1. Report this comment

    Mary Mangan said:

    Before this gets lost in the memory hole, I want to point out that initially the scientists at Rothamsted had asked their supporters to not make a physical presence:
    “I do not think a counter protest on the day, however well-meaning, will actually help as it is likely to increase tensions and confuse issues. We recommend that anyone who wants to support us does not come down on the day, but instead show their support via other channels before the protest day.”

    It wasn’t until the vandalism on the week before that geeks decided they had to get some people there. Even if it was just to bear witness to what might happen and record it. There was not a major effort to get supporters of the Rothamsted team there, it was much more ad hoc.

    I’d be very curious to know who the scientists were who couldn’t make it to TTFB’s stage.

  2. Report this comment

    Anders Orbom said:

    Nice article, shame about the false equivalence at the end. No one who has seriously looked at the make-up of the movement to stop the destruction of the Rothamsted research can think anything but that they would be even more disgusted with climate change denial than unscientific anti-GM opposition. The troglodyte from UKIP obviously thought it would be a nice PR coup for him to appear at the event, shame that Nature had to lend their services to his purpose.

  3. Report this comment

    Sile Lane said:

    Hi Leigh.
    That’s a good account of the day in the sun at Rothamsted yesterday BUT I didn’t say what you have quoted me as saying. You said the point about MS and Apple to me and I said ‘Right, right’. I agreed with what you said, but it wasn’t my quote! And I wasn’t ‘keen’ for you to speak to Mr Agnew, whose views on other areas of science, as you point out, were quite grating! Would you correct the article above?

Comments are closed.