Doug Powell - Revision history

Jonathan Matthews at 14:55, 22 July 2009

2009-07-22T14:55:57Z

Show changes

Claire Robinson: /* Education – or propaganda? */

2009-07-18T14:28:04Z

Education – or propaganda?

Claire Robinson: /* Education – or propaganda? */

2009-07-18T14:26:59Z

Education – or propaganda?

Claire Robinson: /* Education – or propaganda? */

2009-07-18T14:22:03Z

Education – or propaganda?

Claire Robinson: /* Education – or propaganda? */

2009-07-18T14:21:16Z

Education – or propaganda?

Claire Robinson: /* Education – or propaganda? */

2009-07-18T13:49:58Z

Education – or propaganda?

Claire Robinson: /* Education – or propaganda? */

2009-07-18T13:49:21Z

Education – or propaganda?

Claire Robinson: /* "Wormy corn" scandal */

2009-07-18T13:36:25Z

"Wormy corn" scandal

Claire Robinson: /* "Wormy corn" scandal */

2009-07-18T13:32:24Z

"Wormy corn" scandal

Claire Robinson: /* "Wormy corn" scandal */

2009-07-18T13:31:15Z

"Wormy corn" scandal

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses "intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case."<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
-In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn was conducted.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041027174347/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/biotechres/pasthappenings.htm Past happenings], Food Safety Network website, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>
+In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given "talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario". Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn was conducted.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041027174347/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/biotechres/pasthappenings.htm Past happenings], Food Safety Network website, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>
 In 2002 Powell was a visiting researcher to the [[Life Sciences Network]] (LSN) in New Zealand, which  lobbies aggressively for GM food and crops. Some of New Zealand's state funded agricultural institutes that helped to fund LSN have also supported Powell's [[Food Safety Network]].

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses "intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case."<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
-In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn is conducted.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041027174347/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/biotechres/pasthappenings.htm Past happenings], Food Safety Network website, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>
+In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn was conducted.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041027174347/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/biotechres/pasthappenings.htm Past happenings], Food Safety Network website, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>
 In 2002 Powell was a visiting researcher to the [[Life Sciences Network]] (LSN) in New Zealand, which  lobbies aggressively for GM food and crops. Some of New Zealand's state funded agricultural institutes that helped to fund LSN have also supported Powell's [[Food Safety Network]].

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 The concern that Powell is operating more as a propagandist than a scientist is not confined to his research. In 2002, Ann Clark, in a presentation sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, made a scathing attack on those like Powell who abused their role as educators for propaganda purposes. According to Clark, "Those entrusted with graduate education frame the research questions and methods which solidify the values of the students they supervise. And what some are doing today under the umbrella of academic freedom is actually not far removed from the proclamations of Orwell's Ministry of Truth."<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
-Although Clark does not mention Powell by name, her 'evidence that students are already mastering the art of doublespeak' includes 'an article posted 6 September 2002 to a Canadian university website... by a graduate student emulating the distinctive writing style of the faculty adviser who was quoted at the start of this paper'.<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref> The quote in question is from Doug Powell.
+Although Clark does not mention Powell by name, her "evidence that students are already mastering the art of doublespeak" includes "an article posted 6 September 2002 to a Canadian university website... by a graduate student emulating the distinctive writing style of the faculty adviser who was quoted at the start of this paper".<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref> The quote in question is from Doug Powell.
-Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses 'intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case.'<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
+Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses "intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case."<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
 In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn is conducted.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041027174347/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/biotechres/pasthappenings.htm Past happenings], Food Safety Network website, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses 'intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case.'<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
-In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn is conducted. ([http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Outreach with teachers and students])
+In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn is conducted.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041027174347/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/biotechres/pasthappenings.htm Past happenings], Food Safety Network website, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>
 In 2002 Powell was a visiting researcher to the [[Life Sciences Network]] (LSN) in New Zealand, which  lobbies aggressively for GM food and crops. Some of New Zealand's state funded agricultural institutes that helped to fund LSN have also supported Powell's [[Food Safety Network]].
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 The Food Safety Network, on the other hand, exists as an integral part of the University of Guelph while enjoying the considerable support of industry. In other words, at Guelph propagandising for GMOs has been institutionalised to the point where it has become Powell's full-time professional role to 'actively engage the Canadian and international publics' in defence of GMOs.
-While many would view such an overtly campaigning role as inappropriate for a scientist and educator within a public university, that is not how Powell sees it. For Powell it is those scientists and educators who refuse to take a lead in defending GM crops who are at fault. Such scientists, according to Powell, 'abdicate their leadership responsibilities and leave students to form their opinions in a sea of websites, conversations rooted in caffeine-stimulated intuition, and conspiracy-theory speculations.' For Powell this is an 'abandonment of educational leadership'.
+While many would view such an overtly campaigning role as inappropriate for a scientist and educator within a public university, that is not how Powell sees it. For Powell it is those scientists and educators who refuse to take a lead in defending GM crops who are at fault. Such scientists, wrote Powell in an article for Food Safety Network co-authored with Justin Kastner, "abdicate their leadership responsibilities and leave students to form their opinions in a sea of websites, conversations rooted in caffeine-stimulated intuition, and conspiracy-theory speculations". For Powell, this is an "abandonment of educational leadership".<ref>Justin Kastner and Doug Powell, [http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=13&sc=92&id=184 Lecturing and Leading in the Midst of Confusion], Food Safety Network website, 29 Sept 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
 ==Resources==

