Pharyngula

Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2010 10:37 AM

Whew! This is really for the best. Let the scientists themselves speak, but not Pepsi.

Or is there a difference?

I'm not sure how that works?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 8, 2010 10:39 AM

They must have been touched with his noodly appendage.

I agree that there's lots of interesting science being done by researchers in private industry, but next time Mr. Bly decides to offer them a place to speak, perhaps he will prepare the ground a bit more carefully.

Posted by: bionode | July 8, 2010 10:41 AM

Even though Food Frontiers has been removed from SB, it doesn't undo the immediate damage that was done to the credibility of the brand. And it doesn't necessarily offer much peace of mind to those who viewed this as a clear conflict of interest. I'd like to know how SB plans to address these issues in the near future.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 8, 2010 10:42 AM

Still not sure this was the best response, but I losing that much talent that fast would likely have hurt SB too much.

But the world is changing, and money need to be made somehow. We're (almost) all blocking ads - or at least ignoring them. It makes sense that business want 'in' one way or another.

I'd still have liked to see what they put up before making a decision.

Posted by: Louis | July 8, 2010 10:43 AM

Good oh. I have no problem with scientists working at Pepsi blogging (with interests declared of course) as individual scientists. I have a huge problem with Pepsi (or anyone) effectively buying adspace on a science blog and pretending the highly controlled, corporate censored output is science. I wonder if this will bring people back...

Louis

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 8, 2010 10:45 AM

I'd still have liked to see what they put up before making a decision.

Well, they had promised that the blog here would be an extension of this...

Posted by: nealkemp | July 8, 2010 10:48 AM

"I also don't believe that PepsiCo in this case was interested in a genuine dialog — what they wanted was a PR whitewash, and they were willing to pay to get it."

Where's the evidence of that? What is the right platform for industry scientists to engage?

Could at least have given them a chance, they'd have been ripped apart if they tried to whitewash anything. A lost opportunity.

Posted by: spurge | July 8, 2010 10:48 AM

The blog is still there. It has not been removed.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZ6bud_2OWnH4ya1KYZ-QpvDKkqP4LTac | July 8, 2010 10:53 AM

At #14, they may have been "ripped apart" but only on other scienceblogs. Not on their own. They moderated it. As a company they have an obligation to protect shareholder interest by NOT allowing free debate if free debate injures profits.

Posted by: sqlrob | July 8, 2010 10:55 AM

Where's the evidence of that?

The person responsible for it was PR, not R&D.

Put someone from R&D in charge (really in R&D, not some PR flack assigned there)

Posted by: James Sweet | July 8, 2010 10:58 AM

I wonder if this will bring people back...

Most of those who left alluded to this as a "last straw" after a string of mismanagement by Seed, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by: Synchronium | July 8, 2010 10:59 AM

(Posted this elsewhere)

Alternative revenue idea:

It wouldn't be too much work to put together a monthly printed publication of all the blogs on there and sell them for a couple of quid each. Multiple paper blog subscriptions = discounts, etc.

A bit of editing to make it suitable for offline publication (removing "click here!" etc), printing it and distributing it should be a piece of piss for a company that already puts out a bimonthly magazine.

Posted by: za7ch84 | July 8, 2010 11:01 AM

Uh oh... they've embolden the protesters.

XD

Yippie!

Posted by: inflection | July 8, 2010 11:03 AM

If ScienceBlogs is interested in the input of scientists from industry, let them guest post on relevant blogs when the primary authors are interested in the input that industry scientists can provide. It's up to the primary author of a given blog to uphold the level of data review and editorial control that they want to exhibit on their blog. This will keep the SciBlogs bloggers in control of the academic standards.

My parents both worked for AT&T, and Bell Labs was a good solid engineering outfit. I'm quite grateful to Neil Sloane's Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, which uses AT&T resources made available for public queries. Industry does have research resources and a valid viewpoint, and has to have a place at the table in any serious discussion of the policy ramifications of science, as long as academic standards are maintained as regards the factual basis of the discussion.

Posted by: Doc Bill | July 8, 2010 11:04 AM

SB wrote: "How do we empower top scientists working in industry to lead science-minded positive change within their organizations?"

Having worked as a scientist in industry my immediate reaction to this statement is

Are they out of their Vulcan minds?!?!?!?!?

I was empowered to do the best work I could do and get paid for it by the Man. If I didn't like what the Man was doing (like selling tooth-rotting, unhealthy colored fizzy sugar water) I was empowered to quit and go work for another Man.

Sorry for being cynical, but I don't think the Man is looking for scientific activism, just competent work for competent pay.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 11:08 AM

I believe that in corporate speak you would say Something like.... the value-add from the obvious revenue gained by hosting the Pepsi blog caused an ethical dilemma whereby Seed's stakeholders perceived that Seed had abandoned its stated mission. While there might have been a short term gain, the overall consumer dissatisfaction was determined to be a greater risk to Seed, and the project was dropped.

A suggestion might be to find a food scientist who blogs and can safely do so without losing their job?

I happen to know one who works for *drumroll* Frito-Lay. But he doesn't blog and I don't know what the limitations on what is legal to talk about are.

Unlike some people here I would have been very interested in earnest in hearing *about* the science behind food in industry despite the fact that it may not always be healthy, but like most people here I don't want to be lied to about it.

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 8, 2010 11:10 AM

It's gone now.

An exercise from which no one in charge emerges with any great credit.

However the SB bloggers and readers immediately saw the absurdity of the whole proposition and reason seems to have prevailed.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | July 8, 2010 11:14 AM

Now that we have definitively etablished that Pepsi Cola is no friend of science, it's a perfect time to approach the Coca Cola people.

It's the Real Thing, you know. :)

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | July 8, 2010 11:16 AM

Agree: let the chemists, nutritionists, etc. speak for themselves (either with individual blogs or as a collective.) They experiences/advice/etc. would be most welcome.

Consider this parallel: most of the academic scientists posting on SB do so as themselves. Their blogs are not official University PR, handled by University PR officers. That sort of blog would be more appropriately posted at the University's website.

So let the PepsiCo scientists speak here, and let PepsiCo speak for itself on its own site.

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 8, 2010 11:18 AM

jcwelch @#35

There was evidence available, both in the previous incarnation of the Pepsico blog before it was transplanted to SB and also in the vomitous corporate PR shitespeak that characterised every paragraph of their wanky 'mission statement'.

Translate their BS into English and it said "We'll share lots of cool stuff about our products." and nothing more.

The reaction was vehement, but that's the point of being here.

Maybe they should have planned to kick off their exercise with some substantive content to let people see their good faith? Maybe they didn't have any substantive content to share.

Posted by: oihorse | July 8, 2010 11:21 AM

Wow, to be a fly on the wall of the conversation that SB must have had with PepsiCo telling them that their blog was no more.

Nice to see it happen regardless, given the corp has its own outlets, let the individual scientists engage us if they so desire.

Posted by: fauxrs | July 8, 2010 11:21 AM

Food Frontiers? Never heard of it :)

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 8, 2010 11:23 AM

Whatsamatta??? Pepsi has no money to set up its own blog???

