Please Act – NC Museum of Natural Sciences Ignores Its Mission and Promotes GMO Food and Big Pharma

The background starts here: Monsanto and Others Infiltrate NC Museum of Natural Sciences and it devolved quickly. The Museum provided me with an insulting, condescending response to my initial email opposing Biotechnology Day. I rejected this response and the employee punted my concerns to a colleague. The new conversation started out professionally enough, but then I pointed out to that employee that he was providing misleading information right down to the very definition of Biotechnology, and that didn’t play well. The more he misled or dodged, the deeper I dug, until he abruptly ended the conversation without answering most of my questions or addressing most of the concerns that I repeatedly raised.

The email correspondence between the Museum and me is below, along with Museum documents, but first here is the Take Action Alert. While on the surface this may seem to be a North Carolina issue, it extends further than North Carolina’s boundaries. Children and their parents were targeted with misinformation to pave the way for future growth and profits of GMO and other Biotech companies, such as the pharmaceuticals, and this could be the first of similar Biotech Days in museums around the country.

Thank you for reading and taking action!

Alert: N.C. Becoming GMO-Central as Museum of Natural Sciences Promotes Unnatural GMO and Other Biotechnology

The Issue:

On June 30, 2012, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences (the Museum) held an event called Biotechnology Day. I and others objected to Biotech Day because the Museum allowed Monsanto, BASF and other poisonous industry giants to spoon feed propaganda to children and adults in a completely inappropriate venue. In this façade the Museum was a warm, welcoming environment where the GMO industry and pharmaceutical giants were virtuous, bold and brave, working to save humanity. No one presented the fantastically remarkable pitfalls and detriments associated with their work (poisoning, injury, death and more). It was a successful day from the perspective of growing North Carolina’s reputation as a warm and welcoming state for the largest and most egregious GMO proponents. GMO and Biotech-central.

Due to the nature of their business, the GMO and pharmaceutical industries will always push their propaganda. The Museum of Natural Sciences must not be the venue. Biotech Day is adversarial with the Museum’s very name, let alone its Mission Statement and Core Values (keep reading for the Museum’s internal documents regarding their mission and core values). During Biotechnology Day, the Museum promoted the efforts of Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, BASF and other companies that are genetically modifying our food (also known as GMO food or GE food) and gaining control over the world’s food supply, as well as promoting the pharmaceutical companies that encourage us to medicate and suppress illness.

My Experience:

I attended the event and was amazed by the number of corporate attendees and their presentations. Not surprisingly, Bayer Crop Science, BASF and some of the pharmaceutical companies were not only Biotech Day exhibitors and/or presenters, they were also flagship donors to the Museum’s new wing. It troubles me deeply that a wonderful place where Colson and I have spent the last six years learning about Natural Science is not safe from the reach of Monsanto and others.

Here is the most basic point of my protracted email discussion with the Museum – their name alone, Natural Sciences, makes them the wrong venue for a Biotechnology Day celebration. The definition of Natural Science is “a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature.” The definition of Nature is: “the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.” 

The definition of Biotechnology varies, but most modern definitions involve human manipulation of nature using modern technology. On their website, Monsanto asks: “WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY? Biotechnology, or genetic engineering...” The definition of genetic engineering reveals that: “Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct human manipulation of an organism's genome using modern DNA technology. It involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest.” Because genetic engineering involves the “direct human manipulation of an organism’s genome using modern DNA technology,” it is profoundly clear that biotechnology and/or genetic engineering are in conflict with the most foundational aspects of Natural Science, as discussed above. The Museum representative I communicated with was unmoved by this information and was irritated by my “fondness for definitions.”

I continued to try and persuade him to abort any future Biotech Days with information regarding the threats of GMO foods, I shared resources with him from organizations such as  the Cornucopia Institute and the Institute for Responsible Technology, I offered alternatives to Biotech Day, such as Sustainable Living Day, and I offered to help obtain highly regarded speakers. This was all met with no response.

I asked the Museum repeatedly for its Mission Statement, Goals Objectives and Policies, and for a list of donors, and after some foot dragging these were provided along with the following statement on August 24, 2012:

As you noted in your July 24 email that you are "a former state government employee who has interacted highly with the public," I'm sure you will appreciate that our workload includes responsibilities to the 911,000 visitors who have come through our doors over the last 12 months as well as to our diverse collection of stakeholders. I'm certain you will agree that several of us at the Museum have expended an inordinate amount of effort in responding to your individual inquiries. As such, we wish you well in your endeavors and consider this matter now closed.

