Anti-GMO researchers used science publication to manipulate the press

[mike_c]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/anti-gmo-researchers-used-science-publication-to-manipulate-the-press/

Anti-GMO researchers used science publication to manipulate the press
Researchers handed media a flawed paper, but forbid any consulting of experts.

Very little of the public gets their information directly from scientists or the publications they write. Instead, most of us rely on accounts in the media, which means reporters play a key role in highlighting and filtering science for the public. And—through embargoed material, press releases, and personal appeals—journals and institutions vie for press attention as a route to capturing the public's imagination.

This system doesn't always work smoothly. Just this year, we've seen a university promote a crazed theory of everything and researchers and journals combine to rewrite the history of science in order to promote their new results. But these unfortunate events are relatively minor compared to a completely cynical manipulation of the press that happened last week.

In this case, the offenders appear to be the scientists themselves. After getting a study published that raised questions about the safety of genetically modified food (GMOs), the researchers provided advanced copies to the press only if they signed an agreement that meant they could not consult outside experts. A live press conference and the first wave of press appeared before outside experts could weigh in—and many of them found the study to be seriously flawed.

Science journalism and the embargo system

Each week, reporters around the world get a jump on the scientific community. Nearly a week before the new editions of major journals are released, the press gets a chance to download many of the papers that will appear within them. That access is predicated on a simple agreement: nobody runs any news stories about the contents until after a date and time set by the journal. This embargo system is why key scientific findings tend to appear everywhere at the same time, with hundreds of similar stories published within minutes of each other.

more@link

[JoeyT]

1. IMO the most damning part

besides refusing to let anyone criticize their data is this:

But these problems were only the beginning. As more critical reports began to appear and scientist/bloggers looked at the results, huge issues were made clear. The authors used a strain of rats that is prone to tumors late in life. Every single experimental condition was compared to a single control group of only 10 rats, and some of the experimental groups were actually healthier than the controls. The authors didn't use a standard statistical analysis to determine whether any of the experimental groups had significantly different health problems. And so on.

Roundup may well be harmful, it may turn out to be toxic as hell, but this study is more or less worthless for proving it. If you're fighting to prevent anyone criticizing you because you know the data doesn't show what you claim it shows, you're not only doing science wrong, you're not doing science at all.

[mike_c]

2. if I'm not mistaken, that line of rats is especially prone to develop breast cancer tumors...

...when food is not limited, i.e. in exactly this sort of feeding trial. They chose experimental subjects that were prone to yield the results they sought. That is AWFUL experimental design for a trial like this.

[HuckleB]

3. Bad science does not help anyone.