Skip to main content

Prepping for the Next Smear Campaign

Last Friday my university released another 2000 pages of my email to hostile interests, and Monday they will release another pile to US-RTK.  

US-RTK is the activist organization that is funded by the Organic Consumer's Association, among others. The goal is to destroy the reputations of scientists, journalists, dietitians and others that are influencing the discussion of biotechnology, particularly as it applies to crop biology. 

At the same time they fund folks that pose as journalists and authors to prepare non-scientific articles and books that appear to be legitimate, then they self-review the work of people they pay to write. They are a hive of conflict of interest, pointing a finger and screaming 'conflict of interest' where no conflict, or some tenuous cursory relationship actually exists. 

The email grab this time is for all of my correspondence with Bayer. This is curious, because I just received my first "Big Ag" industry grant from Bayer. It is a little one, and the request for my emails came shortly after the grant appeared on my lab funding website.  The grant started Sept 18, 2017 and runs until September 17, 2018.  

If US-RTK follows the usual scheme they will create a story, and then hand it to a willing reporter who will write about how this secret collusion in undisclosed financing is a trade for lobbying favors in Congress for "Big Ag". We've seen it before.  Remember, their goal is to damage reputations of independent, public scientists, not tell the truth. 


In public universities we celebrate transparency.
Today it is used, at taxpayer expense, to target scientists with the intent of permanent reputation damage. 


You can libel someone and it becomes part of their Google DNA forever.  That's why these smear campaigns are so effective.  

1.  It harms the credibility and opportunities of lifelong public servants, teachers, and researchers. Career advancement is lost and additional opportunities are compromised.

2.  It guarantees that others will not enter the discussion for fear of their own careers, their safety, and family welfare. 

So what's the deal with the Bayer sponsorship? 

They have a small grants program to discover small molecules that can have roles in controlling plant growth.  

We have a new method to discover small molecules that have roles in controlling plant growth.

Their opportunity and our technology fit hand-in-glove.  

It is not some "GMO" thing, not some crop thing, it is discovery of new chemistries that do useful things. 


My lab's paper was published back in August.  We show a novel approach that can be used to potentially identify new biostimulants or herbicides in plants, or even new antibiotics in bacteria.  

Over the last two years I have tried to find support for this work.  NIH, NSF, etc all think it is cute, but it does not fit any programs for funding.  They want to test hypotheses, not generate resources. I totally get that. 

The University of Florida funded the original work through the highly competitive Seed Opportunity Fund. That was $85,000 in 2015.  

The current support from Bayer (about $57,000) barely funds a postdoc for one year, salary, fringe, health insurance, and a bit left over for supplies.  I am grateful that I was able to find a highly talented and skilled postdoc that saw potential in the project and accepted the challenge of jumping into a project that has such a limited time frame. 

And of course, not a penny goes to me personally. It all is used to fund an early-career scientist, and hopefully she/he (to protect their identity, the scientist has been in the lab since 9/18) will use this opportunity to publish high-profile work that will launch his/her career. 

So it will be fun to see how the deviates and smear-meisters at US-RTK spin this, and which complicit reporter will push their false narrative.

Once again, our commitment to transparency permits us to be targeted from malicious, deliberate misinterpretation of our personal correspondence. It wastes our time and your taxpayer dollars. 



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…