I don’t remotely agree with the representative’s condescending, shut the public up response. Now that the Museum has closed our dialogue it is time for other measures.

What You Can Do:

Please write to Ms. Betsy Bennett, the Museum Director, and let her know that you oppose Biotechnology Day and that the Museum should cease plans for any future Biotechnology Days. The Museum of Natural Sciences is not the forum for such a precedent-setting event because Biotechnology is adversarial to Natural Science, the Museum’s Mission and its Core Values. Let her know that you appreciate the Museum’s Natural Science exhibits and presentations, but by allowing Biotechnology to have a foothold the Museum weakens it Natural Science efforts and undermines its very name and mission. Please add any thoughts that you have regarding GMO foods, pharmaceuticals or other biotechnologies.

Contact Information:

You must contact the Museum Director, Ms. Betsy Bennett, through her Administrative Assistant, Ms. Amber Davis, at the following email address: amber.davis@ncdenr.gov.

Thank you for caring and for taking action. Together we can have an impact on this larger battle for our food supply and health.

Museum Documents: 

Download Museum Mission Statement and Core Values

 

My Emails with the Museum (please forgive some of the formatting):

 

From: laura combs [mailto:lrcombs@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Baird, Liz; Ahmann, Katey
Subject: Fw: NC Museum Biotech Day Concerns

 

Dear Ms. Baird and Ms. Ahmann,

 

I am writing as a follow-up to ensure that you received my email below. I have been awaiting your reply, as I requested below.  In addition to the concerns that I previously mentioned, I want to highlight another objectionable portion of Biotech Days, per the museum's Facebook page:

 

"the Museum serves as an impartial venue for citizens to learn directly from scientists and educators, providing visitors with opportunities to engage in direct discussions about the risks and benefits of this broad scientific discipline." 

 

I do not understand how Biotech Days at the museum is an "impartial venue." In order for to be an impartial venue, people like Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology and Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute would have been invited and they or their representatives would have presented information counter to the promotion of Genetically Modified Foods by BASF, for example. I think it would be a very worthwhile debate to have and provide the impartial venue that the museum is supposedly looking for - Monsanto and Bayer Crop Sciences or BASF representatives and Mr. Smith and Mr. Kastel in a moderated debate. Simply allowing the corporations who are profiting heavily from genetic engineering to present the risks is absurd and highly misleading the public.

 

Regarding the Pharmaceutical company representatives, an impartial venue would have involved those representatives as well as folks promoting informed choice, such as Barbara Lo Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center and Dr. Larry Palevsky. Without balance such as they would provide there is no impartial venue for education.

 

I hope the museum considers hosting a forum where truly both sides of the issues, such as in the cases I highlight above, can be presented. I will be glad to help you make the necessary connections. In addition, I recommend that the museum consider hosting special topic nights, such as genetically modified food, vaccine efficacy and safety and other topics where speakers from both sides of the issue are present and discussing their positions in a moderated forum. 

 

Thank you for your consideration of these important points, and I look forward to your reply,

 

Sincerely,

 

Laura Combs

 

 

From: "Pishney, Jonathan" <jonathan.pishney@ncdenr.gov>
To: "lrcombs@yahoo.com" <lrcombs@yahoo.com> 
Cc: "Baird, Liz" <liz.baird@ncdenr.gov>; "Kroll, David" <david.kroll@ncdenr.gov>; "Ahmann, Katey" <katey.ahmann@ncdenr.gov>; "Johnson, Mark D" <mark.d.johnson@ncdenr.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:59 AM
Subject: Fw: NC Museum Biotech Day Concerns

Ms. Combs –

 

I’m forwarding your e-mail to appropriate members of the Museum staff. 

We appreciate you sharing your concerns, which were addressed by our earlier statement (copied below).

Thank you.

 

-jonp

 

==

 

Biotechnology harnesses our knowledge of the natural sciences and provides biological tools to help solve important challenges facing modern society - such as feeding the planet's growing population, relieving human suffering from disease, and decreasing reliance on fossil fuels. The North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences is offering its Biotechnology Day activities to share with visitors how this diverse scientific field touches so many aspects of our daily lives. Biotechnology Day is also intended to celebrate North Carolina's national and international prominence in biotechnology. Still, the presence of biotechnology companies, educational institutions and professional societies in no way implies the Museum's promotion or endorsement of any entity or their activities. Instead, the Museum serves as an impartial venue for citizens to learn directly from scientists and educators, providing visitors with opportunities to engage in direct discussions about the risks and benefits of this broad scientific discipline.

