Kevin Folta

Last updated
Kevin M. Folta
Kevin Folta CSICon 2016.jpg
Speaking at CSICon 2016
Born
Chicago, Illinois [1]
Alma mater Northern Illinois University, University of Illinois at Chicago
Known forLight control of plant traits, novel genomics approaches, science communication
Awards National Science Foundation CAREER Award (2008), Howard Hughes Medical Institute Distinguished Mentor Award (2007), Borlaug CAST Communication Award  (2016)
Scientific career
Fields Molecular biology, horticulture, agricultural science
Institutions University of Florida
Thesis Blue light regulation of the pea Lhcb1*4 gene in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana  (1998)
Doctoral advisor Lon S. Kaufman
Other academic advisorsEdgar Spalding
Audio-input-microphone.svg
Kevin Folta's voice
recorded October 2016 at CSICon
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Website www.kevinfolta.com

Kevin M. Folta is a professor of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. From 2007 to 2010 he helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome, and continues to research photomorphogenesis in plants and compounds responsible for flavor in strawberries. Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002, especially relating to biotechnology. He has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections. [2] [3] In 2017 he was elected as a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. [4]

Contents

Education and career

Folta received his B.S. and M.S. in biology in 1989 and 1992, respectively, from Northern Illinois University, and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in molecular biology in 1998. [5] He completed postdoctoral research at the University of Wisconsin, and joined the faculty of the horticulture department at the University of Florida in 2002. He assumed the role of Interim Department Chair in 2012 and became the chair in 2013. [6]

Awards and honors

Research

Folta's laboratory has two primary research areas: controlling plant traits using light, and using genomics to identify molecular markers for key fruit-plant traits.

Plants and light

Folta's work with light began in 1987, while working with genes associated with the phytochrome response in plants. This research resulted in the discovery that exposure to blue light mediates specific gene responses and physiology in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana through cryptochrome and phototropin receptors. [11]

Since then, Folta has continued this work to explore new findings in how plants grow and move in green-enriched environments, which are the challenging conditions in which plants have to grow while under the shade of other plants, and the unusual effects this produces. [12] His work in plant biology would later extend to using light emitting diodes (LEDs) to control specific attributes of plants, such as quality, flavor, aroma, nutrition, and texture. [13] [14] On this, Folta says that each plant's genetic makeup gives it a certain genetic potential that can be altered by selection or genetic modification, but how this potential is reached depends on environmental conditions that can be manipulated through photomorphogenesis. He says this depends entirely on how genes that are responsible for controlling the plant's growth are activated or deactivated in response to light. [14]

Folta believes this research would be of interest to farmers wanting to get the most genetic potential out of their crops without the need for chemicals or genetic modification, [14] and he believes his research involving red and far-red light could be used on postharvest fruits to improve their flavor while stored in grocery stores and home refrigerators. [15]

Strawberry genomics and flavors

Folta's work in strawberry genomics began in 2002. [16] Folta was the contributing author in sequencing the strawberry genome in 2011. [16] [17] During the project, they discovered molecular markers that speed traditional breeding for enhanced flavors. [16]

Folta's more recent work with strawberries has involved identifying the compounds responsible for taste that are present in different varieties of the fruit in order to breed these characteristics back into commercial varieties; characteristics which have been lost over time due to strawberries having been bred, traditionally, to select for disease resistance, firmness, size, and yield instead of flavor. [18] [19] As a result of this research, his team has identified 30 compounds present in strawberries that affect its flavor, including some that resemble other fruits such as grapes and pineapples, and 6 associated with a human's perception of sweetness. [19] [20] These findings can also be used for other staple plants in the rose family such as peaches, almonds, apples, raspberries, and blackberries, [18] and contribute to a growing list of compounds that can be used in the future to produce more flavorful foods without using as much sugar. [20] Folta's research can be used to produce more flavorful and aromatic strawberries using conventional breeding techniques, without the use of genetic modification. [19]

