Where it Starts: November 12, 2013

Huber Exposed

About 31 minutes into the updated version of "Genetic Roulette" Huber and Jeffrey Smith discuss the "New Organism" that exhibits "filamentous growth in pure culture". Shortly after this time he even says that DNA has been isolated and is being analyzed, yet when asked to help sequence it-- it has no DNA!

Huber Tries to Inspire Administrative Action Against Me





Page 1 of 5. Pages of false information that can be verified as false against the recordings. Unfortunately nobody knows where the video disappeared to. Still, audio was sufficient to verify my position and demonstrate Huber's malicious intent to harm a public scientist.









This is his opening salvo. The only ethics being breached here are a letter fully of legally-actionable lies that were intended to harm my career. If questioning extreme scientific claims and offering assistance is an "ethics concern and unprofessional conduct" then Huber knows less about science than I give him credit for.

This is my email to the FAMU person hosting his visit, appearing here as it appeared

in Huber's letter as 'Exhibit 1'

Threats and Malice? No, That's What We Call "Science"





I can read that email a thousand times along with my blog. Not sure how it could be considered threatening. But the victim must continue to paint himself as the victim, or Robyn maybe doesn't want to write, the speaking invites end, and he looks like some kind of nutty old dude making up stories of GMO unicorns.





The Fun Just Keeps On Coming

Discussed in the next paragraph.

I don't know what his misunderstanding of photo or blog time stamps is.

In computers, Dr. Huber, we can ask them to post things at later dates.









If my kind offer was construed as a demand, then he really is off his rocker. He goes from talk to talk, claiming this dangerous and deadly pathogen and the critical need to stop use of GM crops and glyphosate. I simply asked him if I could help solve the problem. When you tell the emperor that he has no lab coat, the emperor's memory gets a little foggy. Luckily we have audio and plenty of witnesses (who were moved by his performance, but later were blown away when I showed them the Huber letter-- they saw what a malicious smear he intended).



I never "demanded" anything. I never said "prove it as a fraud" or anything of the sort, never would. That's not scientific. If his mystery organism is real, then I hope to contribute to a solution and illuminating the critical problem so that we can stop the use of products that harm plants, livestock and humans. However, until that point, we have only the words of a single retired professor that spews ancient claims with no evidence-- and conjures libelous hellfire to his critics.





No published competence? I asked if he'd share a sample of a culture for an open-source, public sequencing project, a place where I maybe have a little competence . I was one of the pilots of what turned out to be one of the first open access, public sequencing efforts.









Wow. Arrogance and ignorance. Glass houses.









Again, it is now him as a victim. He was caught in his own apparent deception. Usually his audiences are pie-eyed minions that buy into his unpublished garbage, dotted with concerned people genuinely seeking information about biotechnology. He's not used to someone qualified offering to lend assistance to help him with his science (in genome sequencing and assembly where HE lacks competence), he looked bad in front of his audience, and so he must lash out. I have never engaged in name-calling, abusive language, or a harsh disposition. I have maintained a critical skepticism of his evidence-less claims, and only got prickly once he started gunning for me.









It Continues









The guy scaring audiences about a mystery organism wants me to get counseling. Remember, this went to my superiors. Who is demeaning and abusive here?









The next paragraph goes on about how I demand the pathogen be turned over to me so that I can publish it and get my name on a paper. I said, with no question, "Dr. Huber, you get all of the credit" and it is on the audio. Someday I will make that public too (it was fun listening to the audience turn on him and plead with him to share the pathogen cultures with the wider scientific community).













I think he get's it a little wrong again. I never made a demand, and the "blog slogan" (emphasis Huber's) actually is a quote from Norman Borlaug, a guy not really known for expectations of servitude and others for his glory.













And to put a lid on it... The only counseling I received was

rolled eyeballs and assurances of support.









In Summary





I have always been clear about my feelings toward Dr. Huber. I recognize his accomplishments. To me his decorated past makes his current claims even more curious. I've never been out to damage him personally, as he is doing a fine job of that himself.



