Kevin Folta: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 689497294 by 72.193.6.140 (talk)I need to revert this or else I wont get my corporate shill money sorry
→‎Conflict of interest allegations: Adding UCS and former AAAS presidents' statements from The Guardian, moving Nader's statements in context. some ref cleanups
Line 85: Line 85:


== Conflict of interest allegations ==
== Conflict of interest allegations ==
In early February 2015, the nonprofit and organic-industry funded<ref name="Nat Biotech 33 (10)"/><ref name=nyt/> organization US Right to Know filed a [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) request to the University of Florida, on the basis that the organization suspected that Folta may have been pressured into claiming that GMOs are safe by food and agricultural companies.<ref name=wired/> The University released documents, including email exchanges with [[Monsanto]], which indicated that he had not committed [[scientific misconduct]].<ref name="nature"/> In February 2015, Folta told ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' that he anticipated trouble: "Unfortunately, when you skim through the 70,000 e-mails I have … [USRTK] will find opportunities to pull out a sentence and use it against me. They will show I have 200 e-mails from big ag companies. While it is former students … or chitchat about someone's kids, it won't matter. They'll report, 'Kevin Folta had 200 emails with Monsanto and Syngenta,' as a way to smear me."<ref>{{cite web | author=Keith Kloor | url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/02/agricultural-researchers-rattled-demands-documents-group-opposed-gm | title=Updated: Agricultural researchers rattled by demands for documents from group opposed to GM foods | journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] | date=11 February 2015 | accessdate=20 October 2015}}</ref>
In early February 2015, the nonprofit and organic-industry funded<ref name="Nat Biotech 33 (10)"/><ref name=nyt/> organization US Right to Know filed a [[Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) request to the University of Florida, on the basis that the organization suspected that Folta may have been pressured into claiming that GMOs are safe by food and agricultural companies.<ref name=wired/> The University released documents, including email exchanges with [[Monsanto]], which indicated that he had not committed [[scientific misconduct]].<ref name="nature"/> In February 2015, Folta told ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' that he anticipated trouble: "Unfortunately, when you skim through the 70,000 e-mails I have … [USRTK] will find opportunities to pull out a sentence and use it against me. They will show I have 200 e-mails from big ag companies. While it is former students … or chitchat about someone's kids, it won't matter. They'll report, 'Kevin Folta had 200 emails with Monsanto and Syngenta,' as a way to smear me."<ref>{{cite journal| author=Keith Kloor | url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/02/agricultural-researchers-rattled-demands-documents-group-opposed-gm | title=Updated: Agricultural researchers rattled by demands for documents from group opposed to GM foods | journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] | date=11 February 2015 | accessdate=20 October 2015}}</ref>

The [[Union of Concerned Scientists]], a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."<ref name=wired /> In March 2015, [[Nina Fedoroff]], [[Peter Raven]], and [[Phillip Sharp]], three former presidents of the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], wrote in ''[[The Guardian]]'' comparing the USRTK's use of FOIA against scientists to "[[Climatic Research Unit email controversy|Climategate]]" and criticized the organization backing them for "promoting the interests of the organic food business", calling their activities "anti-science".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/gm-opponents-are-science-deniers | title=The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook | last1=Fedoroff | first1=Nina | last2=Raven | first2=Peter | last3=Sharp | first3=Phillip | work=[[The Guardian]] | date=9 March 2015 | accessdate=10 November 2015}}</ref> [[Ralph Nader]] responded to this by supporting the use of FOIA requests to "uncover corruption and wrongdoing". He wrote, "One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests."<ref name=Seife>{{cite news|last1=Seife|first1=Charles|last2=Thacker|first2=Paul|title=Why it's OK for taxpayers to 'snoop' on scientists|url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0821-seife-thacker-science-transparency-20150821-story.html|accessdate=28 October 2015|publisher=L.A. Times|date=August 21, 2015}}</ref><ref name=Nader>{{cite web|last1=Nader|first1=Ralph|title=Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/monsanto-and-its-promoter_b_8235936.html|publisher=Huffington Post|accessdate=5 November 2015}}</ref>


