8 ms·
Professor Says He Was Barred from Campus After Monsanto FOIA Inquiry
- steponlego 4y agoIt’s BAYER Monsanto. BAYER Monsanto.
- jplona 4y agoIn case other folks missed the intent of this comment, Monsanto is now a part of Bayer. I guess this is meant to remind us of that.
- qwertox 4y agoIsn't it more correct how the article words it? > Monsanto, owned by Germany-based Bayer, said in a statement... Bayer isn't using the Monsanto name as a brand, which "BAYER Monsanto" strongly suggests.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoIt would be more correct to just call them Bayer all the time. They are trying to shield the original brand from the bad press associated with Monsanto but they stir the ship now.
- mcv 4y agoHow often do we talk here about Google rather than Alphabet?
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoThe situation is totally dissimilar: Alphabet was clearly setup as a holding company to host both Google which remains a company by itself and other activities which were being spun out. Meanwhile, Bayer completely bought out Monsanto intending to merge it with its activities chasing synergies and phase out the name. The press generaly properly refers to either Alphabet as the holding company or Google the company as approriate.
- mcv 4y agoI thought Monsanto had been bought but continued to exist as a daughter of Bayer, but it seems you're right: there's no entity called Monsanto anymore, and the entity that was once Monsanto does not exist.
- lgtanc 4y agoPeople don't call RedHat "IBM/Redhat", or as others suggest here, just "IBM". Monsanto has always been in the news for things like this before the takeover, I doubt that the Bayer owners get involved in a U.S. matter like the FOIA request.
- xdavidliu 4y agodo we call it Meta Instagram?
- kozinc 4y agoI mean, it would make sense, like Meta Facebook, Meta Oculus VR, etc. Good or bad, the ones at the top have to be responsible for whatever happens under them or the buck just gets passed around, and if we don't even know where to point the finger, they don't have an incentive to be better. A naming convention like this, while a bit stupid, would be better than having to look up who bought/owns/(is a subsidiary of) whom.
- brookst 4y agoEh, do you buy Duracell batteries or Berkshire Hathaway Duracell batteries?
- bigbillheck 4y agoIt's also a clear example of synecdoche.
- LatteLazy 4y agoWhy is it important to add the Bayer in this context?
- steponlego 4y agoBayer actually went to war against the USA before WWI even started. That's why.
- LatteLazy 4y agoWhat are you referring to? How does a company go to war (before it's government?)
- steponlego 4y agoLook up the Phenol crisis, and it's easy - companies are at war with Russia today.
- LatteLazy 4y agoAll the Phenol results are about the (2000s) US opioid epidemic (except one which is about Phenol free cigarettes in the 1960s...). I can't find a Phenol Crisis pre WW1. The general history of Phenol makes no mention of Bayer either. The only application was by Lister as an antiseptic.
- steponlego 4y agoYou can’t Google so it didn’t happen. OK. That’s unfortunate but I guess you’re stuck.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI've asked you three times what your talking about. I've looked myself. You still can't manage to tell me. So I guess I will never know...
- mrunkel 4y agoWhile the headline is factually true, the investigation seems to have more to do with his side hustle than the inquiry from Monsanto’s lawyers. Of course it may also be that the university is looking to dump an 86 year old professor that probably doesn’t bring in much grant money, and doesn’t even seem to teach many students. I must say though, I was impressed by the article. Seemed to do a very good job of balancing the story, as opposed to the usual reporting when one side makes claims in a lawsuit. All you usually get is the claims, presented as fact.
- runsWphotons 4y agowell if he has tenure he shouldnt have to do too much!
- SpaceL10n 4y agoThat's right! He should be free to work on the problems that are most pressing in his field, as he sees them, because he's the expert.
- wwwpatdelcom 4y agoOK, thank you for your input. The word "seems" is an off hand comment you are making, not anything definitive, right? Let's look at some facts: * Monsanto was the primary U.S. manufacturer of PCBs until they were banned in the U.S. in 1977, having manufactured 99% of PCBs [1]. * There are ongoing lawsuits in the United States against Monsanto for the manufacture of PCBs. [2] * David Carpenter has a huge amount of studies showing how bad PCBs are. [3] * While I can't see any evidence of ongoing funding of Bayer to the University of New York / Albany, Bayer does fund scientific research, fellowships, etc. in Medical and Agricultural Science [4], which may be a sufficient explanation to build a plausible narrative that someone or a few number of people at that University could have potentially been afraid of losing some grant. I don't have direct evidence supporting this, but there is reasonable suspicion. All of the above coupled with the fact that, at least according to Dr. Carpenter, that the University concluded that his work in testifying against this massive corporation was not in fact problematic. [5] suggests that instead the University at the very least was extremely careless in even temporarily disciplining and muzzling this guy. They could have allowed him to continue working while doing an investigation. By the way, you characterize Dr. Carpenter's serious work as a, "side hustle," for some reason - I'm assuming you were just trying to be cheeky and funny, which is good and hilarious - we all need to laugh. However if you're trying to attack him by saying, "side hustle," - I would encourage you to read up more on this story and all of the researchers out there in history who have tirelessly worked to protect you and I from chemicals. For example, lead used to be normal in gasoline - we all know a-priori that lead in gasoline is horrible now, but we may not all be familiar with PCBs because it hasn't been covered in the news as much or whatever. Just pause and think a bit about this stuff because it could really seriously affect your health some day, cause you cancer, cause your family members cancer - stuff you would really care a lot about presumably. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#:~:text=Until%20it%20ended%20production%20in,used%20for%20non%2Dchlorinated%20products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#:~:text=Until%20it%20.... [2] https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-monsanto-knowingly-promoting-and https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-monsanto-knowingly... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=david+carpenter+pcb&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=dav... [4] https://www.bayer.com/en/societal-engagement/science-education https://www.bayer.com/en/societal-engagement/science-educati... [5] https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_bb14a6f1f354471b83b3e24ff7074b7b.pdf https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_bb14...