**************************************

Jonathan Pishney

Communications Director

NC Museum of Natural Sciences

11 West Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27601  

Ph: 919.733.7450 x304  

www.naturalsciences.org

 

Laura's July 24, 2012 response to Jonathan Pishney:

Thank you for your reply. 

I disagree that my concerns are addressed by the earlier statement you pasted below and I am offended that you seem to believe that a quick cut and paste paragraph addresses the points I raise. I look forward to the museum's more in-depth response that fully addresses my concerns, which are similar to those raised by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Cornucopia Institute. Here are the links to these organizations so that the museum staff can explain how Biotech Days is an "impartial venue" when the very loud criticisms of some of the technologies, which are opposed through much of the world, are not included: 

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

http://www.cornucopia.org/ 

 

Finally, as a former state government employee who has interacted highly with the public, I am disappointed that I had to write two times to request a response to my initial letter. That type of non-response combined with your reply below does not instill confidence that NCDENR is as responsive to North Carolinians as it should be.  

Thank you.

Laura Combs

 

From: "Kroll, David" <david.kroll@ncdenr.gov>
To: "lrcombs@yahoo.com" <lrcombs@yahoo.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: NC Museum Biotech Day Concerns

Dear Ms. Combs:

I wish to respond to your note to Liz Baird and Katey Ahmann from our Education section regarding our recent Biotechnology Day. 

Please be assured that the exhibitors - academic, governmental, and industrial - were carefully selected by Museum education specialists and experienced scientists such as myself. The information presented to the public was vetted by both of our sections for educational and scientific accuracy. I also personally hosted the sessions in our SECU Daily Planet theatre from some of our industrial and academic presenters. I appreciate that you joined us for the presentation by the plant biologist from BASF and asked a question yourself. My observations throughout the day were that the presentations were well-balanced, ethically-sound, and that visitors were free to ask the speakers some of the tough questions to which you've alluded.

This was our first Biotechnology Day and we were pleased that over 6,600 visitors joined us for this educational activity, one that was rated highly by both visitors and presenters. The planning committee for next year's event will consider event evaluations and all suggestions from staff and visitors in setting the agenda for the 2013 Biotechnology Day. As with this year's program, the committee will carefully examine the scientific credentials of presenter applications to provide a neutral venue that encourages a civil and well-considered dialogue with our visitors.

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. They will be forwarded to the planning committee for next year's event. I greatly appreciate your continued interest in our biotechnology program and the activities of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.

Sincerely,

David

****************************************
David J Kroll, PhD
Science Communications Director
Nature Research Center
NC Museum of Natural Sciences
121 W Jones St
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 707-8244

From: laura combs [lrcombs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:33 AM
To: Kroll, David
Subject: Re: Fw: NC Museum Biotech Day Concerns

Dear Mr. Kroll:

Thank you for your response. I understand that your staff has vetted the presenters thoroughly, as unprofessional presenters would undermine the event. I must still respond regarding several points.

First, you mention that the presentations were “well-balanced and ethically-sound.” I am not sure by what scale you are judging well-balanced and ethically sound. Take this statement from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine regarding GMOs (see http://aaemonline.org/AMAResponse.pdf), which would give another side to what was presented at Biotech Day, possibly undermining your definition of well-balanced and ethically-sound:

• A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.

• Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.

• Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients’ disease processes.

• More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.  

GMO foods are a serious concern for many Americans, and the concerns are numerous, from health effects, environmental destruction, impacts to the small farmer and threats to the organic farmer. I hope you have heard of the numerous heavy handed tactics by Monsanto to prevent seed saving and the encouragement of cross crop contamination, for example. None of that was presented at Biotech Day and it is too compelling to ignore. If you are unaware of these problems, please do a quick Internet search to learn about the court cases in Canada and the U.S. where small farmers have been victimized by Monsanto and others. Further, recent polling as well as past polling shows that upwards of 90 percent of Americans support labeling of GMO foods. The polling sources are too numerous to cite, but I encourage you to do some quick research. For these reasons and so many more, I am having a hard time seeing the balance and ethics to which you refer regarding the industry-based and industry-supporting presenters.

Regarding the ability to ask tough questions, neither I nor the vast majority of those attending are versed enough to ask and debate the tough questions with the presenters. I did not witness any tough questions being asked. I am not paid to study BASF’s work full-time, for example, and that prevents me from having a worthy discussion of the detailed issues around their research. This is why I am strongly recommending that if there is a future Biotech Day that people like Jeffrey Smith and Mark Kastel are invited and a discussion forum scheduled. With the high concerns around GMOs, I am sure that people would appreciate hearing from the professionals that monitor the GMO industry full-time.