Science communication

The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 in 2010 Kevin Folta.jpg
The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 in 2010

Folta has formal training in communication and has been recognized for his skill by scholarly institutions. [21] He uses his experience to provide workshops to teach scientists and farmers how to communicate science effectively, and engages with the public through outreach programs, the internet, and other means. [21] [22] [23]

Nature Biotechnology described Folta as "a gifted communicator—one of the rare scientists who has engaged the public, with over 12 years experience behind him. Not someone who merely discusses public engagement; but someone who actually communicates directly with non-expert audiences—at science fairs, in schools, at retirement homes, in blogs and podcasts." [23]

In 2016, Folta was awarded the Borlaug CAST Communication Award by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), named after fellow agricultural biologist and 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug. CAST cited Folta's ability to focus on "clear, credible information" and his use of multiple venues to engage the public, in addition to his communication workshops for scientists and farmers. Julie Borlaug, daughter of Norman Borlaug, added, "[Folta] has not shied away from controversial subjects and has often been the number one target of the anti-science movement on behalf of all of us who support biotechnology." [7] Writing about the award in The Des Moines Register , Jack Payne, University of Florida's senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources and leader of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, praised Folta for his dedication to science communication and willingness to speak to all audiences about food biotechnology. Payne wrote that Folta "wants to replace fear with fact" to counteract misinformation about biotechnology and its use in food production. [24]

Folta has considered his outreach efforts among his proudest achievements, and stated that his most important contributions to science "won't come out of my lab. They'll come out of my mouth." [16]

When you see what it takes to produce a tomato—the number of people involved from breeding all the way to post-harvest, people who pick it, out in the hot sun, really doing really tough work, the huge amounts of fuel and labor that are involved—that I can buy this thing for 50 cents? It amazes me ... It blows me away that we take this for granted.

— Kevin Folta, Science Enthusiast Podcast (August 31, 2016) [25]

Views

Folta has been active in the public discussion of politically controversial topics such as evolution, climate change, vaccines, and agricultural biotechnology since 2002. [22] [2] [26] He views a disconnect between science and the public's understanding, and believes a priority should be given to increase public awareness and "give scientists the tools to effectively participate at that interface." [16] He believes that communication between scientists and the public is increasingly important: "In 2050, we will look back at this age as a time when our command of biology changed. From being able to manipulate viruses to attack cancer, to precision-change genetic information in a cell, to tweaking a gene and making a crop immune to a disease—breakthroughs like this are real and gaining momentum." [27]

He has compared the scientific consensus regarding the safety of genetically modified foods to those regarding global warming and vaccines. [28] He is an outspoken critic of food blogger Vani Hari's claims about the alleged dangers of certain food additives that regulators generally recognize as safe. [29] Folta advocates for a "soft and effective" approach in handling anti-GMO activists, believing overly inflammatory responses from the scientific community will alienate the public audience. [30] Folta regards the term "GMO" as imprecise and not as descriptive as the term "genetic engineering". [31] His supportive view is also expressed in an interview at CSICon made by Jonathan Jarry, recalling Kevin Folta's recent visit to Uganda where he saw Ugandan scientists using genetic engineering to solve a food crisis, although initially being denied the use of this technology. [32]

As an example of the importance of public education, Folta says of the changes in crop technology: "Gene editing is this method of changing a single base (or maybe a few bases) of targeted DNA in an amazingly precise way. And unlike the old methods of genetic engineering that left some of the hardware of the process in the cell, the new methods can yield tiny alterations that solve a problem with a precision change. While scientists celebrate the technology and see it as a way to precision-breed new plants and animals, activists call it the most 'dangerous and insidious form of screwing with nature known to man'." [27]

Podcasting

Folta operates the Talking Biotech podcast which is billed as "A science-based assessment of new technology and the future of food", [33] in which he interviews agriculture scientists and experts in the fields of science and communication to discuss the genetic improvement of plants, animals, and microbes and other issues in biotechnology. [34]

