New APPS

7 responses to “Concerning events at the journal Science”

1. 

   Patrick S. O’Donnell

   October 8, 2014

   In his book, Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science (Harvard University Press, 2011), Philip Mirowski suggests that the AAAS, along with the National Academies of Science (NAS), should no longer be viewed (to the extent they were in the past) as “guard dogs of the integrity of the scientific process in the United States and defensive bloodhounds rooting out scientific corruption.” In short, the AAAS and the NAS are perhaps better understood as “lapdogs” of the globalized Neoliberal commercial regime (a model of same being the subject of the book), the effects of which are often neither benign nor beneficial to either the theory or praxis of science.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   October 8, 2014

   That would explain the AAAS’s statement on GMOs:

   There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm.

   There is so much that is wrong with this statement that I can only understand it as a defense of the corporations who fund the research of scientists who are in AAAS and who publish in Science. The NAS has actually sponsored some more subtle work on GMOs.
   [What’s wrong: GMOs have, at best, not been proven harmful, which is different from having been proven safe. GMOs have not been tested for long-term health effects, much less been tested with independent oversight, and each GMO is different, so each new GMO brought to the market must be tested. Plus this statement makes no mention whatever of the increased use of pesticides with many GMOs or the evolution of pesticide resistance in plants and animals as a result of that increase pesticide use. I expected a more cautious, dare I say “scientific,” attitude from the AAAS].

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Patrick S. O’Donnell

   October 9, 2014

   Regarding independent oversight on GMOs I was reminded of this article from Scientific American in 2009 (so I’m not sure if anything has changed since then):
   Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
   To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
   Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
   Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”
   It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.”

   In a recent blog post, a law professor cites with approval the AAAS statement on behalf of an argument that “GM labeling likely will mislead more than inform. Many people harbor concerns about genetic modification that are not justified by reality.”
   [In any case, let’s assume for the sake of argument that individual consumption of GMOs as such poses no significant health risks, this still leaves us with questions about ecologically sustainable agricultural practices (which may have considerable and thus unacceptable indirect health risks) and the political economy associated with GMOs (as in the article above) that are not being sufficiently addressed in the public realm, questions broached by such individuals as Richard Lewontin, the late Keith Aoki, Cori Hayden, Jack R. Kloppenburg, Ikechi Mgbeoji, Vandana Shiva, Philip Mirowski, Raj Patel, Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, Juliana Santilli, and Karl S. Zimmer (not a complete list).]

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Patrick S. O’Donnell

   October 9, 2014

   The “law professor” blog post I referred to is by David Orentlicher at the Health Law Prof Blog (and cross-posted at the more widely read Prawfsblawg): http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2014/10/too-much-information-gm-food-labeling-mandates.html#

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   JoePaulson2

   October 9, 2014

   I appreciate the above perspective that helps responds to the law professor cited as with others (such as Prof. Adler) who have targeted such GMO labeling laws and to my amateur eye at least over did it when saying GMOs are clearly safe and government labeling laws are misguided. I also see the issue was talked about here in the past:
   http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/10/is-the-labeling-gmos-as-gmos-anti-science-part-1.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   October 9, 2014

   Yes, that earlier post about GMOs was mine. 🙂 I am now sorry I derailed my own thread from Science/AAAS to GMOs. Not that I don’t like talking about GMOs, but I am also very concerned about what is going on with Science/AAAS. To me their statement about GMOs was just an illustration of the problem, particularly the one that PSO highlighted.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   try102030

   October 10, 2014

   If you will permit some further leeway into the realm of GMOs: I wonder, would researcher require any permission from GMO-producing organisations to conduct cohort or case-control studies? While it would be unwise for anyone to accept that these study designs prove causality, it would be foolish to reject these study designs simply because they do not prove causality.

   LikeLike

   Reply