[Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

[MexicoDoug]

"Doug, it was Lincoln Brower who first set the precedent
for using the word "Armageddon" in this article and others like it:"

Paul,

Huh ;-0 ??? I honestly didn't know and wouldn't expect he was the 
source.

I wonder what the majority of unbiased scientists think of someone of 
Lincoln Brower's repute throwing out words such as "Armageddon" to 
describe the evolving sciences in agro-biotechnology.  This is really 
an insult to science; 'Armageddon' has deeply religious connotations 
and is from the New Testament Bible the destruction of the Devil an 
epic battle when God comes down and unleashes his fury.  What place do 
such religious overtone-statements have in science other than to 
polarize/bias, divert and offend researchers and constructive 
discussion?

I just Googled, and sadly it seems you are right.  I found this article 
in Mother Jones that Brower had written in 2001, which was a result of 
the GMO scandal that developed at that time:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/85

It gives me insight, to say the least.

It seems that Brower for some reason couldn't participate in the USDA 
grant for the research into the GMO-larva topic program and $200,000 
grant (which he considered a pittance).  Another diverse team of 
experts with some of the finest academic credentials in this country 
was selected and a paper resulted published in the most prestigious 
peer reviewed journal in the United States - The Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences:

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.abstract?sid=e059121b-ade8-4518-895c-2c10e4c5b113

Brower's political statement printed in Mother Jones strikes me as a 
scathing, rambling condemnation and conspiracy theory - political 
mobilization strategy.  Is that an appropriate place to refute a 
publication by trashing everyone in government and industry?  Or would 
it be better to respond in the same peer review journal which accepts 
contrary/disagreement submissions in a specific format for this purpose 
called "Letters to the PNAS".  I couldn't find any retort.  Maybe 
you'll have better luck:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/letters

In the 1960's time frame Lincoln had the honor to be published in thwe 
PNAS himself, at least 4 times.  He is also an excellent speaker.

Is the "Bt-corn killing monarch larvae" in the field still 
objectionable by ecologists anymore, on a scientific basis? Now I think 
it finally hit me why the monarch topic is avoided by some list 
members.

Best
Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
To: Leps List <leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:00 PM, MexicoDoug wrote:

>  I added the search term "Armageddon" for fun.

Doug, it was Lincoln Brower who first set the precedent
for using the word "Armageddon" in this article and others like it:
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/july2011/GMcropsmonarchbutterflieshabitat.php

In the article Lincoln said this about Roundup herbicide use
in the GMO crops of the upper Midwest:

“It kills everything. It’s biodiversity Armageddon,"

And Lincoln and Chip Taylor collaborated on a paper
and wrote:  "We conclude that, because of the extensive
use of glyphosate herbicide on crops that are genetically
modified to resist the herbicide, milkweeds will disappear
almost completely from croplands."

But the critically important information they don't mention
in their paper is that the field margins of these Roundup
treated GMO crops are teaming with bumblebees, honeybees,
monarchs and butterflies like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE

So those GMO croplands are not hardly a legitimate
example of  "Biodiversity Armageddon"

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l