> Dr Hayes, by being so flamboyant and combative...

>
> Doesn't this show how well the Syngenta smear campaign worked?
> Very negative terms are used to describe a complete stranger.
>

Since when are "flamboyant" or "combative" negative terms?  Both of those
terms could apply to some on the List whom I greatly respect (and I can be
pretty combative myself).  I had previously confirmed those attributes with
others who have actually met him or heard him speak.

>
> >But if it was so easy for you to find  the work at issue lacking, why
> would
> Syngenta scheme to marginalize the man, rather than refute his work?


Jim, I am not looking for a fight.  I did not "find it easy to find his
work lacking."  Searching, reading and comparing multiple studies may be
easy for you, but it is time consuming for me.  And I never said that I
found his work lacking.  Please do not attempt to put inflammatory words
into my mouth!


> >Don't Syngenta's actions imply that they felt they could not successfully
> refute
> his claims through the usual process?


I already stated that "I abhor the Syngenta internal plotting to attack Dr
Hayes personally."  I thought that statement was clear.  I am not in any
way trying to defend such odious actions by Syngenta nor anyone else.  And
one could easily argue that other independent scientists did indeed refute
Dr. Hayes' claims.


> >This is much more serious than a disagreement among beekeepers, this was
> clear evidence of a specific corporate campaign to smear and personally
> discredit a credentialed publishing research scientist at a top-notch
> institution, rather than to simply rebut or refute the work at issue.
>

The story appears to go deeper than this--I spent a bit of time
investigating it some time ago.  IMHO, Dr. Hayes contributed to his own
troubles.  Plenty of other scientists have looked into the endocrine
disruption aspect of atrazine.  There are legitimate questions, and
conflicting findings.  It is up to the scientific community to rally behind
those with incriminatory findings, to replicate them, and to establish a
clear body of evidence.  A mega corporation my seek to discredit a few
scientists, but such strategies will eventually backfire--as evidenced by
the negative PR generated by the NYT article.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html