Oh I think it had the money, just no credibility. And as they just found out, credibility is not really a resource that can be bought.

Posted by: masksoferis | July 8, 2010 11:25 AM

And with a cackle of delight, I pop open a can of Coca-Cola and smile. Their fluff, most probably sterile, most probably weasely, and most importantly most probably tremendously bland, will not be missed round here.

Posted by: MrFire | July 8, 2010 11:30 AM

They work for a company we don't like, DRIVE THEM OUT!

That's one hell of a strawman you've got stomping around there.

Posted by: Sal Bro | July 8, 2010 11:31 AM

PepsiCo is full of smart marketing people. I'm sure they had come to realize that their venture was blowing up in their face and that it was time to cut their losses. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if PepsiCo wanted out of the deal after nearly two days of unrelenting negative publicity.

I was just thinking the same thing, Orac. Considering that Pepsi had nothing of value on their blog in the short time that it was up--not even an intelligent comment from the blog admin after popping his head in once to say hello--I don't see any signs indicating that SciBlogs acted alone in pulling the plug on this.

Posted by: KG | July 8, 2010 11:34 AM

JustWondering,

You're the gumby here. The evidence is quite clear and has been pointed to several times: their existing Food frontiers corporate "blog".

Posted by: SC OM | July 8, 2010 11:39 AM

the vomitous corporate PR shitespeak that characterised every paragraph of their wanky 'mission statement'.

I can now mention how much I loved these two translations:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/say_hello_topepsico_wtf.php#comment-2636973

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/say_hello_topepsico_wtf.php#comment-2640210

Posted by: KG | July 8, 2010 11:40 AM

My, what a pretty strawman you built, Endor! I'll bet you're against vaccinating children because the vaccines were developed and marketed by those EVIL, HUGE, GREEDY, MONEY-GRUBBING PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS, - JustShilling

Project much?

Posted by: Dwpeabody | July 8, 2010 11:42 AM

I guess it would be naive to hope for an R&D industry blog where the Scientists have the same sort of freedom of opinion that university researchers do. I want to here breakthroughs in technology that come from industry and I also want to hear about what goes wrong and does not work. I don't believe for a second that’s what we would have got from PepsiCo but it’s what I would like. That could be an interesting blog that could help build a real dialog between independent scientist, the public and the corporations. However it is my experience that it would take a rare company for this to happen.
I totally support the bloggers who saw this as a COI or that it detracted from the legitimacy of science blogs. At the end of the day I am interested in the science behind what these corporations do for good or for bad I just want to see it represented honestly.

Posted by: ERV | July 8, 2010 11:44 AM

Pitchforks and Torches and mob rule win again! We don't need to wait for no steenking evidence or allow them to post any content. They work for a company we don't like, DRIVE THEM OUT! OUT! DON'T LET THEM SPEAK, WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR ANYTHING THEY SAY, IT WILL BE CRAP! WE KNOW THIS! THEY WORK FOR EEEEBUL CORPORATION!

QFT.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 11:47 AM

My, what a pretty strawman you built, Endor! I'll bet you're against vaccinating children because the vaccines were developed and marketed by those EVIL, HUGE, GREEDY, MONEY-GRUBBING PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS

Sooo... your suggesting you are pro-vax because you support pharmaceutical companies and not because of the evidence of the benefit to the general public gained by vaccination.

Interesting position, that.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 8, 2010 11:51 AM

I want to here breakthroughs in technology that come from industry and I also want to hear about what goes wrong and does not work.

You'd hear about breakthroughs once IP rights were established. You're not going to hear about what goes wrong and what does not work. Not reliably - No corporation wants their competitors to know what didn't work, what experiments not to do - they'll happily tell you what does work once they've got it locked down, it's both good science and good business - telling people what failed is good science, not such good business.

Nothing stops scientists from corporations getting involved in discussions about the products of their employers (although the scope to which they can discuss may be limited) on any blog anywhere - the conversation however, imo, should only be controlled by the corporation on the corporation's own website - and even here the control should be as minimal as possible - stepping into a completely different arena and tainting all the other bloggers there with an association to corporate control (regardless of how real or invented this is) was a bad move all round - dropping Pepsi imo makes the best out of a bad situation, its just a shame for SBs that the blog was given the green light in the first place.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 8, 2010 11:55 AM

QFT.

seriously?

You are usually at least eloquent on a subject.
not this time, apparently.

...and yes, I read the posts on your blog.

surprisingly unthoughtful.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 8, 2010 12:03 PM

LMAO @ James F's suggestion.

I was kind of surprised at how big the story went on the Internet. For instance, here is a random blog post that addressed the PepsiCo affair: "ScienceBlogs trashes credibility: Leaked response from editor" by Paul Raeburn of Knight Science Journalism Tracker.

Posted by: otrame | July 8, 2010 12:03 PM

Hmm

Justwondering and jcwelch are two names I haven't seen here before. Any bets on the nature of the corporate logo on their paychecks?

If you are not shills, then welcome (oh, hell, even if you are shills, welcome) but don't expect to be able to spout a load of crap and not get called on it.

Posted by: KG | July 8, 2010 12:03 PM

JustShilling@69,

Look, moron: you complained about straw man construction in the same paragraph as claiming somone opposed to a corporate shill blog on Sb must be against vaccination. You might at least have had the wit to separate the two sentences a little more. But I suppose too much Pepsi has rotted your brain.

BTW, the "gumbying" of quoted text only makes a point if used sparingly.

Posted by: oihorse | July 8, 2010 12:05 PM

A lot of this reminds me of Tommy Boy: "I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it."

That PepsiCo wouldn't have used the blog as a whitewashed PR conduit seems naive and unintuitive for those that have spent any time in the corporate world.

It's like thinking the Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door isn't going to talk about God.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 8, 2010 12:07 PM

KG and Ol'Greg - to be fair JustWondering made his own strawman to highlight how ludicrous building a strawman is, if you don't quotemine his post and include the last line

See, I can build strawmen too! Isn't this fun???!!!1one!!

the whole arguement goes away.

Or at least it should.

Posted by: Endor | July 8, 2010 12:10 PM

"I'll bet you're against vaccinating children because the vaccines were developed and marketed by those EVIL, HUGE, GREEDY, MONEY-GRUBBING PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS, and every corporate entity is out to screw humanity to the fullest extent possible. "

LOL. So tell me, when you rehearsed this in your mind, did it sound as stupid then as it does now that you wrote it out?

Your desperate hyperbole is satisfying. I never said anything about "every corporation" but hey, why bother paying attention what's posted when it's much more emotionally satisfying to fly off the handle and act like a fool?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 12:14 PM

Yeah, I guess so. Except Endor's post wasn't so much a strawman but an accusation that JW was ignoring the evidence.

Subsequent posts from JW have just made little to no sense.

I'm probably more corporate than JW anyway, but I have a problem with people who rush to the personal invective when they have little substance to offer.

