A discussion of how social media is used to harm scientists' reputations. A discussion of current issues in genetic engineering. Presented as part of a night with Skeptic Society of St. Louis, 6/10/2016

1. Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chairman
Horticultural Sciences Department
kfolta.blogspot.com
@kevinfolta
kfolta@ufl.edu
www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com
slideshare.net/kevinfolta
Skeptics in the Pub
June 10, 2016

2. eSassination – A new weapon in the War
on Science
The National Academies Report on
Genetically Engineered Crops
Q&A

3. How does it work?
Social media, activist-friendly websites, low-quality
publication used to spread false information about a
scientist in an attempt to harm their credibility.
Legitimate journalists duped into publishing stories that
seem to be based on good information, yet they are not.
Questions are raised about funding, collaborations, even
though they have no influence on data or positions taken.

4. Conflict of Interest / Misconduct?
If funding comes from an organization or company to
perform a scientific study, it is perceived of and promoted
as a Conflict of Interest
There is no evidence of scientific misconduct,
falsification, omission (typically)
If there is, then that is a major problem.

5. Why do most study outcomes favor the
funder’s position?
~90% of results of independent studies result in
outcomes that are favorable to the funding body.
Independent research is most often contracted to
perform a confirmatory test or a well established
hypothesis with reasonable preliminary data.
It is likely rare that a company would contract to an
independent researcher to perform research based
on no preliminary data or to confirm failure.

6. Why do most study outcomes favor the
funder’s position?
What researcher is going to perform analysis on
something unlikely to possibly work or with no chance to
publish/patent etc?
DrugCo wants us to
do this test that will
never work!
Count me in, I don’t
really want a career
anyway!

7. Dr. Ray Hilborn
Professor, University of Washington
Specialist in measuring fish
populations and modeling projected
growth/depletion.
Respected expert. Well cited.

8. He has reported that some
populations are on the decline.
He has reported that some
populations are rebounding from
conservation efforts.
Some are stable, doing well and may
be harvested.

14. Research Use of light to increase fruit quality
USDA $500,000
Past funding for work in photomorphogenesis, plant
photoreceptors and light – USDA $500,000, NSF
$1,065,000, NIH - $100,000; Light Emitting Computers
$5000.
Past funding for work in strawberry genomics, strawberry
flavors, disease resistance, USDA $470,000, NSF
$1,550,000, FDACS - $550,000, FSREF - $310,000, UF
Plant Molecular Breeding Program - $180,000, JR Simplot
Co - $135,000; Driscoll’s $10,000; Roche/454 $10,000,
Graduate students supported by CAPES
(Brazil); Malaysian Government, Chinese
Scholarship Fund (2); Islamic Development
Fund, Belgian Graduate Student
Development Fund.
Internal grants: $145,000
Dean for Research toward strawberry
genome sequencing $40,000

15. Outreach
www.talkingbiotech.com Communicating the Science of Science Communication
National Science Foundation - $32,000
Modules for schools- Citrus greening disease,
crop domestication, plants and light
Modules for extension agents – how to teach
about citrus disease, talking about
biotechnology
Monsanto Co, $25000

16. 43 Scientists get FOIA requests –
Funded by Organic Consumers Association
I turned over 4600 pages

17. Numberoffundedtravels
Year
Monsanto and its industry partners have also
passed out an undisclosed amount in special
grants to scientists like Kevin Folta, the
chairman of the horticultural sciences
department at the University of Florida, to
help with “biotechnology outreach” and to
travel around the country to defend
genetically modified foods.
“While Dr. Folta was not personally
compensated, Monsanto paid for his
trips to testify in Pennsylvania and
Hawaii.”
Dr. Folta, the emails show, soon became part
of an inner circle of industry consultants,
lobbyists and executives who devised strategy
on how to block state efforts to mandate
G.M.O. labeling and, most recently, on how to
get Congress to pass legislation that would
pre-empt any state from taking such a step.
ERIC LIPTON New York Times, 9/5/15
Every outreach written piece, seminar,
lecture, etc, all costs reimbursed
Kfolta.blogspot.com 9/19/2015

19. Phone threats, FBI domestic terrorism task force notified,
Hacking
Impersonation
Doxxing

20. Outreach
www.talkingbiotech.com Communicating the Science of Science Communication
National Science Foundation - $32,000
Modules for schools- Citrus greening disease,
crop domestication, plants and light
Modules for extension agents- how to discuss
citrus disease and biotechnology
Monsanto Co, $25000

22. Total Distributed
6000 + pages given to USRTK
-- including Gmail
-- including personal emails between friends
2707 pages sent to Vani Hari – “food babe” that is cross-referencing them
against USRTK
The same sent to many other media outlets, reporters, etc. One wrote on Twitter
– “I went through his emails, the guy is a saint”
-- Copy cat requests, probably a dozen more
Total paid by requestors- ~$5000, total
cost to taxpayer, >$100,000

