GM Free Scientists

[Guest guest]

NHIS Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:12pm (CST+6) To:

NHIS [NHIS] Digest Number 101 Reply to:

notify-dg-NHIS (No Reply)

 

Natural Healing Israel

Natural Healing Israel

 

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.

GM Free Scientists The SHAE Institute

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

 

1.

GM Free Scientists

Posted by: " The SHAE Institute " nicole.venter   nixv2004

Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:02 pm (PST)

 

More on Science and Scientist Abused

 

Dr. Erina Ermakova, senior scientists of the Russian Academy of

Sciences,

whose work we featured (*GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or

Sterile*<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soya_Fed_Rats.php>,

SiS 33 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soya_Fed_Rats.php) was approached by

an

editor of *Nature Biotechnology* to co-author an article describing her

work. This turned out to be a scandalous attempt to destroy her

reputation

and discredit her work (Science and Scientist

Abused<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LetterToNatureReErmakova.php>,

SiS 36; http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LetterToNatureReErmakova.php). Below is

the

first press coverage in Switzerland. The matter is still unresolved, so

please circulate widely and write your own letter to Nature

Biotechnology

 

The Excommunication of a Heretic

by Roland Fischer

Translated from the German-language Swiss weekly newspaper WOZ

http://www.woz.ch/artikel/inhalt/2007/nr44/Wissen/15584.html

 

A Russian scientist claimed GM soya was toxic for rats. Because her

scientific studies were not scientifically completely waterproof, that

allowed a well-known journal to hire assessors or assassins. And the GM

industry could not resist the opportunity to participate.

 

An unusual article was published In the September printed edition of the

science magazine " Nature Biotechnology " . The editor of the magazine had

arranged a sort of " triangular " interview. In one corner he had invited

a

Russian scientist to answer a few critical questions about her feeding

study

of GM soybeans. That was researcher Irina Ermakova, who had already

presented her initial results at conferences, and who now gladly agreed

to help. The study had created considerable controversy, since Ermakova

had reported toxic effects on the offspring of laboratory rats, leading

to

stunted growth and low survival rates.

 

In another corner, prior to publication, Ermakova's responses were

submitted

to four other researchers, allowing them total freedom to demonstrate to

their satisfaction the shortcomings of her study. Their criticisms were

printed, and even became the main part of the article. Ermakova was not

given the opportunity to respond to their damning comments , and

actually

saw them in the final version of the text for the first time on the day

when

the issue was published. The editor was kind enough, on publication day,

to

send a PDF of the finished article to Ermakova.

 

A scientific journal's publication route

Andrew Marshall, the editor of " Nature Biotechnology, " argues that there

were " logistical reasons " for the manner in which Ermakova was treated.

He

claims that there would have been an endless back-and-forth dialogue if

her

criticisms before printing should have been permitted. That would have

involved adjustments to the text, which in turn would have involved

changes

in the comments of her critics. " This has to stop somewhere, " said

Marshall

in justifying his action.

 

Where this " somewhere " lies, however, is entirely within the discretion

of

the editor. In the case of the Ermakova article he opted for the

simplest

variant and allowed no editorial exchange whatsoever. This is strange,

especially for a scientific publication.

Usually scientific journals follow a meticulous process. A scientist who

thinks he/she has discovered something remarkable follows a submission

procedure according to strict formal rules. Experts are selected for the

evaluation of a submitted paper. A referee can either flatly refuse to

comment or, most commonly, make suggestions to the author for

improvement.

 

An author can prepare a revised version, which is then re-assessed and

(possibly after further additional alterations) may be published or not,

depending on referees' recommendations. This so-called peer review

system

has its flaws (some promising results from direct competitors may be

slowed

down or rejected by partisan referees), but at least the mechanisms are

transparent. The rules of the game are clear for all concerned.