JW seems more interested in yelling loudly and waving hands than making any point.

I would ask this then:

Where did I say I was "pro-Pepsi"? And which Pepsi products are you talking about? The only things in the list at # 70 that I consume on a regular basis are Gatorade and Quaker Oats. I haven't had a Pepsi-Cola in at least 6 months. Can't stand that swill.

Then what the hell *are* you saying? You're angry that people used the existing Pepsi blog and the fact (it really is a fact) that Pepsi has obligations to shareholders that trump scientific discourse to challenge the ability of Pepsico to contribute to an objective discussion on food science?

Can you provide some assertion that Pepsico would be able to negate its obligations and convince investors that placing itself in that position would be good for sales?

Posted by: Endor | July 8, 2010 12:16 PM

"That PepsiCo wouldn't have used the blog as a whitewashed PR conduit seems naive and unintuitive for those that have spent any time in the corporate world.

It's like thinking the Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door isn't going to talk about God."

FUNDAMENTALIST!!@!!!!! CENSORSHIP!!!! STRAWMMANNNN!~!!!!!!

LOL. Of course you're right, but apparently saying this makes you an anti-vax nutjob. Cuz it's totally the EXACT same thing.

Posted by: KG | July 8, 2010 12:21 PM

JustShilling,

When you ask for evidence, and someone points you to that evidence (which had, in fact, already been pointed out), that's not a "dodge". But someone as stupid as you could hardly be expected to appreciate that subtle point.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 8, 2010 12:22 PM

#92

Because the conflict of interest puts you under immediate suspicion, and rightly so.

That doesn't mean your comments shouldn't be included though - just treated with suspicion.

The easiest solution to obesity in the U.S. is to have people consume less of your most profitable products.

To PepsiCo the easiest/best solution to obesity in the US is to have people consume less of their competitors most profitable products, while either maintaining or slightly increasing their own sales (so long as overall calorific intake decreases without pepsi sales decreasing it's a win for them)

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 8, 2010 12:22 PM

Global Warming is a Scam @ 93,

If you're going to sockpuppet at least change your style.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 12:29 PM

You know, Just Wondering, if enough people have trouble understanding what you've written then it probably has ceased to be a reading comprehension problem.

It might be that the statement is ambiguous or unclear.

I would be on your and ERV's side if it weren't for the fact that we are consumers of Seed's product and have a right to voice concerns over that products quality or, of course, leave.

Your comments would make sense if people were saying that Pepsico could not have a blog anywhere ever.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 8, 2010 12:32 PM

JustWondering, are you only really interested in answering comments that are about you, rather than ontopic?

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 8, 2010 12:35 PM

@103 JustWondering

What's your response to the people that directed you to the evidence for the reaction, namely the transplanted Pepsico blog content and the lack of actual content on their new blog?

Posted by: Yellow Dog | July 8, 2010 12:36 PM

First, find a corporation actually interested in a "genuine dialogue."

If only such a thing existed.

Posted by: Endor | July 8, 2010 12:37 PM

If the current course of his comments hold true, his response will be: STRAWMAN! ME! STRAWMAN! ME! ME! ME! ME! STRAWMAN!

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 8, 2010 12:40 PM

Perhaps Seed could start a "Science in the Private Sector" blog section, prominently labeled, announced ahead of time, discussed (publicly) with ethicists, and NOT made to look like pathetic corporate PR. It is unrealistic to expect that private industry scientists will be able to publish stuff that isn't in some way approved by the corporate masters, so it does need to be labeled appropriately (or really truly peer reviewed, which is probably prohibitively costly in time and money).

That blog section could be divided and subdivided into particular industry groups (e.g. health care generally, with subsections or tags for health care delivery, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, etc.). Then corporate enterprises could post articles about their work, we could read it and comment. Comments might not have to be moderated, as the "blog owner" would be scienceblogs, rather than a particular corporate entity, and comments might actually be a useful source of information for the corporations that participate.

Oh, and "advertorial" is a stupid word. How about just calling it "paid content" and disclosing rates. I know how much it costs to take out a full page ad in a major newspaper and can evaluate "paid content" in the New York Times appropriately - why should this be any different?

Despite my fury yesterday at seeing Pepsico drive off several wonderful bloggers, I do think that scientists in private industry have a lot of interesting work to report, that this is a reasonable place for those reports to air, and that the conflicts of interest are manageable. Yesterday's FUBAR scenario was probably not the way to accomplish those goals, however.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 8, 2010 12:44 PM

First, find a corporation actually interested in a "genuine dialogue."

If only such a thing existed.

I guess it depends how you define a genuine dialogue - I think most corporations have a lot to gain from genuine dialogue with the consumers of their products, if only to utilize the findings from that dialogue to better sell more stuff to said consumers (I know Monsanto last year engaged in what was termed "honest dialogue" (although it was more farmer --> monsanto than a conversation from what I gather, and rather painful to sit through in many instances) about seed pricing strategy etc and altered the structure of the commercial organization as a result thereof)

Unless you categorize "genuine dialogue" as "doing exactly what your most vehement opponents want you to do" I'd imagine most companies are interested - picking the right venue for said dialogue however is another matter, and something Pepsi clearly failed at.

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 8, 2010 12:56 PM

#106

Thanks PZ

*exhales and exudes calmness*

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 8, 2010 1:02 PM

The best alternative to Pepsi...

http://www.irn-bru.co.uk/

but mostly only if you're Scottish.

Posted by: KG | July 8, 2010 1:06 PM

To PepsiCo the easiest/best solution to obesity in the US is to have people consume less of their competitors most profitable products, while either maintaining or slightly increasing their own sales (so long as overall calorific intake decreases without pepsi sales decreasing it's a win for them) - Ewan R.

You really don't get the nature of large corporations, do you Ewan? PepsiCo couldn't give a flying fuck about obesity, just like Monsanto couldn't give a flying fuck about the needs of poor farmers or those poisoned by PCBs. For a large corporation, whatever maximises their profit is right; obesity, hunger, poisoning - those things only matter to them in so far as they affect the bottom line.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 8, 2010 1:09 PM

PZ Myers is a Moron @ #110

And you lot have the nerve to complain about Pepsi "whitewashing" content! Pot, mett kettle.

I think we all know who the moron is here.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 8, 2010 1:11 PM

Addendum to #116: I have no connection with PepsiCo, other than being a consumer of their products. So I don't have any kind of interest here. I just don't quite understand the strength of people's feeling on this issue. :-/

Posted by: Flex | July 8, 2010 1:14 PM

To the SB overlords, if any are listening,

There were several constructive comments made during this kerfluffle.

First, keep your bloggers informed when considering adding new blogs. Probably, for the most part they will not care, and they might even pimp the blog before it launches. At other times your bloggers, who have been the group establishing your brand identity, may have cogent objections. Listen to them. Diluting a brand is never a good idea.

Second, few people would have had any objection had PepsiCo's blog had been given a clear indication of "CORPORATE ADVERTISEMENT". There would have been some complaints, and few people would have visited. In a few months it probably would have been closed, or rarely updated, because of lack of interest. Giving it a similar appearance and setting it on the same footing (or as Orac remarked, a higher footing because they would be getting support from SB administrators) was not appropriate.

