by Paul Haeder / December 6th, 2013
those who write the narrative and who win the military and marketing and financial wars . . . .
give us better living through chemistry
“It’s a story with mythological resonance,” says Steven
Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the
Federation of American Scientists and the publisher of Secrecy News, an
e-mail newsletter. “It reflects the view that knowledge is power and
some kinds of knowledge have destructive power .The notion that the
boundaries of knowledge are defined by what is published by Science and
Nature is quaint,” he said, referring to the journals. “For better or
worse, the way that knowledge is disseminated today is ever less
dependent on the flagship journals. It’s done by global scientific
collaboration, draft papers, online publication, informal distribution
of preprints, and on and on.” NYT
Reverse the Presses and Blot Out the Ink = Scientists and Others Decrying Censoring GMO Science
Thanks to
Mae-Wan Ho, who got right down to business
talking about the retraction of the famous Seralini study that was
published a year ago and pretty much compiling scientific evidence
around maize and tumors. She is compassionate and filled with the
knowledge of how society needs complimentary science-ethics-civil
society. You know, you’d think the WHO and world governments and editors
worldwide would want to follow up on that since 90 percent of the food
in many countries is polluted with corn and maize products, certainly,
many countries polluted with GE-GMOs. That is the question now isn’t it?
To bombard genes with genes from completely different species or
families, to produce Frankenstein crops-hogs-fish-cows-sheep. Makes
Dolly the cloned sheep look like a walk around Whole Foods.
Last blog here, with a petition to retract the retraction in the science journal:
GMO Mafia Gets the Media to Break Science Writing Down to Prior Restraint.
So without further adieu, I give you a scientist working hard for
sanity in science and culture and civil society and communities able to
grow their food and protect their watersheds and determine the
ecological connectivity within their bioregions.
Ten (actually Eleven) Questions (by P. Haeder) & Answers by Mae-Wan Ho
1. Where is the GMO debate now worldwide?
M-W –The GMO debate should be over by now, at a time
when the agronomic failures of GM crops are there for all to see
(particularly in the United States, which has more than 40 % of global
GM crops planted) together with serious health and environmental impacts
from scientific studies that fully confirm what farmers have been
experiencing in the fields for year. But all that is being smothered by a
massive campaign of dissimulation perpetrated by even traditionally
respected science magazines like
Scientific American.
A measure of how desperate the GM proponents are is the recent
decision of the journal editor to retract a thoroughly peer-reviewed
paper – the famous Séralini study – published a year ago, basically
because it found excessive early deaths, large tumors including cancers,
and liver and kidney diseases in rats fed GM maize and/or exposed to
Roundup herbicide compared to controls. This is unprecedented in the
history of scientific publishing, a censorship that could spell the end
of science, let alone science and democracy or science for the public
good. A group of 28 scientists wrote an open letter in protest, pledging
to boycott the publisher of the journal until it reverses this
appalling
retraction .
It has already attracted hundreds of signatures from all over the world
within the first days. We need your help to spread the word.
2. Why are GMO labeling initiatives failing in the USA?
M-W– The GMO labeling initiatives are failing in the
USA because people are still being told lies and half-truths that GM
products are no different from their non-GM counterparts. There has been
saturation coverage in the media, not just in the USA but worldwide.
Most people are not fooled, which is why GM crops are still confined to
28 countries with over 90 % within just 5 after 20 years of commercial
growing. But people do need to understand the dangers for themselves.
3. What’s your biggest reservation about GMOs?
M-W –GMOs are not only inherently unsafe, they are
highly unsustainable, and most of all, obstructing the shift to non-GM
organic, agro-ecological farming already taking place in local
communities and entire countries around the world, which have proven to
increase yields, mitigate climate change, and more able to adapt to
climate change. I have a recurrent nightmare of aliens landing on our
planet in the not too distant future finding a wasteland filled with
giant cockroaches. That’s what could happen if we are forced and tricked
into growing GM crops.
4. Is science at a crossroads, as you say, vis-a-vis the retraction of the Séralini article?
M-W–Yes, I think this appalling act is symbolic. The
Séralini study is not the only scientific evidence of harm from GMOs
and herbicide, nor the only published paper to be retracted recently
(see our comprehensive review
Ban GMOs Now).
I was nearly a victim myself for a paper explaining why artificial
genetic modification is inherently hazardous. It went through two rounds
of reviews by 6 referees before it was accepted for publication, only
to be suddenly withdrawn before it could appear in the journal. The
order for it to be withdrawn coming from the publisher over the heads of
the editors. Fortunately, the editors stood their ground and reinstated
my paper. If we don’t stop such practice now, it really could mean the
end of science. One scientist actually said to me: “it chills me to the
bone to think they could do this.”
5. What can the average citizen do to get involved in the GMO debate?
M-W –Take it upon yourself to understand the science
behind genetic
engineering, expose the lies and half-truths you’ve been
told; that’s how to learn real science, and it is fun. Don’t be
intimidated by the ‘experts’. Run informal teach-ins (combined with
organic fests). Involve your whole family. Think of imaginative ways to
explain things to other people. Scientists themselves are not very good
at that, me included. I am still trying my best.
