GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

2007 articles

The Excommunication of a Heretic

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 11 November 2007
Created: 11 November 2007
Last Updated: 22 October 2012
Twitter

13th November 2007

Translated from the German-language Swiss weekly newspaper WOZ
and published originally on 1st November 2007

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


The Excommunication of a Heretic

by Roland Fischer


 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 enlarged.  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 experimenting with a new journalistic format, in which not everything went according to plan, or there was indeed something more sinister, 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 advocates, 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 she would never have agreed to participate in the game .

 '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 must accept 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. The GM lobbyists couldn't pass up this opportunity of destroying the credibility of all of their critics at a single stroke.

-----------------------------------------

Note from GM Free Cymru:
This article has been translated with the kind assistance of the author and other German speakers.  As for the last sentence of the piece, the credibility of GM critics will certainly not have been damaged in the least by this grubby little episode, and history may well show that Nature Biotechnology has facilitated a spectacular 'own goal' by Chassy, Giddings, Moses and McHughen.
The full sequence of events is carefully described here:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm
and the dummy proof which was used to mislead Ermakova into thinking this was to be 'her' article is located here:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents.htm

  • Prev
  • Next

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design