Saturday, May 5, 2018

Indian Farmer Suicides


This week's podcast is an important clarifier about the issue of farmer suicides in India.  It is a complex issue that is unraveled by this week's guest.  Activists like Vandanda Shiva claim that it is all due to biotech (GMO) cotton and other crops.  This week's guest tells a much more nuanced story based on her studies. 




Friday, May 4, 2018

UCSF Hosts Activist Smear Campaign at Taxpayer Expense


The other day on Twitter I saw an unusual entry that led a popcorn trail to a new level of public records abuse at new taxpayer expense.   



 Thacker says that you should trust UCSF, a top medical school, and its archive on me in the "Chemical Industry Documents".  Hosted by taxpayers to attack taxpayer-funded scientists. 


It’s my old buddy Paul Thacker, the guy that writesunfortunately inaccurate articles about me and others that ultimately endretracted or sporting corrections. He always seeks a way rub his stink on me, in a clear attempt to harm a public, academic scientist that teaches from the literature.

And in this case he does not disappoint.  He posts a curious website, the Industry Documents Library at the University of California San Francisco.  To Thacker and his buddies at US-RTK (the industry-funded hate group that seeks to silence and/or harm public scientists) this database has become a new repository for their “evidence” of foul connections between academics like me and the chemical industry.

What?

Of the 4,000 documents in the Chemical Industry Archive I'm 10% of them, a lifelong public scientist that has 99% of his funding from public sources (USDA, NSF) and the Florida Strawberry Industry. 

First, chemical industry?  Industry database?  The first entry is an email between me and folks at Cornell University.  They asked me to sign a recording waiver for my seminar, and I inquired if Prof. Ron Herring could join me on a podcast.  Chemical industry?

The second is me and UC Davis’ Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam.  Chemical industry?

Maybe there are some emails with friends in the seed companies in there somewhere.  I didn’t dig deep, but these are mostly personal emails between academics; me and another professor.  This is not illicit conversations with the “chemical industry.”

However, Thacker, Ruskin and company use the fact that these emails exist in this database as overwhelming evidence of malfeasance.  That’s spread via Twitter and other conduits.  Oh, and they put the emails in the database.


US-RTK, an industry-funded hate group, cons UCSF library to host my private emails, calling it "chemical industry" communication.  I'm mostly speaking with academics, students, others. Your tax dollars at work!  


I called the UCSF Library and spoke with Kate Tasker.  She was polite, but insisted the documents were bona-fide proof of deep chemical industry collusion that were appropriately cataloged in that collection.

She has no interest in taking the documents down, no interest in investigating the lack of relevance to the "chemical industry". To them, US-RTK is doing its job as a public watchdog, fingering chemical industry pawns like me, lifelong public scientists they want to silence.

All the while Thacker and others exploit UCSF’s credibility to add gravity to their hateful false claims.

Here's the bottom line. My emails are provided to activists at taxpayer cost, then are handed over by activists to a taxpayer-funded database, posted with the intention to a harm taxpayer-funded scientist.

Where’s John Stossel when you need him?


Thursday, May 3, 2018

The Progressive Lacks Integrity- Exploited to Spread Thacker's Misinformation

Paul Thacker fancies himself a journalist that exposes unethical industry-academic collusion and impropriety. 

The problem is, he's easily fooled.  He spawns false information that upon publication is frequently either retracted or corrected after publication.  Less credible media leave his word puddle uncorrected.  He's not very smart, and is an incredibly boring, rambling writer.  He is not analytical, not scientific-- instead he actively cherry picks and warps information to conform to the narrative he (or his sponsors?) wants told. 

His hit pieces get a pathetically few retweets and shares.  He's largely irrelevant, even to anti-biotech folks, which is why I never wanted to give him the sick glee, exposure, or personal jollies by publishing a critical analysis of one of his (boring) tomes.  

However, with the intent to harass, he continually uses social media to cite his own shoddy work as authoritative evidence that others (especially me) are corporate pawns, sworn to do the bidding of companies that seek to exterminate human life on the planet with technology.  Because that's a great business model. 

His modus operandi is simple-- tarnish the reputation of legitimate scientists he targets, using false information, wild interpretations, untruthful extrapolations, and bogus claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists has even written about his brand of harassment. What a guy.  