As a participant in the self-correcting discipline of science, I am obligated to both skeptically criticize claims, especially those made without evidence. I should intervene in public education, especially where the public is led astray by twisted science and again, claims without evidence. I should offer to use my capacities to help build evidence on his behalf if his claims do have merit and simply need additional expertise that I possess.



However, his note to my superiors crosses a line. What you see here are excepts from a letter he sent that are filled with (using his words toward him) false accusations in a malicious attempt to damage my person and discredit my science. Huber's no victim, he's on the attack. He's trying to damage my credibility and career.





I never wanted to write this note or reveal the letter's content. O'Brien's characterization paints a false picture of a kind scientist trying to fight the machine. Ironically, Huber is a major cog in a broken machine that spits out bad science and misleading information, paralyzing adoring audiences with fear, and confusing public discourse in biotechnology. And if any scientist of credibility gets in the way-- he won't address them directly. Instead, he sends a lie-laded communication to higher-ups, seeking someone to hush the scientist, find formal reprimand or even get them fired. That says a lot right there. If you can't address the science, take down the scientist.





It was almost a year ago that I offered to sequence Huber's mysterious self-replicating culturable pathogen that lacks genetic material. One year later, this breakthrough science, that could be wrapped up in weeks, remains a reality only to Huber and his legions of credulous true believers.



My hope is that he is well after his accident, that he recovers fully, and with his recovery finds an awakening to either provide proof of his claim via publication, or come clean and say he was just making the whole thing up. Let's put this issue to bed.





His followers will still love and cherish him, they'll make up claims of Monsanto's Blackwater special-ops hitting him with the car and then waterboarding him into recanting. He'll get a free pass from his followers, take back some reputation, and get some respect from his critics- including me.



Until then, we're still waiting. It was important to show he is not a kind-hearted grandfatherly victim fighting for the little guy-- not in the anti-biotech arena. Quite to the opposite, he is a credentialed scientist twisting science and creating myth to frighten people. He also showed here that he is willing to fabricate information to harm the careers of public scientists that simply request that he provide evidence for his claims.