Third, approved corporate bloggers have a clear conflict of interest. I never blog about details in the automotive industry because I'm an engineer in that industry. We are trained to avoid mentioning our company and, at least in the US, can be reprimanded (to the point of dismissal or even lawsuits) for making statements about the R&D, stock value, future earnings, and similar insider knowledge. So there will always be a rein on any corporate scientist to avoid revealing inside information.

Which does not mean that corporate scientists cannot have a blog on SB. A food science blog would be an excellent thing to have, even if it's a blog written by the head researcher of PepsiCo. As long as it's understood by the readers that PepsiCo's research is not going to be discussed until the company decides it's ready to release it. As long as any writing is done which is backed up by research, or is clearly the opinion of the writer. This was apparently not the case in the Food Frontiers blog.

Would PepsiCo be willing to allow a researcher to write such a blog? Possibly. The problem however is one of trust. How could a reader of such a blog be able to trust that the content hasn't been massaged by PepsiCo? How could PepsiCo trust the writer to avoid mentioning PepsiCo's research?

As an example of corporate paranoia, I tried once to write a short newsletter for our small (100 person) group. In order for me to do so, I had to write the thing, then send it up through channels to a VP for approval before sending out to the group as an internal-only pdf file. Now I'm not the head researcher or anything, but the fact that I couldn't be trusted to know, after 15 years in the company, what type of information is appropriate and what type is not was absurd. Further, the newsletter only touched on things already released to the public, basic engineering knowledge, and photos of corporate picnics.

Finally, we recognize that corporate sponsorship may be necessary to keep this thing afloat. PepsiCo would probably be happy to be able to claim that they were a proud sponsor of SB. However, if corporate sponsorship does occur, it has to be clear that there is no editorial direction coming from the sponsors or the SB overlords.

I may have more thoughts, but I have to get to my next meeting.

Posted by: MrFire | July 8, 2010 1:18 PM

That doesn't mean your comments shouldn't be included though - just treated with suspicion.

Please read the missive from Indra Nooryi (CEO, Pepsico) on page 44 of the .pdf I linked to @92. It's waffling PR bullshit. Yes, they have some pretty numbers, targets, commitments...and it's all utterly fucking meaningless, because it's context-free. They have made no pledges that definitively reduce the amount of toxic shit they throw into the market, nor the advertising that they use to get you to buy it. Those are the problems, and there is no indication that Pepsico has any interest in addressing them.

They did not deserve this platform to promote their veneer of integrity.

To PepsiCo the easiest/best solution to obesity in the US is to have people consume less of their competitors most profitable products, while either maintaining or slightly increasing their own sales

Well, sure, but that's tangential to my point (sorry if I'm misreading your intentions here, though), which is that for us, lower junk food consumption as a whole is the key to lowering obesity - regardless of if it's from Pepsico or anyone else. It's telling that Nooryi makes the following murkifying statement in the link above:

Even with all of these efforts, we recognize there is no silver bullet that will eliminate obesity – no one food we can eliminate, no one pill we can take, no one law or regulation we can pass.

This is deliberately disingenuous bullshit that tries to spread a pinpoint fact (more junk food = more obesity) across as wide an area as possible, until it gets lost in the noise.

so long as overall calorific intake decreases without pepsi sales decreasing it's a win for them

The only thing that would make me view them positively is if they become directly and actively responsible for lowering obesity rates. This, of course, does not consider all the damage they have done already.

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 8, 2010 1:19 PM

Walton @ 116

The main issues here is credibility.

Pepsico has no credibility in nutrition.

They could have chosen to engage with SB on a basic level to earn their credibility over time, instead they chose a mechanism that (I suspect they hoped) would short cut the process.

The credibility they wanted to hi-jack is based on every single post you have read and commented on and every other post that has been read and commented on since SB launched (or before).

I don't DEPLORE Pepsico, but I now have a real reason to be suspicious of them that I didn't have 36 hours ago.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 1:25 PM

I just don't quite understand the strength of people's feeling on this issue. :-/

I think people were just trying to protect what they value in ScienceBlogs and concerned more that they were being betrayed by Seed than actual specific hate for Pepsi although some people definitely *do* hate Pepsico and probably each and every one of the various corporations that could be listed here. But I don't think it would have had the effect it did if it were just a matter of people hating Pepsico specifically.

That being said I'm *this* close to going downstairs and buying a diet Pepsi.

I don't think I've drunk one since I was 18 or so. I hate buying sodas because they're too big. I can only take about 4oz.

I like Mattir's suggestion of a neutral SB hosted blog that *invited* industry specific scientists to talk there.

I'd still be interested in what I saw as the unlikely to be seen potential in the venture.

Posted by: oihorse | July 8, 2010 1:28 PM

Rats my comments in #119 should have been directed at #116. Sorry. Joke ruined.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 8, 2010 1:35 PM

@ Ol Greg - I don't much want the corporations to be "invited" so much as I want them to pay. We are a valuable source of comments and ideas, and private enterprise should be willing to pay for access to this group of readers.

And I don't like Pepsi much (prefer Coke), hate their fast food brands, but I like Tropicana products a lot, and oatmeal, of course. The problem with a lot of food companies is that they make their money from processing, whereas the healthier thing to do is purchase the ingredients and cook it yourself. I have never understood how instant oatmeal has any market share at all - it takes less than 5 minutes to make real from scratch oatmeal, less than 1 minute for quick-cooking. How is instant an improvement on that? And don't get me started on macaroni and cheese from a box - takes exactly the same amount of time to make as real from scratch deliciousness.

Posted by: oihorse | July 8, 2010 1:40 PM

Mattir @128

Kids and their time-warping/time-loss abilities plus their propensity to wrap themselves around your legs while trying to prepare dinner are usually the difference between pulling out a box of mac and cheese and making it from scratch.

Posted by: kurshunter | July 8, 2010 1:43 PM

PepsiCo could have made it happen but they came on too strong, too fast, and in the wrong place. An intelligent company would have hired someone with credentials specifically for the blog, given him nearly total freedom of topics (maybe requiring that 3 in 10 posts be related to some study by the corporate overlords), and even published the terms of his employment - total transparency. I'd even suggest that hiring a vocal detractor would give a positive spin.

Said corporation would then enact several changes advocated by the blogger, blogger would be surprised and pleased that it was done, then corporation would arrange to have it mildly publicized (never front-page), thereby not coming off too much as bought & paid for. When targeting an educated mark, PepsiCo, you must accept and even encourage the idea that your mark is the authority, then work subtly within that framework. This will be far more effective than brute force marketing, in my opinion.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 8, 2010 1:46 PM

so your solution is to let PepsiCo create a monopoly on a large chunk of the food market?

