Silence from Bill Nye to Kevin Folta GMO debate challenge

Some of you might recall the open letter from Kevin Folta, a University of Florida plant scientist, inviting [“The Science Guy,” Bill ]Nye to participate in “a forum at a major university for a civil, evidence-based debate on the benefits and risks of agricultural biotechnology.”

The Science Guy never responded. [H]e has received another invitation to discuss his opinion about GMOs. It comes from three graduate students who have just shared their letter with me (also supplied by Kevin Folta to the GLP):

Dear Mr. Bill Nye and Dr. Kevin Folta,

We are graduate students at Purdue University studying plant physiology, biochemistry, and human nutrition and collectively have different views on the use and implementation of genetically modified crops. Being at a major land grant institution and surrounded by agriculture in every way, we recognize that farmers, who are stewards of their land and environment, are choosing to plant genetically modified crops because it is financially beneficially for them to do so. These crops offer benefits that save farmers valuable time and facilitate more consistent yields.

Recently, Mr. Bill Nye made unsupported comments about genetically modified crops that alarmed us. As students who are concerned about the impacts of farming on the environment, we were surprised that Mr. Nye’s comments were made without substantiation from peer-reviewed research. Dr. Folta, a professor and department chair of the University of Florida’s Horticulture Department, has a long standing reputation of echoing the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified crops and seems to hold views that are perpendicular to Mr. Nye’s.

Mr. Nye has publicly pursued climate change and science deniers through debates and open forums in the past. Most famously, Mr. Nye formally debated Ken Ham in a public setting and demonstrated that belief-based arguments have no validity. It seems fair that Mr. Nye be given the opportunity to support the assertions that he made, but using the support of rigorous, peer-reviewed science that closely adheres to the scientific method that he has championed throughout his career.

As scientists, our fundamental mission is to better understand reality through the scientific method and logical reasoning. As such, we are offering to host a debate between both of you here at Purdue University. This is neutral ground and would be of great relevance to our mission as a university, to the farmers of our region, and to the students in our programs. We are willing to arrange a venue and provide moderation in a debate like those both of you have participated in previously and can be flexible to accommodate both of your busy schedules.

Agricultural biotechnology and environmental stewardship are of great interest to all of the students studying agriculture in various contexts.  A frank discussion between two scientists with apparently contrasting views on the benefits and risks of this technology will be of wide interest and stimulate thoughtful discussion throughout the scientific community and the public.

Sincerely,

Michael Dzakovich, MS Student – Plant Physiology

Laura Henry, PhD Student – Biochemistry

Ben Redan, PhD Student – Food Science and Human Nutrition

If the Purdue grad students receive the courtesy of a reply, the GLP will let everyone know, as of course will Keith Kloor or hatched the idea. As of now: defining silence. Stay tuned.

Read full, original blogBill Nye Gets Invited to Attend Another GMO Debate

31 thoughts on “Silence from Bill Nye to Kevin Folta GMO debate challenge”

  1. Bill Nye has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering. He is really an entertainer and can’t be expected to be up to speed on genetic engineering issues. He did very well in his debate with Kevin Ham on evolution before a hostile creationist audience, but some say that was like shooting fish in a barrel, although, before the debate, many feared Nye would blow it. I hope Nye will accept a debate on GMO issues. This would force him to really bone up on the literature which could only have one outcome: he will change his mind about the dangers of GMOs. Maybe we would witness another Mark Lynas moment when he admits his anti-GMO was an embarrassment.

    Reply
    • It’s true that Mr. Nye isn’t an expert in everything, but given his role and esteem within the scientific community and general public, he has the responsibility to stand up for what’s known using hard evidence. He’s done that beautifully in the past, but his new book echoes some of the same fear mongering statements that he made in his “Eye of Nye” episode back in 2005.

      He might be an entertainer in some respects, but he’s still a science communicator and viewed by the general public as someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. Spreading fallacious “What if…” fantasies is uncharacteristic of him and he needs to backup his statements.

      Reply
      • How do YOU distinguish fear mongering from caution and vigilance?

        http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/its-worse-imagined-study-shows-dramatic-correlation-between-gmos-and-22-diseases

        “The study points out research that has shown, “glyphosate disrupts the ability of animals, including humans, to detoxify xenobiotics. This means that exposures to the numerous chemicals in food and the environment, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, could be causing levels of damage that would not occur if the body were able to detoxify them.”

