Quote: “People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies’ evaluations, and

Quote: “People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies’ evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency,” ... (emphasis added) Without addressing the article's basic thrust, which seems meritorious, this talk about "superb scientists" contradicts the most basic premise of science, which is that science rejects authority, relying instead on evidence -- some superb, some not. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence. Worse, to begin a debate that pivots on the authority of scientists only invites a reply in kind -- whose scientists are more authoritative, more "superb"? The process quickly loses any resemblance to science. So for those responsible for the tone of this debate, it seems there are two goals. First, achieve some immediate, tangible goal. Second and more nefarious, turn a scientific debate (relying on evidence) into a political one (relying on eminence).