> I'd hardly characterize facts about funding as "innuendo". The exact
> dollar amounts may be in dispute, but Monsanto's having given money to
> those I mentioned is not. I have done some laboratory research
> myself, and am quite aware of what data are. I would characterize data
> as observable phenomena resulting from a controlled set of
> circumstances/reactions. I have seen researchers fudge numbers - no
> profession is completely free of improper conduct, unfortunately - and,
> where there is room for interpretation and judgement calls, there will
> always be room for differences of opinion and the drawing of different
> conclusions.
Lara,
Since this is supposed to be a Sustainable Ag Discussion Group, I again
will attempt to return to the issue which I believe most closely pertains
to sustainable agriculture. Do you have specific evidence that Dr. Bauman
"fudged numbers" regarding the safety of BST? You again insinuate that
because he received research funding from Monsanto, his data are not
useful to the public, or to the scientific community, in evaluation of the
safety of BST. I also receive industry funding to conduct scientific
research. This funding does not buy me, nor does it influence the numbers
I present as data. If you have numbers fudged, I hope you reported the
incident. If you have information that Dr. Bauman's data do not
accurately represent results derived from controlled and replicated
experiments, you would do sanet a great service by providing that information.
Without such information, your posts appear to encourage the use of
fear and intimidation in coming to some decision regarding the safety of
BST. The encrypted message is that the scientific community in general,
and Dr. Bauman specifically, cannot be trusted. These are serious
charges. Do you have any information at all that you might share with us
wwhich indicate that the results of Dr. Bauman's studies misrepresent the
results of his studies by virtue of the fact that he received research
funding from Monsanto?
Gary Banowetz