Dr. Don M. Huber was hit by a car on October 8, which prompted Robyn O'Brien to write a glowing assessment of his mission and claims in herpage atThe title is. I thought it would be appropriate to share a scientist's perspective, and show his angry crusade against science, reason and a certain public scientist that made him accountable for his claims.Of course, I do wish Dr. Huber well and hope for a speedy and complete recovery. The burdens of injury in the elderly can be a challenge to the injured as well as to the family, so I hope he is well soon and without long-term consequences. This is a difference of ideas. Relative to science, it is critical that we find the truth about his mysterious pathogen. If it is true, the first Edible Arrangement on his porch will be from me, and I will happily assist in further study in any way possible, as I have offered already. If it is not true, and he has been using this ruse to frighten concerned audiences for a decade-- then I want him to admit that. Whatever the outcome, science inevitably will shine its light on the truth, and I'm thrilled with either outcome.O'Brien's report is consistent with my understanding of Dr. Huber through 1990 or so. He is a father and grandfather many times over. He maintained the title "Colonel" for 40-some years. He was a recognized plant pathologist and an expert in his area with international reputation. I know many people that were his students, co-authors and colleagues. They think he's lost his marbles now, and are sad to see it happen.Thearticle only exists because Huber makes claims, without data or evidence, that confirm O'Brien's non-scientific synthesis. Plant pathologists, like any plant biologists, are unknowns to the public, and only those (well, the one) that throw their support behind the anti-GMO movement are welcomed into their big goofy tent of misinformation.Her article on's website is a technical train wreck. She/Huber don't have a clue how glyphosate works (that it inhibits the activity of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and is well understood). It is not functioning by chelating divalent cations like manganese, magnesium, etc as she/he claim, at least in no major way. The math just does not work, I could easily explain it all here, but that's science, and silly to use to counter non-scientific claims. Basically, the scientific rigor of her piece leaves lots to be desired.Nonetheless, a picture of Huber is painted as a tireless retired academic treading against a current of angry paid-off critics and paid dupes of the agrochemical industry, and she does so with her usual effective writing and careful words that manufacture perception of risk where little, if any, exists.Dr. Huber was invited to give a talk in Gainesville, FL where I live, and I could not wait to go. I went with another professor who specializes in organic and sustainable crop production. We're friends and lots of her local clientele would be there. Huber gave his talk. I recorded it on a pocket digital recorder and it was video recorded by the organization hosting him. I took 22 pages of notes, feverishly. Science was deceptively shown and carefully contexted to scare the bejeebus out of those in attendance.And it worked. The audience emitted audible gasps when he showed grotesque images of aborted calves. The audience winched when he showed Seralini's lumpy rats. He gave a compelling and credible presentation from a platform of a Ph.D. scientist-- and it made me furious because science was being used to satisfy an agenda, not to teach or inform. My blood boiled. The whole story is here. Briefly, when the presentation ended the organizer from Florida Organic Growers and Consumers recognized me in the audience and made a comment about how I'd disagree with everything Huber said, but could ask a question.I didn't ask a question. I offered my assistance. Huber claims to have cultured this mystery thingy (he used to call it a micro-fungus, then it was a new pathogen, now it is a prion or "biomatrix") so I asked politely if he'd be willing to share it with the broad scientific community. My lab sequences DNA all the time, and we could sequence and assemble the fundamental genetic code from his mystery pathogen in a few weeks. I offered to pay for it personally, make all data public, and do everything in an open access format-(as revealed on the recordings- below he'll insinuate that I demanded his organism so I could in essence steal credit from out from under him).For the next 9 minutes and 7 seconds rambled about how the self-replicating organism has no DNA (contrary to what he says in Genetic Roulette's updated version where he says, "The DNA is being sequenced" @~32 min), that his Chinese collaborators are doing it, and then telling me "why don't you just culture it yourself?" I also asked him about specialized containment for safety and he said that there was none.Bottom line-- Busted. After this point, in all of his subsequent presentations, his organism would have no DNA.Being publicly called out in front of his credulous supporters didn't sit well with Dr. Huber. A five-page letter showed up in the office of those that I report to, and ends up with our Senior Vice President. I was called to his office.The first line reads:In the letter Huber meshes some factual statements and flat out lies. He starts out correctly pointing out that I contacted Florida A&M University where he was giving a talk the previous day. I provided my input on his controversial claims. This is a copy of the email that I sent to FAMU Small Farms coordinator Yolanda Thomas, who apparently forwarded it to Huber. Fine with me, glad to see what side of the science she's on too.My note to FAMU, followed by my offer to help him sequence his new self-replicating cultured organism that has no genetic information and is killing plants, cattle and humans didn't sit well with Huber. Personally, I think I was always rather soft, and that is verified by the recordings. However, he communicates to my superiors that my words were intimidation and threats.Of course, after his talk I was the one that sought him out and shook his limp little paw as he was hustled out of the room telling me, "Go isolate it yourself" over and over again. No malice intended, never-- but I am calling for honesty and proper use of science, which a promulgator of scary science fiction might find a threat to their claims.His letter then reports to my bosses a note from this blog. My lab had a submitted article that was declined for the fourth time, and I noted that in my blog on a rather rejection-heavy Sunday. He informed my superiors that I was "journal shopping" and impugned my scholarly credibility. Of course, he failed to mention that the paper was an edgy concept incorporating diverse areas of analytical chemistry, genomics and plant breeding that did not fit well in any one journal. Rejection was not the experiments or conclusions-- it was not a good fit for the best journals of our discipline. We sent it toand other solid journals before it found a home in a very good journal, . The paper has been widely noted as fresh and innovative (E. Triplett, pers.comm.).