6. How has science from you experience changed over the years?
M-W –I am still a scientist in love with science.
That was what motivated me to be a scientist in the first place. I am
still inspired about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything,
the ‘big questions’. Nowadays, this sense of wonder and excitement is
lost. No one asks big questions anymore, they want to know how to
exploit nature rather than living sustainably with nature.
The new genetics, for example, is enchanting; it is completely
different from the old obsolete genetics that motivated genetic
engineering and genetic modification. It has turned conventional
genetics upside down. Instead of a one way flow of information from DNA
(the genetic material) to traits (biological function) to the
environment, there is a circular feedback from the environment that
marks which genes are to be expressed or not, and to change the genes
themselves. I call this natural genetic modification. It is an intricate
molecular dance of life that is essential for survival. Natural genetic
modification is done with great finesse and precision by the organisms
themselves, without damaging the genome. In contrast, artificial genetic
modification done in the laboratory by genetic engineers is crude,
imprecise, uncontrollable, and ends up scrambling and damaging the
genome with totally unpredictable effects on safety. It also interferes
inevitably with the natural genetic modification process, and is
ultimately why it is inherently hazardous.
I would love to see more new genetics research being done. Instead,
most postdocs and graduate students are trapped into doing mindless,
soul destroying and excruciatingly boring genetic modification.
7. Why has the narrative around precautionary principle tied to GMOs
turned into anti-science rhetoric coming from both scientists and the
media?
M-W –There is a great deal of misunderstanding about
the precautionary principle. It is absolutely based on scientific
evidence. It is not anti-science at all, far from it. It just says that
where there is scientific evidence for a hazard, the fact that the
evidence may not be conclusive is not to be used as an excuse for
ignoring the hazard. In most cases, it leads to creative, imaginative
solutions and alternatives. Critics are using it as a refuge for weak
mindedness and lack of imagination. Prof Peter Saunders from ISIS has
written the best article on the subject, Use and Abuse of the
Precautionary Principle
here:
8. GE-GMO capitalists seem to have the upper hand, as all marketers
have — just push through with the product, get it into every corner of
society, and, a decade later, or earlier, well, its so pervasive that
it’s normalized and the average citizen accepts the new normal. Is this
true?
M-W –It is a subtle psychological warfare, and some
critics actually play into their hand. They hype up the GM technology to
be just the most powerful thing in the world, or that ‘the genie is out
of the bottle’ and it is already everywhere, so resisting it is
useless. This leads people to feel absolutely powerless and paralysis
sets in, which is exactly where they want you to be.
9. What is your work?
M-W — My real research work is on the big question –
what is life – Schrodinger posed in 1941. I have pioneered a totally
interdisciplinary way of understanding life, which I call the physics of
organisms, and I am very pleased to receive the 2014 Prigogine Medal
for it. My inaugural lecture title is Circular Thermodynamics of
Organisms and Sustainable Systems; for ‘circular thermodynamics’ read
‘circular economy’ of nature.
10. There seems to be a big disconnection between nature and industry, technology, economics? Discuss
M-W –Spot on. That’s the reductionist science way. I
have spent my whole life recovering the organic holistic science that
really enables us to live sustainably with nature where knowledge is all
of a piece (art, science, music, philosophy in one), and we are
immersed within nature.
11. Climate change is the big game changer, and seems to be the
underpinning of the pro-GMO industries and sciences. Discuss how non-GMO
farming might be the answer to some of the changes we will face because
of climate change — i.e. hotter, wetter, dryer, irregular weather.
M-W — Climate change is definitely happening. There
is no denying it. No, most scientists who point out the dangers of GMOs
are not climate deniers. Please don’t conflate the two. I often tell
climate skeptics that being sustainable is needed because we are running
out of all kinds of resources, so renewables are in whether you believe
in climate change or not. Circular economy is in.
As already mentioned, there is evidence that GMOs yield less, require
more water, are more disease prone (even introduce more diseases), and
less resilient to weather extremes. There is evidence that the
predominantly GM crop system in the US is failing badly (
US Staple Crop System ailing from GM and Monoculture.), and not just because of the recent drought, which decimated harvests (see
Surviving Global Warming
).This is not surprising, as GM crops are industrial monocultures, only
more so. The numerous successes and benefits of organic,
agro-ecological farming are no longer in doubt: more yields, more
organic matter and carbon sequestration in the soil, more fertile soils,
more water retention capacity (hence more resistant to drought) more
nutritious, health promoting, more resilient to floods and hurricanes,
more profitable, and less energy use, hence less carbon dioxide
produced. Please see our comprehensive report, Food Futures Now,
Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free.
End of Interview
Of course, the prior restraint and the attack on knowledge has been a
concerted effort by elites — including religious, industrial, history,
cultural, government zealots. Galileo anyone, or in this Century,
Censoring James Hansen, NASA Godard climate scientist.
Agnotology is
a term around this planned and pretty psychological effort to erase
truth, knowledge, and of course seed culture and societies with things
that never happened.