Based on my discussion above, I want to emphasize that I do not understand how the Museum is a neutral venue. Here are a couple definitions of neutral:

1. Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.

2. Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground.

Given that only one side was present, the industry based side, neutrality seems doubtful. In addition, you deemed the presentations “ethically-sound.” When considering the definition of ethical, the most common meaning is: “pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” Since the Museum seems to believe that GMO subject matter is moral and right in conduct, neutrality is now lost and the case that the museum is a neutral venue is a charade.

Finally, what is the Museum’s mission? The Museum states on its website what could be inferred as reflecting a mission:

“Featuring an array of permanent and special exhibits, live programs and educational films that appeal to audiences of all ages, the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences encourages visitors to explorethe natural world and their connections to it.”

As in my first email expressing my concerns, I do not see how industry-created products and technologies at Biotech Day are compatible with what appears to be the Museum of Natural Sciences’ message.

When considering the definition of natural science: “a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature” and considering the definition of nature: “the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities,” Biotech Days is not remotely consistent with what I could infer the Museum’s name and mission to mean. For the purposes of completeness, here is the definition of biotechnology: “the use of living organisms or other biological systems in the manufacture of drugs or other products or for environmental management.” Biotechnology is inconsistent with natural science, plain and simple.

For further clarity, I am requesting the Museum’s mission statement and associated goals, objectives and policies (or similarly named document) so that I can better understand what reasoning the Museum may be using to determine that Biotech Day falls within its mission and how the Museum continues to maintain its position of being a “neutral venue.”

I look forward to your response. Thank you for your assistance and time

.

Sincerely,

Laura Combs

From: "Kroll, David" <david.kroll@ncdenr.gov>
To: laura combs <lrcombs@yahoo.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: NC Museum Biotech Day Concerns

Dear Ms. Combs:

Thank you again for writing with your concerns.

Once again, the goal of the Biotechnology Day was primarily to showcase the science behind technologies that people encounter daily and to generate awareness of and pride in North Carolina's national and international prominence in biotechnology. 

But the term "biotechnology" does not simply refer to genetically-modified foodstuffs. In fact, the term was first coined in 1919 by the Hungarian engineer, Karoly Ereky. Since you appear to be fond of quoting definitions, let me then share with you his pioneering definition, one that science continues to use in describing biotechnology today:

 “All lines of work by which products are produced from raw materials with the aid of living things.” 

Similarly, the United Nations uses this slightly-updated definition of biodiversity:

"Any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use."

Hence, biotechnology includes traditional approaches such as the use of naturally-occurring yeasts to make bread, beer, and wine, and the study of naturally-occurring herbal medicines or those derived from microorganisms and marine creatures. The latter field is one to which I have devoted the last 25 years of my life. I have received support from the National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine to study herbal medicines that may be of benefit in cancer treatment or prevention and have reviewed research and training grants for the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. So, I have a deep respect for the natural world and medicinal applications of nature.

But biotechnology is more than just natural medicines. Among the 500+ companies across North Carolina that comprise our biotechnology economy are those that make enzymes for consumer products such as detergents, algae cultures for biofuels and omega-3 and -6 fatty acid supplements, biodefense approaches to use enzymes to detect a potential nerve gas terrorist attack, and biologically-derived and biodegradable surgical adhesives, among others. 

But, yes, the exceedingly broad area of biotechnology does also include the use of recombinant DNA technologies for foods and medicines. Therefore, we wanted to display the breadth of the discipline precisely because of the narrow view held by some. And industry was not the only group represented: university researchers and students were also present as well as agricultural groups such as Future Farmers of America. In fact, three of our six Daily Planet presenters were from universities or the Museum and a fourth, while "industrial," was a North Carolina craft brewery.

The Museum is a neutral site in the sense that we focus on "belonging to neither side in a controversy." However, we are very careful not to subscribe to manufactured controversies or representation by ideological groups that take non-scientific approaches. For example, the American Board of Medical Specialties does not recognize environmental medicine as a legitimate specialty and the AAEM is well-known for espousing some diagnostic procedures that lack scientific support. Hence, I would expect that to be a group unlikely to make the organizing committee's cut for inclusion in one of our programs. 

But you may be interested that in a debriefing session we held recently, the organizing committee agreed that next year's activities will include a more comprehensive discussion of the risks vs. benefits of some biotechnology-derived products as well as a session on bioethics.

Finally, I respectfully disagree with the contention that natural science does not include biotechnology, particularly as Ereky described. Biotechnology Day is entirely consistent with the Museum's mission, one that "encourages visitors to explore the natural world and their connections to it." All of the biotechnology-derived technologies discussed by speakers and exhibitors use sources and techniques that already exist in nature. Organisms in nature have been swapping genetic information and recombining genes for millions of years. The statement, "Biotechnology is inconsistent with natural science, plain and simple," is incorrect. In point of fact, biotechnology is the application of natural science.