- tagyro 4y agoThe issue seems to have been resolved since https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org
- ncr100 4y agoWhy is the site black-listed on CenturyLink ISPs?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- msravi 4y ago> It says he must, among other things, “immediately refrain from using your university position or university resources in connection with your outside engagement and activities for the personal gain of yourself or others” How does this work? Isn't it very normal in US universities that professors are engaged in research with other (private and government) research institutions, use their university position and university resources, and are even funded by them? How/why is this "outside engagement" different? There must have been some basis on which the university put out this argument? What is the basis of this argument by the university?
- tyingq 4y agoProbably the specific outside engagement they wanted to distance themselves from was that he regularly gives expert testimony against deep-pocketed companies. They made it broad, likely, to also pull in other related activities and shield themselves. Without, as you say, considering the overlap with other common outside engagements.
- ModernMech 4y agoTypically as a professor you can fund your own research with grant money. That’s within the scope of the job. But the job is only 9 months, so during the extra 3 months you’re free to engage in employment that is separate from your job duties. Such engagements can be things like contracting or in this case, serving as an expert witness. In this capacity, you might say “my qualifications are that I’m prof C from university Y” to establish your credentials. However, you can’t say you’re from University Y without the University’s permission (in many cases). It looks like what’s happened here is that the Uni is revoking their permission to use their name, which is their right. That said, the professor can still serve as an expert witness. They just won’t be as “credentialed” in front of the jury, which may make them less desirable as an expert witness or serve to discredit him.
- kelnos 4y agoThat should not be their right. It's unconscionable that an employer should be permitted to bar an employee from making a factual statement on the record about their employment.
- theknocker 4y ago[dead]
- defrost 4y agoThe linked article from Feb. has many more details, including this gem: With the consent of top university officials, Carpenter has for two decades arranged for the money he has received for testifying as an expert witness (minus travel expenses) to be funneled back to the university to assist his graduate students, staff and research programs. ie. He has been openly earning up to $200K per year as an expert witness and funneling all that money back into supporting students and not himself. This isn't some "sudden revelation" to the university that he has a lucrative 'side hustle'. See: https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/renowned-ualbany-pcb-researcher-alternate-17759855.php https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/renowned-ualbany-pc... Feb 5th 2023
- mcv 4y agoI had no idea expert witnesses got paid that well. I guess it makes sense, with them being experts and not having a personal stake in the lawsuit, paying him for his time sounds reasonable.
- qwertox 4y ago> after a Monsanto lawyer filed a records request with his university, the university barred him from campus Yesterday I was listening to a Podcast episode [0], "How Interpol Hunts Criminals - Who Benefits from the World Police?", which sadly is in German so I can only point to the written transcript [1]. It talked about how useful it is, but over half of the episode was criticizing it, how it is misused by autocrats and totalitarian regimes: > The United States and other democratic countries do not extradite politically persecuted persons. But that is not always the goal of a red notice, explains Professor Edward Lemon. For many dictators, it is enough to terrorize their dissidents living abroad: >> An Interpol wanted person request does not only mean that one can be arrested and extradited. In addition, it is very difficult to open a bank account, find a job or travel anywhere. In Istanbul, the United Arab Emirates or Qatar, with their large transit airports, there would be a high the likelihood of being arrested. Moreover, the government that obtained the warrant can undermine the reputation of the person in question: "This person is wanted by Interpol. It then has committed serious crimes." Yes, Interpol wanted persons are also a proven means of discrediting anti-corruption fighters and political opponents worldwide. > There is another Interpol tracing tool that dictators use to bully their opponents in exile: the Interpol database of stolen and lost identity documents. It's a tool that the Turkish government apparently likes to use: in 2019, the Nordic Research Monitoring Network published explosive documents from the Turkish intelligence service. According to these, Turkey had declared several hundred thousand passports stolen or lost after the 2016 coup attempt and uploaded the relevant information to the Interpol database. Lawyer Marko Stambuk, who looks after many Turks stranded in Serbia without passports, said: >> With this simple measure, the Turkish government harasses opposition members and critics worldwide. Without a passport, they have problems traveling and in everyday life; without a passport, they cannot apply for a residence permit. And when they check with their embassy, they are told to return to Turkey. Some have also asked authorities in Turkey what is going on with their passports. But they did not get an answer from there either. [0] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/wie-interpol-verbrecher-jagt-wem-nutzt-die-weltpolizei-swr2-wissen-2023-02-20-100.html https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/wie-interpol-verbrecher-jagt-... [1] https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/230220-wie-interpol-verbrecher-jagd-100.pdf https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/230220-wie-interpol-verbreche... * translated by DeepL with manual corrections
- 4y ago
- chaps 4y agoThis is so freaking strange, but I can see how it happened and it doesn't surprise me at all. Thankfully it's been resolved, as another poster pointed out (https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org https://www.supportdavidcarpenter.org). It's not uncommon for a FOIA to be extra scrutinized if it's sent by a lawyer. Meaning the request will be brought up in a meeting with higher ups when it normally wouldn't be. It's basically an implicit threat to sue. My guess is the administration freaked out at the implicit threat, saw something that looked fishy at-face, and made a decision too early thinking the whole thing would have cost quite a lot of money. (ianal)