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 The concern that Powell is operating more as a propagandist than a scientist is not confined to his research. In 2002, Ann Clark, in a presentation sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, made a scathing attack on those like Powell who abused their role as educators for propaganda purposes. According to Clark, "Those entrusted with graduate education frame the research questions and methods which solidify the values of the students they supervise. And what some are doing today under the umbrella of academic freedom is actually not far removed from the proclamations of Orwell's Ministry of Truth."<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
-Although Clark does not mention Powell by name, her 'evidence that students are already mastering the art of doublespeak' includes 'an article posted 6 September 2002 to a Canadian university website... by a graduate student emulating the distinctive writing style of the faculty adviser who was quoted at the start of this paper'. The quote in question is from Doug Powell.
+Although Clark does not mention Powell by name, her 'evidence that students are already mastering the art of doublespeak' includes 'an article posted 6 September 2002 to a Canadian university website... by a graduate student emulating the distinctive writing style of the faculty adviser who was quoted at the start of this paper'.<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref> The quote in question is from Doug Powell.
-Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses 'intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case.' (Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak)
+Clark analyses statements in Powell's student's article, which was about the case of Percy Schmeiser - a Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto, to show that it uses 'intentionally misleading wording, innuendo, and ridicule - the standard tools of doublespeak - to discredit and diminish without actually addressing the substantive issues raised by the Schmeiser case.'<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Industry and Academic Biology: teaching students the art of double-speak], Presented to Defusing Dissent, sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa; Nov 2002, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
 In this context, it is interesting to note that the Food Safety Network graduate students and staff have, under Powell's direction, given 'talks, workshops and other forms of outreach with teachers and students across Ontario'. Science teachers from across Canada have also been involved in some events, such as an introduction to GM foods, provided by Powell, and a tour of the Food Safety Network's Model Farm where the consumer preference research on Bt corn is conducted. ([http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/caut.pdf Outreach with teachers and students])

