Slashdot Mirror
A Corporate War Against a Scientist, and How He Fought Back
AthanasiusKircher writes "Environmental and health concerns about atrazine — one of the most commonly used herbicides in the U.S. — have been voiced for years, leading to an EU ban and multiple investigations by the EPA. Tyrone Hayes, a Berkeley professor who has spearheaded research on the topic, began to display signs of apparent paranoia over a decade ago. He noticed strangers following him to conferences around the world, taking notes and asking questions aimed to make him look foolish. He worried that someone was reading his email, and attacks against his reputation seemed to be everywhere; search engines even displayed ad hits like 'Tyrone Hayes Not Credible' when his name was searched for. But he wasn't paranoid: documents released after a lawsuit from Midwestern towns against Syngenta, the manufacturer of atrazine, showed a coordinated smear campaign. Syngenta's public relations team had a list of ways to defend its product, topped by 'discredit Hayes.' Its internal list of methods: 'have his work audited by 3rd party,' 'ask journals to retract,' 'set trap to entice him to sue,' 'investigate funding,' 'investigate wife,' etc. A recent New Yorker article chronicles this war against Hayes, but also his decision to go on the offensive and strike back. He took on the role of activist against atrazine, giving over 50 public talks on the subject each year, and even taunting Syngenta with profanity-laced emails, often delivered in a rapping 'gangsta' style. The story brings up important questions for science and its public persona: How do scientists fight a PR war against corporations with unlimited pockets? How far should they go?"
Lets look at the tactics that were listed .
have his work audited by 3rd party,
Seems like a valid scientific tactic to see if his stidies are valid
ask journals to retract
If statements are inaccurate retraction may be warranted
set trap to entice him to sue
The company would like to sue but eve if they were proven right in court the company would come off as the bad guy.
investigate funding
is he being funded by a competitor to make our pesticide look bad? Does he have a financial based bias?
investigate wife
maybe his wife has a bias and is influencing him.
The main point is that none of these things has anything to do with following him or reading his emails. I like the quote about "asking questions to make him look foolish". Was one of those questions "What scientific studies done by people other than you back up your claims"?
The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.