Skip to main content

Journalistic Merchants of Doubt Seek to Destroy Trust in Science

In last week's New York Times, reporter Danny Hakim once again provides a political cherry picking that strives to harm public perception of science.  Hakim is part of a cadre of journalists that clearly have personal disdain for conventional farming, particularly if it is supported by technologies from biotech seed companies.  

His series in the New York Times is called Uncertain Harvest, an ironic term seeing as though food security in this country and around the world has never been better.  Thanks to improvements in genetics and production techniques, the harvest has never been more certain. 

There absolutely still is a lot of work to do. Food insecure regions of the world will benefit from new technologies. Our inner cities feature food deserts, areas of poverty devoid of healthy fresh food. Ag producers in the industrialized world will rely on new technology to help them  remain profitable and competitive.  There is no question of this in the scientific community. 

Yet journalists like Hakim attain a visible venue in a place like the New York Times that grants them presumptive authority to report news that isn't news at all, but instead are veiled political statements.  The goal is not to illuminate the success of science, but instead to erode, as best as possible, the public's trust in technology and the scientists that create it. They also provide red meat to the anti-agriculture, anti-science movements that I'm guessing are probably pretty tight with Hakim. 

In the past, activist organizations like US-RTK, financed by aggressive anti-biotech NGOs and corporations, provided cherry-picked stories to reporters like Eric Lipton.  Lipton subsequently prepared false narratives targeting scientists (myself included), tarnishing our reputations as trusted public servants and instead categorizing us as an "inner circle of industry consultants, lobbyists and executives" that do the bidding of corporations in return for research grants. Quid pro quo. 

This is about one thing-- destroying trust

We as public, independent scientists have that trust.  Farmers and ranchers have that trust.  This is why we are targets. 

Hakim continues this attack on science and reason, implying that scientists are malleable agents of companies. That's great news to those paid by the anti-biotech industry, as clearly the whole system is corrupt. 

USRTK (funded by aggressive anti-biotech interests) writer Carey Gillam uses Hakim's analysis of two researchers interactions with industry to paint the entire research community as untrustworthy. 

Since Hakim, Gillam and Lipton point out that scientists are just corporate lackeys that can't be trusted, I thought it might be fun to see how much research was sponsored by companies at my university.  None of mine is, and you can look at my lifetime funding record here

How many corporate dollars are corrupting the University of Florida's ag research enterprise?  Take a look at our 2015 numbers.

Shills!  A whopping 3.5% of funding comes from corporations and companies, and very little from the Big Six (Five? Four?).  Most comes from companies like Tupperware, local interests, small ma  pa's, fertilizer companies, and irrigation firms.  It is a really diverse set of companies sponsoring that  $4.9 million to UF/IFAS.  The median award is probably $20,000, and that is used wisely to conduct specific research.  Read more here.

In short, a tiny fraction of research funds come from companies.  Frankly, they should be paying more.  They are frequently the beneficiaries of increased knowledge in agriculture, as well as the training and education we provide to the next generation of scientists. 

If anything, this shows how our support comes from non-company sources, and should be central in building public trust.  The taxpayer pays the bills, and we are a public institution that does work that benefits our State, citizens and stakeholders.

But that does not make for flashy headlines, and few reporters will cash a check on "Public Scientists Working for You!"  

It is more about advancing a political agenda, and that means telling narratives based on cherry-picked quotations and wild exceptions to the rules, rather than on reporting reality.  

This is the job of a new flavor of yellow journalism. It is to portray public servants as dupes of corporate interests and convince the public that science can't be trusted.  Find a way to land narratives in visible papers like the New York Times, posing as some sort of groundbreaking expose'. Their messages are then amplified by journalists paid by NGO's supported by industry, or by industries/NGO's/activist groups that target farming and agricultural technology. 

They hate the fact that we have earned the public trust and are changing the perceptions of food and farming.  They want to tarnish our halo.  Share the facts. 

Even if corporations funded the science 100%, does that matter? - that's the topic of my next blog.   


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…