No, not my solution, a solution that'd work for PepsiCo and would actually have an impact on obesity - if PepsiCo sales stayed the same, and the rest of the fast food market collapsed, then surely this would be a win in terms of fighting fast food as a cause of obesity. A bigger win would be for the entire fast food industry to collapse including PepsiCo, but as I was playing devil's advocate this option didn't really need bringing up.

Posted by: D | July 8, 2010 1:49 PM

The fact that benefit for the shareholders is the sole criterion for corporate decisions isn't some piece of Marxist propaganda - it's written into the laws of most capitalist countries, although cases to enforce its application are rare.

I simply don't agree that benefit for shareholders is in all cases the sole criterion for corporate decisions. It is possible for individuals working within a company to steer that company along a path which may not maximize shareholder benefit - it is then up to the shareholders to decide whether or not to put up with these decisions, so altruism will certainly be held in check to a large extent (dependant on how much near term profit hangs in the balance and how the shareholders view apparently altruistic acts), but this does not mean it is utterly extinguished in the corporate world.

It is also a not uncommon occurrence that the executives steer the company to maximize their own pay over shareholder benefits.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 8, 2010 1:58 PM

a solution that'd work for PepsiCo and would actually have an impact on obesity - if PepsiCo sales stayed the same,

Posted by: Ewan R | July 8, 2010 2:03 PM

#138 - well, if PC sales stayed the same and the competition declined by 10% then - I'm not claiming this would or will happen, all purely hypothetical. Not important to the rest of the overall discussion so I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 8, 2010 2:09 PM

#138 - well, if PC sales stayed the same and the competition declined by 10% then - I'm not claiming this would or will happen, all purely hypothetical.

Posted by: hyrcan.myopenid.com | July 8, 2010 2:27 PM

My solution to tackle this would be to find someone interested in science of industry and blog about it. They could invite other scientists from other companies and industries to write guest posts, and allow industry scientists to request to be allowed to do a guest post and comment on their peers.

You'd still have to worry that that someone running the blog isn't bias, but no more than you already do with any other person on SB, but it would be pretty noticeable if they only had scientist from one company and others were getting denied. The SB community could respond as they would any other scientist who started misrepresenting the facts on SB.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 8, 2010 2:39 PM

@Ol'Greg - you might try taking some quick-cooking oatmeal and using the coffee water and letting it sit for a minute or two - then you could have less mushy oatmeal and oatmeal that is flavored (or unflavored) the way you want it. I use box mac & cheese at work when the kids want lunch - it's a good food for when you only have a microwave and an office kitchenette, and I use granola bars for the skipped-breakfast situations you describe.

The thing I don't understand is why processed foods gain adherents even when they take exactly the same amount of time. My son's Boy Scout troop uses instant oatmeal all the time, and I have never been able to understand it, except for the weirdly deceptive appeal of the word "instant" on the bag. The mac & cheese thing I don't understand at all - I have twins and worked for a substantial part of their early life, so I know about time scarcity - it takes exactly the same amount of time. You make the cheese sauce while the macaroni is boiling - 10 minutes, tops. It's hysterical to see their friends come over and ask me to make mac & cheese because they don't know anyone else who knows how to make it from scratch.

OK, I'm a cranky luddite - I admit it. And I'm a luddite who should turn off the intertubes and plan her bug camp for next week.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 8, 2010 2:49 PM

unless it was Pepsi that decided to leave... maybe they did? Maybe they realized it would do them no good?

Yeah, I gotta think Orac nailed that one way back upthread.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 8, 2010 3:16 PM

I'm confused by the 5 minute oatmeal, because it always takes me about 15-20 minutes. Is that rolled oats? Because those are processed too; they're flattened and steamed so that they don't take as long to cook, they're just not steamed quite as much as the instant variety.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 8, 2010 3:50 PM

Whoo. Celebratory Orgy's over there, and I've got some babies on the barby!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 8, 2010 4:00 PM

KOPD #147

What I really need is to find a way to enjoy water so I can drink less soda. I'm thinking about trying mixing in small amounts of fruit juice.

I find that a quarter cup (60 ml) of lemonade or limeade added to a pint (.5 l) of water makes the water much more palatable. I like some acidity in what I drink, so some acid fruit juice improves water for me.

Posted by: cuco3 | July 8, 2010 4:44 PM

One of the most important things in science is trust. In theory, I could repeat any experiment to verify the results. But in practice that's just not on, in most cases; we have to trust the scientists and the places their work is published.

Now a blog isn't the same as a top journal. It's typically the work of one person, who probably has their own particular interests, foibles and biases. These will affect the level of trust I'll put in them. Generally, I wouldn't read a blog regularly if I didn't trust the author(s) quite a lot.

I know of plenty of blogs written by people working in industry and commerce. However, very few of them blog significantly about their employer's business. It's just not a good career move to slag off the company that writes your pay cheque, (although some companies will be more easy-going than others).

So I would have no problem with a blog by someone who happened to work for almost any company. But I would be rather wary if they were blogging about that company.

Posted by: Gorg | July 8, 2010 5:15 PM

I'm very glad to see that the PepsiCo marketing blog won't be continuing here at SB. Like others I'm a bit concerned that Seed may just "wait it out" and try something like this again - perhaps a few years down the line.

I don't have much more to add beyond this message for any iced tea drinkers out there: if it's available in your area, try Tejava bottled iced tea in lieu of the bottled Lipton Iced Tea. It tastes much better IMNSHO. And for the record, I have no idea if PepsiCo owns the company that bottles Tejava. I just really like the taste and wish to spread The Good Word (of fine tasting tea).

Posted by: oihorse | July 8, 2010 5:31 PM

If there's a group of individuals whose minds are open to having their opinions changed given strength of evidence - it's here.

Do you not think, even for one minute, if PepsiCo had something worthwhile to say - something that would have shamed ever naysayer here with its awesome scienceyness and insight - they would have held on and posted it?

Moreover if they were dong drop-dead stuff on their existing blog people would be clamoring for their arrival here, regardless.

But PepsiCo isn't producing outstanding articles on their existing site.

PepsiCo didn't even make an effort to produce an outstanding article - and don't even start with, "you didn't give them a chance". Nobody was blocking their ability to post.

A multi-billion dollar company wouldn't be chased off so easily if they had wanted to make an honest effort and produce honest, thought-provoking science articles.

The only conclusion you can draw is they knew their blog was going to be shill-filled shit and the community called them on it.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | July 8, 2010 5:50 PM

The evidence is that the blog was labeled "Advertorial" which right there said what the content was going to be.

If there was ever to be any real science posted, I think they would have just posted it and proved us poopy-pants wrong. But they didn't.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 8, 2010 5:56 PM

However, you've now guaranteed that no scientist working for PepsiCo or any commercial entity would DARE blog under their real name, or even come close to revealing their employer, else they too get the same lynching.

So you freaked out, lynched them up good, and got your way, and kept your "pure" state.

Even a stupid dog knows not to stick its other paw in the wood chipper.

Microsoft actually do a good job of letting their people speak their minds.

