Within 24 hours, the blogsphere was abuzz with accusations that Mark Lynas had been “bought out” by Monsanto, i.e. that he had received kickbacks from Monsanto to publically change his tune.
I do NOT want to turn this into a debate about the merits or drawbacks of genetically-modified organisms. Nor do I want to turn this into a debate on the ethics of Monsanto. All I am interested in at this point is:
Is there any evidence that Mark Lynas received any payments, or (provable, concrete) pressures, from the Monsanto corporation or some other large company that operates in the GMO business, to publically state that he no longer disapproves of GMOs?
The closest I can find is this story about leaked emails that show that the industry group to which Monsanto belongs was interested in recruiting a numer of people to lobby on their behalf, including Mark Lynas. The people mentioned, including Mark Lynas, specifically deny that they were approached.
In theological disputes the most hatred is reserved for the apostate. Whether Lynas received money or other rewards from Monsanto or not is pretty much irrelevant to his accusers.
Frankly, although I’m inclined to be suspicious of any monkeying around with genomes, (based on our tendency to muck things up royally when we start introducing new things into environments) most of the anti-GMO crowd aren’t interested in a rational debate at all. It’s a matter of faith.
Hmmm … the timing of the memo would be interesting. The phrasing of that article makes it appear that Lynas was already pro-GMO when the industry group was thinking about contacting him. That doesn’t seem likely, though. As far as I know, he only “came out” as pro-GMO a month-and-a-half ago.
That goes for much of politics too, which in many instances is more based on what we want to be true rather than dispassionate analysis. “He couldn’t have just changed his mind after weighing up the issues. He must have an angle, or he’s just been bought.”