Skip to main content

Last Few Words

Where do I go from here?   A good direction for sure.  I will continue to host the podcast and post weekly episodes here and on Twitter.  I will no longer be engaging in social media. I'll be creating a lot more media and sharing a lot of innovative research.  Stay tuned.  Here are some parting thoughts on the topics du jour

Posting Private Information and Hacked Documents

Throughout my professional career I have been asked to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. I must abide by those agreements. The problem is that others will use FOIA, hacking, stealing, or other methods to obtain your confidential files and distribute them-- breaking confidentiality and also screaming non-transparency.

So when people are somehow acquiring private documents you never shared and making your personal banking information known, it is time to back away from the discussion. My address is being posted next to phrases like "poison peddler" and "he gives children cancer".  The goal is to ignite mob action, to inspire one crazy soul to harm me or my family.

At 2:38 AM the night that Balter posted my home address and the internet  my dog was going ballistic.  Maybe he does that every night.  Maybe it was a coyote or deer near the house.  

But my wife and I have to think, is this someone coming to harm us?  Are we going to get a jar of flaming gasoline through the bedroom window?   This is terrorism, and Michael Balter knew exactly what he was doing when he puts my private information next to claims from his errant interpretations of private documents. 

How do people get documents you never distributed?  Why did he redact them?  What didn't he want you to see?  Why are stolen, hacked, manufactured or otherwise obtained private documents celebrated?  How is it even legal? 

Having to close bank accounts, re-establish auto bill pay and cut up debit cards is a colossal hassle. It was especially awful because I have to travel abroad and can't get a new debit card in time. So it goes. 





Consulting.

Here is the last thing I will say on the "consulting" issue.

1.  I was hired by a law firm to analyze some old data. 


2.  I was bound by confidentiality to not reveal any information about the nature of the work or the parties involved. I respect that commitment to this day. 

3. This was work on my vacation time, it was approved by the university, and has no direct connection to my job, my research or my outreach programs.

4.  In these activities (mostly held in Denver, as shown in the receipt posted by Balter) I never met with anyone currently working for the companies in question.

5.   In these activities I never visited a company in question.


6.  I had a wonderful time working with brilliant attorneys to sort out a long-standing question that settled a dispute between two parties.  It was one of the most intellectually exciting times of my life. 

7.  I was one of many expert scientists involved.  None of them have special disclosures on their websites and none of them have been harassed about it. None of them consider the work "consulting"- we were subject matter experts in a private mediation. 

8.  I was paid well for my time.  I did not want to do this job, I did not have time for it, but it was firmly in my area of expertise and I was probably the best person on the planet to do the work (time would show that I figured out something none of the other experts on either side could figure out, so that was really cool).  I gladly accepted the generous amount they offered. 

9.  I disclosed outside confidential work on my website.  After consulting with the Associate Dean who handles outside work disclosures she told me how to properly disclose that I was working for a law firm while still maintaining confidentiality. The website stated that I was working for a law firm as a subject matter expert in a confidential, private arbitration. 

10.  These are the facts.  Some call me a liar because my words don't match boilerplate letters and their conspiratorial  interpretations. If you think this was "consulting for Bayer" then fine, think that.  My account here is an exact discussion of what my job was.  If you think it is consulting for a company when I never visited the company for this matter, never spoke to anyone with the company, or dealt with science in the company, then think that. I do not consider that consulting. My website and all public disclosures will reflect these truths. 

11.  And I would LOVE to consult for Bayer or any other company that understands my capacities in research or communications.  I'm particularly adept at communications and messaging, so reach out if there is any special project that falls outside of my normal work responsibilities.     

And by the way, this is old news.  We discussed transparency and confidentiality a year ago on my podcast. 




Forward.   My research is going great, I'm working on a number of books and other projects.  I love my life at home.  I have 40 fruit trees, and tons more of you count bananas (that makes me happy). I am surrounded with beautiful friends and colleagues. I'm running well again even though a doctor told me that I'd never run again on my screwed up knees (ha ha).  My lab will probably publish 8-10 papers in 2019, and I think we're going to create quite a stir in how we farm in urban environments. 

The only thing weighing me down is the endless harassment online and the train of onerous public records requests that steal my time and waste enormous public funding. 

So I am going to shed that part of my public face. I'll still maintain my public Facebook page and run the podcast.  

In conclusion, is this a victory for Balter, Biofortified, Thacker, USRTK and the rest of the folks that want me eliminated from an important conversation? 

No.  They just created a more focused, disciplined and committed proponent of public advocacy of science, and I will use that platform with new media, new ideas, and more effective science communication. 

Thank you. 




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…