Podcast: Industry funding doesn’t corrupt science; COVID lab leak refuted? Dicamba controversy revisited

Should agricultural scientists take research funding from corporations? A pair of studies suggests that a ‘lab-leak’ origin for SARS-CoV-2 looks increasingly unlikely. What did the researchers actually find? A federal court recently ruled that Bayer and BASF are to blame for farmers who misused pesticides and damaged their neighbors’ farms. Was the decision justified?

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 182 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

We routinely hear that industry funding biases the results of scientific research. Indeed, this has happened over the years; some companies have financed and published questionable studies in the past. But does industry funding necessarily generate unreliable results? One scientist says “no.”

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a mystery, though the two competing hypotheses—a natural “jump” from animals to humans or a laboratory accident—have sparked a ferocious partisan fight. Will we ever get to the bottom of the controversy? A pair of recently published studies claims that the virus probably originated at the Wuhan wet market with infected wildlife, initially identified as the likely source of SARS-CoV-2. While the authors acknowledge that their work has not refuted the lab-leak hypothesis, it does make that explanation less likely. Are the researchers correct?

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

A federal judge recently ruled that agricultural companies BASF and Bayer (which owns Monsanto) are liable for damage caused by farmers who misused an herbicide called dicamba. Older formulations of the weedkiller are more likely to vaporize (volatilize) and travel to nearby fields, where they can damage crops. Some farmers used these formulations on their dicamba-resistant soy and cotton, though they were told to wait for the EPA to approve new lower-volatility dicamba formulations. Who’s right, the federal court or the pesticide manufacturers?

Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow ACSH on Twitter @ACSHorg

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}
screenshot at  pm

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring drew attention to pesticides and their possible dangers to humans, birds, mammals and the ...
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.