In a ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' article from August 2015 [[Keith Kloor]] wrote that Folta had "close ties to Monsanto and other biotechnology interests".<ref name=nature/> Folta denied these claims,<ref name=ihe>{{cite web | url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/14/researcher-finds-himself-center-battle-over-gmos-and-corporate-support | title=Casualty of GMO Wars | work=Inside Higher Education | date=14 August 2015 | accessdate=5 September 2015 | author=Flaherty, Colleen}}</ref> and wrote that the accusation was based on a few dozen emails and three professional direct interactions over thirteen years, and that he was reimbursed customary travel expenses by Monsanto for $719.76, covering airfare, a rental car, 2 hotel nights, and parking for one event to speak to farmers in Colorado in September 2014.<ref name=kfolta>{{cite web | url=http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-are-deep-ties-to-monsanto.html| title= What are "Deep Ties" to Monsanto? | work=Illumination (blog)| date=13 September 2015 | accessdate=13 September 2015 | author=Folta, Kevin}}</ref><ref name=s20>{{cite web | url=http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/setting_a_new_standard_for_science_transparency-157244 | title= Setting A New Standard For Science Transparency | work=Science 2.0 (blog)| date=22 September 2015 | accessdate=22 September 2015 | author=Folta, Kevin}}</ref><ref name=gainesville/> Folta has maintained that he has always communicated consistently according to his research and understanding as a scientist working for a public institution.<ref name=ihe/>
In a ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' article from August 2015 [[Keith Kloor]] wrote that Folta had "close ties to Monsanto and other biotechnology interests".<ref name=nature/> Folta denied these claims,<ref name=ihe>{{cite web | url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/14/researcher-finds-himself-center-battle-over-gmos-and-corporate-support | title=Casualty of GMO Wars | work=Inside Higher Education | date=14 August 2015 | accessdate=5 September 2015 | author=Flaherty, Colleen}}</ref> and wrote that the accusation was based on a few dozen emails and three professional direct interactions over thirteen years, and that he was reimbursed customary travel expenses by Monsanto for $719.76, covering airfare, a rental car, 2 hotel nights, and parking for one event to speak to farmers in Colorado in September 2014.<ref name=kfolta>{{cite web | url=http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-are-deep-ties-to-monsanto.html| title= What are "Deep Ties" to Monsanto? | work=Illumination (blog)| date=13 September 2015 | accessdate=13 September 2015 | author=Folta, Kevin}}</ref><ref name=s20>{{cite web | url=http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/setting_a_new_standard_for_science_transparency-157244 | title= Setting A New Standard For Science Transparency | work=Science 2.0 (blog)| date=22 September 2015 | accessdate=22 September 2015 | author=Folta, Kevin}}</ref><ref name=gainesville/> Folta has maintained that he has always communicated consistently according to his research and understanding as a scientist working for a public institution.<ref name=ihe/>
Line 91: Line 93:
In September 2015, [[Eric Lipton]] writing for the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that the agriculture industry had enlisted academics, including Folta, to use their "independent voices" to advocate for public perception and policy, which appeared favorable to the industry.<ref name=nyt>{{cite web | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html | title=Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show | work=New York Times | date=5 September 2015 | accessdate=5 September 2015 | author=Lipton, Eric}}</ref> At the request of Folta, the University of Florida had received a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to be used at the university's discretion which was earmarked for an established biotechnology communication program. Folta submitted expense reports to use the biotechnology communication fund to pay for travel expenses, a small projector, coffee and food.<ref name=kfolta/><ref name=gainesville>{{cite web | url=http://www.gainesville.com/article/20150828/articles/150829661 |title= UF to donate Monsanto funds to food pantry | work=Gainesville Sun | date=28 August 2015 | accessdate=10 September 2015 | author=Schweers, Jeff}}</ref> Most of these expenses had since been reimbursed to the fund with honoraria from his talks and private donations from individuals and small businesses, while none of the donation from Monsanto was used.<ref name=s20/><ref name=gainesville/> In response to the controversy and personal threats against Folta, the university offered to return the donation, which Monsanto refused, so funds were redirected to a university food pantry.<ref name=nature/><ref name=gainesville/><ref name=tampa/> Folta has promised a complete accounting for his research and extension activities, which he says "defines a new standard of transparency and a new tool to cultivate trust" he hopes other scientists and advocates will adopt.<ref name=s20/>
In September 2015, [[Eric Lipton]] writing for the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that the agriculture industry had enlisted academics, including Folta, to use their "independent voices" to advocate for public perception and policy, which appeared favorable to the industry.<ref name=nyt>{{cite web | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html | title=Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show | work=New York Times | date=5 September 2015 | accessdate=5 September 2015 | author=Lipton, Eric}}</ref> At the request of Folta, the University of Florida had received a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to be used at the university's discretion which was earmarked for an established biotechnology communication program. Folta submitted expense reports to use the biotechnology communication fund to pay for travel expenses, a small projector, coffee and food.<ref name=kfolta/><ref name=gainesville>{{cite web | url=http://www.gainesville.com/article/20150828/articles/150829661 |title= UF to donate Monsanto funds to food pantry | work=Gainesville Sun | date=28 August 2015 | accessdate=10 September 2015 | author=Schweers, Jeff}}</ref> Most of these expenses had since been reimbursed to the fund with honoraria from his talks and private donations from individuals and small businesses, while none of the donation from Monsanto was used.<ref name=s20/><ref name=gainesville/> In response to the controversy and personal threats against Folta, the university offered to return the donation, which Monsanto refused, so funds were redirected to a university food pantry.<ref name=nature/><ref name=gainesville/><ref name=tampa/> Folta has promised a complete accounting for his research and extension activities, which he says "defines a new standard of transparency and a new tool to cultivate trust" he hopes other scientists and advocates will adopt.<ref name=s20/>


