condemning Monsanto with bad science is dumb

[shava]

24. The academy protects its own

Isn't this a trying to be a review of literature calling for a new perspective on existing literature (including Monsanto's own) and asking for people to do confirming studies on this perspective? That's not bad science. That's a literature review with a perspective hypothesis.

It's not very well done, admittedly. I suspect the authors are activists who couldn't get senior people to back them. You know and I know why that is, and it doesn't have to do with good or bad science. It has to do with labs and funding and controversies and the length of time doing this kind of science really takes.

What you are seeing that I think you really object to is a journalism review with a wild confirmation bias. The press is saying the study proves things, because that's what they always say when scientists posit things for further study. And the article doesn't use enough passive voice. Young people rarely do when they don't have a senior advisor to keep them out of political trouble.

What they should have said were things that mangle the English language and make it torture for normal readers, like:

"Here, we assert a correlation through existing studies including those of the manufacturer
showing an established mechanism of use whereby it may be that interference with CYP enzymes acts
synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria,
as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences should be investigated by additional studies
including studies that may associate diseases
and conditions associated with a Western diet: we might suggest investigations into CYP association with
gastrointestinal disorders,
obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s
disease. We suggest some possible associated effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease,
and we associate glyphosate as a possible example of a new pathway of disease by "exogenous semiotic
entropy:" the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."

Rather than what they said, which was what bothered you, because they are young and arrogant in
challenging your academic seniority:

"Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts
synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria,
as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases
and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders,
obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s
disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease,
and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the
disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."

This is terse and ballsy, and this sort of thing just isn't tolerated by senior scientists, which is why independent scientists crossing discipline boundaries gets squished and their papers get buried regardless of the content. They should have found some moldy old doctor or biologist or someone to take credit for their ideas, and give them a grateful acknowledgement just like any good grad student would, my dear, and you and I both know it. Then their idea might have been taken up and challenged in other studies as brilliant. As it is it will be a seven day wonder in the press, and a footnote on someone else's study down the road when we're all sterile and senile, if they're right.

Scientists state things with or without couching language for other scientists to challenge. It's what we do. Then other labs pick them up and see if they can confirm a hypothesis by study results.

I'll note that Silent Spring was a discursive and similarly ill received "bad science" document on the long term effects of a similar "Green Revolution" miracle chemical. Perhaps they should have written a book instead of a literature review PDF for a small journal, including an independent scholar and a CSAIL researcher. It would have been a wiser course, to my mind.

The ivory tower protects its own and industry even more. This was a very poor political move, regardless of the quality of the science. They needed better PR consultation.