26. USRTK
Organic Consumers
Association $
Uses FOIA to
obtain emails
under reasonable
pretenses
Manufacture false
or questionable
stories,
“supporting”
emails
Distribute to
authors to
write stories
that appear
independent
Pieces published,
regardless of facts
Secondary
press, web
eSassination
Secondary
NGOs

27. Effects of eSassination
Scientists- do not participate in public discussion. Do not
take positions on controversial issues.
Spiral of Silence- National organizations fear reprisal for
members, remain quiet
Funding– independent scientists are less likely to accept
corporate funding for fear of being labeled as tainted.
Corporations– Less likely to fund initiatives of helpful
independent scientists

28. Conflict of Interest / Misconduct?
If funding comes from an organization or company to
perform a scientific study, it is perceived of and promoted
as a Conflict of Interest
There is no evidence of scientific misconduct,
falsification, omission (typically)
If there is, then that is a major problem.

29. Conflict of Interest / Misconduct?
Chuck Benbrook - Ag Economist
•Claims in YouTube video that GE crops cause allergies,
autism, arthritis, ADHD.
•Reported to PA House of Reps that Bt was found in
umbilical cords, etc (October 2015)
•Claims glyphosate detected in hair (I-squared debate, 12/2015)
•Published papers showing an increase in herbicide use
•Published paper claiming “no conflicts of interest”

30. Conflict of Interest / Misconduct?
Paper showing increased use only showed those trends
because of interpolated and projected data.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/

32. Conflict of Interest / Misconduct?
Nobody really cares. The one person that the
FOIA efforts caught not disclosing funds and
then creating information that is contrary to
science– he gets a free pass.

33. Part 2 -
Synthesis of the
NAS Report
kfolta.blogspot.com
@kevinfolta
kfolta@ufl.edu
www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com
slideshare.net/kevinfolta

34. Part 2 - Synthesis of the NAS Report
•900 paper
•80 speakers at in person testimonies
•15 Webinars
•>700 public comments
The synthesis document was reviewed by dozens of
scientists.

35. GM Crops Available Now
10
potato
apple

36. What are the Three Main Traits?
Virus Resistance
Insect Resistance
Herbicide Resistance

37. Agronomic and Environmental Effects- Bt
1. Bt leads to a decease in crop losses
2. Increased numbers of insects (diversity)
3. Decreased insecticide use
4. Resistance to the Bt protein

38. Agronomic and Environmental Effects –
herbicide resistance traits
1. Yields are better because of better weed control
2. Lower impact than other herbicides
3. Number of kilos of herbicide has increased
4. Changes in weed populations
5. Resistance to the herbicide – major problem

39. Other effects
1. Help farmers by lowering costs of labor/fuel
2. No health effects identified.

40. GMO Crops Make Pesticides

41. Bt is one of many natural anti-insect proteins

42. Bt is one of many
natural anti-insect
proteins
Episode 028

43. How Bt Works
bt

44. Advantages
Decrease in broad-spectrum
insecticide use on corn and
cotton
Lower fuel and labor costs for
farmers
Solid dividends in the
developing world
No effect on beneficials
Limitations
Need to plant refugia to slow
resistance
Pockets of resistance are seen
and require use of insecticides
Requires careful scouting

45. Glyphosate-Resistant (Roundup Ready) Products
A gene is inserted that
allows plants to survive in
the presence of the
herbicide. Farmers can
spray to kill non-transgenic
plants.

46. How Herbicide Resistance Works
A B C
Amino
acids
proteins
epsps
glyphosate
X
Plants

47. How Herbicide Resistance Works
A B C
Amino
acids
proteins
epsps
glyphosate
X
A B C
Amino
acids
proteins
epsps
Plants
Bacteria
glyphosate

48. How Herbicide Resistance Works
A B C
Amino
acids
proteins
epsps
epsps
Plants
X
glyphosate
A B C
Amino
acids
proteins
Bacteria
glyphosate

49. How Herbicide Resistance Works
A B C
Amino
acids
proteins
epsps
Plants
glyphosate
Resistance!

50. Advantages
Switch to a low-toxicity
herbicide, cheap and effective
Lower fuel and labor costs for
farmers
Decreased tilling, saved
topsoil
Limitations
Weeds can evolve resistance,
requiring increased labor, lower
yields, and new control
strategies. New chemistries.