He has also created the Science Power Hour podcast, which is a parody of an AM talk radio show hosted by Folta's alter ego "Vern Blazek". Folta describes the show as an attempt to deliver science communication in an entertaining way that would appeal to a more general audience, and as a way to convey serious topics using humor. [35] [36]

Kevin Folta has been a guest on numerous other podcasts such as SHARKFARMER, [37] Talk Nerdy , [38] [39] Heartland Daily Podcast, [40] Food and Farm, [41] Science for the People , [42] Vegan Chicago, [43] The Joe Rogan Experience , [44] and The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe . [45] [46] [47]

Conflict of interest allegations

In February 2015, US Right to Know (USRTK), an Oakland, California-based group whose sole major funder is the Organic Consumers Association, [48] filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the University of Florida as part of a campaign targeting the emails of public scientists who have spoken out in favor of biotechnology. [23] [3] USRTK was concerned that scientists such as Folta may have been pressured by food and agricultural companies into claiming that GMOs are safe. [28] The university released documents which indicated that Folta had not committed any scientific misconduct. [2] Folta told Science that he was willing to comply, but was concerned with how USRTK would use the information and how his emails could be taken out of context and used to "smear" him. [48]

In a Nature article from August 2015 Keith Kloor wrote that Folta had "close ties to Monsanto and other biotechnology interests". [2] Folta denied these claims, [49] and wrote that the accusation was based on a few dozen emails, three professional direct interactions over thirteen years, and a reimbursement of customary travel expenses by Monsanto for $719.76, covering airfare, a rental car, 2 hotel nights, and parking for one event to speak to farmers in Colorado in September 2014. [50] [51] [52] Folta has maintained that he has always communicated information consistently according to his research and understanding as a scientist working for a public institution. [49]

In September 2015, Eric Lipton writing for the New York Times reported that the agriculture industry had enlisted academics, including Folta, to use their "independent voices" to advocate for public perception and policy, which appeared favorable to the industry. [3] He reported that the University of Florida had received a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to be used at the university's discretion which was earmarked for an established biotechnology communication program. Folta submitted expense reports to use the biotechnology communication fund to pay for travel expenses, a small projector, coffee and food. [50] [52] Most of these expenses had since been reimbursed to the fund with honoraria from his talks and private donations from individuals and small businesses, while none of the donation from Monsanto was used. [51] [52] In response to the controversy and personal threats against Folta and his family, the university offered to return the donation, which Monsanto refused; instead, funds were redirected to a university food pantry. [2] [52] [53] Folta has promised a complete accounting for his research and extension activities, which he says "defines a new standard of transparency and a new tool to cultivate trust" he hopes other scientists and advocates will adopt. [51]

In October 2015, Nature Biotechnology wrote that scientists like Folta have been "targeted because they speak inconvenient truths about GM technology" and stated that the funds "were tied neither to [Folta] directly nor to his research. His conflict of interest disclosures were wholly compliant with his university's rules. He never used industry funds for personal gain." The journal criticized the journalists for "cherry-picking" and creating "hostile environments [for scientists] that threaten vibrant rare species with extinction." [23]

Many experts were highly critical of the move by USRTK. Jack Payne, head of the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, characterized this as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who wish to engage in public discussion of politically controversial topics, describing it as a "spiral of silence". [53] Gretchen Goldman, writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit science advocacy organization, criticized the FOIA requests for being "overly wide", saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science." [28] [54] [55] Nina Fedoroff, Peter Raven, and Phillip Sharp, three former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in The Guardian comparing the USRTK's use of FOIA against scientists to "Climategate" and criticized the organization backing them for "promoting the interests of the organic food business", calling their activities "anti-science". [56] Ralph Nader expressed support for the use of FOIA requests on scientists, calling them "appropriate subjects". [57]

