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.
Stanford University harbors a profound paradox. It boasts superb research in academic departments but often uncritically embraces politically correct trends that contradict its reputation as a cutting-edge, science-grounded institution.
The anti-GMO movement is gradually campaigning itself into irrelevance. Unfortunately, this positive trend has been slowed by public universities that pay activists exorbitant speaking fees to promote their questionable ideas. This is but one example of taxpayers subsidizing ideological advocacy with potentially serious consequences.
"Why Is Bill Gates Buying Up Stolen Native American Land?" British comedian and actor Russell Brand asked in a recent YouTube video. Relying largely on anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva, Brand spent nearly 17 minutes warning about the dangers of billionaires taking over the global food system. Here's what he got wrong.
Gil Ross on CCTV discussing GMOs, January 2, 2015 Watch the segment here.