Monarchs and the Bt Transgenic Corn Pollen Scare

[Stelenes at aol.com]

I felt the same way after reading the original post.  The scientific method 
does not include purposeful misleading of public opinion to support a 
particular researcher's point.  That science does not belong in any peer 
reviewed, respected scientific printing.  Sounds a lot like cheating on a 
test to me to get a passing grade (a new grant, in this case).  Don't get me 
wrong, I am not advocating a blind eye to industry.

Don't scientists outside their research circles have an ethical 
responsibility in a situation like this to not misguide public opinion which 
is not solely fact based?  Isn't the scientist the supposedly only one the 
public can depend upon to give an unbiased view of the science to the public, 
and should this not be violated?

Supposedly industry has questionable motives, according to Doug Yanega, but 
in this case, some very established companies are going to be careful not to 
risk bankrupcy if they are later found to be liable, and put all of their GMO 
programs at risk, while Paul has pointed out that academicians could possibly 
benefit from this misinformation for personal benefit - more research money, 
publications financed by potentially industry, based on an unreasonable 
assumptions.  

Given all these unfortunate potential motives, shouldn't we all pull together 
to support the reality based science of the type Paul started in his 1 to 5% 
upper end of the mortality calculation, or should we let emotions take over 
to potentially determine the fate of an entire industry of some of our most 
talented molecular biologists and plant breeders?

Doug Dawn.
Monterrey, Mexico
Davis, California