2.Shame on 'wormy' research 2
EXTRACT: 'The paper describing the work should not be allowed to remain in the literature, yet the authors refuse to withdraw their paper, offering instead less and less plausible accounts of what happened to the sign.' - Prof. Peter Saunders (item 2)
---
1.Shame on 'wormy' research
Times Higher Education, 14 February 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=400590&c=2
You reported on our open letter signed by 40 scientists to the British Food Journal calling for a research paper to be retracted, but you let both the paper's senior author and the journal editor justify research that almost all other scientists, and certainly non-scientists, would find unacceptable ('Researchers call on journal to retract paper on GM food', 7 February).
The paper failed even in honest reporting. If Times Higher Education were to write up such a biased survey and say it shows consumers prefer to buy genetically modified food, it would be a matter for the Press Complaints Commission.
Worse still, the paper was given an award for excellence.
An article posted on the Institute of Science in Society website shows how seriously politicians are taking the matter (www.i-sis.org.uk/politiciansDenounceGMOTricks.php). It resulted in an early day motion tabled by Michael Meacher MP, which attracted 27 signatures, the latest being that of Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party and Scotland's First Minister. It was also denounced in the Irish Senate, and Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott is taking the matter to the European Parliament.
Mae-Wan Ho, Director, Institute of Science in Society
---
Shame on 'wormy' research 2
Times Higher Education, 14 February 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=400591§ioncode=26
As any first-year statistics undergraduate could tell you, if you want to find out whether customers prefer GM or conventional corn, putting a sign saying, 'Would you eat wormy corn?', over one of the bins makes the results worthless. The paper describing the work should not be allowed to remain in the literature, yet the authors refuse to withdraw their paper, offering instead less and less plausible accounts of what happened to the sign.
You'd also think this was just the sort of thing that the various groups who have set themselves up as the guardians of 'sound science' would be very concerned about. In fact, they have said nothing.
Peter Saunders, Department of mathematics, King's College London