Court documents reveal Monsanto's efforts to fight glyphosate's 'severe stigma'
I for one am glad that this is just one bad apple. This couldn't possibly happen in other fields of science.
After all, we punish the scientists responsible for bad science, such as tobacco science - they all went to jail and no longer work as researchers. Also, unlike people who go into politicians, policing, or priesthood, scientists truly care about the science and are much less likely to sell out for money, power, prestige, or anything else offered. Furthermore, we know that the peer review system cannot be corrupted, and even if there is one bad study, the truth comes out in months or maybe a few years; never does it take decades. On top of that, we have governmental and intergovernmental agencies which are thoroughly checked for conflicts of interests and properly regulate the industry. Furthermore, replicating older recent studies shows us that we're really good at doing the right science, wikipedia not withstanding (Replication Crisis).
This Monsanto thing is just one small blip. But xise, Monsanto's roundup is the most used herbicide in the world, and they have had countless governmental agencies sign off on its safety in the past 3 decades and there are dozens of published peer-reviewed studies showing roundup is safe. If this can be corrupted, how can it be just a small blip?
I am glad you asked that question. And see, the fact that you asked that question - the fact that you, I, the people are willing to question companies and indeed even question scientists and experts on whether there are conflicts of interest, corruption, or influence over these studies shows you why this is just a small blip. You ask people on the street, you hear newsmedia discussing these issues, everyone questions science, and questions whether it is done impartially, and brings a skeptical eye to scientific findings until they've looked at all aspects of the issue. As long as we have a population that isn't complacent, and continues to delve into corruption and/or undo influence in the way science is conducted, these sorts of things will not reoccur.
In short, there is no need for systematic change in the way we conduct or publish science. I am glad that science and the way we conduct science is properly protecting our health, our oceans, our food, our medicine, our land, and our climate.
-----
Don't mind me, I'm just off playing out my distortion on desiring to shine light onto issues that I feel don't get enough attention On less tongue-in-cheek note, the article is really good about getting into detail about how interwoven the corruption was. And it came to light in open court litigation. Go lawyers!!!
Quote:"Internal Monsanto emails show that the company closely followed the evolution of some of the articles and even edited passages.
On Jan. 6, 2016, company official Heydens writes to Intertek about one of the papers: "I think you and I should talk about how that chapter gets completed, as it is not exactly what I was expecting."
Two days later, in another email Intertek sends Monsanto a draft version of another article, asking Heydens to look at changes suggested by certain authors. His response: "OK, I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple of spots I did a little editing."
All five papers claimed they were written by independent experts and said that no Monsanto employees or lawyers reviewed the manuscripts prior to publication."
I for one am glad that this is just one bad apple. This couldn't possibly happen in other fields of science.
After all, we punish the scientists responsible for bad science, such as tobacco science - they all went to jail and no longer work as researchers. Also, unlike people who go into politicians, policing, or priesthood, scientists truly care about the science and are much less likely to sell out for money, power, prestige, or anything else offered. Furthermore, we know that the peer review system cannot be corrupted, and even if there is one bad study, the truth comes out in months or maybe a few years; never does it take decades. On top of that, we have governmental and intergovernmental agencies which are thoroughly checked for conflicts of interests and properly regulate the industry. Furthermore, replicating older recent studies shows us that we're really good at doing the right science, wikipedia not withstanding (Replication Crisis).
This Monsanto thing is just one small blip. But xise, Monsanto's roundup is the most used herbicide in the world, and they have had countless governmental agencies sign off on its safety in the past 3 decades and there are dozens of published peer-reviewed studies showing roundup is safe. If this can be corrupted, how can it be just a small blip?
I am glad you asked that question. And see, the fact that you asked that question - the fact that you, I, the people are willing to question companies and indeed even question scientists and experts on whether there are conflicts of interest, corruption, or influence over these studies shows you why this is just a small blip. You ask people on the street, you hear newsmedia discussing these issues, everyone questions science, and questions whether it is done impartially, and brings a skeptical eye to scientific findings until they've looked at all aspects of the issue. As long as we have a population that isn't complacent, and continues to delve into corruption and/or undo influence in the way science is conducted, these sorts of things will not reoccur.
In short, there is no need for systematic change in the way we conduct or publish science. I am glad that science and the way we conduct science is properly protecting our health, our oceans, our food, our medicine, our land, and our climate.
-----
Don't mind me, I'm just off playing out my distortion on desiring to shine light onto issues that I feel don't get enough attention On less tongue-in-cheek note, the article is really good about getting into detail about how interwoven the corruption was. And it came to light in open court litigation. Go lawyers!!!