In October 2015, ''[[Nature Biotechnology]]'' wrote that scientists like Folta have been "targeted because they speak inconvenient truths about GM technology" and stated that the funds "were tied neither to [Folta] directly nor to his research. His conflict of interest disclosures were wholly compliant with his university's rules. He never used industry funds for personal gain." The journal criticized the journalists for "[[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry-picking]]" and creating "hostile environments that threaten vibrant rare species with extinction."<ref name="Nat Biotech 33 (10)">{{cite journal | journal=[[Nature Biotechnology]]| department=Editorial| title=Standing up for science | year=2015| issue=10| volume=33| pages=1009| publisher=Nature Publishing Group| URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3384| accessdate=10 October 2015}}</ref>
In October 2015, ''[[Nature Biotechnology]]'' wrote that scientists like Folta have been "targeted because they speak inconvenient truths about GM technology" and stated that the funds "were tied neither to [Folta] directly nor to his research. His conflict of interest disclosures were wholly compliant with his university's rules. He never used industry funds for personal gain." The journal criticized the journalists for "[[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry-picking]]" and creating "hostile environments that threaten vibrant rare species with extinction."<ref name="Nat Biotech 33 (10)">{{cite journal | journal=[[Nature Biotechnology]]| department=Editorial| title=Standing up for science | year=2015| issue=10| volume=33| pages=1009| publisher=Nature Publishing Group| url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3384| accessdate=10 October 2015| doi=10.1038/nbt.3384}}</ref>


Jack Payne, head of the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, characterized this as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who wish to engage in public discussion of politically controversial topics, describing it as a "spiral of silence".<ref name=tampa>{{cite web | url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/perspective-records-requests-hijack-scientists-time/2245131 | title=Perspective: Records requests hijack scientists' time| work= Tampa Bay Times | date=12 September 2015 | accessdate=12 September 2015 | author=Payne, Jack}}</ref> Professor and science communicator [[Steven Novella]] wrote that "The shill witch hunt is just getting started, and now they are emboldened by the PR bonanza they have found in FOIA requests for e-mails. All of this is likely to have a chilling effect on scientists speaking out in the public square on controversial issues."<ref name="neurologica">{{cite web | url=http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-attack-a-public-scientist/ | title=How To Attack a Public Scientist| work=Neurologica Blog | date=11 September 2015 | accessdate=11 September 2015 | author=Novella,Steven}}</ref> On the other hand, some have argued that the FOIA requests were useful to ensure transparency. Ralph Nader wrote, "One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests."<ref name=Seife>{{cite news|last1=Seife|first1=Charles|last2=Thacker|first2=Paul|title=Why it's OK for taxpayers to 'snoop' on scientists|url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0821-seife-thacker-science-transparency-20150821-story.html|accessdate=28 October 2015|publisher=L.A. Times|date=August 21, 2015}}</ref><ref name=Nader>{{cite web|last1=Nader|first1=Ralph|title=Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/monsanto-and-its-promoter_b_8235936.html|publisher=Huffington Post|accessdate=5 November 2015}}</ref>
Jack Payne, head of the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, characterized this as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who wish to engage in public discussion of politically controversial topics, describing it as a "spiral of silence".<ref name=tampa>{{cite web | url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/perspective-records-requests-hijack-scientists-time/2245131 | title=Perspective: Records requests hijack scientists' time| work= Tampa Bay Times | date=12 September 2015 | accessdate=12 September 2015 | author=Payne, Jack}}</ref> Professor and science communicator [[Steven Novella]] wrote that "The shill witch hunt is just getting started, and now they are emboldened by the PR bonanza they have found in FOIA requests for e-mails. All of this is likely to have a chilling effect on scientists speaking out in the public square on controversial issues."<ref name="neurologica">{{cite web | url=http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-attack-a-public-scientist/ | title=How To Attack a Public Scientist| work=Neurologica Blog | date=11 September 2015 | accessdate=11 September 2015 | author=Novella,Steven}}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 05:40, 10 November 2015