”Anyone who thinks ignorance is nobody’s business has a
lot to learn from these provocative essays. The distinguished authors
offer compelling evidence that what we do not know is every bit as much a
product of human choice and ingenuity as what we choose to know.
Agnotology rescues ignorance from the no-mans-land of unexamined social
phenomena. It makes us ask what is at stake when we don’t know things
that are plainly before our eyes. This is a book for every thinking
citizen.” —Sheila Jasanoff, Harvard University
“In the past years there have been few new fields of research as
timely as agnotology. Many a time one is puzzled by the widespread
ignorance of some of the greatest challenges mankind faces today, be it
global warming, the way to the Iraq war, or the global tobacco epidemic.
Agnotology might very well be the tool to delve into the great black
holes of modern knowledge and also find a way out.” —Andrian Kreye, arts
and ideas editor, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany
The
Green is the New Red,
by Will Potter speaks to the attack on scientists and science-backed
activists trying to stop the human and ecological genocide tied to ag
chem pharm energy industry damming mining polluting companies backed by
despots and governments and World Bank types.
Welcome to GreenIsTheNewRed.com! This website focuses on
how fear of “terrorism” is being exploited to push a political and
corporate agenda. Specifically, I focus on how animal rights and
environmental advocates are being branded “eco-terrorists” in what many
are calling the Green Scare.
Top of the Terrorism List
“The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,” says John Lewis, a top FBI official, “is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement.”
The animal rights and environmental movements, like every other
social movement throughout history, have both legal and illegal
elements. There are people who leaflet, write letters, and lobby. There
are people who protest and engage in non-violent civil disobedience. And
there are people, like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation
Front, who go out at night with black masks and break windows, burn
SUVs, and release animals from fur farms.
Animal rights and environmental advocates have not flown planes into
buildings, taken hostages, or sent Anthrax through the mail. They have
never even injured anyone. In fact, the only act of attempted murder in
the history of the U.S. animal rights movement was coordinated by
corporate provocateurs. Yet the FBI ranks these activists as the top
domestic terrorism threat. And the Department of Homeland Security lists
them on its roster of national security threats, while ignoring
right-wing extremists who have bombed the Oklahoma City federal
building, murdered doctors, and admittedly created weapons of mass
destruction.
Defining the Green Scare
This disproportionate, heavy-handed government crackdown on the
animal rights and environmental movements, and the reckless use of the
word “terrorism,” is often called the Green Scare.
Much like the Red Scare and the communist witch hunts of the 40s and
50s, the Green Scare is using one word—this time, it’s “terrorist”—to
push a political agenda, instill fear, and chill dissent. And much like
the Red Scare, the Green Scare is operating on three levels: legal,
legislative, and what we’ll call extra-legal, or scare-mongering.
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists. The Secrecy News blog is at:
SN. Go to it, Read the Dec. 2013 newsletter here, and see just these that government overlords want squashed from memory:
New or updated reports from the Congressional Research
Service that Congress has withheld from online public distribution
include the following.
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues, December 2, 2013:
Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies, December 2, 2013:
Burma’s Political Prisoners and U.S. Sanctions, December 2, 2013:
Latin America and the Caribbean: Fact Sheet on Leaders and Elections, December 3, 2013:
Veterans and Homelessness, November 29, 2013:
Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda): U.S. and International Response to Philippines Disaster, November 25, 2013:
Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act, November 22, 2013:
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy, November 26, 2013:
The 2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and Considerations for Congress, November 8, 2013:
Paul K. Haeder lived one-year in Seattle working
for "the" SEIU (Service Employees International Union), the largest
private sector union in the USA (in their pro-Obama PR materials), to
organize adjuncts in Bezos-Boeing-Gates land, after having worked as a
communications, language, composition, writing instructor of the freeway
flyer variety in El Paso for the University of Texas, the El Paso
Community College, language institutes, Park College, the US Army, La
Tuna Federal Correctional Institute, Packard Electric in Juarez, New
Mexico State University, and several cities in Mexico. In Washington
State, he taught at Gonzaga University, Spokane Community College,
Spokane Falls Community College. He's job hunting -- at that golden age
of 56 (and counting down) ... just what the progressive-left-of-center
non-profits in the Vancouver-Portland “area” want (NOT). He can be
reached at:
This article was posted on Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 7:05pm and is filed under
Academic Freedom,
Activism,
Agriculture,
Capitalism,
Censorship,
Classism,
Colonialism,
Crimes against Peace,
Culture,
Democracy,
Disinformation,
Economy/Economics,
Education,
Environment,
Espionage/"Intelligence",
Finance,
Food/Nutrition,
Freedom of Expression/Speech,
GMO,
Health/Medical,
Heroes,
History,
Hunger,
Imperialism,
Journalism,
Life/Animal Rights,
Literature,
Media,
Narrative,
Neoliberalism,
NGOs,
Opinion,
Philosophy,
Politics,
Prejudice,
Privacy,
Propaganda,
Psychology/Psychiatry,
Resistance,
Science/Technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment