After teaching plant agriculture for 32 years at Guelph University, Associate Professor Ann Clark ‘retired’ in 2010 to a farm in eastern Ontario. It would be her refuge and her lab.
Clark designed the farm to be “post-oil.” Here she can try out experiments for which research funding always eluded her. Since neither of her teaching specialties, grasses and organic agriculture, tends to generate proprietary profits, the corporate funders that increasingly dominate research funding were not interested.
From the late 1990s on, Ann Clark became an eloquent critic of the impacts that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) can have on livestock, farm survival and the environment. Unsought by her and unpaid, this new public role did not foster Clark’s career. “Academic suicide, some of my colleagues called it,” she says. “By their standards I’m not a very good scientist.”
By what standards can they judge as ‘not good’ a scientist who has inspired countless students, farmers and citizens with her knowledge and integrity? “The problem is,” she replied, “I can’t accept one of the central tenets of their dogma: that science is objective. When I got my PhD I fully believed that it is. But then one of my PhD examiners backed me into a corner where I had to acknowledge that personal values will inevitably determine what questions you ask as a scientist, and the questions you ask will inevitably pre-determine the range of answers you’ll get.”
This view is powerfully confirmed by the ongoing battle over a study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini & his co-researchers, on impacts of Monsanto’s genetically modified maize and its associated herbicide Roundup.
Hours after the study was published in 2012, a vicious, well-orchestrated assault erupted against Séralini. “This is so disturbing,” says Ann Clark. “Very often industry research doesn’t ask the right questions. He asked some of the right questions, and for that he’s under attack.”
In response, Clark joined with eight other scientists to publish an open letter supporting Séralini, and to “raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence.” Signed by an impressive roster of scientists in many countries, the October 2012 letter cites other researchers who’ve been attacked for studies questioning GMOs and Monsanto.
Ann Clark’s vision of post-carbon farming and food production is here: The future is organic: But it’s more than organic!
Corporate Push for GMO Food Puts Independent Science in Jeopardy. Vandana Shiva, The Asian Age, December 2012.
Growing Maize Disaster (in Mexico). ETC Group, December 2012.
FDA [Food and Drug Administration, US] Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon. Anthony Gucciardi, Natural Society, December 2012.
February 8, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Evidence that subjectivity affects scientists’ questions and findings… I recently found an old copy of the 70s book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, which attempts to explain quantum mechanics… one point being that the scientist’s point of view affects the experimental outcome at the sub-atomic level. This suggests a physical law to support Ann Clark’s revelation about the myth of objectivity in science.