Kevin M. Folta
Kevin Folta at The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 in 2010
Born
Chicago, Illinois[2]
Alma materNorthern Illinois University, University of Illinois at Chicago
Known forLight control of plant traits, novel genomics approaches, science communication
AwardsNational Science Foundation CAREER Award, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Distinguished Mentor Award[1]
Scientific career
FieldsMolecular biology, horticulture, agricultural science
InstitutionsUniversity of Florida
ThesisBlue light regulation of the pea Lhcb1*4 gene in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana (1998)
Doctoral advisorLon S. Kaufman
Other academic advisorsEdgar Spalding
Websitewww.talkingbiotech.com

Kevin M. Folta is a professor and chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. From 2007 to 2010 he helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome, and continues to research photomorphogenesis in plants and compounds responsible for flavor in strawberries. Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002, especially relating to biotechnology.

Education and career

Folta received his B.S. and M.S. in biology in 1989 and 1992, respectively, from Northern Illinois University, and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in molecular biology in 1998.[3] He completed postdoctoral research at the University of Wisconsin, and joined the faculty at the University of Florida in 2002. He assumed the role of Interim Department Chair in 2012 and accepted the Chair position in 2013.[4]

Research

Folta's laboratory has two primary research areas: how to control plant traits with light, and using genomics to identify molecular markers for key fruit-plant traits.

Plants and light

Folta's work with light began in 1987, while working with genes associated with the phytochrome response in plants. This research resulted in the discovery that exposure to blue light mediates specific gene responses and physiology in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana through cryptochrome and phototropin receptors.[5]

Since then, Folta has continued this work to explore new findings in how plants grow and move in green-enriched environments, which are the challenging conditions plants have to grow in under the shade of other plants, and the unusual effects this produces.[6] His work in plant biology would later extend to using light emitting diodes (LEDs) to control specific attributes of plants, such as quality, flavor, aroma, nutrition, and texture.[7][8] On this, Folta says that each plant's genetic makeup gives it a certain genetic potential that can be altered by selection or genetic modification, but how this potential is reached depends on environmental conditions that we can manipulate through photomorphogenesis. He says this depends entirely on how the plant's genes that are responsible for controlling growth are activated or deactivated in response to light.[8]

Folta believes this research would be of interest to farmers wanting to get the most genetic potential out of their crops without the need for chemicals or genetic modification,[8] and he believes his research involving red and far-red light could be used on postharvest fruits to improve their flavor while stored in grocery stores and home refrigerators.[9]

Strawberry genomics and flavors

His work in strawberry genomics began in 2002.[10] Folta was the contributing author in sequencing the strawberry genome in 2011.[10][11] During the project, they discovered molecular markers that speed traditional breeding for enhanced flavors.[10]

Folta's more recent work with strawberries has involved identifying chemicals responsible for taste that are present in different varieties of the fruit in order to breed these characteristics back into commercial varieties; characteristics which have been lost due to traditionally having been bred for disease resistance, firmness, size, and yield instead of flavor.[12][13] As a result of this research, his team has identified 30 compounds present in strawberries that affect its flavor, including some that resemble other fruits such as grapes and pineapples, and 6 associated with a human's perception of sweetness.[13][14] These findings can also be used for other staple plants in the rose family such as peaches, almonds, apples, raspberries, and blackberries,[12] and contribute to a growing list of compounds that can be used in the future to produce more flavorful foods without as much sugar.[14]

Folta's research could result in more flavorful and aromatic strawberries arriving on the market as early as 2018, bred using conventional techniques and without the use of genetic modification.[13]

Science communication

Folta has formal training in communication and has been recognized for his skill by scholarly institutions.[15] He uses his experience to provide workshops to teach scientists and farmers how to communicate science effectively, and engages with the public through outreach programs, the internet, and other means.[15][16][17]

Folta operates the Talking Biotech podcast which is billed as "A science-based assessment of new technology and the future of food",[18] in which he interviews agriculture scientists and experts in the fields of science and communication to discuss the genetic improvement of plants, animals, and microbes and other issues in biotechnology.[19]

