Inoculated Mind’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Huh! You called it first - Confirmation of hypothesis achieved.

  ...and i can almost see the picture of you progmo/vacc people you are either college students or...

  Sounds a lot like:

  "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," - Reverend Ray Mummert.

  On In which I go toe to toe with H. Clinton's science czar over GMOs posted 5 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Because they are part of the global GMO conspiracy, that's why! They must buy lab supplies from Nina Fedoroff's Sigma-Aldrich...

  You bring up a very good point - researchers who are using GE feed in their studies would notice the difference - and the demand for good quality data would compell them to do/say something about it.

  I have noticed that when it comes to demands for increased testing of GE crops. Every time there is a more detailed study published, more evidence is asked for. (The ever-moving goalposts) That was the premise behind the Seed Magazine article - that why after study after study does it not seem to affect European attitudes (or policy).

  To the anti-GE folks, the danger must be lurking in there somewhere, always just beyond the range of detection. Like the God-of-the-Gaps argument, it is a danger-of-the-gaps. For some, no study will satisfy them, and poorly conducted science will suffice to confirm beliefs arrived at for non-scientific reasons.

  I think Tom Philpott has confirmed one of the premises of the article by focusing the majority of his critique on Fedoroff and Sigma-Aldrich, and comparing the statements of the other panelists to Monsanto statements. It is an attempt at avoiding analyzing the substance, instead using a mental short-cut to arrive at the preferred answer. Whoever sounds more like Monsauron must be wrong.

  On In which I go toe to toe with H. Clinton's science czar over GMOs posted 5 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Here is the link to my post. Forgive me if I didn't want to link to a scheduled post until it had gone online. I would also like to note that your accusation that Nina Fedoroff has a conflict of interest is pretty remote. That argument is like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

  On In which I go toe to toe with H. Clinton's science czar over GMOs posted 5 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Gurian-Sherman paper only addressed two traits in two crops - that hardly constitutes shredding the notion that GE crops can contribute to yield gains. They specifically excluded canola and cotton. Interesting that you claim that the Seed article was stacked, but not Gurian-Sherman's paper.

  I am also criticizing Fedoroff's potential mis-statement on my own blog, as well as several claims of yours, this will post to biofortified in about 2 hours.

  On In which I go toe to toe with H. Clinton's science czar over GMOs posted 5 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Alida has pointed out that I have not been clear in describing the Biofortified blog, or who is being referred to as 'we' when I have mentioned it. In the context of this conversation, I have been referring to Anastasia and myself as 'we,' and no one else - I'm not sure who the third person Alida is thinking about is. Anastasia has been writing her own blog on genetic engineering for a few years, at Genetic Maize.

  I have been writing my own blog at The Inoculated Mind for several years, frequently about the same topic along with several other subjects. As I am also studying plant genetics, and have a passion for science journalism and communication, I decided to start a group blog about plant genetics to bring together a community of scientists to write about this topic and help educate the public. I created some space on my own server account and built it last summer, and launched in on Halloween. I invited Anastasia, a former professor of mine, and another professor in Australia to join the group blog and they did.

  What's my reward? Well, I must admit that all the big biotech companies pay me in experimental hormone-injected GMO corn meal. Mmmm... Ovulicious. No, seriously, my reward is to be a part of the overall discussion, to learn about this fascinating topic, and to educate others who have not had the benefit of an education in genetics but want to learn about the genetics of the food they eat. How would GE seed companies send me free samples? A little hybrid corn and a bottle of roundup? No, I'm afraid no one is paying me any money or giving me gifts to write on Biofortified or my own blog. And the weeds in my backyard - I pull them myself with no herbicide freebies (or paysies) to help in that.

  Alida - I have been very clear that I am not paid to blog - you really have a talent for not reading what you don't want to read. In your world, genetic engineering is only promoted by companies that stand to make a profit, and there can be no neutral commentators. How many times have you been asking repeatedly "who pays you?" like a broken record because the thought does not occur to you that someone could be writing about something because it is fun, interesting, and very important for people to know about? In fact, graduate students like Anastasia and myself put ourselves at risk, because there are not many outspoken plant geneticists - who would prefer to stick to doing research over getting in the public spotlight - we stand to lose just as much as we could gain from volunteering our time to do this.

  For those who slogged through all of this, thanks for reading, and Alida, thanks for not-reading. It is easier when your opponent does not bother to address your points. See you the next time this perennial topic comes up.

  Karl J. Haro von Mogel

  P.S. peaceiscomingforyou: You can read the hundreds of safety studies done by independent researchers at the GMO Pundit. You are right to not take company-driven reports at face value, but wrong to form your opinion of the technology without first seeking the independent, peer-reviewed science. With the way you put "Science" in quotes and claim that "Until the industrialization of food, there was no such thing as a food-borne illness." (which is false), I suspect that there is an underlying pseudo-religious faith leading you to your preferred conclusion, sans science. Think about the analogy to the shape of the Earth that you continued and ask yourself, which of us is demonstrating their position with peer-reviewed science and which is using insults, personal attacks, and grandstanding to avoid addressing those points?

  I'm out.

  On Would you like some GMOs in your coffee? posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 93 Responses