
Monsanto’s Sway Over Research Is Seen in Disclosed Emails - alphonsegaston
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=1&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F08%2F01%2Fbusiness%2Fmonsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html
======
arca_vorago
They also enforce that sway with a massive internet PR arm as well, which does
a good job burying stories like this. Personally, what I find more interesting
than the particulars of this story itself, is the web of connections they use
to accomplish these types of goals. For example, I really like the show
"Uncommon Knowledge" from the Hoover Institute, but I have noticed a trend of
their fellows being used like Mr. Miller allowed himself to be. If I remember
correctly one of my favorite conspiracy theorist authors was a Hoover fellow,
Antony Sutton, who was forced out after writing "National Suicide: Military
Aid to the Soviet Union" which really ruffled some feathers, and it makes one
think about how much think tanks are being used to promote agendas vs actually
providing unbiased policy analysis.

On a related note, while I was a sysadmin in genetics, I came to understand
just how weak and unreliable the scientific publishing community is. Peer-
review != good science, but that's how the journals present themselves. Quite
often I stumbled on obviously bad science, mostly by academics/scientists
trying to pad their resumes. Usually with comments along the lines of "I've
been published 1k+ times!". As if that had any bearing on the quality of their
work. I think, in this case, instead of jumping on the anti-monsanto bandwagon
(which having worked in the industry I'm still ready to do!), in this case the
real solution is to fix scientific publishing, because things like this are
happening in every single industry, not just bigag.

For example, I think a potential solution, besides making the journals
completely free and open, would be to finance centers that test
reproducibility, randomly or targeting specific examples such as the paper
referenced.