Professor and science communicator Steven Novella wrote that "The shill witch hunt is just getting started, and now they are emboldened by the PR bonanza they have found in FOIA requests for e-mails. All of this is likely to have a chilling effect on scientists speaking out in the public square on controversial issues." [58]

In 2018, Folta sued The New York Times for defamation, following the Times' coverage of Folta's connections to agriculture companies. Folta's lawsuit was dismissed by the court in 2019. [59]

Personal life

He trained and competed in karate for many years, and he won a bronze medal in kumite (sparring) at the 2012 USA National Karate-do Federation national tournament (over 45 Masters division). [60]

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biotechnology</span> Use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products

Biotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that involves the integration of natural sciences and engineering sciences in order to achieve the application of organisms, cells, parts thereof and molecular analogues for products and services.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified maize</span> Genetically modified crop

Genetically modified maize (corn) is a genetically modified crop. Specific maize strains have been genetically engineered to express agriculturally-desirable traits, including resistance to pests and to herbicides. Maize strains with both traits are now in use in multiple countries. GM maize has also caused controversy with respect to possible health effects, impact on other insects and impact on other plants via gene flow. One strain, called Starlink, was approved only for animal feed in the US but was found in food, leading to a series of recalls starting in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetic engineering</span> Manipulation of an organisms genome

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the modification and manipulation of an organism's genes using technology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA is obtained by either isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using recombinant DNA methods or by artificially synthesising the DNA. A construct is usually created and used to insert this DNA into the host organism. The first recombinant DNA molecule was made by Paul Berg in 1972 by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with the lambda virus. As well as inserting genes, the process can be used to remove, or "knock out", genes. The new DNA can be inserted randomly, or targeted to a specific part of the genome.

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. Monsanto's best-known product is Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, developed in the 1970s. Later, the company became a major producer of genetically engineered crops. In 2018, the company ranked 199th on the Fortune 500 of the largest United States corporations by revenue.

Agricultural biotechnology, also known as agritech, is an area of agricultural science involving the use of scientific tools and techniques, including genetic engineering, molecular markers, molecular diagnostics, vaccines, and tissue culture, to modify living organisms: plants, animals, and microorganisms. Crop biotechnology is one aspect of agricultural biotechnology which has been greatly developed upon in recent times. Desired trait are exported from a particular species of Crop to an entirely different species. These transgene crops possess desirable characteristics in terms of flavor, color of flowers, growth rate, size of harvested products and resistance to diseases and pests.

Flavr Savr, a genetically modified tomato, was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption. It was developed by the Californian company Calgene in the 1980s. The tomato has an improved shelf-life, increased fungal resistance and a slightly increased viscosity compared to its non-modified counterpart. It was meant to be harvested ripe for increased flavor for long-distance shipping. The Flavr Savr contains two genes added by Calgene; a reversed antisense polygalacturonase gene which inhibits the production of the a rotting enzyme and a gene responsible for the creation of APH(3')II, which confers resistance to certain aminoglycoside antibiotics including kanamycin and neomycin. On May 18, 1994, the FDA completed its evaluation of the Flavr Savr tomato and the use of APH(3')II, concluding that the tomato "is as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means" and "that the use of aminoglycoside 3'-phosphotransferase II is safe for use as a processing aid in the development of new varieties of tomato, rapeseed oil, and cotton intended for food use." It was first sold in 1994, and was only available for a few years before production ceased in 1997. Calgene made history, but mounting costs prevented the company from becoming profitable, and it was eventually acquired by Monsanto Company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified crops</span> Plants used in agriculture

Genetically modified crops are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. Plant genomes can be engineered by physical methods or by use of Agrobacterium for the delivery of sequences hosted in T-DNA binary vectors. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments, or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.

