When the recent horrifying threats to climate scientists caused researchers to have to relocate, it was rightfully decried by many on the left. This interferes with the work of climate scientists, and is truly appalling. Other types of nuisance activities--like the deluge of FOIA-type requests, are similarly nasty and intrusive into their work. Illegal actions--such as the hacking of computers, is a dreadful further ratcheting-up of the assaults.
What would your response be if a climate science project was physically destroyed by activists--damaging equipment, destroying data, and setting back the work for a significant period of time?
The outrage would be palpable, here and throughout the science community, as it should be.
What you don't know is that this sort of behavior is occurring, interfering with science projects that can help mitigate the effects of climate change and move us away from fossil fuels, among other benefits. But it's being done by the left, sadly.
This month there have been illegal and misguided assaults on scientific projects in 2 countries. I don't know what's up with the anti-science activities in Australia--but this new action was a stunt by Greenpeace to destroy some wheat that was in a small test field at the CSIRO:
Just after midnight on 14 July, three female activists clad in white Hazmat suits and wielding motorized grass trimmers broke into an agricultural test plot near the capital, Canberra, operated by CSIRO, Australia's preeminent research organization. They damaged hundreds of genetically modified (GM) wheat plants, brazenly photographing themselves in the act...
In an apparently unrelated event (as far as I know), there was another incident in Germany:
Vandals in Germany have destroyed two experimental sites growing genetically modified (GM) wheat and potatoes. On the night of 9 July, half a dozen masked attackers overpowered the security guard watching over test fields in Gross Lüsewitz, near Rostock. They then destroyed a field of wheat resistant to fungal diseases and a field of potatoes engineered to produce cyanophycin, an amino acid polymer that could potentially be used to make plastics....Two nights later, a dozen attackers threatened guards with pepper spray and bats at a demonstration garden in Üplingen, in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. They destroyed a field of potatoes and trampled wheat and maize.
This is heinous behavior and I hope it will all be prosecuted to the fullest.
I know that many people here have incomplete information about plant science and projects to create many useful plants and plant products that could have wide-ranging benefits for farmers and for the planet. People who don't understand the science or the full scope of the field of study frequently mislead people with fears and lies. Most commonly a certain dog-whistle company name invokes a fog that precludes any discussion of the benefits that could arise from projects such as drought tolerance, nutritional advantages, disease resistance that can reduce pesticide use and even ward off massive problems like the real Ug99 threat that we face, and more.
I can tell you over and over about these projects (and I have)--many of which are non-profit or government-sponsored. But the fog and the conspiracy theories will still drift in and preclude any actual discussion of the substance.
But I hope that even those folks who haven't yet been able to get through the fog will condemn this assault on science.
The threats to climate scientists were decried here as the "bullying, hate speech, violence and threats is the nut's MO" and as being "viscious". And this is so true. I hope that people will realize that similar threats to plant scientists and their work are equally condemnable.
It's been interesting to see scientists who haven't been too vocal about these ongoing assaults realize that this is a bridge too far. And more and more, people who used to don suits like the Greenpeace folks have matured past the lizard brain response, such as Mark Lynas:
For one thing, Lynas is well-known for flinging a cream pie in the face of Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, and cavorting in a bio-hazard suit in experimental fields. Yet it turns out he is one of the growing number of green campaigners who are advocating investment in previously taboo technologies.
Recently, the former Director of Friends of the Earth had this advice to activists, in his article An open letter to the green movement:
Finally, accept certain campaigns are not winnable, and simply drain resources. Absolutist positions do not hold up for the majority. Because of climate change, this probably includes total opposition to nuclear power and GM products globally. Focus instead on the conditions where these technologies become acceptable: safe, economic, free of patent control by a few companies, and effectively regulated.
I suspect the recent events are a result of the awareness of the losing battle against GMOs. We're about to see the outcomes of projects that have benefits to consumers and poor farmers that will change the landscape of this debate, and make the all-consuming fear of the big-M subside. When the communist government in China become a major provider of GMOs, it's going to be hard to argue that it's all about corporate profit....
Coverage at ScienceBlogs:
Greenpeace destroy genetically modified wheat experiment by Tim Lambert, Deltoid.
The narrow mind of Greenpeace by James Hrynyshyn at Class: M
Green terrorists destroy GM wheat by erv at erv
Elsewhere:
Scientists appalled by whippersnipper attack on CSIRO GM wheat trial by Sunanda Creagh at The Conversation
Greenpeace, an enemy of science, John Quiggan
Greenpeace’s GM vandalism bad for farmers, bad for science, bad for Australia by Christopher Pearson
Greenpeace destroys GM wheat trial in Australia by David Tribe at Biofortified
Greenpeace destroys CSIRO wheat GM trial by Myles Gough at Cosmos
Vandals Attack Transgenic Wheat Test Plot by Elizabeth Finkel at AAAS
Anti-GM Attacks Destroy German Test Plots by Gretchen Vogel at AAAS