Nature Biotechnology described Folta as "a gifted communicator—one of the rare scientists who has engaged the public, with over 12 years experience behind him. Not someone who merely discusses public engagement; but someone who actually communicates directly with non-expert audiences—at science fairs, in schools, at retirement homes, in blogs and podcasts."[17]

Folta has considered his outreach efforts among his proudest achievements and stated that his most important contributions to science "won’t come out of my lab. They’ll come out of my mouth.”[10]

Views

Folta has been active in the public discussion of politically controversial topics such as evolution, climate change, vaccines, and agricultural biotechnology since 2002.[16][20][21] He views a disconnect between science and the public understanding, and believes a priority should be given to increase public awareness and to "give scientists the tools to effectively participate at that interface.”[10]

He has said the scientific consensus regarding the safety of genetically modified foods is comparable to those regarding global warming and vaccines.[22] He is an outspoken critic of food blogger Vani Hari's claims about the alleged dangers of certain food additives.[23] Folta advocates for a "soft and effective" approach in handling anti-GMO activists, believing overly inflammatory responses from the scientific community will alienate the public audience.[24]

Conflict of interest allegations

In early February 2015, the nonprofit and organic-industry funded[17][25] organization US Right to Know filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the University of Florida, on the basis that the organization suspected that Folta may have been pressured into claiming that GMOs are safe by food and agricultural companies.[22] The University released documents, including email exchanges with Monsanto, which indicated that he had not committed scientific misconduct.[20] In February 2015, Folta told Science that he anticipated trouble: "Unfortunately, when you skim through the 70,000 e-mails I have … [USRTK] will find opportunities to pull out a sentence and use it against me. They will show I have 200 e-mails from big ag companies. While it is former students … or chitchat about someone's kids, it won't matter. They'll report, 'Kevin Folta had 200 emails with Monsanto and Syngenta,' as a way to smear me."[26]

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."[22] In March 2015, Nina Fedoroff, Peter Raven, and Phillip Sharp, three former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in The Guardian comparing the USRTK's use of FOIA against scientists to "Climategate" and criticized the organization backing them for "promoting the interests of the organic food business", calling their activities "anti-science".[27] Ralph Nader responded to this by supporting the use of FOIA requests to "uncover corruption and wrongdoing". He wrote, "One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests."[28][29]

In a Nature article from August 2015 Keith Kloor wrote that Folta had "close ties to Monsanto and other biotechnology interests".[20] Folta denied these claims,[30] and wrote that the accusation was based on a few dozen emails and three professional direct interactions over thirteen years, and that he was reimbursed customary travel expenses by Monsanto for $719.76, covering airfare, a rental car, 2 hotel nights, and parking for one event to speak to farmers in Colorado in September 2014.[31][32][33] Folta has maintained that he has always communicated consistently according to his research and understanding as a scientist working for a public institution.[30]

In September 2015, Eric Lipton writing for the New York Times reported that the agriculture industry had enlisted academics, including Folta, to use their "independent voices" to advocate for public perception and policy, which appeared favorable to the industry.[25] At the request of Folta, the University of Florida had received a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to be used at the university's discretion which was earmarked for an established biotechnology communication program. Folta submitted expense reports to use the biotechnology communication fund to pay for travel expenses, a small projector, coffee and food.[31][33] Most of these expenses had since been reimbursed to the fund with honoraria from his talks and private donations from individuals and small businesses, while none of the donation from Monsanto was used.[32][33] In response to the controversy and personal threats against Folta, the university offered to return the donation, which Monsanto refused, so funds were redirected to a university food pantry.[20][33][34] Folta has promised a complete accounting for his research and extension activities, which he says "defines a new standard of transparency and a new tool to cultivate trust" he hopes other scientists and advocates will adopt.[32]

In October 2015, Nature Biotechnology wrote that scientists like Folta have been "targeted because they speak inconvenient truths about GM technology" and stated that the funds "were tied neither to [Folta] directly nor to his research. His conflict of interest disclosures were wholly compliant with his university's rules. He never used industry funds for personal gain." The journal criticized the journalists for "cherry-picking" and creating "hostile environments that threaten vibrant rare species with extinction."[17]

Jack Payne, head of the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, characterized this as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who wish to engage in public discussion of politically controversial topics, describing it as a "spiral of silence".[34] Professor and science communicator Steven Novella wrote that "The shill witch hunt is just getting started, and now they are emboldened by the PR bonanza they have found in FOIA requests for e-mails. All of this is likely to have a chilling effect on scientists speaking out in the public square on controversial issues."[35]