I can, rather trivially, think of some interesting things they could have talked about that wouldn't have been terribly *controversial*, but would have been really quite interesting, and not shilling sugar water at all.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 8, 2010 6:04 PM

you're wasting your time trying to explain to this idiot why there were legitimate objections to corporate weblogs in the middle of a science hub.

all you can do is just point to the arguments made earlier, which he won't ever get. Even though captain Bly (Seed editor) apparently understood them.

eventually, he'll just go away.

make the whatever the "Old Fashioned" oatmeal is - not steel cut oats. Boil 2 parts water, add 1 part oatmeal, simmer. I don't time it, but it's way less than 15-20 minutes.

rolled oats.

yup, I make this once or twice a week:

1 cup rolled oats
2 cups boiling water
1/2 tsp salt
1/3 cup milk
handful of almonds and/or raisins

mix quickly in a saucepan; DO NOT OVERSTIR (reduces the "slime" factor).

bring back to boiling, then turn down heat to low.

cook for about 1-2 minutes, then turn off heat and let stand for 3-5 minutes (better texture, IMO).

sprinkle brown sugar and cinnamon on top.

yum.

I also use a half tsp of butter on top, and sometimes mix in a pinch of allspice or vanilla extract.

you might want to leave out the butter if you want to eat it for whatever minimal anti-cholesterol effect it might have.

great source of fibre, though, regardless.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 6:16 PM

Mmmm.... needs to be made with rice, raisins/almonds.

That is the best thing EVAR!

Posted by: jafafahots | July 8, 2010 6:43 PM

"What I really need is to find a way to enjoy water so I can drink less soda. I'm thinking about trying mixing in small amounts of fruit juice."

Ok, this is going to sound rude, and I don't mean it to be specifically rude to you, but I just need to emphasize things a certain way to get the point across.

The way to stop drinking so much soda and start enjoying water is to STOP DRINKING THE FUCKING SODA.

Sure, for a couple or weeks, or even a couple of months, you may experience a slight disappointment that every fucking thing you stick in you mouth doesn't taste like candy... but after a while your tastebuds adjust and remember that not everything is SUPPOSED to taste like candy.

Then at that point you'll start to notice that water HAS a flavor, and actually different waters have different flavors, and that's there's actually nothing more refreshing than good cool water. Soda merely incites you to drink more and more.

You will also notice these effects if you do thinks like stop thinking that all veggies are incomplete without a pat of butter on them.

You'll start to think of things like brussels sprouts as sweet. Not glazed, buttered, oiled... just plain steam brussels sprouts are SWEET. Because they actually have natural sugars in them.

And without your system used to overstimulation from gobs of sugars and excitochemicals, you'll notice that other things are naturally sweet. Oatmeal... simple rolled oats, are sweet. You don't need to add sugar, they're SWEET on their own. Stuff like that.

Now of course, if you're a smoker, all this goes out the window, you're just fucked. And you might have a sensory deficit from some nerve damage or whatever that reduces your ability to taste.

But the bottom line is you have to expect an adjustment period, just "adult up" and realize that for a couple of weeks while weaning yourself off of a daily candy diet, the good food might not initially seem as satisfying, and just fucking deal with it.

Posted by: Epinephrine | July 8, 2010 7:51 PM

Jafafahots: I agree - I gave up salt a while ago, in an effort to reduce my sodium intake. I also bake my own bread, cook my own sauces, etc.

It sucks at first, and I still cheat every now and then and savour something salty - but your taste does adapt, and (at least in the case of salt) you begin to taste the salt added to everything. I was amazed by how strong the taste of salt can be, and how detectable it is once you aren't putting it on/in all your foods.

Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2010 7:58 PM

Congratulations, Adam Bly, for coming to your senses.

Posted by: summitwulf | July 8, 2010 8:53 PM

@175:

https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html

and

http://adblockplus.org/en/

A cheaper solution.

Posted by: jafafahots | July 8, 2010 8:58 PM

"Sorry, jafafa, I have this thing where I like my food to taste good."

Which shows that you didn't actually read what I said.
Water tastes good. Vegetables taste good.

What you want is your water to taste like candy and your food to taste like fat and salt.

After you let your taste buds adjust, food tastes BETTER than just greasy, salty or sweet. There are entirely different flavor ranges that you're missing. When they have adjusted, even a grain of wheat tastes sweet - you can taste the natural sweetness, plus nuttiness, and you can discern between strains of wheat.

So you would not be missing out on your food tasting good. You will get MORE flavor.

You just have to give up the addiction to having every mouthful blast you with a HFCS or MSG induced overpowering, so that your entire flavor palate is reduced down to a handful of variations on the theme of firecracker.

I gave up soda almost 20 years ago. I gave up coffee 12 years ago. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, have a particularly healthy diet, but it's startling how after the adjustment things change.

Water is DELICIOUS, and the very idea of soda makes me feel sick to my stomach.

It's like being a smoker - smokers don't realize that they and everything they own stink so badly that a non-smoker can smell them from across the street even when they aren't smoking.

If you can't put up with the adjustment period, then fine - eat whatever you want, that's your business, your right... but then don't complain about the results and expect science to find a way for you to eat candy and grease all day without your body noticing it.

To be fucking blunt, not liking the taste of water is ABNORMAL.
Having every bit of fluid intake need to be sweet is ABNORMAL.

The fact that americans drink more soda than water now, and the fact that people see drink water as "strange" does not mean that it is strange or that drinking soda all day is normal.

It just means that our society has gone deeply off the rails in that particular area.

(oh.... psst... here's a shocker too - having the TV or radio playing every waking moment is not normal either. I may be kicked out of the country for saying this. Relative silence is actually the normal state. Holy shit!)

Posted by: jcwelch | July 8, 2010 9:06 PM

#164

Sorry, as a real scientist, I see nothing of interest there. And being run by the PR department, it would be a shill site. Why can't you acknowledge that truth? Idjit loser still written all over your posts.

Ah, not only arguing from authority, (I AM A REAL SCIENTIST, UNLIKE YOU, LOSER), but really a pathetic attempt at intimidation by bad language. You should go do some work amongst the proles, you're really bad at it.

It's really quite funny watching you scream because your ox got "gored", and then pretend that you're so completely justified in doing the same things you so decry in others. It's so cute. And lame.

Not that you'll ever listen to a non-scientist, (after all, what the fuck could someone not a scientist know), but i'll try to illustrate what I meant. Sure, Pepsi, mountain dew and the rest are garbage, but I think someone talking about how they create that shit, how they test the (relative) safety of the ingredients would be pretty fucking cool, ESPECIALLY if it's, you know, one of the people who does the actual work. It's not a cure for cancer, but only cures for cancer are that. The science behind candy is pretty goddamned cool, even if it is frivoulous. There's a reason why the food network has so many shows about it, but because they don't do science, well, they dumb that shit way down.

IT would be kind of neat, in a completely fun way, to have someone talk about the science behind frivolity like Pepsi, and not dumb it down for television. Of course, that will never happen. Thanks a pantload. Thank $DEITY you saved us from the horrors of learning about the science behind frivolous shit like sodey pop. I bet you're a fucking gas at birthday parties. Or frivolous occasions of any kind.

