Professor Who Exposed Flint Crisis Says Greed Has Killed Public Science

[JohnyCanuck]

Academic pressure and financial motives has prohibited scientists from asking important questions

by
Lauren McCauley, staff writer

"Academic research and scientists in this country are no longer deserving of the public trust," declared Marc Edwards, the Virginia Tech civil engineering professor who helped expose the Flint water crisis.

In an interview published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on Tuesday, Edwards explained how the pressures put on academics to secure funding are forcing scientists to abandon work done in the public interest and that similar financial motives are causing government science agencies to ignore inconvenient truths—like high levels of lead in public drinking water.

He said he's "very concerned about the culture of academia in this country and the perverse incentives that are given to young faculty." Edwards describes the culture as a "hedonistic treadmill," with "extraordinary" pressures to pursue funding, publication, and academic clout. Meanwhile, he said, "the idea of science as a public good is being lost."

Edwards, whose research also uncovered high levels of lead in the Washington, D.C. water supply in 2003, was tapped by Flint residents to help test their water after officials with both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) ignored their concerns.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/03/professor-who-exposed-flint-crisis-says-greed-has-killed-public-science

Hmm, wonder if the above is relevant when deciding whether or not to accept the opinions of scientists and government regulatory bodies who repeatedly advise that are are no causes for concern about the safety of GMO foods and crops, and anyone who would suggests otherwise is a kook.

[marions ghost]

1. Academic research has been hijacked like everything else

--it's a lower priority if it's in the public interest.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. kick n/t

[malaise]

3. This happened when the serious Social Sciences faculties across the globe were undermined

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

with strong Sociology, Economics and Political Science and International Relations trashed by their Management and Business Departments with complicity from Administrators at very high levels who wanted the money brought in by these 'corporate chairs' in the Business Schools.

Put simple - neo-liberalism has overtaken our universities and now we have greedy young academics willing to play as much ball as the greedy young politicians.

One once told me that he never pretends to be an academic - all he wants is to make money.

The virus is everywhere - yes a revolution is needed.

[AngryAmish]

10. The dominant political philosophy in academia is fascism.

You are so right.

[malaise]

11. Agree 100%

[MisterP]

4. see, it's not just reports and data that neer see the light of day

it's science itself that gets "massaged": nuke advocates over and over note how low gamma radiation is nearby, how it's externally the same as what you get from bananas a table, yada yada

once the conversation goes to internal long-term doses and alpha and beta emitters, of course, the nukespeak goes on the defensive

[ag_dude]

5. How do YOU choose which science to believe?

That article didn't mention a single thing about GMOs other than "science".

Conservatives spout the same "you can't believe scientists, they're all bought and paid for" rhetoric about climate change that you're spreading about GMO research.

How do YOU choose which science is legitimate and which is not?

[LanternWaste]

6. Peer review.

Peer review.

[ag_dude]

7. Agreed.

...which makes bringing up GMOS in this odd because there's plenty of peer reviewed research on the subject.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. It's not just the USA where regulators are under fire.....

for rolling over and playing dead instead of doing their job and protecting the public from harm.

Banishing Glyphosate


SNIP

Underlying its success has been the repeated claim that the chemical is benign for human health, that its killing mechanism for plants works via an enzyme that does not exist in animals and is therefore safe for both human and animals. This claim goes counter to evidence that existed right from the start. Studies revealed both carcinogenicity and teratogenicity as far back as the 1980s, but were buried by industry with the support of regulatory bodies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority (see Chapter 5 and [4] EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity, SiS 51).

Meanwhile, overwhelming evidence of glyphosate toxicity across the globe has come to light. Everywhere, people are seeing steep rises in cancers, birth defects and other serious illnesses as glyphosate use increases. The World Health Organisation’s recent re-assessment of glyphosate as a ‘probable carcinogen’ vindicates the evidence witnessed by communities, researchers, doctors and campaigners for many years.