The addition of the Nature Research Center this past April has now expanded our mission to show exactly how these technologies are implemented by us, technologies that we learned from nature. One of our four working research laboratories is dedicated to genomics and microbiology. The investigation of the human genome and those of other species represents a technological approach to understanding the natural basis of biodiversity. 

Moreover, the Museum is committed to understanding how technology can be one tool in addressing anthropogenic insults to our planet, not just carbon dioxide emissions but also the impact of a human population expected to reach 9 million by 2050.

I appreciate the opportunity to have had this conversation. Thank you again for your interest in the Museum and our public education programs that showcase the natural science of North Carolina and the Southeast.

Sincerely,

David

****************************************
David J Kroll, PhD
Science Communications Director

Investigator, Genomics & Microbiology Research Laboratory
Nature Research Center
NC Museum of Natural Sciences
121 W Jones St
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 707-8244
naturalsciences.org
naturesearch.org

Dear Mr. Kroll:

I sincerely thank you for your response - it is through discussions like this that better ideas are formed. I am going to respond in the order of the topics in your last email. Before I do though, I want to briefly discuss your mention of my fondness for quoting definitions. When it seems clear to me that people may be trying to talk about the same topic but are possibly not effectively making their positions known, I find that referring to the most basic meanings of the words can help facilitate the discussion. In our conversation, definitions seem to help.

Take the definition of “biotechnology” for example. You rely on a definition from Karoly Ereky from 1919: “All lines of work by which products are produced from raw materials with the aid of living things.” You also rely on a United Nations definition: “Any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use." Using these definitions as a starting point, the conflict between biotechnology and the museum for which you work, Natural Sciences, still exists because biotechnology is impossible independent of human activities, as discussed in my previous email regarding the definition of natural science: “...the definition of natural science: ‘a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature’ and considering the definition of nature: ‘the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.’”

Taking this discussion of biotechnology further by briefly researching how the Museum’s Biotech Day contributors define biotechnology, I reviewed BASF’s website and found the following:

People have been using biotechnology for millennia. This technology is based on the use of microorganisms, which e.g. ferment the sugar in barley to alcohol during beer production. Other examples of everyday products that undergo biotechnological processing are cheese, yogurt, vinegar, wine, yeast, and sourdough. Without knowledge of the exact backgrounds, our ancestors used these methods to discover and improve a range of applications that made their life easier. Genetic engineering is a modern subspecialty of biotechnology. It is concerned with the targeted modification of the genetic material of bacteria or plants, for example to stimulate them to biosynthesize desired products.

I have no issue with the use of fermentation, a form of biotechnology, to enhance nutrition, as discussed by you and BASF. The benefits of non-alcoholic fermented foods are widely known and cause no harm to our environment when properly prepared, which is a separate discussion. My difficulty with BASF’s (and other’s) activities focuses on the genetic engineering that they and other companies utilize. Regardless of whether we are discussing fermentation or genetic engineering, neither of these activities is compatible with the definition of Natural Science as discussed above.

Monsanto, on the other hand, defines biotechnology even more pointedly, stating on its website that biotechnology is genetic engineering: “WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY? Biotechnology, or genetic engineering...” A search for the definition of genetic engineering reveals that: “Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct human manipulation of an organism's genome using modern DNA technology. It involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest.”

Because genetic engineering involves the “direct human manipulation of an organism’s genome using modern DNA technology,” it is even more clear that biotechnology and/or genetic engineering are in conflict with the most foundational aspects of Natural Science and presumably the Museum’s mission. I will provide a separate discussion of Biotechnology and the Museum’s mission and goals, objectives and policies once I receive those documents as previously requested.

I could continue to search through the websites of Biotech Day participants to illustrate the conflict of biotechnology with natural science, but I will stop here and close with this definition from the North Carolina Biotechnology Center:

“(Ancient definition:) The use of living organisms to solve problems and make useful products. (Modern definition:) A collection of technologies that use living cells and/or biological molecules to solve problems and make useful products.”

Based on the Biotechnology Center’s definitions of biotechnology, it would appear that Mr. Ereky’s “ancient” definition is no longer appropriate in the modern age, and the modern definition is in conflict with the Museum’s very name.