But of course, i'm not a *SCIENTIST* so my thoughts about what would be neat have no value.

#166

you're wasting your time trying to explain to this idiot why there were legitimate objections to corporate weblogs in the middle of a science hub. all you can do is just point to the arguments made earlier, which he won't ever get. Even though captain Bly (Seed editor) apparently understood them. eventually, he'll just go away

sonny, you're a rank amateur in the "drive out the infidels" game. you keep dreaming you can drive me off.

Oh, and to all the short-memoried types who insisted that Pepsi's blog should have been "chock full of science" on their first SB post...you mean like PZ's first SB post?

Or Orac's? (by the way, gotta give Orac a special kiss for threatening to "go all Orac" on Abbie for DARING to disagree with the mob. Stop believing your own press dude, it'll rot your mind)

How about Isis's?

Damn...just LOOK at all that HARDCORE SCIENCE IN THE FIRST SB POST! i'm amazed a non-scientist like myself could even UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX TERMS THEY USED.

But of course, pepsico had to not only have a post of nothing but hard science, but also would have had to call their employer all kinds of bad names to even be ALLOWED to sully the "purity" of this site.

Y'all are doing a really good job of bending over backwards to keep your moral superiority. Better stretch well, you'll pull a hammy for sure. Also, such a waste, you lost it once the mob justice started. Save time. You lost the high ground.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 8, 2010 9:07 PM

Oh Banana Co
We really love you and we need you
And oh, Banana Co.
We'd really love to believe you

But everything's underground
We got to dig it up somehow
Yeah, yeah....

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 8, 2010 9:22 PM

sonny, you're a rank amateur in the "drive out the infidels" game

Posted by: Shala | July 8, 2010 9:30 PM

I need to sharpen my fangs.

Don't forget to keep them sniny.

But of course, pepsico had to not only have a post of nothing but hard science, but also would have had to call their employer all kinds of bad names to even be ALLOWED to sully the "purity" of this site.

How about if they specifically avoided shilling? Moron.

Posted by: spanner | July 8, 2010 9:52 PM

@176 summitwulf
Yeah, sure, and many folks at that other site do that and brag about how the place where they spend half of their days, every day, will get no money from them. That's fine.
Personally, I don't mind paying a bit for content. I pay far less at the site I mentioned than for my National Geographic subscription and get many more hours of pleasure there. So, cost/benefit, it's a steal.

Here I've seen folks complain about the way the site is run and I wonder if money has something to do with it. I mean, I get paid for my work and I feel that others should, also. Unless they are volunteers. Are the people who work to keep this site running and to make improvements volunteers? I honestly don't know but I doubt it.

Another point on something few care about: I really don't want bits of code running around fighting with other bits of code and, more to the point, I don't want to oversee and manage that. I think it's great that that stuff is out there and admire those who write it... just don't want to deal. Most days I have other things to think about and keeping this machine running smoothly takes enough of my time already.

So, I'd like to see an option to get rid of ads here. I'd also like an "ignore" button. Registration (membership) might make bloggers' and commenters' lives easier. I've seen others mention ways to improve the site but that won't get done unless someone is getting paid to do it.

*shrugs*
Whatever. As I said, it was just a thought, and it was a thought based on the premise that PepsiCo was allowed to buy space because Sb needs cash. I'm willing to provide a little of that to keep good science blogs here and to keep blogs like Food Frontiers out.
And, thanks for the links, anyway :)

Posted by: krc [clowersnet.net] | July 9, 2010 12:22 AM

dang misclicks! there should be a preview button and then a submit button after the preview. anyway...

In return you deal with a lot less crap - fewer infections, less worrying about getting infections, less distracting ads.

NoScript is a much more complex beast, and requires maybe a few good hours of browsing around and adjusting before everything is behaving right. Then a few minutes of daily tweaking for maybe a month, and then it is just an occasional "temporarily allow this domain" for sites that you visit on a one off basis. At least that is how my experience went, but I visit a larger number and a wider variety of sites than most people do. Unlike AdBlock Plus, NoScript isn't for everyone, but for many it saves much more effort and frustration than they put into it.

I agree with you about not blocking ads at sites you have a strong interest in - it only makes sense to support them. I do actually block Slashdot ads anyway, because they are so badly targeted and coded (although Slashdot lets me do it in my profile because I have really high Karma). And the ability to pay a fee to not see ads is always welcome.

Posted by: MrFire | July 9, 2010 10:15 AM

Oh, and to all the short-memoried types who insisted that Pepsi's blog should have been "chock full of science" on their first SB post...you mean like PZ's first SB post?

Falsely equivalent tu quoque. PZ et al. are not corporate titans with controversial issues that need to be addressed at an early stage to clear the air.

Fucking idiot.

Posted by: jcwelch | July 11, 2010 1:39 AM

#184:

Why chase you off easily. I need to sharpen my fangs. And fathead, keep dreaming you have anything cogent to say. So far, all you do is say stupid things like a corporate shill without evidence would. By using attitude and ignorance in equal portions. Keep it up loser. You quit being a loser when you say something cogent. Like "goodbye".

Oooh...an anonymous monkeyfuck on the internet is going to go sharpen his fangs. Does that make you team Edward or Team Jacob? Or are you old school, and laying in bed spanking it to Spike and Angel?

I'm not the one that advocated driving off a blog because of what they MIGHT have done. That was your diminutive defecating dance troupe.

I know it's hard when you're all impressed with yourself for your intardweb wit, but try to keep it straight:

YOU were the one blindly railing against Pepsi because of what MIGHT happen, based on circumstantial evidence. *I'M* on the side of "let's give them some rope and see what happens. Who knows, it might not suck, stranger things have happened."

You: No evidence, not willing to acquire any.
Me: No evidence, wanted to wait to acquire some.

The difference is important, no matter what they tell you at your twihard meeting.

#186:

How about if they specifically avoided shilling? Moron.

Well, you never gave them a chance did you. You held them to a standard that none of the blogs you're currently rimming meet, that they could have never met, and refused to let them actually even TRY to have something besides a "hey, great to be here" post. I bet you're one of those fucknuts who blasted a prof. on an eval because they wasted your time by not having a class-long exam on the first day, weren't you.

And if you weren't, why didn't you? After all, the first day is supposed to be all business, right?

#187

Ichthyic, a couple more snarks and I'll call it quits. The fathead corporate greed apologizer is far too stupid to understand that the proper place for corporations to shill their products is their own web site. If they wish to put another site out on the web discussing their claims, they are free to do so, and have the money to do so; they have no need to go to an already established site. But coming to SB with the PR department in charge was pure unadulterated idiocy. Only idiots apologize for that amount of stoopid. Idjits like JCWelch...

Oh, i'm sorry, did I not play by the script, wherein I pretend to be all a-tremble at your glorious internet balls?

I am impressed that you took this long to call me an apologist. Usually, lackwits in the throes of jihad like yourself start with that, but then, once you resort to that lame-assed attack, well, you're kind of done aren't you. It's naught but a slightly more sophisticated version of "says you!".