        One of the graphs presented at the above link is copied below. It relates the frequency of diabetes, (the yellow bars) over time to the increasing rate of glyphosate application and to increasing GMO production. The green line is the rate the same disease would have been predicted to develop had glyphosate not been incorporated into the food chain …

        Reply
        • I distinguish fear mongering from caution and vigilance using reason. While Nye’s statement about not knowing what impact a GM crop might have on the environment years down the road is valid in itself, he poses the statement as if it’s not true for conventionally bred crops. With GM crops, you have a one or maybe two gene difference from the parent line. When you do a cross between two parents in conventional breeding, the progeny are the result of thousands upon thousands of recombination events. In conventional breeding, you have a whole mess of genes being moved around with little control. If we’re going to be afraid of the effects of a crop years down the road, I think it should be applied to ALL breeding methods and not single out one technology.

          I looked at the journal article you cited and was immediately suspicious. First of all, none of the authors identify with a university or globally recognized research institution. Who are these people? Do they have conflicts of interest?

          Secondly, the article was published in a bogus journal. I checked the impact factor out of curiosity and it was almost… 0! That means that almost NO ONE cites anything that comes out of this journal. That’s a huge red flag to me and tells careful readers that something is fishy about the article and publisher.

          Lastly, you’ll hear in any statistics course “Correlation does not equal causation”. Assuming the Pearson’s coefficients in that paper were correct (and that’s me being generous given the random authors and untrustworthy publisher), that still doesn’t really tell you much. Did you know that the divorce rates in Maine correlate with consumption of margarine in the US? (R=0.992558) (Source: http://www.tylervigen.com/). But do you really believe that people eating margarine affects the satisfaction that people have in their marriages in Maine?

          You can’t just cherry-pick papers that support a claim. That is not good science. I urge you to probe deeper in the literature and find articles written by accredited scientists at bonafide research institutions.

          Reply
          • I checked the impact factor out of curiosity and it was almost… 0! That means that almost NO ONE cites anything that comes out of this journal.

            So true,,, My Grandmas facebook page has more cites….

          • Your statement that there is just a one or two gene difference in GM crops is fiction. They don’t have the kind of control that you are suggesting. They are randomly hitting so many genes that they have no idea how many genes they may be affecting. They may know they’re aiming for one or two in particular, but they have no idea how many they actually affect since they are shooting randomly.

            And these “scientists” have no idea exactly how much their change is going to affect the product that they are genetically changing. Or how that change is going to affect individuals that eat it?

            Additionally, there have been no long-term studies on the safety of GMOs for human consumption. Why not? We deserve studies that show safety before foisting this junk on citizens. That’s how Microsoft works, not science. And food should definitely be proven safe before sale.

            As for your blanket statement that all breeding methods should cause fear, that’s ridiculous. Age old breeding methods have millennia behind them proving their worth and safety. Genetic engineering has less than a decade of testing which can’t even be verified since these creations have been hidden in the food we eat making it impossible to track their effects.

            No more GMOs. And quit being a shill for Monsanto already. It’s just sad.

          • Bzzzt! Wrong again. “They” do in fact have that kind of control over gene transfer. Learn something about genetics and transgenic technology before posting drivel.

        • This is what scientists call “junk science”. I could pick a host of other diseases, such as stomach cancer that would definitely have increased if there was causality, and show that it has declined during this period. Also, the rise in these diseases in the US mimics the rise in these diseases in western countries that do not consume GMOs, so there is clearly no causality. In fact, the rise in organic food consumption tracks exactly the rise in many diseases…in fact the correlation is even more exact. Pure junk science.

          Reply
          • You could pick a host of other diseases. Yet you didn’t. Why not? I am interested to see what you “could have” shown us.

            Anyway, a decrease in one disease does not disprove the increase in another. Correlation was used to prove the harmful effects of smoking.

            Do you remember Big Tobacco’s lies and science? Multiple studies came out purporting the safety of smoking. Monsanto is following that same tactic. Confuse the audience. They know just like Big Tobacco that people can be easily swayed. And that’s what they do.

            Monsanto and Big Bio are the Big Tobacco of yesteryear. Label your GMOs and just let us decide.

      • I just had a four hour argument with my roommate last night saying basically this verbatim.

        I’m stoked to see someone with the same viewpoint, and have to say I agree with you ten thousand percent.

        Reply
    • It may more be like a David Suzuki moment where Suzuki was forced to back peddle some of his claims and concerns in front of an Australian audience.

      Reply
    • Dude your leader here Jon Entine got a BA in Philosophy while playing football. Not to mention he has been laughed out of academic circles over his work on “race” ..I suspect he likes to think his Jewish genes put him at a disadvantage to black athletes…”they are just built to run” Jon says. Better watch whose “credentials” you are calling out.

