I was invited to a debate and then backed out was quite surprising.  Turns out that it starts from that guy in Ithaca that is obsessed with legitimizing his anti-GMO crusade.  He has been harassing people on Facebook for some time.  Apparently he and Jonathan Latham* (another anti-GMO, anti-science zealot) organized a debate, only didn't bother to actually extend real invitations to me, Jon Entine or Karl Haro von Mogel, of course, saying that they did, and that we won't show.  In social media they are taking a victory lap, claimin...