Russia's decades-old propaganda machine is vast and vicious. Its goal is to damage the health and prosperity of the country's adversaries, especially the United States.
Genetic engineering
King Charles III's longstanding opposition to genetic engineering is misguided and unconstructive. Genetic modification has long made products better, safer, and cheaper.
The ignorance surrounding what agricultural practices are truly "sustainable," even among people and institutions that should know better, is astonishing. The contributions of genetic engineering will be essential.
Once a touchy-feely, consciousness-raising New Age experience, it's now an occasion for environmental activists to prophesy apocalypse, dish antitechnology dirt, and allow passion and zeal to trump reality.
Twenty years ago, Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug wrote about agricultural biotechnology – its promise, importance, over-regulation, and the mindless opposition to it from activists. His words ring true today.
The world's biggest consumer hoax is organic agriculture, which pretends to be what it isn't. And very successfully.
Flawed regulatory policies and decisions have inflicted tremendous damage on the biotech industry and on American consumers.
Her dishonest advocacy does incalculable damage to the most vulnerable.
More than 100,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplants, and due to a shortage of hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys, at least 17 die each day. There are high-tech and policy interventions that could alleviate the shortages, and we need them now.
The Biden Administration's attempt to boost the "bioeconomy" is burdened with bureaucratic requirements and busy-work initiatives and projects. It will fail.
The EPA's intransigent regulation of genetically engineered bacteria that could mitigate frost damage to crops prevented their commercialization. Especially when inflation is boosting food prices, the last thing we need is the continuation of an irresponsible, unscientific government policy that lowers crop yields, increases prices to consumers, and threatens farmers’ profits.
Part 1 of this two-part series described the “Stanford University paradox” – the uncritical embrace of politically correct concepts that contradict its reputation as a cutting-edge, science-grounded institution. I described the contrast between the university’s outstanding research and its dubious view of “sustainability,” which includes a commitment to organic farming practices. I elaborate on the latter here, in Part 2.