 

The treatment of the Ermakova journal article was not remotely like

this. It

was a strange mix of interview and written examination. Indeed, in many

scientific publications in recent years, the " journalistic part " has

been

largely removed because of the danger of losing objectivity. Because,

for

outsiders, journal articles are often about as exciting to read as

meeting

protocols, this is a move by " Nature Biotechnology " away from specialist

science, with a view to enabling wider audience access. Marshall himself

says that the Ermakova article presented him with a challenge. " We have

never before published material with this format, " he says.

Nevertheless, in

conversation he repeatedly refers to " normal procedure " in order to

justify

his actions.

 

Speared by the critics

 

The fact that " Nature Biotechnology " has been in " uncharted waters " with

this article is confirmed by Harvey Marcovitch, former editor of a

scientific journal and now director of COPE (the Committee on

Publication

Ethics), an organ of journal editors working mainly in the medical

field.

" This is a type of publication which I have never encountered, " says

Marcovitch. In fact, while reading it he was struck by " some surprising

things. " He is unwilling to speculate as to what exactly happened:

" Either

the Editor was trying out a new form of experimentation, in which not

everything went according to plan, or there was indeed a conspiracy or

whatever one wants to call it. " As long as nothing could clearly

indicate

the latter, however, he prefers to think the former.

 

If you look more closely at the background to the publication of this

article by " Nature Biotechnology " , however, doubts are raised about an

innocent journalistic experiment. One thing is obvious:the article is

anything but balanced. The supposed experts who reviewed Ermakova's work

hardly had a good word to say about her. And they were so intent upon

" shooting the messenger " that they criticized aspects of her work on

which

they themselves had no expert knowledge. Marshall himself is forced to

admit this. When asked whether the four would be acceptable as referees

in a

peer-review process, he replies evasively that for " some aspects " they

might

be included. But in practical questions about feeding studies or

regarding

animal physiology and toxicology all four referees should have had

professional expertise. They had sought additional expertise, says

Marshall.

 

One can imagine where. Because the four men are not impartial or

unknown.

They are all well known as GM spokesmen, with a variety of relationships

with industry.

 

How come that a publisher of a supposedly independent magazine managed

to select four experts who were not exactly impartial? The answer is

simple: he did not need to select them and did not even need to look,

since the whole thing was the idea of the critics themselves. They had

sent Marshall a

message in the summer, and even proposed that they should attack

Ermakova.

 

Marshall tried to give a somewhat more balanced appearance to the

feature

article by not leaving the stage entirely to the critics; but he did not

regard it as necessary to inform Ermakova about what was going on. To

understand things from the perspective of an editor, this hot topic was

too good to miss: but Ermakova has said herself that if everything had

been

transparent this devious publication strategy should never have been

permitted .

 

" Nature Biotechnology " is now allowing the Russian researcher the

possibility of replying to her critics in a subsequent number of the

journal. Marcovitch finds this to be an unsatisfactory solution: " An

author must always have the opportunity to respond to criticism,

preferably in the

same number. " Indeed, the publisher has failed to answer the question

why

the Ermakova study results, which might not stand up to the rigorous

scientific requirements of a peer review process and which might

therefore

not be published, were not simply ignored. Ermakova has never made a

secret

of the shortcomings of her studies, saying that she has always been open

to

suggestions for improvement. Due to her good faith, she was an

appreciative

and innocent victim for a " show trial " .

The response from the industry came immediately. In the newsletter

" Inter

Nutrition " , syndicated by the Swiss Federation of Genetic Engineering,

the

case of Ermakova was presented as an exemplary belly-flop by a research

scientist who dared, without respectable results, to report something

that

might be damaging to GM food. This episode, when discussed in the round

by

all GM scientists, could prove to be ultimately very damaging for the

pro-GM

biotechnology lobby.

 

*Note from GM Free Cymru:*

 

This article has been translated to the best of our ability, with advice

from German speakers. But if any reader notices any instances where we

have

mis-translated or misunderstood the author's meaning, we will be very

happy

to make corrections as necessary.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Science_and_Scientist_Abused.php

--

The Southern Health and Ecology Institute

Zero Waste

Community Exchange