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

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#21

Post by Clubber »

trophycase wrote: post #20
mjmj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My question is there any residue on the crops when they come to market in the grocery store?

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#22

Post by clord »

09bjb wrote: post #19
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…

> we've made incredible scientific progress over the last 650 years with Science and Industry tightly dependent on one another

To be fair it hasn't all been rainbows and butterflies. There have been a lot of really bad problems caused by this unholy union. I'm not even sure it's net-better. The level of environmental destruction we've caused, combined with the difficulty of doing anything about said damage, could negate all of the benefits we've achieved.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#23

Post by learc83 »

09bjb wrote: post #19
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…

I think you're vastly underestimating the role publicly funded science (and science conducted and funded by private individuals not primarily concerned with commercial benefits) has played in that advancement.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#25

Post by devrandomguy »

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…

> The days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public sector drying up.

I have been wondering, could pure research work well with a crowd-funding model? In addition to applying for a grant, the PI would post a similar or identical application to Kickstarter & co. Stretch goals could be used to commission media-rich presentations that are true to the research, rather than leaving the original scientist-oriented study to be interpreted by rushed journalists.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#26

Post by Zigurd »

devrandomguy wrote: post #25
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…

> The days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public sector drying up. I have been wondering, could pure research work well with a crowd-funding model? In addition to applying for a grant, the PI would post a similar or identical application to Kickstarter & co. Stretch goals could be used to commission media-rich presentations that are true to the research, rather than leaving the orig…

You can bet that industry-friendly stealth-subsidized projects will come in to displace genuinely truth-seeking projects in a crowdfunding model.

It would be more straightforward to condition public funding on publishing all results.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#27

Post by tnorthcutt »

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…

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.

This isn't the first time I've heard of something like this, but holy shit. Those actions should produce a reaction of alarm and outrage, but I'm sure many of us read that and shake our heads, thinking "that's terrible" – but not being shocked at all.

In a situation like that, is there a feasible way to seek "justice"? Does the organization (I assume a university?) overseeing the research lab have a policy & procedures in place to handle anonymous reporting of that behavior?

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#28

Post by unclebucknasty »

Interesting timing for me. I just yesterday read an Atlantic article titled "How America Lost Its Mind" [0].

The tldr; of that article is that Americans have had an increasing tendency to create our own realities and to believe anything we choose. This includes conspiracy theories like the government is purposely allowing cancer treatments to be withheld, as well as the idea that vaccines cause autism, etc. The article then goes on to suggest that choosing what to believe is part of being American. I don't necessarily agree, as I think the article was woefully inadequate in assessing the damage that financial interests play in willfully misleading people and creating a post-truth world.

Here on HN, I've had "debates" with people who nearly suggested that glyphosate is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind. When I cautioned about safety concerns due to overuse, I got the standard pointer to the studies, etc. If you question the studies, then you find yourself being painted as some sort of anti-science conspiracy-theorist. This, when we essentially all know how research is done and the degree of rampant regulatory capture that exists.

I guess my point is that when many of the institutions we're supposed to trust are largely captured and firms that have direct financial incentive to mislead are allowed to decide what's real, then it is an assault on truth and reason. When we ignore this fact and encourage blind-belief in these institutions (worse, allowing them to act as proxies for "the ultimate truth of science"), then we are aiding in the creation of the very post-fact world we claim to abhor.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-ame...

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#29

Post by lomnakkus »

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 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.

Yeah, this is why is absolutely paramount that we should push for all research studies[1] to be disclosed to the public before actually conducting the research. For example, in the medical realm see http://policyaudit.alltrials.net/

[1] Or, rather, not take studies that haven't been pre-disclosed seriously. I have very little hope that this type of policy will become pervasive enough for all types of study, but medical research affects human lives so there's at least a little hope that it will become a government-mandated requirement for drugs that need approval.

Re: Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

#30

Post by rubatuga »

tnorthcutt wrote: post #27
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…

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. This isn't the first time I've heard of something like this, but holy shit . Those actions should produce a reaction of alarm and outrage, but I'm sure many of us read that and shake our heads, thinking "that's terrib…

It may be wrong to focus solely on my PI's ethics. This phenomenon is implicitly understood all throughout the research community, and by targeting her lab you wouldn't be really changing anything. Word would certainly get out that the lab is "uncooperative", and a company like Monsanto can simply call up the next struggling, underfunded lab who will be happy to comply and take the money.

The only way to get "justice" is if you change the market so that the researchers have power, and this can only happen if researchers have enough stability and money to pick and choose research as they please. If you give them enough money, you hope that they make the right and ethical decisions (similar to why judges are paid so much).

Post reply on HN