I provide
outreach in several sensitive topics, including climate change and crop
biotechnology. I have witnessed the
public misrepresentation of the correspondence and scientific conduct of
prominent climate scientists and biotechnologists. Given these circumstances, I am reporting the
following facts, so that I report my record on my own completely transparent
and accurate terms, rather than reacting to misrepresentation promulgated by
agenda-driven activists.
In 2010, I
accepted an invitation to present a seminar at Monsanto Headquarters in April,
2010 (I believe the date of the visit was on or about 28 Apr 2010). I accepted the invitation after lengthy
deliberation with respected public-sector colleagues and with close
friends. Although some may disagree with
my decision, ultimately, I accepted the invitation because I was advised by
senior colleagues that having a better understanding the world of agricultural
industry would allow me to better serve the public in my role as a public
scientist. At the time, I agreed with
that counsel, and I still do.
I was one of
two plant pathologists asked to speak on fungicide resistance. Prior to our visit, my colleague (from
another land-grant university) and I consulted with each other extensively in
order to deliver an excellent, joint educational presentation. Providing the best possible summary of relevant
science is our shared goal in all aspects of our work. We presented our joint seminar and answered
questions afterward. All of the
questions seemed appropriate to the topic and not unusual nor nefarious in any
way. During the one-day visit, we also
discussed the disease-control properties of glyphosate (which is
well-documented in the public record) and its implications. I also recall a very brief discussion on
plant physiology, but the details of that conversation escape me.
What I most
remember about the visit was not the content of our discussions but the
personal energy and passion of the Monsanto employees. They seem to deeply believe in the value of
their work.
Note that,
to my best recollection, at no time was there ever any discussion of genetic
engineering (GE), GMO technology (except for a statement by Monsanto scientists
that Roundup Ready crops could safely be treated with glyphosate), RNAi, or any
other genetic engineering-related topic, during the visit. In fact, in 2010, I was several years away
from even pondering the possibility of offering outreach on GE crops.
Monsanto
paid all travel expenses, which was my requirement. The taxpayers should not have to fund a
private visit to any corporate headquarters.
Monsanto offered me a $1000 honorarium.
I did not want to create any perception of a conflict of interest
whatsoever. However, I did not wish to
waive the opportunity to bring funds to the University of Kentucky (UK) in
support of our general mission of research, education, and outreach. Therefore, I requested of Monsanto that those
funds be provided as a grant to UK instead of directly to me (which I can
document upon request). It would have
been administratively much easier to have accepted the money personally and to
have made an equivalent personal donation to UK. In fact, I was even scolded by a mid-level
administrator at UK for not doing so, because I had created a significant
amount of administration for a small grant.
However, I insisted that there be no connection whatsoever between me
and those funds. What the funds were
actually used for, I really don’t even know or recall. I don’t have any recollection of using those
funds myself. Maybe I did, but I
certainly don’t recall using them. They
may have been used by the college administration for general expenses, which is
fine with me. As I said previously, I
did not want to be associated with those funds, precisely because I didn’t want
any perception whatsoever of corporate influence.
I invite the
reader to publicly report on any instances in which you personally declined an
honorarium for speaking about a topic of significant public interest. I am particularly interested in stories
involving foregone income of four digits.
On the
subject of my emails, I do not retain emails on my computer earlier than early
2013. Because of my Extension
programming on climate change, I was personally advised by one of the country’s
most prominent climate scientists to delete all emails. After confirming that I was entitled to do so
with a phone call to our college legal counsel, I did so. Again, this was not to hide anything relating
to GMOs or the Monsanto visit—I wasn’t even working with GMOs at that
time. I simply was protecting myself
from the misuse of emails in ways that would misrepresent my actions and
motivations with respect to climate change.
I conduct
field evaluations annually of disease-control products (all non-GMO) annually
in turfgrass and corn, in recent years receiving $3000-14,000 (typically closer
to the low end of the range) for such evaluations. All results of these tests are published in
Plant Disease Management Reports. I test
both fungicides and other more “out-of-the-box” products, including biocontrol
products and organic fertilizers that may influence disease development. The funds obtained provide only part of the
cost of conducting these trials. I
selectively accept such requests for product evaluation because the data
obtained are useful in formulating Extension programming for Kentucky
citizens. Furthermore, the funds help us
conduct additional science-based pathology work in support of Extension
programming for Kentuckians and beyond.
