Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#2I don't really see anything wrong with using a ghostwriter, as long as the person/organisation whose name is on any document fully read and agreed with the contents, and would stand by them as their own.
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#3I don't really see anything wrong with using a ghostwriter, as long as the person/organisation whose name is on any document fully read and agreed with the contents, and would stand by them as their own.
Did you read the article? The concern is about Monsanto heavily editing what should've been unbiased independent research around the safety of roundup, yet releasing it as such. knowingly giving the general population carcinogens and fighting hard for it. Deplorable.
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#4I don't really see anything wrong with using a ghostwriter, as long as the person/organisation whose name is on any document fully read and agreed with the contents, and would stand by them as their own.
You don't see anything wrong with the company being it's own ghostwriter? The company, who is clearly going to agree with the contents that are charitable to itself?
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#5The actual "news" are IMHO only that this can proven as they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
I often dream of some news like "Independent research actually found to be independent".
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#6I don't really see anything wrong with using a ghostwriter, as long as the person/organisation whose name is on any document fully read and agreed with the contents, and would stand by them as their own.
I love Hacker News apologists.
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#7I don't really see anything wrong with using a ghostwriter, as long as the person/organisation whose name is on any document fully read and agreed with the contents, and would stand by them as their own.
Ghostwriting research into your own products is a colossal breach of corporate, academic, and ethical integrity.
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#8http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.12...
> The Expert Panel Members recruitment and evaluation of the data was organized and conducted by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy (Intertek). The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company. Funding for this evaluation was provided to Intertek by the Monsanto Company which is a primary producer of glyphosate and products containing this active ingredient. Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel's manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.
Seems misleading.
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#9http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.12... > The Expert Panel Members recruitment and evaluation of the data was organized and conducted by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy (Intertek). The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company. Funding for this evaluation was provided to Intertek by the Monsanto…
What exactly is misleading? The next line explains further
> Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.
Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
#10http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.12... > The Expert Panel Members recruitment and evaluation of the data was organized and conducted by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy (Intertek). The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company. Funding for this evaluation was provided to Intertek by the Monsanto…
What exactly is misleading? The next line explains further > Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down wh…
Ahh, sorry, yes. I was just pointing out what was actually written in declarations is different than what was reported by the bloomberg story.