Sadly, he sometimes exploits legitimate news sources to publish his filth.  The LA Times (where they basically republished the retracted PLoS story) and The Progressive come to mind.  Others have denied him a venue or retracted his claims.  

Paul Thacker sports a special hateful tumescence for me.  He stalks me online, searching for any opportunity to tweet contrived false or negative information about me. It has gone on a long time. I usually grab a screen shot and ignore it. I don't care about him. 


Here is a sampler of this volcano of harassment.  That's just the tip of the iceberg.  

But at some point when you endure almost daily harassment and abuse, it is necessary to comment.  Recently his rain of smear is becoming more intense, so perhaps it is time to show just how malicious this guy is, and illustrate his commitment to harming my reputation and career. 

It also is a good time to spank The Progressive.  I warned them that Thacker was going to use them to publish an attack piece with little merit.  They published it anyway.  They also refuse to correct it or offer apologies.  The editor offered me a 250 word letter to the editor.  Thanks for that.  Shame on The Progressive




I used to like The Progressive.  We're on the same page for the most part, but I'm disappointed that they'd host hostile pieces about public servants. 

Since Thacker routinely cites a junk article that The Progressive was glad to publish, it makes sense to produce a critical analysis of that work.  

The next panels show The Progressive article by Thacker, with my corrections and comments in red.  Enjoy, and reach out if you have any questions or commentary. 

Paul and I share a common interest in transparency. My finances, grants, reimbursements, etc. are all public record and provided in great detail at this site.  Folks like Thacker use that commitment to transparency to develop false narratives, as you see in the panels below. 

Make some popcorn, enjoy his vitriol and the gentle illumination I provide. 



 The title should be a "scientist shares published evidence, and scientists ask experts in journalism to help them be better communicators."


(click to make larger. It does not start at the beginning, but maybe I'll do that later.)
 








In conclusion, the article in the Progressive is consistent with the level of innuendo, error, extrapolation and false association found in his normal work.  

It is sad to see someone so aggressively against public scientists.  It is even sadder to see that reputable outlets fail to fact check and offer refuge for such publication. 

Friday, April 20, 2018

Denouncing Public Education

When scientists Monday-morning quarterback the lack of public acceptance of any technology, the usual conclusion is that we fumbled the communication. From refrigerators to in vitro fertilization, from antibiotics to biotech, rocky beginnings can be blamed on the fact that nobody bothered to simply talk to concerned people. 

Over the years scientists and science communicators, sociologists and psychologists have kibbutzed about this problem, and clearly we have determined that the right kind of information did not flow through the right channels in the right way.  Communications efforts were confined to big companies talking to farmers, and nobody talking to the public. 

One possible strategy would be to have science students engage in proper, evidence-based discussion.  It would provide solid, publication-backed science-- and do it in social media and newspaper comments sections, the places where these conversations were taking place.

We've discussed this is a dozen different contexts over the years, but there is no way to do it easily (the topics covered are so vast) and who is going to pay for it?  Educators should be compensated for their time. Of course, all funding would be transparent during participation. 

One example of such a spitball session re-emerged online on April 20, 2018.  Gary Ruskin from US Right to Know posted one of my personal communications from 2014 (yes, four years ago) that came from the tens of thousands of emails freely provided to him at significant taxpayer expense. Here's Gary's post and the dud of a smoking gun. 


From his tweet Gary either didn't read the document or is just making up inflammatory information for a cheap political gain.  Read and decide. (full text below)

Gary calls it an initiative to promote GMOs via social media.  If you actually read the document you can see that it is not to "promote GMOs" (a favorite allegation), but rather, it is to help reach out to the public with informed scientific discussion through the conduit they use most-- social media. 

Social media space is dominated with horrible information that does not match the tremendous body of science.  Ruskin, Carey Gilliam, Paul Thacker and the rest of the US-RTK payroll are threatened when real scientific information is disseminated, especially by actual scientists. 

This is why they denounce public education.  An educated public is US-RTK's worst nightmare. 

There are several fun parts about this "initiative"
1.  It was clearly described as not "a promotion or sales pitch" for a specific product.
2.  It emphasized evidence-based information exchange.
3.  It would teach students how to be good teachers.
4.  It never even happened. 

Once again this instance shows:
1.  Activists will cherry pick documents from public officials' documents and distort their meaning.
2.  Taxpayers are financing a war against taxpayer-funded scientists.
3.   Public scientists are attempting to create novel and creative ways to reach the public, and educate students in the process.
4.  It is not about a right to know.  It is about funded front groups like US-RTK controlling information flow to only communicate misleading information, not science-based food/farming information of consumer interest. 