      Reply
      • Ah hahahahahahahahahaha! That’s rich… And so we’re to trust Jon Entine and his band of zombie follow-ons that GMOs are safe.

        Hey, I got no troubles with them eating all the glyphosate-covered GMOs they want. Put ’em in a candy dish for your kids! Offer them as an appetizer at family get-togethers: Thanksgiving, Christmas.

        Just label them, so I can choose to avoid them. I can choose to avoid gluten if I want. I can choose to avoid fat if I want. So why do these jokers care if I want to choose to avoid GMOs? Next time these manufacturers relabel their products, they can add the “GMO Inside” stamp of approval, and I can refuse to buy and eat it.

        And they can choose to buy it and support Monsanto to the ill effects of their families. Enjoy!

        Reply
    • If he truly stands behind his statements, this would give him the opportunity to substantiate them with evidence. His silence only makes me suspicious of the contrary.

      Reply
      • Monsanto’s bill to protect itself from future lawsuits in case GMOs are found to be dangerous makes me suspicious.

        Monsanto’s decision to spend tens of millions fighting labeling efforts makes me suspicious.

        Monsanto’s sneak attack against Americans to hide things in our food with the intent of never letting us know makes me suspicious.

        Monsanto’s ex-employee, Michael Taylor, acquiring a newly-created position at the FDA and able to make decisions whether to allow Monsanto’s creations makes me suspicious.

        So, go on and tell me about being suspicious, Mike.

        Reply
        • Can’t you dream up anything of scientific substance to base your opinions upon? Diatribe against Monsanto serves no useful purpose. Try studying genetics, biochemistry, toxicology, and the other sciences that impinge upon human health and the integrity of the environment. Try growing your own food instead of railing against corporations that do more to keep you healthy than well fed than any other entity on the face of this earth. Learn something of value so that you too can be of service to the next generation.

          Reply
  2. “These crops offer benefits that save farmers valuable time and facilitate more consistent yields.”

    These students have already decided.

    Reply
  3. Hey–I think Bill Nye might need to get a plush papaya…If only I knew where one could obtain such a thing….

    Reply
  4. Why bother? These days he is more of an actor than a trained mechanical engineer…. I am a practicing engineer, might as well ask me. :D

    Last time I hear, some actress speaks about some vaccine causes autism. :P

    Reply
  5. I get the impression that Bill Nye is not totally against genetic modification of crops, but that he is not happy with GMO’s current role in food/energy production systems such as subsidized GMO corn/soy used for biofuel and animal feed. Nye says he “scratches his chin” at thought of biotech corporations receiving government subsidies. Also, Nye seems to be rightfully concerned about potential long term ecological impacts of GMOs such as their role in creation of super-weeds, super-insects, super-viruses, etc, which seems like totally reasonable concerns.

    Reply
    • They are not reasonable concerns. There are no such things as super-weeds, super-insects, or any other super-things out there. Pest resistance to human mitigation tools (including genetics) has happened ever since the beginnings of modern agriculture, more than 10 thousand years ago. There’s nothing unique about GMOs in that regard. You need to understand the biochemistry of pest resistance before getting sucked into these wild, ill informed fears such as Nye has promulgated.

      Reply
      • I share you dislike of the “super” terminology, and I agree that there is nothing unique to GMOs in regard to pest evolving resistance . Nevertheless, I believe that it is reasonable for farmers to be concerned about weeds evolving tolerance to herbicides, and insects evolving tolerance to insecticide, just as it is reasonable for a doctor to be concerned with bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. . I believe GMOs have a lot of potential for good. But, I don’t think that Roundup Ready style crops are an example of that., as they exacerbate the growing herbicide abuse problem, which has a lot in common with antibiotic abuse. By the way, Monsanto has a patent on Roundup ingredient Glyphosate for use as an antibiotic because it is so effective at killing bacteria. I don’t think it is a good idea to spray antibiotic Glyphosate on millions of acres of soil several times per year. I prefer herbicide alternatives such as high tech no-till mechanical weeding, hydroponics/aquaponics, cover crops, drone monitoring, soil steaming, etc., Nevertheless, I do think GMOs have promise in things like increasing crop size and creating more nutritious crops, and possibly more applications other than pest control. Unfortunately herbicide-tolerant GMOs did not live up to their promise of decreased pesticide usage, as herbicide is a pesticide, and Rounup Ready style GMOs use more herbicide than their non-GMO counterparts.

        Reply
  6. I refuse to buy or eat food that is labeled to contain no GMOs. That’s enough labeling for anyone to make a buying decision. Can’t you read?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.