This letter says it all;
There are no benefits to a land-grant university from sharing its president with a multi-national corporation. Monsanto is in the business of making money. It pulled down a profit of almost $1 billion in 2008. It is eager for more and has no boundaries or allegiances to anyone other than shareholders.
Â
A university is in the business of education and research. It should be an incubator of ideas and visions and should be free to entertain ways to make residents more independent from corporations.
Monsanto and other biotechnological corporations have been restricting university scientists from researching and publishing information on patented crops (see the Feb.
20 issue of the New York Times). A land-grant university cannot serve its mandate of freely disseminating information to farmers and other residents with a president who wears a Monsanto logo.
Monsanto is working on its image after a decade of bad press from hauling farmers such as Percy Schmeiser to court for allegedly planting patented seed on the sly. Monsanto is attempting to associate with esteemed institutions in hopes of blurring its achieved image: an ogre.
My biggest complaint is my tax money being intertwined with this corrupt corporation.
Allegedly planting patented seed on the sly?
What happened was that his canola field was pollinated by his neighbor’s monsanto crops, which he had no interest in using. Since he saved his seed every year for the next crop, some of those patented genes got into his seed supply. It was a total crock of shit that ended up costing him thousands of dollars along with his entire seed supply.
I can’t believe SDSU thinks Chico’s association is a good idea. They must be just as greedy as Monsanto.
Grant money is grant money. Lord knows they don’t get enough cash from the state.
It’s one thing to get a check from Monsanto, it’s a whole other ball of wax to have him sitting on their board.