The best part of this tweet is the pathetic number of retweets and likes. It really shows the influence of US-RTK.  Nobody cares.

But maybe it is not too late.  Maybe Gary, Carey and the other one (who's name I can never remember) can start working with scientists and changing expectations of food and farming in a positive way.

Don't hold your breath. The organizations that fund them hate scientists, as our information harms their bottom line.  Time has not been kind to US-RTK or their contributors, and going forward they will continue to realize that fighting science and reason is no way to change hearts and minds. 



Here is the whole email as presented in the tweet.  Click to embiggen.




Saturday, April 14, 2018

Rice Domestication and Breeding Podcast

This week's podcast is on rice domestication. Rice represents a huge amount of calories consumed on the planet, and it has an amazing history. This is worth a listen, with Dr. Susan McCouch from Cornell University. 


Monday, April 9, 2018

How Will Time Judge You?

This week I was stunned by an article in Mother Jones.  Author and Senior Editor Kiera Butler wrote an article about the IARC decision against glyphosate, and how the panel knowingly omitted data from a massive study that did not support the panel's predetermined conclusion that links the herbicide to cancer. 

Scientists and regulatory agencies have long recognized that glyphosate is benign relative to other week killers, and extremely safe at levels used. Activists claim that it is a deadly poison and its immense toxicity is covered up by a deep cabal between companies, regulators and every scientist and farmer in the world. 


Keeping readership trust in the long term requires discussion of of evidence when it is blatant or insurmountable.  The comments section is priceless, including claims that Monsanto paid for this article.


Mother Jones has a history of supporting less-than-scientific positions, including work that they have written about me personally.  

The problem is that when you espouse positions based on feelings over fact, time has a way of calling you out on it.  Mother Jones, like most left-leaning publications, made the mistake of posting many articles inappropriately critical of good seed technology.  These articles don't hold up well through the lens of time, and they remain permanently archived on the internet. 

In other words, your assault on science and reason can come back to haunt you, you lose credibility, and people tune out.

I started to think about this a lot when I met Gary Ruskin in person recently.  I was kind and soft to the man that posts harmful, defamatory bullshit about me on his website and costs my university millions of dollars. 

He said that he had to hustle home to California to spend time with his relatively new child. That's good. 

But as that child grows, how will they see their father?  Will he be a crusader for truth as he claims to be, or will time unveil his scheme as an agent of corporations sworn to harm public scientists and advance a science-free agenda? 

History will show-- these people are reprehensible opponents of reason and evidence, that slowed acceptance of good technology, hurting innocent people maliciously along the way. 

What will you look like through the lens of time?

Mother Jones wants to keep it real, for their own survival. 

Monday, April 2, 2018

Off Target CRISPR Report Retracted

The world is poised to hate gene editing technologies, much like they hated refrigerators, cars, open heart surgery and in vitro fertilization.  There has not be a revolutionary technology yet that consumers haven't rejected first, and asked questions later.  Except stuff Apple sells. 

So when a paper came out last year claiming massive off-target effects of CRISPR-based gene editing, the critics went ballistic. 



The scientific brain trust at Mercola.com jumped on the news story, as to the biotechophobe the genetic sky was falling. 


But to the rest of us we looked carefully at the paper and had a lot of questions.  Mostly, it appeared that what the researchers were calling "off target changes" were not changes from gene editing at all, but instead were just natural sequence variations found between mice.  Bee. Eff. Dee. 

One year later, the paper has been retracted.  But the damage has been done.  This revolutionary technology now gets a sideways look when mentioned.  This one paper, and subsequent media explosion, truly harmed public perception. 

The detractors also fail to point out that the therapy rendered allowed blind mice to see, so they may argue that even with a bit of collateral DNA damage the ability to see cheese and mousetraps was a fair tradeoff. 

The point is simple.  This toothpaste is out of the tube and nobody needed to brush their teeth in the first place.  The reputation of this stellar technology has been effectively sullied by activists, the media, and even scientists that failed to look critically at the work before caving into group hysteria. 

The answer?  Be skeptical.  When you hear claims about the dangers of new technology, be aware that there are plenty of people out there that would love to see it fail.