References

  1. ^ "Kevin M. Folta, PhD" (PDF). Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  2. ^ "NIU alum has a taste for success". NIU Today. Northern Illinois University. 17 December 2012. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  3. ^ "Kevin M. Folta". University of Florida. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  4. ^ "UF/IFAS names Folta as horticultural sciences chairman". Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  5. ^ Folta, Kevin M.; Spalding, Edgar P. (2001). "Unexpected roles for cryptochrome 2 and phototropin revealed by high-resolution analysis of blue light-mediated hypocotyl growth inhibition". The Plant Journal. 6 (5): 471–478. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.01038.x. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  6. ^ American Journal of Botany (2 January 2013). "Scientists join forces to bring plant movement to light". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  7. ^ Anderson-Florida, Mickie (24 July 2013). "Fruit Could Taste Better With Far-Red Light". Futurity. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  8. ^ a b c Latchman, David (19 November 2013). "Controlling Plants with Light: LEDs to Change Plant Growth". Decoded Science. Retrieved 2 Nov 2015.
  9. ^ University of Florida (23 July 2013). "Light can change flavor, scent volatiles in plants and fruits, study finds". Phys.org. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  10. ^ a b c d e Langford, Ellison (28 September 2015). "Sharing science: Kevin Folta's career in horticulture, research advocacy". University of Florida Genetics Institute. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
  11. ^ Shulaev, Vladimir; et al. (2011). "The genome of woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca)". Nature Genetics. 43 (2): 109–116. doi:10.1038/ng.740. ISSN 1061-4036.
  12. ^ a b Parry, Wynne (26 December 2010). "The Future of Flavor: Strawberry's Genetic Code Sequenced". LiveScience. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  13. ^ a b c Perry, Wynne (4 February 2013). "Bland Strawberries Get a Genetic Tweak for Flavor". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  14. ^ a b Anderson, Mickie (3 March 2014). "Healthier processed food? Essence of strawberry could be the key". University of Florida. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  15. ^ a b "Instructor — Talking Biotech". Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  16. ^ a b "Kevin Folta". Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  17. ^ a b c d "Standing up for science". Editorial. Nature Biotechnology. 33 (10). Nature Publishing Group: 1009. 2015. doi:10.1038/nbt.3384. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
  18. ^ "Genome Center Director features in 'Talking Biotech' podcast". UC Davis Genome Center. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  19. ^ "Talking Biotech Podcast - Evidence-Based Discussion with Dr. Kevin Folta". Talking Biotech Podcast. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  20. ^ a b c d Kloor, Keith (6 August 2015). "GM-crop opponents expand probe into ties between scientists and industry". Nature. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  21. ^ Other sources:
  22. ^ a b c Levinovitz, Alan (23 February 2015). "Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists' Emails With Big Ag". Wired. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  23. ^ Hamblin, James (11 February 2015). "The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals". The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  24. ^ ""Fear mongers" make good living by misrepresenting science, says GMO expert". McGill Reporter. 22 September 2015. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  25. ^ a b Lipton, Eric (5 September 2015). "Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show". New York Times. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  26. ^ Keith Kloor (11 February 2015). "Updated: Agricultural researchers rattled by demands for documents from group opposed to GM foods". Science. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
  27. ^ Fedoroff, Nina; Raven, Peter; Sharp, Phillip (9 March 2015). "The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  28. ^ Seife, Charles; Thacker, Paul (August 21, 2015). "Why it's OK for taxpayers to 'snoop' on scientists". L.A. Times. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  29. ^ Nader, Ralph. "Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information". Huffington Post. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
  30. ^ a b Flaherty, Colleen (14 August 2015). "Casualty of GMO Wars". Inside Higher Education. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  31. ^ a b Folta, Kevin (13 September 2015). "What are "Deep Ties" to Monsanto?". Illumination (blog). Retrieved 13 September 2015.
  32. ^ a b c Folta, Kevin (22 September 2015). "Setting A New Standard For Science Transparency". Science 2.0 (blog). Retrieved 22 September 2015.
  33. ^ a b c d Schweers, Jeff (28 August 2015). "UF to donate Monsanto funds to food pantry". Gainesville Sun. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  34. ^ a b Payne, Jack (12 September 2015). "Perspective: Records requests hijack scientists' time". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 12 September 2015.
  35. ^ Novella,Steven (11 September 2015). "How To Attack a Public Scientist". Neurologica Blog. Retrieved 11 September 2015.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&oldid=689920749"