Since the advent of genetic engineering in the 1970s, concerns have been raised about the dangers of the technology. Laws, regulations, and treaties were created in the years following to contain genetically modified organisms and prevent their escape. Nevertheless, there are several examples of failure to keep GM crops separate from conventional ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food controversies</span> Controversies over GMO food

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant genetics</span> Study of genes and heredity in plants

Plant genetics is the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity specifically in plants. It is generally considered a field of biology and botany, but intersects frequently with many other life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems. Plant genetics is similar in many ways to animal genetics but differs in a few key areas.

Genetically modified wheat is wheat that has been genetically engineered by the direct manipulation of its genome using biotechnology. As of 2020, no GM wheat is grown commercially, although many field tests have been conducted, with one wheat variety, Bioceres HB4 Wheat, obtaining regulatory approval from the Argentinean government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified soybean</span> Soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques

A genetically modified soybean is a soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques. In 1996, the first genetically modified soybean was introduced to the U.S. by Monsanto. In 2014, 90.7 million hectares of GM soybeans were planted worldwide, this is almost 82% of the total soybeans cultivation area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of genetic engineering</span> Overview of the regulation of genetic engineering

The regulation of genetic engineering varies widely by country. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence as the starting point when assessing safety, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. Many countries allow the import of GM food with authorization, but either do not allow its cultivation or have provisions for cultivation, but no GM products are yet produced. Most countries that do not allow for GMO cultivation do permit research. Most (85%) of the world's GMO crops are grown in the Americas. One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%. In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary, while in Europe all food or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.

Genetic engineering in the European Union has varying degrees of regulation.

GMO Answers is a front group launched by the agricultural biotechnology industry in July 2013 to participate in public debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crops in the U.S. food supply.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified potato</span> Potato that has had its genes modified using genetic engineering

A genetically modified potato is a potato that has had its genes modified, using genetic engineering. Goals of modification include introducing pest resistance, tweaking the amounts of certain chemicals produced by the plant, and to prevent browning or bruising of the tubers. Varieties modified to produce large amounts of starches may be approved for industrial use only, not for food.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GMO conspiracy theories</span> Conspiracy theories related to GMOs

GMO conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food. These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alison Van Eenennaam</span> American biologist

Alison L. Van Eenennaam is a Cooperative Extension Specialist in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis and runs the Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Laboratory. She has served on national committees such as the USDA National Advisory Committee on Biotechnology in the 21st Century (AC21) and was awarded the 2014 Borlaug CAST Communication Award. Van Eenennaam writes the Biobeef Blog.

<i>Science Moms</i> 2017 documentary film

Science Moms is a 2017 American documentary film about mothers who advocate for science-based decision-making concerning the health and nutrition of children. The film covers vaccines, autism, celebrity-endorsed health fads, cancer, allergies, organic food, GMOs, homeopathy, and the appeal to nature fallacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sarah Davidson Evanega</span> American academic

Sarah Davidson Evanega is an American researcher who works in plant sciences, a public policy influencer and a science communicator, especially relating to agricultural biotechnology. She is a professor at the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research (BTI), and an adjunct professor in the School of Integrative Plant Sciences, Cornell University. She is the director of the Alliance for Science and was awarded the 2021 Borlaug CAST Communication Award.

