New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

recent posts

about

    GMO paper retraction produces yet another Elsevier boycott

    In an earlier post, I suggested that the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) should not have retracted a paper that purported to show toxic effects in rats fed GM corn.  Now just over 100 scientists have signed a petition protesting the retraction, stating that the retraction violated the norms of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member.  The scientists note concerns about the impartiality of the process (e.g., the the appointment of ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT) and assert, "The retraction is erasing from the public record results that are potentially of very great importance for public health. It is censorship of scientific research, knowledge, and understanding, an abuse of science striking at the very heart of science and democracy, and science for the public good."

    The scientists are boycotting the journal's publisher, Elsevier; they will "decline to purchase Elsevier products, to publish, review, or do editorial work for Elsevier."

    This is one more black eye for Elsevier that we can add to the removal of papers from Academia.edu, which Catarina recently blogged about, and the pre-existing boycott of Elsevier, discussed on this blog many times (see, e.g., here,  here, here, and here).

    Posted in ,

    11 responses to “GMO paper retraction produces yet another Elsevier boycott”

    1. TM Avatar
      TM

      What about the other publishers? I’d love to have information like rankings of what people think are the best and worst, with an actual explanation, even if vague, about the way the company is actually organized, so that it would make them good or bad.
      The synthese affair was just a couple of inept people doing dumb stuff (Hendrikse, IIRC), which could have happened pretty much anywhere, as the journal’s administrative organization is no worse than any other journal. (Not that the boycott was wrong.)
      I’m just thinking, I’d love to know how the publishers compare, in a way that does not amount to plausibly just a chance effect. He about open access efforts, etc.? I don’t mean this as a challenge. I’d really love this information, if only we could compile it. What do you all think?

      Like

      Reply
    2. Duncan Law Avatar
      Duncan Law

      This petition has been organised by the ‘Institute of Science in Society’ (ISIS) – see their page here.
      In promoting it, you should probably also make your readers aware of ISIS’s advocacy of alternative therapies for AIDS, (“herbs, minerals, mushrooms, probiotics, exercise and even simply better nutrition”), based on “the truth of the many anecdotal stories about these compounds”; the organisation’s important research about ‘water memory’ and homeopathy; and the “remarkable theory of everything that claims to relate all forces of nature” discussed in the organisation’s director’s book ‘Living Rainbow H20’; as well as the various other ‘unconventional’ scientific breakthroughs published by the site, and likewise endorsed by lists of people with ‘PhD’ after their names.
      This may allow readers of NewAPPS to make a more informed initial assessment about the kinds of reasoning likely to be behind this petition’s claims, as against those of the French High Council on Biotechnology.
      That document accessible at that last link does have the benefit of basing its conclusions on legitimate scientific methodology.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      Just to be clear, the previous Elsevier boycotts went far beyond the Synthese boycott (that is, they included fields beyond philosophy) and had to do with the exorbitant prices they charge for their journals and their practice of bundling subscriptions.
      But I agree, it would be extremely helpful to have a comparison of publishers of philosophy journals, or lack thereof.

      Like

      Reply
    4. Duncan Avatar
      Duncan

      Hi Roberta – I posted a comment here earlier; perhaps it went into the spam folder. I’ve reproduced it on my blog, here.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      Stupid spam filter. It’s visible now.

      Like

      Reply
    6. Duncan Avatar
      Duncan

      Thanks.

      Like

      Reply
    7. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      I am not “promoting” the petition, and I said nothing to indicate that I was, no urging to sign, etc. I am passing along the information, this time in the context of talking about Elsevier as a publisher.
      Personally, I’d be more interested in the signers of the petition than the organizers of it. But again, since I am not “promoting” the petition, I have not checked them out.

      Like

      Reply
    8. Duncan Law Avatar
      Duncan Law

      Well checking out the signers with any real care would be a bit of a task – but just looking at the first 10 names, I see they include Thomas Blakeslee, creator of ‘The Attitude Factor’ website (“Your prospects for good health and long life are remarkably dependent upon mental habits learned in childhood… Can the same kind of amazing improvement in health prospects be done by an interactive web site? I think the answer is yes and I plan to prove it with your help.”), and Michael Arconada, creator of the ‘Natural Health Methods’ website (you can read about his ‘Primordial Protocols for Regeneration’ here, and purchase products at the affiliated store here. Note, however, that many products, like, for example, the SyncroZap(TM) are, despite appearances, “for spiritual, religious, entertainment and research purposes only”.) So I think it’s fair to say that the term ‘scientists’ is being used a little loosely here.

      Like

      Reply
    9. Duncan Law Avatar
      Duncan Law

      Another of my comments has gotten caught in spam, I’m afraid.

      Like

      Reply
    10. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar
      Roberta L. Millstein

      Sorry about that. It’s visible now.

      Like

      Reply
    11. Duncan Law Avatar
      Duncan Law

      My point being that these people are, to a significant extent, cranks and quacks. It would create less confusion for readers of this blog to write “the cranks and quacks note concerns”, rather than “the scientists note concerns”. The latter phrasing risks suggesting to casual readers of the blog that this petition is worthy of their attention.

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a reply to TM Cancel reply