Regarding the broad reach of biotechnology, I am well aware that it is much larger than genetically modified organisms, as you discuss. Rather than take on the entire issue, I put my focus on GMOs, but I can expand the discussion to pharmaceuticals and more if need be. You highlight the involvement of universities as an attempt to bring the issue to a larger scope than just industry. The frustrating thing here is that the universities receive significant funds from industry to conduct biotechnology research for industry, as well as industry funding to purchase equipment and support libraries, for example. It is well known that industry funds and influence are interwoven with university activities, as discussed in this article and report, for example: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/public-research-private-gain-corporate-influence-over-university-agricultural-research/. I know that it is wrong to assume, but given that it is your job to defend Biotechnology Day, I suspect that you will find ways to discredit this report, regardless of the growing concern of corporate influence as discussed in other articles, in books and on NPR. Perhaps this article in the journal of the American Association of University Professors will carry greater weight: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/JF/Feat/wash.htm.

Even with the deep roots of corporate involvement in the University system, I visited NC State University’s (NCSU) website to understand what is taught in their biotechnology program, as I was especially curious after speaking to some of the biotech students at the Museum’s Biotech Day. The program involves a significant amount of genetic engineering. What is more compelling, though, is that the University teaches about the controversy around biotechnology in its “Ethical Issues with Biotechnology Class.” Even with the corporate influence, NCSU still acknowledges the ethical challenges of biotechnology, which, again, was not presented at the Museum’s Biotech Day, undermining the museum’s efforts to be a neutral forum. Here are some of the “Controversial topics in biotechnology” presented by NCSU:

-Patents on life
-Labeling of GMO food
-Stem cell research
-Biofuels
-Privacy of genetic information
-Bionanotechnology

Moving on to the discussion of ethics and biotechnology, per the “modern” definition, some additional points need to be made. Some of the companies are a far cry from the ethical determination you made regarding the presentations from their representatives in your last email. If you look at just a couple of the fines and violations earned by Biotech Day companies, let alone violations by biotech companies not represented at Biotech Day, it is clear that ethics, balance, and neutrality were severely compromised:

2009 - Pfizer (PFE) paid a record $2.3 billion fine and pleaded guilty to one felony count to settle federal criminal and civil charges that it illegally promoted its Bextra painkiller and other drugs.

2010 - Monsanto paid $2.5 million penalty for selling mislabeled bags of genetically engineered seed.

2011 - 2012 - An Internet search reveals results of the Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT), which convened in India and indicted Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont, and  BASF, for human rights violations. Three of these companies were present at the Museum’s Biotech Day. These companies could be considered part of the adverse anthropogenic insults to our planet that you mentioned in your last email, and instead of the museum exploring whether or not they are in fact insults and threats to our planet, the Museum holds them up as keys to our future.

Regarding the American Association of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), you determined that the AAEM does not meet your scientific standards. What is most frustrating is that it seems that no one from the Museum seems to have reviewed the presenting companies to determine how scientific or ethical they are. The difficulty here is that some of the positions the AAEM promotes do not generate revenue but instead encourage people to take control of their health and avoid pharmaceuticals and unnecessary medical procedures, which is not a widely held medical strategy in much of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Since you took the time to examine this organization, I hope that you will finally examine the biotech companies and technologies that you invited to Biotech Day so that you can further explore the ethics that you seem to consider that these companies have, including their fines, other violations, undue influence in the University system and harm to citizens of the world.
That said, given your research into natural herbal medicine cancer treatments, I feel fairly certain that you are aware of the controversies but are unwilling to acknowledge them because that would be contrary to the expectations of your managers at the Museum. Finally, I in no way advocated that AAEM be a part of Biotech Day, as you seem to suggest. I raised them to show that independent, critical thinking medical professionals recognize that GMO foods cause harm.

I have no opposition to genetic research, microbiology or other sciences that help us to better understand, respect and care for our planet and ourselves. I object to the injury that biotechnology, according to the “modern” definition, most often does.

Finally, regarding the Nature Research Center, I am interested to know which corporations donated to its construction and am requesting a list of corporate donors. As I stated early on, I have no issue with exploring and researching to understand the biology and biodiversity of the planet and how to responsibly and positively care for it. Genetic engineering is the concern and perhaps learning the list of corporate donors will help me understand why the Museum is abandoning its Natural Science directive.

Recommendations

It is clear that the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences should not host future Biotechnology Days. The addition of a risks vs. benefits discussion, while worthy in another venue, does not satisfy the incompatibility of the Museum and biotechnology. For these reasons, I urge the Museum to stop hosting Biotechnology Day.

