Illumination 2.0

Food Democracy Now quotes Dr. Huber about sacrificing our future and children.  He claims now for almost a decade to have an organism in his hands that contributes to a suite of human disease, illness and death. He will not release it to the scientific community.  How many must die before he will stop sacrificing our children and our health?   Dr Huber, when will you release information on the deadly pathogen?  What are you waiting for?  ****** One year ago on November 12, 2013, Dr. Don Huber, Emeritus Professor at Purdue University stood in front of an audience here in Gainesville, FL and told them about his research.  He claimed to have isolated an organism, a new "entity" that exudes from GMO soybeans.  It infects cows and causes abortions and causes many diseases in humans. The audience gasped with every picture of dead calves. They were in shock about his findings.  Dr. Huber had unveiled proof that the GMO industry and Monsanto were killing u

I was really excited to watch the Intelligence Squared debate. I've been looking forward to it for seemingly ages. Bottom line-- it was as predicted.  Fear, questions, and magical thinking against science, reason and evidence.  And science won.  Not only did science win, the fear-based empty fact-free claims from the other side are permanently stored online for everyone to enjoy forever. I'm not going into too much post-event analysis, but I will take the time to point out some of the major things we all need to take note of. Mellon has no clue.   Here's someone that is so out of her league.  Her antiquated talking points are no match for reality.  She did a nice slam on conventional breeders, people that are working very hard to improve crops using cross breeding-- and she seems to believe they are not doing a very good job. She also seems to think that Europe is this wonderful place that has ag all figured out.  Of course, they import massive amounts of food from

A lot of folks don't know it, but I loves me a good debate.  In college I was the president of our Debate and Individual Events Team at Northern Illinois University, and our tiny rag-tag team of rhetorical hammers finished 7th in the nation against the huge perennial powerhouses from other universities.  That was a good score. It was there that I learned a lot about argument and a lot about how to frame a persuasive message. My coaches were (and still are) the best in the business. Vielen danke Santa, Shrek and Solomon! Tomorrow is the big debate on Intelligence Squared.  Chuck Benbrook and Margaret Mellon are squaring off against Alison Van Eenennaam and Robb Fraley.  It is anti-GMO vs transgenic science in an NPR-mediated battle royale! Today I provided valuable debate insight and information Alison and Robb,  I'm so glad that these two where chosen against Chuck and Margaret.  It almost seems a little unfair. Two likable and charismatic scientists against a couple of s

I received an email yesterday from someone I had not spoken two in probably six months. Back in April I gave a presentation to the postdocs at the University of Florida.  It was advice about communicating their science, sharing their science, and thoughts on job interviews. Such things are sorely needed.  We produce way more Ph.D.s than the number of jobs to support them, so we end up with a large number of postdocs in circulation. These folks are professional scientists, as good as they get. We just don't have enough jobs for all of them, so it is not unusual for a Ph.D. scientist to be making $35,000 a year, six years after the degree is over, with no hard promise of a job.  Interviews are ultra competitive and skilled scientists often fail at that last critical moment-- impress the committee on paper and get the interview, but fall short in person and don't land the job. After the seminar I was approached by a 5th year postdoc.  We can call him Dr. S, since he has a

A few weeks ago I wrote a note to Bill Nye about his incorrect opinions on transgenic technology.  No response.  Sort of. I got an email and was told I could share the content, but not the name, and no screen shots or direct quotes.  Apparently this is someone that knows about Bill Nye, his production group and his handlers.  The feeling is that it is from someone close to him, or someone on his team. It could be completely false too.  I'm about 50/50 on authenticity. I would just post the whole thing. But, he said I could use only paraphrased information in a blog, and asked me to not use his name, so I won't.  The note says that if I play by these rules maybe I'll get more info, and that as a science fan he's hoping for the debate.  Weird. The note said that Nye's associates seek to use him as a political wedge, and that Nye himself is right on board. It is apparently a transition of Nye from a media science communicator to a political figure to work against

Today while flying home from a scientific conference I could not help but remember the Food Babe’s warnings about commercial aviation.  Her recent post warns of recirculated filth and high amounts of nitrogen, somewhere like 50%.  Of course, that’s about 30% less than ambient air.   Her claims were widely, and appropriately criticized. Today I took a good look at the inside of that cylinder in the sky and noticed hazards that Vani didn’t catch. She failed to account for other airborne dangers on the plane, problems that likely contribute to the deadly quality of cabin air more than anything she may ever fear. But before I start, we all know that commercial aviation is plagued with funny odors.  While we sit in a chair in the sky the nose is treated to a parade of organic funk, wafting through the cabin.  Whether it is the chronically unshowered and unsleeved, the woman that insists on taking off her shoes and putting her feet all over everything, or the folks that secrete gase

A few weeks ago I attended the Food Babe's talk at the University of Florida. I listened to her talk about herself and provide lots of false information to my students, and waited for the opportunity to ask dismantling questions from one of the two microphones in the room. She did not take questions from the audience. The event ended and the audience left. She was paid $6000 for over an hour's time to promote her brand and spread her filth.  Now scientists and educators have to fix it. I first wrote about the night and the lack of a Q&A period here.  The story spread quickly through social media, the place with a love-hate relationship with Hari. Vani Hari responded by claiming that there was in fact a Q&A session, that she did answer questions from the audience. So it is my word against hers.  Via social media she explained to her followers that she did answer questions.  We know she didn't. The answer may be that she knows nothing about scientific p