
Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews - Red_Tarsius
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews
======
rubatuga
You should realize how important money is in research today. The main job
nowadays of principal investigators (PI) for research labs is to write
applications for grants and fundings. These labs are usually underfunded and
will accept any private funding if necessary. For example, the PI for my
nutrition lab received funding from a Canadian agricultural company for a
study on Canola oil. When the test results of the study were investigated
(which I don't exactly recall), they were not in favour of Canola oil. The PI
therefore "voluntarily" decided not to publish the results. I asked her why,
and she said that if she published the results she would not be likely to ever
receive funding from the company again.

My point is that a lot of research conducted today is funded by ulterior
motives, be it political, private interest, or a company like Monsanto. I
fully expected a company like Monsanto to be engaged in this behaviour. The
days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public
sector drying up.

edit: oops i meant to write principal investigator (PI)

~~~
tnorthcutt
_The PI therefore "voluntarily" decided not to publish the results. I asked
her why, and she said that if she published the results she would not be
likely to ever receive funding from the company again._

This isn't the first time I've heard of something like this, but _holy shit_.
Those actions should produce a reaction of alarm and outrage, but I'm sure
many of us read that and shake our heads, thinking "that's terrible" – but not
being shocked at all.

In a situation like that, is there a feasible way to seek "justice"? Does the
organization (I assume a university?) overseeing the research lab have a
policy & procedures in place to handle anonymous reporting of that behavior?

~~~
rubatuga
It may be wrong to focus solely on my PI's ethics. This phenomenon is
implicitly understood all throughout the research community, and by targeting
her lab you wouldn't be really changing anything. Word would certainly get out
that the lab is "uncooperative", and a company like Monsanto can simply call
up the next struggling, underfunded lab who will be happy to comply and take
the money.

The only way to get "justice" is if you change the market so that the
researchers have power, and this can only happen if researchers have enough
stability and money to pick and choose research as they please. If you give
them enough money, you hope that they make the right and ethical decisions
(similar to why judges are paid so much).

------
pella
1 week ago:

"Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
(baumhedlundlaw.com"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14923009](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14923009)

------
jaclaz
The actual "news" are IMHO only that this can proven as they have been caught
with their hands in the cookie jar.

I often dream of some news like "Independent research actually found to be
independent".

------
unclebucknasty
Interesting timing for me. I just yesterday read an Atlantic article titled
"How America Lost Its Mind" [0].

The tldr; of that article is that Americans have had an increasing tendency to
create our own realities and to believe anything we choose. This includes
conspiracy theories like the government is purposely allowing cancer
treatments to be withheld, as well as the idea that vaccines cause autism,
etc. The article then goes on to suggest that choosing what to believe is part
of being American. I don't necessarily agree, as I think the article was
woefully inadequate in assessing the damage that financial interests play in
willfully misleading people and creating a post-truth world.

Here on HN, I've had "debates" with people who nearly suggested that
glyphosate is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind. When I
cautioned about safety concerns due to overuse, I got the standard pointer to
the studies, etc. If you question the studies, then you find yourself being
painted as some sort of anti-science conspiracy-theorist. This, when we
essentially all know how research is done and the degree of rampant regulatory
capture that exists.

I guess my point is that when many of the institutions we're supposed to trust
are largely captured and firms that have direct financial incentive to mislead
are allowed to decide what's real, then it is an assault on truth and reason.
When we ignore this fact and encourage blind-belief in these institutions
(worse, allowing them to act as proxies for "the ultimate truth of science"),
then we are aiding in the creation of the very post-fact world we claim to
abhor.

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-
ame...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-
its-mind/534231/)

------
shapiromatron
[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.12...](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214677)

> The Expert Panel Members recruitment and evaluation of the data was
> organized and conducted by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy
> (Intertek). The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants
> to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company.
> Funding for this evaluation was provided to Intertek by the Monsanto Company
> which is a primary producer of glyphosate and products containing this
> active ingredient. Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys
> reviewed any of the Expert Panel's manuscripts prior to submission to the
> journal.

Seems misleading.

~~~
denzil_correa
What exactly is misleading? The next line explains further

> Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows
> the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other
> Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and
> editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even
> vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of
> them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

~~~
tptacek
It's worth bearing in mind, whatever the process failures here may have been,
that IARC is not above criticism. Their assessment of glyphosate as a human
carcinogen is not well established by the literature, and was made in passing
in a report (which covered tens of other herbicides and pesticides) that the
WHO, their parent organization, has effectively disavowed.