Because this is the Museum of Natural Science, I recommend that the Museum host a Sustainable Living Day (separate from the Earth Day celebration because it would take on a larger scope of topics). Such a celebration could include the following and more:

- Biodynamic Farming

- Methods to avoid modern illness, such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease, psychiatric disorders and more simply through the use of nutrient dense, non-processed food and other non-pharmaceutical healing modalities. Dr. Emily Deans, Harvard psychiatrist and Psychology Today contributor, has a fantastic blog regarding the appropriate use of food and medication for healing, and here is an example: http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2012/07/teenagers-mood-psychosis-and-omega-3s.html. Here is another recent blog post empahsizing proper prenatal nutrition to avoid mental illness: http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2012/08/mainstreaming.html. Dr. Deans is very accessible, and I can provide other medical doctors, such as Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride (www.gapsdiet.com), who understand that there are ways to reduce or eliminate disease without medication or minimal medication. With the large number of children from all socioeconomic levels and numerous autism spectrum, obesity, diabetes-related and other challenges visiting the museum, it would be immeasurably helpful to provide them and their parents with information that could dramatically improve all of their lives.

- Low Impact Housing and Corporate Development

- Low Impact Transportation  

These types of presentations would help people to better understand how to live more harmoniously and safely with our planet, which would more closely align with the Museum’s name and supposed mission than Biotechnology Day and all of the non-natural implications and threats it presents.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these points. I look forward to your response regarding the points I raise and the recommendations I make.  

 

Laura

My email on August 20, 2012

Dear Mr. Kroll:

On July 26 and August 6 I asked for the Museum's and your department's mission statements and goals, objectives and policies, or similarly named document. Since you had not responded yet, could you please provide me with an anticipated time for providing the documents. If you are not the person I should be contacting about this, could you please refer me to the appropriate person.

Thank you.

Laura Combs

My email August 24, 2012 to the Museum Director's assistant:

Dear Ms. Davis:

I am writing to request an update on your ability to fulfill my request for electronic copies of the Museum's Mission Statement and Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs). I know that you have been in this loop via phone roughly the past two weeks, but I have been trying to obtain these documents Since July 26, as you can see in my email conversation below with Mr. David Kroll. Even though we have had a cordial and professional email conversation, Mr. Kroll, my original contact, is no longer responding to my email and has not fulfilled my information requests. I know that these public record documents are available electronically, fulfilling them shouldn't take a month and I would appreciate them as quickly as possible. 

In addition to these documents, I also requested from Mr. Kroll information regarding corporate donors to the museum's new wing. In addition to names I would like to know the amounts of the donations.

Finally, I am requesting all emails, memos, notes or other correspondence related to my email conversation with Mr. Kroll. 

Regarding priority, I emphasize that I would appreciate receiving the Museum's Mission Statement and GOPs as quickly as possible and would like to know when that request will be fulfilled. 

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Laura Combs

Dear Ms. Combs:

Thank you for copying me on your email this morning to Ms. Davis. I am rather puzzled by your note in that it inaccurately asserts a lack of response to your requests. In point of fact, Mr. Pishney sent you the documents you requested on August 21 at 3:57 pm (included below). He had also sent you a previous message that noted he had been on vacation.

In the event that Mr. Pishney's message got caught in your spam filter and/or you do not have access to Microsoft Word, I am reattaching the files as a single PDF document that may be viewed using Adobe Reader. If you do not have a copy of this PDF viewing software, you may download it free of charge at: http://get.adobe.com/reader/. 

Regarding your request for a list of corporate donors to the new Nature Research Center wing, I have also attached a second PDF with a compilation of corporate, non-profit, and private donors as was listed in the Summer 2012 issue of our publication, The Naturalist. This list includes the donation ranges for each contributor.

If your email account has size restrictions on attachments, I will also be re-sending each of the attachments as single files.

Finally, you are in possession of all correspondence regarding our exchanges and I have no memos or notes in this regard. If you are having difficulty using the search features of Yahoo! Mail, please contact me for assistance.

As you noted in your July 24 email that you are "a former state government employee who has interacted highly with the public," I'm sure you will appreciate that our workload includes responsibilities to the 911,000 visitors who have come through our doors over the last 12 months as well as to our diverse collection of stakeholders. I'm certain you will agree that several of us at the Museum have expended an inordinate amount of effort in responding to your individual inquiries. As such, we wish you well in your endeavors and consider this matter now closed.

Sincerely,

David

****************************************

David J Kroll, PhD
Science Communications Director
Nature Research Center
NC Museum of Natural Sciences
121 W Jones St
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 707-8244
naturalsciences.org
naturesearch.org

 And my final email on August 24, 2012:

Dear Mr. Kroll:

Thank you for providing the information that I requested. I am at a loss to explain how or why I did not receive Mr. Pishney's information and would like to thank him for making the effort as well. 

