Podcast: Biden’s pro-biotech executive order; Vaccine mandates backfire; Courts v junk science

President Biden just signed an executive order promising substantial investment in the “bioeconomy.” What impact will the proposal have on biotechnology research and development? Recent studies indicate that COVID vaccine mandates may have discouraged many people from getting their shots. Are courts finally getting wise to the junk science advanced by plaintiffs attorneys? Recent cases give us reason for hope.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 187 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

• ‘To improve food security’: President Biden issues initiatives to advance the ‘bio-economy’, including agricultural biotechnology; embraces ‘forward looking’ regulatory reforms

Last week, the Biden Administration pledged its support for efforts to develop America’s “bio-economy,” outlining a series of proposals to boost investment in and reduce regulation of biotechnology. The announcement suggests that politicians are beginning to recognize the important role biotech innovation can play in growing the US economy and tackling critical issues such as food security. How big of an impact will these proposals have as time goes on?

• Here’s why researchers believe COVID shot mandates are fueling a backlash, undermining vaccine education

There’s no denying that widespread immunization is one of our best weapons in the never-ending battle against infectious disease, most recently COVID-19. But as the pandemic gradually winds down, some experts have looked back critically at vaccine mandates widely implemented around the world. These experts argue that mandatory vaccines may have amplified existing skepticism about the safety and efficacy of the shots, and could create new opposition to other vaccines in the coming years.

• You have to prove the dose’: Why courts are rejecting payouts for exposure to alleged carcinogens like talc or actual ones like asbestos

US courts are notorious for their willingness to accept junk science proffered by plaintiffs attorneys. However, several recent cases suggest that judges are wising up to the misuse of evidence in their courtrooms. No longer content with the testimony of carefully selected expert witness, courts are dismissing lawsuits based on dubious research and demanding that plaintiffs submit higher quality data in support of their claims. Have these cases set an important precedent that will slow down the seemingly endless river of baseless litigation?

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