Folta has tried to suppress documentary evidence that this is true, including publication of this one sent to the former home of his secretary (possibly to avoid exposure. I have included the address because I have been able to confirm that it was indeed that of his former secretary at the time this contract was sent. It is no longer her address.)
For more background about Folta and his serious conflicts of interest while posing as an objective "science communicator" on biotech issues, please see here, here, here, here, and, for details about his relationship with Bayer and the conflicts of interest that posed, here (this last one from some of his own former colleagues in the biotech world.)
For additional documentation, reimbursement from Bayer for a trip during the time of the above consultation for them. I have left the bank account number unredacted in part because it is my understanding that this account is no longer active, and in part because I am opposed to redactions other than to protect someone's life or safety. But most importantly: Folta's privacy in this case is superseded by the public's interest in knowing that a publicly funded scientist is lying and hiding his conflicts of interest.
And for details about Folta's resignation as chair of the horticulture department at University of Florida in the wake of abuse allegations by his ex-wife, please see the link.
){kind=link}
12 Comments
I'm not a big fan of anonymous comments on my blog, but thanks for writing anyway.
You are commenting on a blog post in which I explain explicitly why I decided not to make any further redactions on the documents I provided to show that Kevin Folta has consistently lied about his consulting for Bayer. Please read them again.
I don't hate Folta, I don't know him personally. But I do hate the act of lying about conflicts of interest by a "science communicator" whom we should be able to trust to provide objective evaluations of science and biotech in particular. He can't do that and take $600/hour from Bayer while trying to hide it. It's called conflict of interest and this is a particularly egregious case of it.
You have to understand something. Sometimes when scientists take on contracts (especially when they are not work related as in this case) they sign agreements to keep information confidential. He was an expert witness in a private dispute. That's not consulting. Faculty do this all the time because we are independent experts. He can't divulge who was involved. I respect that.
The fact that you have non-work, private documents and distribute them freely is deeply disturbing. This is like the hacking done on the East Anglia climate scientists. You have someone's personal documents and distribute them with the intent to harm. That is not ethical, especially for someone that claims to be a journalist.
I wish that he'd just do his work here at the university and get out of the public view. That would be the opposite of what the National Academies and AAAS say we need to do. But as long as people are going to obtain and distribute private documents and use them to harm reputations, scientists should stay away from these conversations. You and your cohorts have managed to silence a very effective voice for science and a decent man that cares.
This is so basic that your comment makes me wonder if researchers at UF somehow missed the memo about what conflicts of interest actually consist of.
And I don't know the science like Folta does on this topic, but I do know that the National Academies of Science tell us that GMOs have no identifiable health risk. As a scientist, that means a lot. Again, it does not fit what you want to believe, so that's why you go after him.
We understand COI and have training in the area. But you tell me, how can you disclose outside activities (non-university, on your private time) that are confidential? Please help me with that one.
Again, you are outing someone that does tremendous good because you don't like that he supports science. It is why I generally stay out of these discussions.
If you are paid $600/hour directly by Bayer, to a total of about $200,000 for this particular single contract, that is relevant to evaluations of your role as a science communicator and the validity of the supposedly objective "scientific opinions" you express. That is obvious to almost everyone except Folta and those who leap to his defense, apparently without realizing the basic principles they are violating in the process.
And your last comment, that I don't like that Folta "supports science" and that is why I am antagonistic to science? Again, I can't believe you are so gullible as to take those very words out of Folta's mouth. I have been a science communicator since Folta was in high school, and I still am. I was a correspondent for Science for 25 years, covering all sorts of topics, and I continue to write for Scientific American, The Verge, SAPIENS, Yale E360, Undark, and other publications. In addition, I taught science journalism at NYU for six years, and a year at Boston University before that.
This is the last response from me. But why don't you came out from behind your "Anonymous" curtain and be brave? No one is going to hurt you, and no one would have given Folta a hard time had he not lied and pretended to be something he is not.
Second, I find your posting of private banking information despicable.
Third, i find your conjecture that one cannot expert witness/consult and do science education absurd. I have no idea why you think that.
I, like many scientists, have consulted, done expert witnessing and public outreach. This is what we do. We present science based information in all three arenas. There is no conflict of interest and your inference that there is simply wrong.
I hope the proper authorities are aware of your posting of private banking information. There is no other reason for this than an attempt to silence and harass Dr. Folta. You failed and ended up activating other people to become more active in fighting your anti-science, anti-GMO campaign.
Game on!!
The second letter is simply reimbursement for travel expenses that Folta would not have shouldered of his own accord.
Your agenda is clearly to puff yourself up by making mountains of molehills. It's no wonder Science magazine fired you..