Print

Print


  	I have observed that many concerned scientists stay on the 
fence, using as an excuse the unreliable ravers who over the past 
decade insist on fronting in the media for our movement.

	Is it not overdue to bring into focus those who claim a 
'right' to issue any sloppy utterance they carelessly fabricate or 
relay, and why they are not held to any duty to refrain from uttering 
errors that would tend to bring into disrepute the movement for 
control of this most dangerous technology?
	The credibility of the cause is of very great importance, for 
reasons which are widely known and obvious.  The hazards of 
gene-tampering are comparable to those of nuclear weapons; this has 
been clear to experts like Jonathan King, Ruth Hubbard, David 
Straton, etc since gene-splicing was invented 3 decades ago.  Prince 
Charles has more recently given an immaculate lead in opposition to 
this dangerous technology, and in developing organic horticulture as 
the only alternative.  He evidently gets his statements checked by 
experts before he puts them out, and the result is an impeccable 
record for accuracy.  Reliable facts, and clear reasoning, will be 
required if the public are to bring gene-tampering under control. 
This principle has yet to be adopted by loose cannon Mae-Wan Ho.
	I have argued for some years that the main reason for the 
persistence of the embarrassing usurpers is that they are primarily 
WimminsLibbers.  Some of them have expert editors or ghost-writers 
who help somewhat, but those servants tend to be transient; this does 
not bother the PowerHarpies, because their own overassertiveness is 
their main goal.  Not subject to internal criticism, and so scornful 
of the enemy that arming them with valid criticisms is assumed to be 
a negligible blunder, these megalomaniacs  -  typefied by the 
radically sloppy & insolent Ho  -  just flail about themselves 
fecklessly;  they insult and try to intimidate anyone who attempts to 
help them, even privately, to achieve reasonable standards of 
accuracy.  What a wonky scene!
	Many of their errors turn out with luck to be minor, not 
strictly material to the correctness of the general gist.  But the 
game is not played honestly, by Monsanto PR agents or by Vivian 
Moses, Rick Roush, Marta McGloughlin, and other PR agents.  These 
operatives will make great play with any defect issuing from 'our 
side', discrediting in the eyes of uncommitted observers any 
scientifically inaccurate utterance and by (dishonest) implication 
discrediting the whole case for control of GM.  I have encountered 
numerous scientists who do feel at least vaguely concerned about GM 
but wouldn't go near our movement because they despise such sloppies 
as Ms Ho or her protégée "Sam" Burcher.
	The zero-defects approach of, for instance, the Union of 
Concerned Scientists is not a discipline Ho, Cummins, etc are willing 
to undergo.  One effect is that the UCS GM-experts (Margaret Mellon 
Ph.D J.D & Jane Rissler Ph.D) refuse to have much to do with most 
anti-GM activists.  This awful fragmentation is a severe handicap for 
the main task of bringing GM under control.
	I for one am sick & tired of this warped scene.  When UCS 
founder Henry Kendall showed the
way to zero-defects criticism of nuclear reactors, no usurper like Ho 
tried to set herself up as a comparable expert.  Then arose 
prototypical reckless errormongers e.g Helen Caldicott M.B, Rosalie 
Bertell, and a few others.  Surrounded by buffer-zones of wimps, 
these harpies plunge on recklessly with error-strewn utterances that 
would repel any careful scientist who took them as representative of 
the scientific criticisms of nuclear weapons & nuclear power.
	In my country the media have presented as experts on GM 
unqualified PowerHarpies who are unable to discuss GM  -  some 
unaware of the difference between a protein and a nucleic acid.  Thus 
sexist politics overpowers the fine Kendall tradition.

RM