Conflict of interest, archive 1209
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Conflict of interest, archive 1209
- From: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:08:56 +0930
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
This may come as a surprise to you, but many of us who support some aspects
of genetic engineering make NO money from it. We also came to our views
because of our belief systems, mine strongly influenced by Rachel Carson's
Silent Spring rather than, say, the Maharishi Yoga as may have influenced
Fagan. As an undergraduate, I decided on a career in biological control,
and specifically opted in favor of population genetics and ecology instead
of molecular genetics. Since I have earned $0 in personal funds, research
funds, or equity from any biotech company, I have made less than Fagan.
Does this make me more "pure"?
>Dr. Fagan refused a very large grant because of its support of genetic
>engineering. He subsequently founded Genetic ID because of his belief systems
>and his commitment to challenging the genetic engineering of food. To me,
>this is quite the opposite of starting with a career interest and weaving
>propaganda about "substantial equivalence", "higher yields" and other
>unsubstantiated claims, in order to support a career decided upon in
>Most of the people I know who are activists against genetic engineering make
>little or no money from what they are doing.