51. What is Glyphosate?
Non-selective herbicide. Kills all plants.
Pathway not present in animals
Acute toxicity is low (4320 -10,000 mg/kg)

52. Who’s technology is this?
Technology exists TODAY that can:
-Provide needed micronutrients to hungry populations
-Add virus resistance to key crops in the developing world
-Help plants grow in changing climates and weather extremes,
such as heat, drought, flooding, cold.
-Plants that protect themselves from pests, cutting need for
insecticides
-Why don’t we use them?
Success Stories (We Can’t Use)

53. Papaya Ringspot Virus
Good example of RNAi suppression

56. Golden Rice
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
Opposition to golden rice cost $2 billion to
farmers in developing countries and 1.4
million human years – Wesseler et al., 2014

57. Cassava
Virus Resistant Cassava (VIRCA)
Biocassava Plus (BC Plus)
250 million depend on cassava
50 million tons lost to virus.
X
X Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy

58. Golden Bananas Beta carotene producing
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy

59. Bacterial Wilt in Bananas
>70% of carbohydrate calories for
some areas
GM trials in Uganda
X
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X

60. Over expression of rice
Xa21 gene
Tripathi et al, 2014

61. Overexpression of Ferredoxin like protein

62. Allergy-Free Peanuts
Peanut – RNAi suppression Ara h2
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy

63. GE chickens do not pass on Avian Influenza
Episode 007
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X
X
X
X Animal welfare

64. AquaBounty Salmon – attains market weight in less time.
Salmon may be farmed on inland pools, generating high protein food
on fewer inputs.
Episode 008
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X
X
X
X Wild populations

65. Thanks Alison Van Eenennaam for the slide!
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X

66. Low Acrylamide, non Browning Potatoes
X
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy

67. Non Browning Apples
Silencing a gene that leads to discoloration
X
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
Small Business!X

68. BS2 Tomato
A pepper gene in tomato eases bacterial wilt.
X
X Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy

70. Grapes resistant to Pierce’s Disease
X
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X

72. One acre of omega-3 producing soybeans yields as much oil as
10,000 fish!

73. Stopping Citrus Greening
Spinach defensin
NPR1
Lytic peptides
Many show promise
Earliest deregulation is
2019
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X
X

74. X
X
Farmers
Consumers
Environment
Needy
X
Fungicide-Free Strawberries?
Silva et al., 2015

75. Mosquitoes– Mosquitoes are given a gene that is lethal.
In the lab they receive a treatment to repress that gene.
When released, they mate with existing populations and
produce non-viable offspring.
Episode 008

76. Gene Editing
Not adding a gene, changing the gene that is present
so that it stops function or creates a known change.
Still strong opposition from activist NGOs
Some countries have taken stands on the issue
Stands to generate rapid improvement of crop plants,
especially where traditional breeding is long (trees)

77. Gene Editing
CRISPR/Cas9 -- a bacterial system that can be used to change DNA
sequences, with no ‘genetic engineering’ sequences left behind.

78. Gene Editing
Horn Gene Horn Gene
NO HORNS!!!
Good beef
Bad milkHORNS!!!
Bad beef
Great milk

79. Gene Editing
Horn Gene Horn Gene
NO HORNS!!!
Good beef
Bad milkHORNS!!!
Bad beef
Great milk
Cross….
Mix of bad beef, bad milk production

80. Gene Editing
Horn Gene Horn Gene
NO HORNS!!!
Good beef
Bad milkHORNS!!!
Bad beef
Great milk
Horn Gene
NO HORNS!!!
Bad beef
Good milk
Episode 002

81. Changing
domestic pigs’
DNA to provide
resistance to
African Swine
Fever
Episode 037

82. Why?Why?
Who is blocking solutions?Who is blocking solutions?

83. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?
Lots of money to be made promoting bad
science
Anti corporate agenda
“These people hate corporations more
than they love people”
-Hank Campbell, Science 2.0
Expensive regulation that only favors
giant corporations

84. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?
Bad science, low quality reports and
misinformation dominate the internet
and public discourse.
Reports that are not repeated, deeply
flawed, or have no consistency with
scientific consensus.

85. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?

86. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?

87. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?
Based on a computer program
prediction.
Authors chose not to actually
measure the compound.
I’m going to do this, have
invited their participation.

88. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?
Based on Aris and LeBlanc, 2011

89. Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?Why Don’t We Use These Solutions?
Big profits to be made from science
denial
Companies use greenwashing to differentiate
products claiming some qualitative difference
Companies like Chipotle fail to mention
inconvenient facts:
-Soda still contains HFCS from GE corn ($$$)
-Cheese uses a GE enzyme in production
-The switch from oil derived from GE soy to
non-GE sunflower changes to a crop with
substantially higher pesticide/herbicide inputs.

90. Conclusion:
Farm producers are the most trusted and competent sources
of information, but are among the least likely to engage.
When engaging in conversation, lead with your ethics. Build
the argument with evidence and bring in personal impacts and
emotion.
Know how ag innovations satisfy shared values.
Get involved in the conversation. It is happening online with or
without you, and we need your experience if we are going to
control the narrative, and maintain freedom to operate.

91. Thank you
kfolta.blogspot.com
@kevinfolta
www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com
Slides online at slideshare.net/kevinfolta
kfolta@ufl.edu
Dr. Norman Borlaug