By some serendipity, I noticed and responded to a tweet where Kevin Folta was trying to ridicule the accusation that he was “pro-GMO”:
I rather like the “pro-biotech” label as it seems more precise than “pro-GMO.”
OK. That last tweet may not have been the most diplomatic one from my part. Still, it should be obvious that one can be pro something while keeping a critical eye on it. Instead of tripling down on the victim playing, Kevin switched to the honest broker dance:
At that moment, I could not expect the following tweet, nor could he expect my response:
Funding for my outreach program comes from individuals and charities to support biotech literacy.
I’m cool with that. Instead of acknowledging the indubitable, Kevin goes for bragging about having studied bio-techs for 30 years and liking the interventions of one of his fans, who tried to waste my time by playing the hard of reading. This did not stop me from driving my point home:
Again, instead of owning his advocacy, Kevin goes with “I did nothin’ wrong”:
At this point some kind of truce with Kevin’s fan over Nassim Taleb Speedo Science. It did not last long, and the kerfuffle rekindled when I underlined how bio-tech was being sold as a way to reduce poverty. This returned us to my main point:
Around that time, Kevin linked to a short video showing the benefit of Bt Eggplant, but I can’t find it back. In any event, Kevin continued to strawman my position as anti-biotech:
Then our exchange officially reached diminishing returns:
I started the exchange with the belief that Kevin Folta was kinda cool.
The false openness it revealed now makes me doubt.
Sound science ought to start by owning’s one’s schtick, right?