You’re being disingenuous. Your first tweet, which we are replying to, was about his marital life. So, now your key issue is taking money from Monsanto? So why tweet that trash in the first place if you care about it so little?
-
-
Replying to @matthewbabula @gorskon and
As a
#MeToo
reporter I am definitely concerned about those allegations as well, but also about the role of researchers who advocate for GMO safety and how objective they are.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @matthewbabula and
That's fair Michael. Can you point to one thing I've said in a blog or in a podcast that is not supported by evidence from a scientific consensus? If not, then your objectivity question is solved. Thank you.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @kevinfolta @matthewbabula and
No, we are not arguing the science of GMOs here. We are arguing whether you have faithfully represented your relationship to industry or not over the years, including Monsanto (not just research funds but funds for advocacy as well.)
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @kevinfolta and
.
@mbalter you may have trouble reaching people to understand conflicts of interest and the way corporate money biases research. These guys just hop up and down and screech "science" without understanding . . . science! "Why Disclosure Matters" http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/OreskesEtAl_EST15.pdf …2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @thackerpd @kevinfolta and
Yes. As I have said, I have no strong opinion on GMO safety. What bothers me is branding anti-GMO groups “anti-science.” This seems clearly inaccurate to me in regards to the major anti-GMO activist groups. “Real” scientists have been debating GMO safety for decades.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @thackerpd and
The safety of GE to introduce traits as compared to other breeding techniques isn't debated by "real" scientists. I agree that branding anti-science is counterproductive. A good chunk of their concerns are socioeconomic, rather than scientific, in nature.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @ksenapathy @thackerpd and
Sorry but calling GE a “breeding technique” is already introducing a major inaccuracy into the discussion. But it is a rhetorical device commonly used.
#GMOs2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @ksenapathy and
I don't like "breeding technique" either. It is a genetic improvement technique. Like mutagenesis, like CRISPR, like polyploidy, like traditional breeding.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @kevinfolta @ksenapathy and
Thank you. This is a much more honest statement.
#GMOs2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
OK, then explain why GMO is not safe, as you clearly at least suspect that it isn't.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @kevinfolta and
Again, you are, dishonestly at this point, misstating what I have said. Please don’t do it again or I will reluctantly mute you, because I value much of what you say on social media.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @kevinfolta and
Keep referring to me as "dishonest," and I'll block you. I've put up with it up to this point because, I, too, usually value what you say on social media, but my patience is not without its limits, even for you.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.