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :the Bt sweet corn was not sprayed with any insecticides whereas the conventional was sprayed with either 3 sprays of carbofuran or 4 sprays of Bt foliar. This information along with information on the different sprays used and relative costs was put on a handout and two posters in the farm market. The sweet corn was separated into two separate bins and labelled as genetically engineered Bt sweet corn or regular sweet corn. Both are being sold for the same price and sales to date show the genetically engineered Bt sweet corn outselling the regular sweet corn.<ref>Katija Blaine, [http://web.archive.org/web/20050420081720/http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2000/-2000/ag-00-06-00-01.txt Conventional and Bt sweet corn initial ales results at Model Farm], AgNet posting, 6 September 2000, version placed in web archive 20 April 2005, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref>
-Although Powell claimed the research shows that "consumers vote with their wallets" for the GM produce,<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20050210094258/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/bt-sweet-corn/pressrel.htm#Farm-to-Fork Farm-to-Fork Food Safety with Farmer Jeff], Food Safety Network press release, June 28, 2001, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref> concern has been expressed about strong experimenter bias in the assessment of consumer preference. Agricultural scientist, E. Ann Clark at the University of Guelph has drawn attention, in particular, to 'Chapter 4 of a new text by Stuart Laidlaw of the Toronto Star, entitled Secret Ingredients'. This, Clark says, refers to a photo taken at the Wilson farm market which shows that above the non-GM sweet corn bin is a sign (see [[Shane Morris]]) headed "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" followed by a long list of chemicals applied. In contrast, the Bt-sweet corn bin was labelled: "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn", followed by a list of fertilizers, with the fact that it was Bt-corn only shown on a separate sign. The label wording introduces clear experimental bias. Indeed, what is so remarkable is that consumers were willing to buy as many as 5000 cobs of 'wormy' (as against 'quality') sweet corn. Clark [http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Aug/msg00054.html suggests] this indicates a high level of consumer distrust of Bt corn.
+Although Powell claimed the research shows that "consumers vote with their wallets" for the GM produce,<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20050210094258/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/bt-sweet-corn/pressrel.htm#Farm-to-Fork Farm-to-Fork Food Safety with Farmer Jeff], Food Safety Network press release, June 28, 2001, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref> concern has been expressed about strong experimenter bias in the assessment of consumer preference. Agricultural scientist, E. Ann Clark at the University of Guelph has drawn attention, in particular, to "Chapter 4 of a new text by Stuart Laidlaw of the Toronto Star, entitled Secret Ingredients". This, Clark says, refers to a photo taken at the Wilson farm market which shows that above the non-GM sweet corn bin is a sign (see [[Shane Morris]]) headed "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" followed by a long list of chemicals applied. In contrast, the Bt-sweet corn bin was labelled: "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn", followed by a list of fertilizers, with the fact that it was Bt-corn only shown on a separate sign. The label wording introduces clear experimental bias. Indeed, what is so remarkable is that consumers were willing to buy as many as 5000 cobs of "wormy" (as against "quality") sweet corn. Clark suggests this indicates a high level of consumer distrust of Bt corn.<ref>E. Ann Clark, [http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Aug/msg00054.html Unwelcome underperformers], Guelph Mercury, Aug 14, 2003, accessed 17 July 2009</ref>
 ==Education – or propaganda?==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 18 July 2009
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Although Powell claimed the research shows that "consumers vote with their wallets" for the GM produce,<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20050210094258/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/bt-sweet-corn/pressrel.htm#Farm-to-Fork Farm-to-Fork Food Safety with Farmer Jeff], Food Safety Network press release, June 28, 2001, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref> concern has been expressed about strong experimenter bias in the assessment of consumer preference. Agricultural scientist, E. Ann Clark at the University of Guelph has drawn attention, in particular, to 'Chapter 4 of a new text by Stuart Laidlaw of the Toronto Star, entitled Secret Ingredients'. This, Clark says, refers to a photo taken at the Wilson farm market which shows that above the non-GM sweet corn bin is a sign headed 'Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?' followed by a long list of chemicals applied. In contrast, the Bt-sweet corn bin was labelled: 'Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn,' followed by a list of fertilizers, with the fact that it was Bt-corn only shown on a separate sign. The label wording introduces clear experimental bias. Indeed, what is so remarkable is that consumers were willing to buy as many as 5000 cobs of 'wormy' (as against 'quality') sweet corn. Clark [http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Aug/msg00054.html suggests] this indicates a high level of consumer distrust of Bt corn.		Although Powell claimed the research shows that "consumers vote with their wallets" for the GM produce,<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20050210094258/www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/bt-sweet-corn/pressrel.htm#Farm-to-Fork Farm-to-Fork Food Safety with Farmer Jeff], Food Safety Network press release, June 28, 2001, accessed in web archive 17 July 2009</ref> concern has been expressed about strong experimenter bias in the assessment of consumer preference. Agricultural scientist, E. Ann Clark at the University of Guelph has drawn attention, in particular, to 'Chapter 4 of a new text by Stuart Laidlaw of the Toronto Star, entitled Secret Ingredients'. This, Clark says, refers to a photo taken at the Wilson farm market which shows that above the non-GM sweet corn bin is a sign headed 'Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?' followed by a long list of chemicals applied. In contrast, the Bt-sweet corn bin was labelled: 'Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn,' followed by a list of fertilizers, with the fact that it was Bt-corn only shown on a separate sign. The label wording introduces clear experimental bias. Indeed, what is so remarkable is that consumers were willing to buy as many as 5000 cobs of 'wormy' (as against 'quality') sweet corn. Clark [http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Aug/msg00054.html suggests] this indicates a high level of consumer distrust of Bt corn.
		+
		+	==Education – or propaganda?==

	The concern that Powell is operating more as a propagandist than a scientist is not confined to his research. In 2002, Ann Clark, in a presentation sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, made a scathing attack on those like Powell who abused their role as educators for propaganda purposes. According to Clark, 'Those entrusted with graduate education frame the research questions and methods which solidify the values of the students they supervise. And what some are doing today under the umbrella of academic freedom is actually not far removed from the proclamations of Orwell's Ministry of Truth.'		The concern that Powell is operating more as a propagandist than a scientist is not confined to his research. In 2002, Ann Clark, in a presentation sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, made a scathing attack on those like Powell who abused their role as educators for propaganda purposes. According to Clark, 'Those entrusted with graduate education frame the research questions and methods which solidify the values of the students they supervise. And what some are doing today under the umbrella of academic freedom is actually not far removed from the proclamations of Orwell's Ministry of Truth.'