Okay, we all know Monsanto is basically the evil megacorp personified, but in principle there is nothing wrong with GMOs. Humans have been creating GMOs as long as we've had an understanding of breeding for desirable traits. The core idea is no different from breeding dogs with heavier coats or trees with larger fruits.
The problem is that we discovered how to do this quickly and artificially and then proceeded to use it to generate private profit with no regard for the GMO's long-term impact. eg Roundup-resistant crops end up creating Roundup resistant weeds.
I think there's a lot of alarmism re: GMOs in public opinion, where the word itself has become sort of a bogeyman. But the problem is not that GMOs themselves are a bad idea--the problem is how corporations like Monsanto have chosen to implement the idea.
response to OP's q, not even gonna comment on the article bc that sounds like a mess
Though I'd add that no matter what we use to try to stop weeds and pests, some of them'll evolve to become resistant. RoundUp resistant weeds are a problem -- among other things, it's one of the few herbicides used in restoration work, and now it won't work as well as often -- but it's a class of problems that's kind of inevitable.
Also, people tend to forget that Roundup replaced stuff that was far worse.
Pretty much. The opponents to GMOs already cite this study like the bible. There was so much media coverage about it and now there's barely any coverage about the retraction. Such is life.
If the paper was greeted by such a "universal uproar" of scientific critique, how did it pass the peer review process?
Apparently other experts read it and found it good enough to publish. The data was not faked it is simply a small study that is probably to be regarded as preliminary and that other labs should repeat with a higher number of samples.
Sounds to me like pissed of industry. They have almost all the scientists in their field on their pay roll in one way or another. There is really little actually independent science done on things that you can also do in the industry and get five times the salary.
I was wondering that to but then again didn't the MMR vaccine to autism study get peer reviewed as well? I'm thinking that there was some coercion and under the counter deals done to get this study published. Or maybe it was the excitement in finding GMOs harmful? All I know is that there were some shady dealings associated with this study.
It's possible of course. The lenghts people go to get published are also surprizing. And if you invest years of research to find out, all is fine, then you have to explain to your funding agencies, why you didn't notice earlier and so on.
It's hard to tell and especially in medical science the pressure to publish imho harms science and its integrety immensely.
But still, the fact that the industry has insterests here that are massively threatened by a study like that is also true and that they will go to great lenghts to discredit it is very likely.
That's why I think it should be published. Then it can be repeated and improved and if it turns out it was bullshit, so be it. So were lots of theories and preliminary findings (say those fishy homeopathy and water "studies")in the past. But to shut it down completely? That kills the proper scientific discourse
Good points, the pressure in publishing is insane. I haven't gone around to looking for it but I believe a Japanese University tried to replicate the study and failed to find any significant difference between the two groups. I mean I find it sketchy that you would use a strain of rat that has a high incidence of developing spontaneous tumours for toxicity/cancer study on GMOs.
Comments 22
Reply
Reply
The problem is that we discovered how to do this quickly and artificially and then proceeded to use it to generate private profit with no regard for the GMO's long-term impact. eg Roundup-resistant crops end up creating Roundup resistant weeds.
I think there's a lot of alarmism re: GMOs in public opinion, where the word itself has become sort of a bogeyman. But the problem is not that GMOs themselves are a bad idea--the problem is how corporations like Monsanto have chosen to implement the idea.
response to OP's q, not even gonna comment on the article bc that sounds like a mess
Reply
Reply
Reply
Though I'd add that no matter what we use to try to stop weeds and pests, some of them'll evolve to become resistant. RoundUp resistant weeds are a problem -- among other things, it's one of the few herbicides used in restoration work, and now it won't work as well as often -- but it's a class of problems that's kind of inevitable.
Also, people tend to forget that Roundup replaced stuff that was far worse.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If the paper was greeted by such a "universal uproar" of scientific critique, how did it pass the peer review process?
Apparently other experts read it and found it good enough to publish. The data was not faked it is simply a small study that is probably to be regarded as preliminary and that other labs should repeat with a higher number of samples.
Sounds to me like pissed of industry. They have almost all the scientists in their field on their pay roll in one way or another. There is really little actually independent science done on things that you can also do in the industry and get five times the salary.
Reply
Reply
It's hard to tell and especially in medical science the pressure to publish imho harms science and its integrety immensely.
But still, the fact that the industry has insterests here that are massively threatened by a study like that is also true and that they will go to great lenghts to discredit it is very likely.
That's why I think it should be published. Then it can be repeated and improved and if it turns out it was bullshit, so be it. So were lots of theories and preliminary findings (say those fishy homeopathy and water "studies")in the past. But to shut it down completely? That kills the proper scientific discourse
Reply
I haven't gone around to looking for it but I believe a Japanese University tried to replicate the study and failed to find any significant difference between the two groups. I mean I find it sketchy that you would use a strain of rat that has a high incidence of developing spontaneous tumours for toxicity/cancer study on GMOs.
Reply
Leave a comment