References

  1. ↑ "NIU alum has a taste for success". NIU Today. Northern Illinois University. 17 December 2012. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Kloor, Keith (6 August 2015). "GM-crop opponents expand probe into ties between scientists and industry". Nature. 524 (7564): 145–146. Bibcode:2015Natur.524..145K. doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.18146 . PMID   26268173.
  3. 1 2 3 Lipton, Eric (5 September 2015). "Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show". New York Times . Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  4. 1 2 "Center for Inquiry News: Cause & Effect: The CFI Newsletter - No. 99". www.centerforinquiry.net. Archived from the original on 8 February 2018. Retrieved 8 February 2018.
  5. 1 2 3 "Kevin M. Folta". University of Florida. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  6. ↑ "UF/IFAS names Folta as horticultural sciences chairman" . Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  7. 1 2 "Dr. Kevin Folta Chosen as 2016 Borlaug CAST Communication Award Winner". Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. April 21, 2016. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
  8. 1 2 "Horticultural Sciences Department". ufl.edu. Retrieved 1 January 2016.
  9. ↑ "Golden Anniversary (2009) Alumni Honorees" (PDF). niu.edu. Retrieved 1 January 2016.
  10. ↑ "Award Abstract #0746756". nsf.gov. Retrieved 1 January 2016.
  11. ↑ Folta, Kevin M.; Spalding, Edgar P. (2001). "Unexpected roles for cryptochrome 2 and phototropin revealed by high-resolution analysis of blue light-mediated hypocotyl growth inhibition". The Plant Journal. 6 (5): 471–478. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.01038.x . PMID   11439133.
  12. ↑ American Journal of Botany (2 January 2013). "Scientists join forces to bring plant movement to light". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  13. ↑ Anderson-Florida, Mickie (24 July 2013). "Fruit Could Taste Better With Far-Red Light". Futurity. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  14. 1 2 3 Latchman, David (19 November 2013). "Controlling Plants with Light: LEDs to Change Plant Growth". Decoded Science. Retrieved 2 Nov 2015.
  15. ↑ University of Florida (23 July 2013). "Light can change flavor, scent volatiles in plants and fruits, study finds". Phys.org . Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 Langford, Ellison (28 September 2015). "Sharing science: Kevin Folta's career in horticulture, research advocacy". University of Florida Genetics Institute. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
  17. ↑ Shulaev, Vladimir; et al. (2011). "The genome of woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca)". Nature Genetics. 43 (2): 109–116. doi:10.1038/ng.740. ISSN   1061-4036. PMC   3326587 . PMID   21186353.
  18. 1 2 Parry, Wynne (26 December 2010). "The Future of Flavor: Strawberry's Genetic Code Sequenced". LiveScience . Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  19. 1 2 3 Perry, Wynne (4 February 2013). "Bland Strawberries Get a Genetic Tweak for Flavor". Yahoo! News . Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  20. 1 2 Anderson, Mickie (3 March 2014). "Healthier processed food? Essence of strawberry could be the key". University of Florida . Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  21. 1 2 "Instructor — Talking Biotech". Talking Biotech (blog). Archived from the original on 20 December 2015. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  22. 1 2 "Kevin Folta". Huffington Post . Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  23. 1 2 3 4 "Standing up for science". Editorial. Nature Biotechnology . 33 (10): 1009. 2015. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3384 . PMID   26448065.
  24. ↑ Payne, Jack. "Good science conquers greatest fear: the unknown". The DesMoines Register. USA Today Network. Retrieved 13 October 2016.
  25. ↑ "tSE 015 – Kevin Folta, Chairman of Horticultural Sciences at University of Florida". A Science Enthusiast (Podcast). August 31, 2016. Event occurs at 35:15–45:50. Retrieved 1 September 2016.
  26. ↑ Other sources:
  27. 1 2 Gerbic, Susan. "This is Genetic Engineering 2.0". Skeptical Inquirer. No. July/August 2017. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  28. 1 2 3 Levinovitz, Alan (23 February 2015). "Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists' Emails With Big Ag". Wired. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  29. ↑ Hamblin, James (11 February 2015). "The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals". The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  30. ↑ ""Fear mongers" make good living by misrepresenting science, says GMO expert". McGill Reporter . 22 September 2015. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  31. ↑ Gerbic, Susan (15 September 2016). "The Challenges of Science Communication: An Interview with Kevin Folta". CSICOP.org. Archived from the original on 8 November 2016. Retrieved 26 November 2016.