I'm not apologizing for anyone. Pepsi didn't do shit wrong here, nor did they do shit right. They stupidly thought you wouldn't behave like insecure half-rabid baboons with a colon full of habanero paste. They should have known better. I think Sb *could* have handled the situation better, but that's true of any kerfuffle, and again, given the rabid, unthinking reaction to Pepsi, purely because they were Pepsi, I don't think you fuckers would have been any kinder had they given each of you a hand job with a rectal tickle in advance.

#191

In your first comment above, you've mischaracterized commenters by saying that they simplistically dismiss corporate entities solely for being corporate entities. Conversely, you've repeatedly ignored the rationale provided for wanting them thrown out: their prior record is laughable, and they have given no indication that the new blog will be an overhaul. It is reasonable to predict that their subsequent output will be bullshit, and simply not bother with them.

you're comparing a blog on a corporate site to a blog on a science site, and saying they would both be exactly the same. The Pepsi corporate site is a fucking flashturbation mess of ADD bullshit. By your logic, their content here would be exactly the same.

At one time, highly respected scientists decided to detonate a nuke above the atmosphere "just to see what the fuck would happen." By your logic, everything scientists do is based on random desire and no fucking method, just because it happened before.

There was no evidence to show their blog here would have been anything different, *but by the same token* there was no evidence to show their blog *here* would NOT have been anything different. *You* weren't willing to give them a chance, solely based on company.

Your scenario of us fawning over Pfizer is utterly pulled out of your ass, and doesn't even work on its own terms. How you imagine that Pfizer, as a corporate entity, would get any lighter treament is a mystery to me. If Pfizer has a history of pushing shitty products onto the market, in the same way that PepsiCo has done, and then sets up a PR website masquerading as a blog as a prelude to trying to get its foot in the door of SciBlogs, they will get similarly excoriated. And even with all that aside, how would (hypothetically) liking one company with one record be an embarrassing counterpoint to hating a different company with a different record?

Pfizer's an easy name to remember, but it's not like the Pepsi blog was the first time you had a corporate-sponsored blog on Sb. Yet somehow, y'all seemed to not threaten mass defection over Shell, Invirogen, and GE, because heaven knows, none of THEM have ever done ANYTHING corporately shady, ESPECIALLY not GE or Shell.

But, I guess as long as you don't make sodey pop, well, polluting rivers and oceans, that's okay, because hey, they do REAL science, unlike them Pepsi fuckers. Or maybe they should have gotten someone "approved" to throw up some token "independent" posts on the blog first, like a shiny golden apple, tossed to the side, so you don't see you lost.

So take your Smug Snake, straight-from-the-hip sarcasm and shove it. If you're going to come in with nothing but vitriol, that's fine, but you should have better arguments. Otherwise you're just a mirror-gazing angryman with no substance.

Yeah, unlike the deep rational thought put up against pepsi. Pot, kettle, you know the rest. Or perhaps the older version: Cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine.

On a wider note: Poor PepsiCo. They were muscled out of the marketplace of ideas by the commenter behemoth. How could they possibly have been expected to compete, when all they had were unlimited resources and supposedly a wealth of determined scientific talent armed with facts. Their poor little PR people put the numbers into their poor little marketability matrices and calculated that no matter what way they cut it, being taken to task by SciBlogs commenters would leave them with egg unfairly pressed into their faces. It's so easy to see why they faked a bad knee right there on the starting line rather than race the giant in the lane next to them.

Remember this the next time you're crying about the eeeebul anti-scientists reacting sans thought or evidence. Remember this, because at the end of it all: you're just as bad as they are

#192

Falsely equivalent tu quoque. PZ et al. are not corporate titans with controversial issues that need to be addressed at an early stage to clear the air. Fucking idiot.

I love the "false equivalence" argument, especially when you're using it oh so preciously wrong. There is nothing false about calling you boobs out when you hold those you dislike to a far higher standard than those you like. I think a great example of how you all were behaving is like the 'intelligence' competition in "Drop Dead Gorgeous", wherein they don't see anything wrong with making Amber perform at levels *far* above the other girls just to pass.

Of course, the word that describes you in those cases is "hypocrite", but no, me pointing out the complete bullshit expectations you had of Pepsi's blog is not a false equivalence. It's just that i dared to call you out for treating the unpopular kid like shit just because they're unpopular, not because they've actually done anything to harm you.

Points for the Latin though.

Also, seriously...Nerd of Redhead? Dude, Howard Stern much?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 12, 2010 4:51 PM

I give jcwelch a 0.7 starfart for his efforts. He would have got a 0.8 but he rambled on for way too long.

Posted by: MrFire | July 13, 2010 6:38 AM

*You* weren't willing to give them a chance, solely based on company.

You still don't get it.

You are under the illusion that Pepsico somehow deserved its place in Scienceblogs in the first place. They didn't. Scienceblogs made a fundamentally poor decision to allow an unqualified candidate to blog on their site. Commenters decided that was bullshit and called them on it. Scienceblogs retracted. The end.

If they (the operators of the Pepsico blog) had produced anything useful up until coming onto Scienceblogs, it might have had a mitigating impact upon their image. But they didn't.

If a job candidate who lacks the requisite skill set somehow slips past the vetting process, it's an embarrassment to the hiring team - not to the potential colleagues of that candidate. There is nothing wrong with complaining about that candidate once they've been rumbled.

you're comparing a blog on a corporate site to a blog on a science site, and saying they would both be exactly the same.

That's what they said themselves for Christ's sake, which you would have realized if you had paid any attention to e.g. Bernard Bummer's comments above.

*but by the same token* there was no evidence to show their blog *here* would NOT have been anything different.

Are you seriously that obtuse, not to mention naive?

Yet somehow, y'all seemed to not threaten mass defection over Shell, Invirogen, and GE,

Strawman, since resentment on the part of bloggers at Scienceblogs has been an long-running phenomenon. Pepsico was just a particularly egregious deepening of that resentment.

That said, thanks for bringing the GE/Shell stuff. I will try to look more into it, since I admit I know little about the history of it.

Remember this, because at the end of it all: you're just as bad as they are

Nope.

I love the "false equivalence" argument, especially when you're using it oh so preciously wrong. There is nothing false about calling you boobs out when you hold those you dislike to a far higher standard than those you like.

Well, that's the point isn't it? We dislike them because of their demonstrably poor track record. They have baggage. They have water still under the bridge. Insert your goddamned metaphor here. I believe the sentiment of most commenters is that they should have addressed some of those issues long before seeking a place on Scienceblogs.

but no, me pointing out the complete bullshit expectations you had of Pepsi's blog is not a false equivalence.

You're right. But that's not what I said, is it?

I said comparing PZ (scientifically trustworthy, independent background) to Pepsico (scientifically biased, riddled with conflicts of interest), was a false equivalence, which is what you were doing to make a point. Once the equivalence is shattered, the point falls flat.

Nice. You managed to show yourself wrong on one point from both directions.