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 here ), it

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 skillfully

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 of expanding he

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, claiming that we are afraid to deb

A letter arrived on Cornell University Dean Kathryn Boor's desk this week. The same letter was sent to the Board of Trustees. Sixty-seven people from New York State's organic farming community requested that the dean give the Cornell Alliance for Science the boot from the campus.  They feel that such efforts have "no place at a Land Grant institution." Alliance for Silence?  I'm familiar with the Alliance for Science and have even participated in their training sessions and discussions.  I'm know what it is, what it isn't.  It is stunning to me that people would complain to university administration that the exchange of scholarly ideas regarding agricultural technology would be objectionable.  Well, maybe not so stunning.  The headlines at Sustainable Pulse present the argument against Alliance for Science. It is, "We don't like that the evidence fails to support our beliefs, so we want you to stop talking about it." In sho

The New York State Parent-Teachers Association (NYS PTA) has presented its proposed resolutions for the 2016  school year. Leafing through them I find comfort in Retention #4 on page 2 that clearly states that textbooks and instructional materials will be up-to-date, factual and unbiased. Such strong affirmations guaranteeing adherence to teaching based on our best methods and evidence is a credit to the NYS-PTA. But on page 13, New Resolution #1 breaks the pledge of up-to-date, factual and unbiased. The resolution being considered makes several claims about “Genetically modified organisms (GMOS) and genetically engineered (GE) foods”. They cite a “link” between such products and “negative health consequences”, that their standards ban “unhealthy products”, and claim that there is insufficient evidence that such food products are safe for human consumption. This new resolution asks for state legislation to ban products from genetically engineered plants (actually they say “GMOS an

One of the sad ironies of modern education is that the more expert you become in your field, the harder you have to work to be able to get in front of a classroom. It comes as no surprise.  Our primary role (mine is 80%) is research, leaving only 20% for teaching, and that is mostly satisfied by direct supervision of graduate students.  I'm also a full-time administrator, so that takes the rest of my time.  I get to do a lot of guest lectures and teach about 25% of a graduate course in the area of sensory biology and biochemical signal transduction.  This semester I had a problem.  A scientist on the faculty here was serving in Washington with NSF.  He taught undergraduate molecular biology, a key course for many students.   There is no possible way that I should have taken on teaching an undergraduate course. But wow, I'm so glad I did.  While I should never have done it, I jumped at the chance to teach his course, and ended up teaching the first third of i