Illumination 2.0

The scientific consensus among academic scientists tells us that: 1. The earth's climate is warming, with at least a component of human cause 2. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth and continues 3. Transgenic trangenic (GMO) food crops are safe and effective 4. Vaccines are a tremendous, safe cornerstone in public health. 5. Stem cell based therapies show great promise and some application now Every one of these statements is a well supported hypothesis.  Each is based on substantial data from different experiments and models, from many independent labs, worldwide. Critics suggest that such data and conclusions only are present because academic scientists are "bought and paid for" by big corporations.  The allegation is that corporations dictate what is to be studied, what will be funded and what results will be obtained, and what may be published. According to critics, who's bought off, who does the buying?  1.  Climate change scientists- G

Hi Everybody!  It's me!  You might think you know me as an academic research scientist that is dedicated to training undergraduate and graduate students, helping science link real solutions to agricultural questions, and thinking of novel frontiers in genomics and other basic science. You might also recognize me as the scientist that interacts with the public, teaching the science behind transgenic food (GMOs), climate change, evolution, vaccination, and other hot button issues that shouldn't be.  I'm glad to talk to people that disagree with me, and do it politely. Most of the time. But my cover has been blown. See, according to one anti-transgenic advocate-- I'm a dupe for Pepsico.  Confused?  Me too until she explained. (this is all public on Natural News comment thread , so I'm just reposting-- no violation of her privacy, and she'd appreciate me getting her message out in more places I'm sure) While chiming in on the narrow-mindedness of labelin