snip

With its increasing lack of efficacy on top of the rising awareness of its toxicity, people across the globe are taking action to rid glyphosate from their farms, their food and their land, air, and water. Lawsuits are being filed against Monsanto both in the US for false claims of safety, and in China for hiding the toxicology documents used for registering the chemical in the country. China is the world’s largest producer of glyphosate and the largest importer of GM soybeans [7] (How Grain Self-Sufficiency, Massive Soybean Imports & Glyphosate Exports Led China to Devastate People & Planet, SiS 67); and feelings are running high against both. A recent petition has even gone so far as to call for the complete overhaul of the Ministry of Agriculture, whose Agricultural GMO Safety Evaluation is deemed inadequate for ensuring that “GMOs developed abroad or within China are safe”. It goes on to claim that there has been collusion between them and Monsanto, resulting in the submission of “fake samples”, the carrying out of “false tests” as well as the falsification of “safety conclusions” (see [8] China’s Ministry of Agriculture Accused of Colluding with Monsanto, SiS 67). The ultimate rejection of glyphosate and GM crops by the Chinese people could be a turning point not just for China but the world. Meanwhile in Argentina, a federal judge has accepted an unprecedented class action lawsuit demanding a ban on GM foods and their associated pesticides [9]. Defendants of this case include not only all the major GM crop and chemical corporations, but the Argentine national government and the Federal Council for the environment. Claiming that GMOs contribute to the trend towards monoculture, direct seeding with consequent reduction of rural labour, concentration of profit in few producers and impacts of health of rural populations and environment, the lawsuit demands the passing of a biosafety law, labelling of GM crops, and the remediation of environmental damage such as the soil in addition to the bans.

[JohnyCanuck]

9. Evidence keeps accumulating........

Too many government regulatory bodies apparently see their role as protecting profits rather than people, regardless of science or just plain common sense.

Stopped!! Methane Blow-Out. Radioactive Fall-out. And … The Predictable Result

By Brett Redmayne-Titley

This past Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016 brought a welcome breath of fresh air to more than 4400 displaced Porter Ranch, CA residents. It was their first in more than four months. A mile or so due north and a thousand feet farther up the foothills of the Santa Susana mountains in Aliso Canyon, the nation’s worst environmental and health disaster since BP, has stopped. Natural gas well, SS-25 is dead.

After depositing more than 90 million metric tons of a very toxic gaseous cocktail from two miles deep under the mountains up into the atmosphere above 18.5 million mostly unsuspecting Angelenos, the corporate players who have caused this disaster are now assuring this same public that they are, suddenly, protecting their interests. As highlighted in the previous article, the negligent corporate criminals at the Southern California Gas Company hold the keys to the jail and the purported guards over at the California agencies; PUC, DOGGR and the Dept. of Conservation are sound asleep in their chairs. Now, with pending legal and legislative action heading downwind towards So Cal Gas, continued close public scrutiny is warranted. Considering that these same public agencies were all negligently complicit in causing the Aliso Canyon disaster, can they now be trusted to change their spots and enforce meaningful changes upon So Cal Gas?

Like the natural gas flowing downhill from Aliso Canyon the growing plethora of damaging information against So Cal Gas funnels together down a central path. Two points generally sum-up the accusations leveled squarely at multiple defendants, many of whom will almost certainly be bearing witness very soon. In court. First; owner of SS-25, the Southern California Gas Company, caused the disaster by willful negligence. Second; that this negligence was subordinated by multiple California State public officials. As the previous article shows, starting with the Calif. state agencies, P.U.C.[Public Utilities Commission]; DOGGR [Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources], and the California Department of Conservation – and likely leading to “environmental” governor, Jerry Brown’s telephone – So Cal Gas has been given unregulated carte blanche to put their corporate profits before concerns for public and environmental health and safety. Multiple lawsuits may soon ferret-out the details of these inescapable conclusions.

At issue; the removal, rather than replacement, of a “Sub-Surface Safety Valve” on SS-25 of which So Cal Gas, in 1979, reported to state regulators that it had indeed replaced the safety valve. Then, in 2014, So Cal Gas filed a fraudulent inspection report with the Conservation Dept. certifying that the valves were in place and had also passed inspection. With the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility holding over 160 billion cubic feet of highly pressurized, very toxic gas, and the potential risks showcased for the past one-hundred-twenty-plus days in epic evidence, the necessity of safety valves is obvious. So … how many of the other 114 aging wells are also missing safety valves? In defending this apparent negligence Rodger Schwecke, of So Cal Gas, said in a public meeting last month that the company decided not to replace it [the safety valve] because it was not a “critical well.” Reportedly, according to state law, Critical Wells are defined as those being 300-feet-or-less from homes or schools. What? After hiking up the steep hills to witness the full horrifying magnitude of SS-25 up-close, the sheer lunacy of such a regulation is pause for retching disgust.

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/stopped-methane-blow-out-radioactive-fall-out-and-the-predictable-result.html