Page 11 - April 2016

newsBrieFs
another asu professor sues
Deirdre Meldrum, one of Arizona state University’s most prominent scientists and researchers filed a $100 million lawsuit against top university officials in March. Ms. Mel- drum’s lawsuit alleges a “long-standing pattern of wrongful conduct” which involved AsU
“luring” 172 academics and researchers to the university with unfulfilled claims and prom- ises, eventually demoting or firing them.
The university claims that Ms. Meldrum was removed as dean of the school of engi- neering after she failed to bring in adequate funding to justify her position and funding. she claims it was retaliation for speaking out about financial misconduct. earlier this year, an AsU press release celebrating Ms. Meldrum’s induction as a fellow with the American Institute for Medical and Biological engineering said the $35 million she had obtained in research grants was “among the highest individual grant awards in AsU history,” but now claim that her grant income had dwindled to $500,000 in 2014.
Her claims are eerily similar to a lawsuit filed by AsU professor George Pettit after he was fired as the director of the university’s Cancer Research Institute in 2005. Both law- suits claim breach of contract, financial malpractice and whistleblower retaliation. Both primarily involve clashes with university president Michael Crow. Mr. Pettit is considered one of the nation’s preeminent cancer researchers, but ended up teaching introductory biology classes after his legal run-ins with Mr. Crow.
Ms. Meldrum claims that sizeable, unauthorized withdrawals were made from her re- search account without notification or explanation, and that she was stonewalled, then chastised when she attempted to determine where the money had gone. she claims that university officials began to retaliate when she spoke out about the issues, going to far as to seize equipment from her lab during a nighttime raid.
“ballot harvesting” outlawed
After years of legislative wrangling over the issue, Arizona has joined 18 other states in outlawing ballot collection from voters. In a 17-12 party line vote, senate Republicans passed HB 2023, which prevents anyone other than a voter’s family member, roommate or caregiver from dropping off their sealed ballot at polling locations. Governor Doug Ducey quickly signed the bill into law.
The issue of “ballot harvesting” first became widely debated in Arizona during the 2012 election cycle, when political action group Citizens for a Better Arizona collected more than 4,000 ballots for Paul Penzone, a Democrat running against Joe Arpaio. The next year, a ban on ballot harvesting almost identical to HB2023 was proposed by Republicans, but was abandoned after opponents raised enough support to win a voter initiative on the issue.
Citizens for a Better Arizona again became the focal point of the debate in 2014, when video of a volunteer putting hundreds of collected ballots into a box went viral on conser- vative news media sites. stories that ran the video called it “ballot stuffing,” usually citing it as an instance of voter fraud, though the practice of collecting and delivering ballots has always been legal in the state.
Democratic legislators claim that the true intent of the law is to decrease the turnout of impoverished and minority communities, where ballot collection efforts tend to be focused. secretary of state Michele Reagan, long a supporter of the ban, says that it should be “easy to vote and hard to cheat”, suggesting that the chain of custody in ballot collection allows too much opportunity for fraud. Phoenix mayor Greg Stanton claims that the legislation “purports to address a problem that does not really exist.”
tusayan developMent plan dead?
The massive, controversial development proposed for the tiny Grand Canyon com- munity of Tusayan is most likely dead. An Italian developer’s plan to build thousands of homes and three million square feet of commercial space on 350 acres of land just outside of town has generated a firestorm of opposition from environmentalists, conser- vation groups and native American tribes in the region. while the issues debated have been sweeping in scope, it was a simple road easement that may have finally taken the project off the table.
Only two roads provide access to the embattled area, and the developer’s request to the Forest service for easements on those roads was denied last month. In explaining the reasons for the denial, Heather Provencio, the supervisor of Kaibab national Forest, wrote that “the Tusayan proposal is deeply controversial, is opposed by local and national communities, would stress local and park infrastructure, and have untold impacts to the surrounding tribal and national Park lands.” without permission from the Forest service to upgrade the roads and utilities, it will be very difficult for the project to move forward.
Opponents of the development cited a litany of potential problems with the plans, in- cluding water supply, endangered species, pollution (noise, air and light), sacred ground concerns and Grand Canyon national Park infrastructure, which is already strained. By the time Ms. Provencio wrote her denial letter, almost 200,000 comments had been re- ceived about the project proposal, almost entirely in opposition.
| kendall perkinson keeps an eye out. news@thenoise.us thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • APRIL 2016 • 11
BY kendall perkinson
Quoted as discussion within the Massachusetts House of Representatives, InsideGmo.org
the presidential candidates on gMos
In the midst of presidential primaries and campaign frenzy, the subject of GMOs has been commented on here and there. But just in case you’d like to know where the nomination forerunners stand, here’s a rundown:
hillary clinton
Mrs. Clinton’s ties to Monsanto and the GMO industry have led some environmentalists to dub her the “Bride of Frankenfood.” In fact, a former Monsanto lobbyist is working on her campaign. But more recently while on the campaign trail in Iowa, Mrs. Clin- ton called for more “independent science” on the subject and advocated for getting “a labeling program started and try to get everybody at the table to agree on what we need to do here.” But in 2014 she attended a Biotechnology Industry Organiza-
tion convention as the keynote speaker. In her speech she said “I stand in favor of using [GMO] seeds and products that have a proven track record. There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.” she cautioned her audience against using phrases like GMO to describe their products suggesting that terms like “drought resistant” would help with marketing efforts.
ted cruz
Also speaking on the Iowa campaign trail, Mr. Cruz criticized anti-GMO advocates and said “we need to stand up to the hyste- ria. I would note, for families, for parents, that don’t want to feed their kids GMOs, in the private marketplace, there has grown up an abundant market. You can go and purchase organic, if you want to pay more. The market provides for that ... But we shouldn’t let anti-science zealotry shut down the ability to pro- duce low-cost, quality food for billions across the globe.”
bernie sanders
Mr. sanders, whose home state is Vermont, is the only can- didate that has openly supported GMO labeling. Mr. sanders has introduced federal mandatory labeling legislation in the Us senate in the past, though his bill was defeated. He praised his state’s labeling law saying that he was “very proud that Vermont is taking the lead in a growing national movement to allow the people of our country to know what is in the food they eat.” He
vowed to “continue my efforts in washington, against Monsanto and other multi-na- tional food industry corporations, to pass national legislation on this issue.”
Following the senate vote against the DARK Act, which Mr. sanders missed due to campaigning, he issued a statement saying that “All over this country, people are be- coming more conscious about the food they eat and the food they serve their kids. when parents go to the store and purchase food for their children, they have a right to know what they are feeding them. GMO labeling exists in 64 other countries. There is no reason it can’t exist here.”
donald truMp
Mr. Trump has made some conflicting comments on the issue of GMOs. He responded “Yes” to a survey question presented by the Iowa Farm Bureau which asked “Do you support the use of biotechnology in food products and oppose efforts to require mandatory labeling for foods simply because they contain ingre- dients derived from biotechnology?”
But he also reposted a Twitter entry from a user who linked his
trailing Iowa poll numbers to GMO corn. The tweet read “@mygreenhippo #BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain? #Trump #GOP.”
| Cindy Cole cups her hashtags by the pound.
cindy@thenoise.us