So who is "_______________"? Why does their perspective count more than mine?
The irony is that those of us that work in public service are labeled as pawns and stooges, dupes of higher corporate interests, and not 'real' experts-- but we are public-sector scientists that don't have anything to do with the GMO discussion as a primary part of our positions. It is not our day job.
Yet we are frequently classified as "shills" or scientists with conflicts of interest. However, the main voices critical of the technology seem to be closer to such conflicting financial and career incentives. It may be good to point out to those making "shill" accusations.
So who are the voices of science in the GMO discussion? Who do they work for, how are they compensated, and what are their "day jobs"?
Who do you trust for information on transgenic crops? The information on this table comes from Google Scholar, and information gained from internet searches. If any information is incorrect, or if you think there is something or someone that needs to be added, I'm happy to fix it. The (*) means that while Dr. Chassy is retired, he was a public-sector scientist.
This is only a start. I expect that as we learn more we'll make additions and adjustments. It is an important table and critical contrast.
Any suggestions for helpful columns or additions?
Maybe someone can make one about journalists and their credentials?