Sincerely,

Laura Combs

 

Comments

[DrRubidium]

Below is a quote from one of your emails.

"Regarding the ability to ask tough questions, neither I nor the vast majority of those attending are versed enough to ask and debate the tough questions with the presenters. I did not witness any tough questions being asked. I am not paid to study BASF’s work full-time, for example, and that prevents me from having a worthy discussion of the detailed issues around their research."

Based on your recall of the event, no one asked any tough questions. How would you know that? By your own admission, you are not “versed enough to ask and debate the tough questions”. It is more likely that nobody asked a question you considered tough enough. If you felt you were in the position to judge the toughness of questions, you must have been “versed enough to ask and debate the tough questions”. Why, then, didn’t you ask your own tough questions? Based on your multiple emails, I find it hard to believe you require some proxy (picked by you) to ask the “tough questions” for you. Is it perhaps you would rather wage an online debate rather than an offline one?

Next time, ask your questions instead of campaigning to end opportunities to engage with entities you clearly have many questions for.

[Laura Combs]

For what it is worth, I think I was the only one asking questions at the presentation I attended.

[Palmd]

The level of patience and engagement you received seems to belie your objections to how you've been treated. Your beliefs were acknowledged (beliefs that are irrelevant to science, but not to a civil discussion from a public institution) and they were taken seriously (more than many would have offered you). What more can you ask for? Your ideas are so far outside the scientific mainstream---did you think they would just say, "OK, we'll just change science for you next year?"

[Jason G. Goldman]

As others have already noted, my respect for the museum and its staff has only increased while reading this exchange. Kudos to Dr. Kroll for responding with the patience and respect that he did.

[Athenaasdfa@asdfsd.com]

Sounds like the Iowa State Fair every year, from your initial description (boldly spoonfed propaganda using a hijacked warm and welcoming atmosphere).

[Professor in Training]

A museum is a place to study and learn, to compare and contrast. You don't seem to be interested in doing any of these things and are fixated on furthering your own ill-informed agenda.

Dr. Kroll is an educated, experienced and respected scientist who certainly did not deserve your vitriolic attacks.

[Mandy]

I am so disappointed that the museum would participate in promoting the agenda of Monsanto and Big Pharma. They should be impartial, and at least present both sides! I commend you on your determination, and I find it very sad that so many people are ignoring the dangers of allowing companies such as Monsanto to infiltrate places like the museum of “natural science”. Such a sad, sad time…. Thank you for your hard work on this!

[Tim J]

At one time, all areas of study were called philosophy. What we now call science was known as natural philosophy---in contrast to, say, moral philosophy. Study of the physical world, as distinct from study of art, music, theology etc.

The distinction is pretty much the same in the case of the word "science". Natural science studies the physical world, including the way it behaves when manipulated by humans; social science studies aspects of human society, which isn't a physical entity but a set of behaviours, beliefs, mutual agreements, psychological interactions and so on.

"Natural" in the term "natural science" doesn't mean "untouched by humans". It means "belonging to the physical world". To say that study of GMOs is not natural science would be to say that GMOs have no physical existence. It's simply wrong.

Extracting definitions from dictionaries isn't going to give you the meaning of the term. All dictionaries do is try to summarise the way language is used. I'm very aware of this at the moment, as I teach myself Norwegian using monolingual Norwegian dictionary as one of the resources. Its definitions point towards likely meanings of words, but to find out what they really mean I have to see the various ways people use them.

To know what natural science is, you need to look at the activities that those involved in natural science consider to be a part of it. Those activities define the phrase.

Yes, "nature" CAN mean "aspects of nature which haven't been changed by humans", in the same way that "in the country" can mean "in a place which hasn't been built on", but that's not the usage here. Your assertion that genetic modification isn't part of natural science is equivalent to saying that because Cardiff isn't countryside, it isn't part of the country of Wales. It mixes the meanings up.

[Laura Combs]

Thank you for your thoughts, Tim. I definitely see where you are coming from and it would have been helpful if the Museum would have taken the time to provide similar feedback. What I don't get, though, is this example. Why is biotechnology not under Duke University's Natural Sciences Department? Instead it is placed in Duke's School of Engineering. NC State's biotechnology degrees are placed in its engineering department as well. My understanding is that biotechnology is an applied science, which is different from a natural science, which would explain why it is not treated as a natural science by the universities. Appreciate any thoughts. Thank you.

[Anne]

After reading this account I donated to the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. Clearly they are doing an excellent job and have great patience.