Reply #34: Could you kindly list the hundreds who agree the Maize story is true? [View All]

[snowFLAKE]

Despite your characterization, it's not just a few corporate shill scientists who don't agree with the study - for example the entire Editorial Board of Transgenic Research have raised objections:

These scientists are quite a diverse group:

Editor:
Paul Christou
Fraunhofer IME, Schmallenberg, Germany
Bruce Whitelaw
Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK

Editorial Board:
Zsuzsa Bosze, Agricultural Research Centre, Godollo, Hungary; Diego Breviario, Consiglio Nazionale del Ricerche, Milan, Italy; Ken Brown, CXR Biosciences Limited, Dundee, UK; Teresa Capell, Fraunhofer IME, Schmallenberg, Germany; Swapan Datta, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, The Philippines; Isabel Diaz, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain; Thomas Doetschman, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA; Rainer Fischer, RWTH Aachen, Germany; Roy Forster, Centre Internationale de Toxicologie, Evreux, France; John D. Gearhart, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Frank G. Grosveld, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Emmanuel Guiderdoni, CIRAD, Montpellier, France; Perry B. Hackett, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA; Lothar Hennighausen, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Luis Herrera Estrella, CINVESTAV, Irapuato, Mexico; Elizabeth E. Hood, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA; John G. Mason, Florigene Ltd., Collingwood, Vict., Australia; Lluis Montoliu, CNB-CSIC, Madrid, Spain; Mathias Müller, VUW, Wien, Austria; Nickolas Panopoulos, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece; Mario Pezzotti, Università di Verona, Italy; Carl A. Pinkert, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY, USA; Christine Pourcel, INSERM, Nantes, France; Hector Quemada, Crop Technology Consulting, Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, USA; Frank H. Ruddle, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Helen Sang, Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK; Stefan Schillberg, Fraunhofer-Institut for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IME, Aachen, Germany; Andrew J.H. Smith, University of Edinburgh, UK; David A. Somers, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA; Eva Stöger, RWTH/ Biology VII, Aachen, Germany; Akhilesh K. Tyagi, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India; Jean-Luc Vilotte, INRA-CRJ, Jouy-en-Josas, France; Robert J. Wall, Gene Evaluation and Mapping Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA; Ken-Ichi Yamamura, Kumamoto University Medical School, Japan

Here are snippets from their article titled No Credible Scientific Evidence is Presented to Support Claims that Transgenic DNA was Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0962-8819/contents

On 14th November 2001, a paper
was published in the journal Nature which claimed for
the first time to present evidence that transgene DNA
had introgressed from commercially-released transgenic
maize varieties into traditional landraces. It is
not surprising that a scientific paper with such a strong
claim in the title would be seized upon by the media
and the public, including those who have been working
with transgenic plants for many years. What is
very surprising, however, is that a manuscript with so
many fundamental flaws was published in a scientific
journal that normally has very stringent criteria for accepting
manuscripts for publication. Members of the
Editorial Board of Transgenic Research, and a number
of other scientists with many decades of experience
in the area of transgenics, have provided comments
that indeed demonstrate that the data presented in the
published article are mere artifacts resulting from poor
experimental design and practices. Consequently, this
editorial focuses strictly on a purely scientific analysis
of the data presented in the manuscript.

A careful analysis of the data presented in the
paper strongly suggest the following:

• Sample contamination is the most likely explanation
for the observed results.

• Rather than rely on questionable PCR results,
plants that were alleged to contain introgressed
DNA should have been grown out and subjected
to more reliable confirming studies.

• The inverse PCR results are technically flawed.

• Cross pollination and introgression would not produce
these results.