The Science of profit

As the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that glyphosate, the ubiquitous weed killer known by its trade name Roundup, is a probable cancer agent, the usual suspects, led by Monsanto present a blizzard of propaganda to debunk the science.   These efforts include so-called science writers who try to simplify science for the layman.  However, they also use the black and white analogy to say if there is not conclusive proof of harm, we should ignore the "alarmists" who would have the substance banned.  Of course, that's not the way science works, as the climate change debate illustrates.  97% of climate scientists have signed off on the theory that our climate is changing due to human causation.  The other 3% of mostly charlatans and cranks are afforded almost as much space to posit wild notions.   Cancer caused by smoking was a radical notion in the 1970s and those that espoused the connection were ridiculed by industry hacks and even by some well meaning writers who felt the evidence was not conclusive.  Similarly, the proof of harms attributed to Roundup continue to pile up.  So called Roundup ready crops inhibit biodiversity, contribute to species decline and and weed resistance.  When will the regulators finally make the call to remove this environmental menace?  Sad to say, but when Monsanto's profits begin to shrink, or when another even more effective herbicide knocks Roundup off its perch.