  32. ↑ Jonathan, Jarry (17 January 2018). "An interview with Kevin Folta at CSICon". Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). CSICOP, an independent nonprofit organization. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  33. ↑ "Genome Center Director features in 'Talking Biotech' podcast". UC Davis Genome Center. 29 July 2015. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  34. ↑ "Talking Biotech Podcast - Evidence-Based Discussion with Dr. Kevin Folta". Talking Biotech Podcast. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  35. ↑ "Who is VB?". sciencepowerhour.com. 2015-10-16. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  36. ↑ "Seed Money". buzzfeed.com. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  37. ↑ "281 KEVIN FOLTA TAKIN ARROWS". sharkfarmer.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
  38. ↑ "Episode 29 - Kevin Folta". carasantamaria.com. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  39. ↑ "Episode 65 - Kevin Folta (Part 2)". carasantamaria.com. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  40. ↑ "Slanderous Attacks Against Biotech". heartland.org. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  41. ↑ "Kevin Folta - email fallout - Food and Farm". spreaker.com. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  42. ↑ "Genetically Modified Foods #71". scienceforthepeople.ca. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  43. ↑ "GMOs with Kevin Folta, PhD". veganchicago.com. 2010-12-10. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  44. ↑ "JRE #655 - Kevin Folta". joerogan.net. Retrieved 1 February 2016.[ permanent dead link ]
  45. ↑ "Podcast #525 - August 1st, 2015". theskepticsguide.org. August 2015. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  46. ↑ "Podcast #505 - March 14th, 2015". theskepticsguide.org. 14 March 2015. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  47. ↑ "Podcast #292 - February 16th, 2011". theskepticsguide.org. 16 February 2011. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
  48. 1 2 Keith Kloor (11 February 2015). "Updated: Agricultural researchers rattled by demands for documents from group opposed to GM foods". Science . doi:10.1126/science.aaa7846 . Retrieved 20 October 2015.
  49. 1 2 Flaherty, Colleen (14 August 2015). "Casualty of GMO Wars". Inside Higher Education. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  50. 1 2 Folta, Kevin (13 September 2015). "What are "Deep Ties" to Monsanto?". Illumination (blog). Retrieved 13 September 2015.
  51. 1 2 3 Folta, Kevin (22 September 2015). "Setting A New Standard For Science Transparency". Science 2.0. Retrieved 22 September 2015.
  52. 1 2 3 4 Schweers, Jeff (28 August 2015). "UF to donate Monsanto funds to food pantry". Gainesville Sun. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  53. 1 2 Payne, Jack (12 September 2015). "Perspective: Records requests hijack scientists' time". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 12 September 2015.
  54. ↑ Goldman, Gretchen (20 February 2015). "No Scientist Should Face Harassment. Period". Union of Concerned Scientists (blog). Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  55. ↑ Halpern, Michael (2015-10-09). "Yes, We Can Defend Scientists from Harassment AND Increase Transparency". Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Retrieved 16 November 2015.
  56. ↑ Fedoroff, Nina; Raven, Peter; Sharp, Phillip (9 March 2015). "The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook". The Guardian . Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  57. ↑ Nader, Ralph (10 February 2015). "Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information". Huffington Post . Retrieved 5 November 2015.
  58. ↑ Novella, Steven (11 September 2015). "How To Attack a Public Scientist". Neurologica (blog). Retrieved 11 September 2015.
  59. ↑ Flaherty, Colleen (1 March 2019). "Court Sides With 'The New York Times' in Professor's Defamation Case". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
  60. ↑ "Tournament Results: 2012 USA Karate Nationals" (PDF). USA National Karate-do Federation. p. 50. Retrieved 5 November 2016.
  61. ↑ Folta, Kevin M.; Gardiner, Susan E. (7 May 2009). Genetics_and_genomics_of_Rosaceae. Springer. ISBN   978-0-387-77490-9. OL   24802390M.
  62. ↑ "Genetics,_Genomics_and_Breeding_of_Berries". openlibrary.org. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
  63. ↑ Bigliardi, Stefano (2019). "The Advocates of Pseudoscience Are Not Monsters - but Pseudoscience Is". Skeptical Inquirer. Center for Inquiry. 43 (6): 58–59.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.