Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#11

Post by jandrese »

londons_explore wrote: post #2

I 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.

If a regulator can't be arsed to bother writing the report themselves, what makes you think they are carefully reviewing the findings in the report before rubber stamping it? What makes you think there aren't errors of omission? Who is verifying what they write in the report is the truth?

This system would only work if the company in question was trustworthy enough to not need regulation in the first place. In the real world it will never work.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#13

Post by rubatuga »

You should realize how important money is in research today. The main job nowadays of principal investigators (PI) for research labs is to write applications for grants and fundings. These labs are usually underfunded and will accept any private funding if necessary. For example, the PI for my nutrition lab received funding from a Canadian agricultural company for a study on Canola oil. When the test results of the study were investigated (which I don't exactly recall), they were not in favour of Canola oil. The PI therefore "voluntarily" decided not to publish the results. I asked her why, and she said that if she published the results she would not be likely to ever receive funding from the company again.

My point is that a lot of research conducted today is funded by ulterior motives, be it political, private interest, or a company like Monsanto. I fully expected a company like Monsanto to be engaged in this behaviour. The days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public sector drying up.

edit: oops i meant to write principal investigator (PI)

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#16

Post by adam-p »

rubatuga wrote: post #13

You should realize how important money is in research today. The main job nowadays of principal investigators (PI) for research labs is to write applications for grants and fundings. These labs are usually underfunded and will accept any private funding if necessary. For example, the PI for my nutrition lab received funding from a Canadian agricultural company for a study on Canola oil. When the test results of the s…

"PI" is principal investigator.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#19

Post by 09bjb »

rubatuga wrote: post #13

You should realize how important money is in research today. The main job nowadays of principal investigators (PI) for research labs is to write applications for grants and fundings. These labs are usually underfunded and will accept any private funding if necessary. For example, the PI for my nutrition lab received funding from a Canadian agricultural company for a study on Canola oil. When the test results of the s…

I agree with all of your points. Science costs money. Somehow, however, we've made incredible scientific progress over the last 650 years with Science and Industry tightly dependent on one another (Science on Industry to conduct new research, and Industry on Science to open up new possible products and markets).

Unless we change something we'll get Industry stifling new knowledge (as in your examples) and stagnating as a result of its own actions. All that said...somehow it's worked fairly well for centuries, so I'm reluctant to accept heinous actions like these as the status quo, even if corporations can usually be counted on to act in their own short-term best interests.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#20

Post by trophycase »

mjmj wrote: post #3
londons_explore wrote: post #2

I 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.

The saddest part is that there are real live people who willingly do this for a living. Nothing will ever change as long as this behavior is enabled or encouraged.
Post reply on HN