The same source made hay out of Monsanto's efforts to push back against a
study trying to establish a link between cancer and glyphosate. They neglect
to mention that the study was Séralini's, and that it was famously criticized
and eventually retracted.

~~~
terravion
I think that's exactly the point that's missing in the thread. Monsanto has
money, but nobody has a monopoly on science--scientific proof is reproducible.
There is plenty of stuff funded by people against Monsanto's interests
(including competing chemical companies). So while this certainly does raise
some questions, it doesn't seem to change any conclusions. I tried to read
this as though the issue was climate change and see what I thought. I don't
think this changes the scientific consensus even if indicates need for better
disclosure practices.

------
exabrial
"every company" was accidently misspelt as "Monsanto" in the title.

I'm not trying to jump to their defense, but can you think of a situation
where the opposite would happen? Think about it, any company that funds
research is going to be a subject area in their market.

Unless there was a specific ethical issue here, this isn't "news", this is a
thorn in the side of the [otherwise wonderful] free market.

------
Cryptogocrazy
I don't know the legality of what they did, but it's pretty clearly a reason
to favor government involvement in fringe cases like this. Sounds like what
they did was fraud.

------
throwawaymanbot
Yet again, American style Capitalism giving regular ole Capitalism a bad rep.

~~~
Analemma_
" _Real_ capitalism wouldn't have these problems" is No True Scotsman in
action.

~~~
throwawaymanbot
Theres capitalism, and then theres this current incarnation of American style
capitalism. Paid lobbyists (or in this case paid writers) creating laws (or in
this case "research") that crush competition/rivals (which capitalism needs to
thrive), = American capitalism, (as it currently stands).

------
cryoshon
so, where are the HN commentators who were defending monsanto left right and
center during the recent safety debates?

~~~
kirrent
Well, I just woke up. Monsanto has done something pretty screwy here as far as
scientific ethics because people within the organisation were angry with the
IARC. I can understand being angry with the IARC. Its decision was extremely
stupid and a PR nightmare. Pretty dumb of Monsanto to fight stupidity with
stupidity. They should know better.

On the other hand, the editing does appear to be cosmetic, with Monsanto
wanting to skewer the IARC, and there are plenty of truly independent
investigations into the effects of glyphosate. All of the science still says
glyphosate is safe in the concentrations we encounter it in.

[http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1](http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1)

------
londons_explore
I don't really see anything wrong with using a ghostwriter, as long as the
person/organisation whose name is on any document fully read and agreed with
the contents, and would stand by them as their own.

~~~
mjmj
Did you read the article? The concern is about Monsanto heavily editing what
should've been unbiased independent research around the safety of roundup, yet
releasing it as such. knowingly giving the general population carcinogens and
fighting hard for it. Deplorable.

~~~
trophycase
The saddest part is that there are real live people who willingly do this for
a living. Nothing will ever change as long as this behavior is enabled or
encouraged.

~~~
Clubber
My question is there any residue on the crops when they come to market in the
grocery store?

~~~
cestith
Well, I'm sure not all of it is in the drinking water downstream from the
fields where it's over-applied beyond concentrations even Monsanto recommends.
So it has to go somewhere. Still, a largely plant-based diet will help your
health more than hurt it.

[https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/natural-
health/pe...](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/natural-
health/pesticides/index.htm)

It and one of its degradates are found in the majority of drinking water or
wastewater samples in some areas (different reports from different studies
report 18% and 36% of samples undegraded, 68% and 69% of AMPA). It's typically
far below what the EPA considers a safe level. That "safe level", of course,
is set based on understanding the body of safety studies about it.

[https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html](https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html)

I grew up along a major river in the Midwest. I've been reading studies and
study summaries about glyphosate for years. I'm less concerned, honestly, at
the levels I see reported about it being a carcinogen than as a possible
developmental neurotoxin and problem for reproduction.

[https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/pollutio...](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/pollution-
environment/neurobehavioral-effects-developmental-toxicity)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24636977](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24636977)

[http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-weedkiller-brain-
da...](http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-weedkiller-brain-damaging-
neurotoxin)

It's also found to be potentially far more toxic as mixed in Roundup than in
isolation.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-
her...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/)

[http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html](http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html)

Herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, including the herbicide glyphosate,
have been shown to potentially lead to gut microbe imbalances and other subtle
biological changes like immune, endocrine, and neurological symptoms.
Depression, autism, ADHD, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, birth defects,
miscarriage, and lupus are among the disorders other than cancers found to be
strongly correlated with working in or living near agriculture.

[http://chem-tox.com/agriculture/index.htm](http://chem-
tox.com/agriculture/index.htm)

Again, a largely plant-based diet will help your health more than hurt it. Be
sure to wash your food and maybe have some of it organic.

I'd like more and better studies on these chemicals, but neonicotinoids seem
to be a much bigger long-term threat than glyphosate.