Even though the data obtained are valuable for Extension programming, I
do believe that manufacturers should pay at least part of the cost of testing
their products under Kentucky conditions.
I am unaware of *any* public funding programs that would support product
testing for plant disease control. I do
sometimes test products as “freebies” when I have a strong interest in some
unusual material(s) that may hold promise for more sustainable disease
control. I decline to test large numbers
of experimental compounds that may be years from commercialization, because my
motivation is in testing products of importance to formulating sound
educational programs, not in generating income for my the program. I don’t recall ever having received any
product-testing funds from Monsanto in my 25 years at UK. Maybe I did once, over two decades ago for
one or two products to be tested on turfgrass in one season of testing, but I
have no clear recollection of any such funding, nor can I find records of that
in any of my computer files.
Should there
be concern that I am overly focused on commercial synthetic fungicides, I note
that my only Ph.D. student did research entirely focused on disease control in
organic crops (http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/225/). I served on the graduate committee of another
student working on disease control in organic crops, and I have visited organic
farms as well as led student field trips to organic farms. I regularly buy produce and meat from a local
organic farm family.
Should the
accusation of “unfair access for fungicide manufacturers” be raised, I have
always maintained an open-door policy to all groups with an interest in the
topics on which I offer Extension programming.
I have never failed to return a phone call or email from anyone or any
organization. Reach out (with courtesy,
of course) and I will reach back!
In my 34
years working in agricultural science, I do not recall a single instance where
any company representative requested that I withhold publication of any data or
modify my professional judgement on anything in any way. I do recall instances where company
representatives and I have disagreed on some issue relating to their products,
and we have always been able to discuss our professional differences with
respect and dignity.
I wish to
also add that I am rather scrupulous about not accepting gifts from commercial
interests. I have even sometimes
declined honoraria from non-profit, educational institutions and groups, if the
topic was in any way sensitive. This is
probably “overkill” and unnecessary, but I often do it anyway, to maintain the
highest possible standard of freedom from any monetary influence when
discussing controversial topics.
If anyone
has doubts about my willingness to challenge industry from my position as a
public scientist, please see my presentation at
http://www.apsnet.org/publications/webcasts/scientificpresentations/Pages/FungicidesandPhysiologicalBenefits.aspx. Also please see the letter to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/headline-letter.pdf. Another example: at one time, as I was
reading the literature on RNAi (gene silencing), I was concerned about
potential health concerns from RNAi technology in crops. Because of this very concern, I arranged for
two seminars on the UK campus by Dr. Vicki Vance in March, 2015. I am a tenured, full professor whose salary
is 100% paid by the people of the United States. I have no hesitation about taking on major
corporations when scientific findings justify it.
I note that
I have received no funds or material benefit whatsoever to do research or
outreach on GMO crops. Likewise, the
University of Kentucky has received no funds for my work on GMO crops. I also add that I have no recollection of
ever even talking to a scientist from Monsanto or other agrichemical
corporation about GMO crops, with the remarkably modest exception mentioned
above. I do recall once, at a scientific
conference, politely asking a Monsanto scientist to please not discuss GMOs
with me, so I can continue to claim complete and utter freedom from any
corporate influence on the topic of GMOs.
(Maybe that was overkill—I hope I was gracious, because Monsanto
employees are fellow humans, too.) And
as of this writing, even with all this freedom from corporate influence, I must
say that the wise use of genomic data and genetic tools (including genetic
engineering) to address human needs and environmental challenges seems entirely
sensible and even desirable.
I note also
that I have never received external funding on climate change. (I once served on a $5000 competitively
awarded NASA grant, but I neither received nor managed those funds.) And yes, even with all my independence from
the influence of external funding, I see clearly in the scientific literature
that global warming is real and caused largely by human activity.
Update 29 Oct 2015: See my new blog at http://out-of-the-box-vincelli.blogspot.com/.
Paul
Vincelli
University
of Kentucky
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/plantpathology/people/vincelli.htm
