It is very much to Prof Prakash's credit that he has -- see below -- disassociated himself from the Institute of Public Affairs' malicious attack on Malaysian NGOs. Prakash's pledge not to publish again in 21st Century Science, owned by far right extremist Lyndon LaRouche, is also very welcome, as is the empathy he expresses with southern NGOs facing environmental devastation.
Where we part company is over Prakash's continued association with a plethora of far right pro-corporate groups like the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs (see the earlier mail we sent Prakash on this issue - second item below) who appear to be involved, for instance, with their long time intimate, Prof Philip Stott in aspects of the US-embassy funded 'Seeds of Opportunity' conference -- at least to judge by Prakash's previously suggestion that NGIN and others might like to appear on a public platform with himself, Stott and Morris (of the IEA), amongst others, during the conference.
Prakash appears to believe that (LaRouche apart) as long as he doesn't actually receive any monies from corporate-funded far right groups, then their funding and agendas are an irrelevance.
Are they? In his latest AgBioView bulletin Prakash posts the following article:
Without DDT, Malaria Bites Back by Roger Bate; Spiked-science #24 April 2001 http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005591.htm
What has DDT got to do with agbiotech?
Bate is Morris's sidekick at the IEA and they both were involved with the tobacco-funded ESEF. This is one of a series of spiked-online pieces that have recently been turning up on AgBioView. We sent a mail to AgBioView on the extreme pro-coprorate agenda of spiked-online but this was never posted. As we note (second item below), Prakash's exercise of his editorial function has also involved the prominent inclusion of mails alleging environmentalists are responsible for murder, genocide etc.
As long as Prakash cannot resist accommodating those whose agenda is pro: patents, multinationals, global warming, DDT, and even the tobacco industry, it remains difficult to treat his self-proclaimed "moderation" with anything but profound scepticism.
2 items:
1. Prakash on the malaysian funding issue
2. earlier NGIN response to Prakash's complaint about criticism
---
1. Prakash on the Malaysian funding issue
Dear Jonathan:
I hope you are doing well. Have you decided on my offer to appear together on a forum in London during the 'Seeds of Opportunity' meeting? Please let me know as this would really help us to resolve our differences and identify some common ground, hopefully. I had a nice short trip to London last week and it was enjoyable. It is such a lively city.
Jonathan, despite your polite tone in your emails with me and kind remarks you made about me, you still continue to post a lot of inflammatory remarks against me in the activist network. I have told you that 21st Century Science magazine asked me if they can reproduce an article I had written for www.agbioforum.org and I had no idea LaRouche's connection to this magazine, and I would never publish any thing in that again. However, I do interact with Julian Morris of IEA. But you continue to post so much rubbish against me heaping all the baggage of these organizations on me. I have never received a penny from that magazine or IEA or most organizations that I deal with and only a few that I have accepted is for travel expenses. Thus, I have no monetary interest or financial benefit from all these activities.
I can understand you being upset about the the press release from the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia on the issue of funding from the California-based Foundation for Deep Ecology to the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) and the Third World Network. My name has been inadvertently dragged into this news without my knowledge or complicity. While I did visit IPA last year to deliver an invited lecture on agricultural biotechnology, I do not recall making any remarks about this funding issue, and never knew about this press release or the investigation of the funding. I believe IPA made a honest mistake in using my name in their press release. I have contacted IPA's Don D'Cruz who has apologized to me for using my name without my involvement in this issue or my approval []. The facts of this funding allegation have to stand on their own merit but as I was neither consulted nor involved in this study, I request that I be left out in this debate.
While I have differences with organizations that oppose biotechnology, I have empathize with certain environmental activism in the Third World. I had lunch with the Friends of Earth representative in Jakarta last years and my heart went out to these individuals who have put their life on line to address the issue of massive forest destruction going on in Indonesia. Environmental destruction is a real issue in the Third World, and I have personally seen the gradual deterioration of air, water, and soil quality in my own country of India. However, I also believe that development is the key in addressing these problems where technology and trade can play a constructive role.
Thanks,
Prakash
---
2. earlier NGIN response to Prakash complaint about criticism
Dear Prakash
Thanks for your two e-mails. I had started responding to the first when I received the second. The latter doesn't appear to be essentially different, as far as I can see, in content terms, though perhaps in tone, except perhaps as regards your comments about the IEA and Durkin.
I accept what you tell me, that you know nothing about the antecedents of many of those who wish to promote your side of the argument, though there is an obvious irony in this given that the alleged antecedents, connections and motives of biotech critics are so constantly attacked on your own list.
It is also true, as you say, that you post mails, like mine, with which you obviously disagree to your list, but surely there's a stark distinction between the kind of material that I, Craig, Chuck and Red, for example, contribute, and bold claims about murder, terrorism, genocide, GM critics being worse than Hitler, etc. Such a defence of corporate interests, or promotion of a political agenda, by viciously libeling the critics sits somewhat oddly, to my mind, with a professed aim of promoting the humanitarian potential of biotechnology for developing countries. I accept that you do not personally write such pieces but you accept them, sometimes placing them high on your bulletins or highlighting them with headlines.
In your second mail you suggest I misrepresented and libeled the IEA. Firstly, I think you may have been misinformed about its origins. It wasn't started by a nobel laureate but by a chicken farmer -- a pioneer of factory farming with a passion for market economics. There's nothing wrong in that, but I think you should look carefully at what I actually said, which was not that the IEA but the ESEF (the European Science and Environment Foundation) had been founded by Big Tobacco, as part of a campaign to undermine industry critical research. It is to ESEF that the leading lights of the current leadership of the IEA are linked -- the ones who have been running their pro-GM, anti-organic campaign. As for the "charming" Mr Durkin, it is not just a question of dubious politics but a proven track record of [] distortion in his programme making.
To get more details on the various individuals/organisations I referred to, just follow the urls I included in the original post. If you do, you will see that a significant number of those on both sides of the Atlantic whose pro-GM articles or comments are posted to the AgBio list seem to be closely linked financially to giant polluting or health-damaging industries and/or have a track record of strongly defending such industries and their products. Are these really the interests and the people you want to associate with your promotion of GM crops?
But this wasn't all that I was getting at. Tony Trewavas in a post to your list encouraged pro-GM scientists in the US to work with politicians like Jesse Helms, encouraging them to attack GM critics as unpatriotic. In a situation where "my enemy's enemy", no matter how hateful his views or his underlying agenda, automatically becomes "my friend", it is difficult to avoid a sense, as I said, of moral vacuity and self-interest.
Because you strike me as a generally courteous person, I'm uncomfortable about having stated this so baldly, but I do think it needed saying - you and a number of other pro-GM scientists are not well served by the company you keep.
Best wishes
Jonathan