In the science blogosphere, medical falsehoods and pseudoscience are routinely called out. The watchdogging is done by a mix of scientists and journalists, who are constantly rebutting a never-ending stream of misinformation about vaccines, autism, and other public health-related subjects. For example, the indefatigable blogger known as Orac (he is a medical doctor and cancer researcher) regularly…Continue Reading…
In Europe, anti-GMO activism has turned increasingly confrontational, which seems to have backfired in one recent case. In the United States, anti-GMO sentiment has taken a different form, which Amy Harmon of the New York Times wrote about last week in this excellent piece: For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United…Continue Reading…
When a questionable story gets rolling and takes on a life of its own, you can usually count on journalists to check it out thoroughly. Not that debunking it necessarily puts an end to the matter, as we discovered with President Obama’s birth certificate and the global warming hoax cooked up by thousands of scientists….Continue Reading…
That’s the title of my latest post at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media. Specifically, I discuss the controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops, and why there is no scientific basis for being opposed to them–especially if you care about the issue of food security in a warming world.
Did you know that a group of scientists whose work has stirred public controversy are under siege? That their findings are vehemently contested? That they are harassed by zealots and that some have endured death threats? No, not climate scientists or animal researchers. I’m talking about plant scientists working on genetically modified crops. The latest attack against them occurred this…Continue Reading…
When you can grow more food using the same inputs of land, water and fertilizer, everyone — farmers, consumers, hungry people and anyone who cares about CO2 concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere — is better off. From a profile of an environmentally-minded owner of a California-based R & D biotech company, who says he wants…Continue Reading…
A scientist lays it out in the Guardian: The term “genetic modification” provokes widespread fears about the corporate control of agriculture, and of the unknown. However, results from 25 years of EU-funded research show that there is “no scientific evidence associating GM plants with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms”. This…Continue Reading…
If climate projections prove even partly correct in the coming decades, many areas of the planet will experience longer and nastier drought conditions. Let’s be clear: that won’t be anybody’s idea of fun in the sun. But as SciAm’s David Biello reports, for the last several years agribusiness giants like Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta have…Continue Reading…
I found this lament by NYT columnist Timothy Egan tough to swallow, in part because his enbrace of the “frankenfish” label demonizes the complex issue of genetically engineered salmon. Additionally, Egan makes his case by juxtaposing fraught concerns over biotechnology with Japan’s nuclear disaster, which I found problematic. Indeed, one Times reader wondered if it…Continue Reading…
Andy Revkin has a post related to a conference I (and numerous other journalists) also attended this week. Due to computer challenges (my laptop died on Tuesday) and other obligations, I haven’t yet been able to post on any of the sessions. But I’ll get something up by Monday. I’m still digesting it all. Meanwhile, for those who…Continue Reading…