Retraction Watch

<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">6/15 backup of academic review:</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Academics Review</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">made bones on?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/?s=seralini">http://retractionwatch.com/?s=seralini</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> 2012 paper co-authored by Gilles Seralini, who has published <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/?s=seralini" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">controversial research showing the dangers of genetically modified foods</a>, has been plagiarized by another researcher.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 2016 paper, published in the <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://www.ijtra.com/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">International Journal of Technical Research and Applications</a></em>, has not been retracted, but the text comparison is fairly obvious.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s a case of intra-predatory crime: the <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">International Journal of Technical Research and Applications </em>is on the <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">list of predatory journals</a> compiled by Jeffrey Beall, and the Seralini paper appeared in the <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Journal of Environmental Protection</em>, which is published by Scientific Research Publishing, which Beall considers to be a <a href="https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">predatory publisher</a>.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s the abstract from Seralini’s 2012 paper, “<a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22645" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Glyphosate Exposure in a Farmer’s Family</a>:” <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/16/seralini-paper-on-pesticide-dangers-plagiarized-four-years-later/#more-36735" class="more-link" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Read the rest of this entry »</a></font></p><div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social sd-social-icon-text sd-sharing" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><h3 class="sd-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Share this:</font></h3></div><div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social sd-social-icon-text sd-sharing" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><h3 class="sd-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></h3></div><div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social sd-social-icon-text sd-sharing" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><h3 class="sd-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2/16</font></h3></div><div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social sd-social-icon-text sd-sharing" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><h3 class="sd-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; font-weight: 400;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A paper claiming genetically modified corn may be toxic over long periods has disappeared one day after it was presented at a press conference, after the journal’s domain name expired.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; font-weight: 400;">The paper, co-authored by Gilles Seralini — who has published <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/?s=seralini" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">controversial research showing harms of GM food</a> — appeared in the <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences (SJAS)</em>. On Tuesday, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (Criigen) <a href="http://www.criigen.org/communique/99/display/The-first-GMO-Bt-crop-to-be-commercialized-was-toxic-to-animals-over-the-long-term" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">scheduled a press conference about the findings</a>, noting the finding presented</p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; background-image: url("images/quote.gif"); background-position: left top; background-size: initial; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; min-height: 50px; font-weight: 400;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;">new scientific data on Bt toxins and a thorough study of the records show that this<strong style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> GMO Bt maize is most probably toxic over the long term.</strong></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; font-weight: 400;">But on Wednesday January 27, the journal’s domain name expired. This isn’t a retraction per se, but a disappearance. Now, any link to the study “Pathology reports on the first cows fed with Bt176 maize (1997–2002)” goes to <a href="http://ww2.scholarly-journals.com/?folio=7POYGN0G2" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">this page</a>, which says in the bottom right corner: <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/27/seralini-paper-claiming-gmo-toxicity-disappears-after-journal-domain-expires/#more-36333" class="more-link" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Read the rest of this entry »</a></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; font-weight: 400;">---</p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; font-weight: 400;">1/16</p></h3></div></div></div><div><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper</a>:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; background: url("images/quote.gif") left top no-repeat rgb(255, 255, 255); min-height: 50px;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">E</i><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">nvironmental Sciences Europe</i>, <a href="http://www.bio5.rwth-aachen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49:prof-dr-henner-hollert&catid=34:institutsleiter&Itemid=138&lang=en" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Henner Hollert</a>, but neither responded.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hollert has responded to the same question from <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Nature</em>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">which reports</a>: <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/#more-21243" class="more-link" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Read the rest of this entry »</a></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ivan 6/14</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">highly controversial — and <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">retracted</a> — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been <a href="http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">republished</a>.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Food and Chemical Toxicology</em> decided to retract the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">heavily criticized</a> paper because it was “<a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">inconclusive</a>.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/16/journal-editor-defends-retraction-of-gmo-rats-study-while-authors-reveal-some-of-papers-history/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">we and many others disagreed</a>.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22999595" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">original abstract of the <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Food and Chemical Toxicology</em> paper</a>, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/#more-21180" class="more-link" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Read the rest of this entry »</a></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><h2 id="post-51375" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 7px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/10/unearthed-docs-monsanto-connected-campaign-retract-gmo-paper/" rel="bookmark" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Unearthed emails: Monsanto connected to campaign to retract GMO paper</font></a></h2><p class="comments" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(187, 187, 187); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/10/unearthed-docs-monsanto-connected-campaign-retract-gmo-paper/#comments" style="padding: 0px 7px 5px 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">with 14 comments</font></a></p><div class="main" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A trove of internal documents from Monsanto, recently unsealed in a lawsuit against the agricultural biotech giant, has revealed the firm’s role in the knotty tale of a paper from the lab of a scientist known for his stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).</b></font></span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">That paper is “</span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">,” published in September 2012 in the journal</span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> Food and Chemical Toxicology </i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">(FCT) and </span><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">retracted in January 2014</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">. </span><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/?s=gilles+seralini" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Gilles Seralini</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, a scientist known for an adversarial stance towards GMOs, was first author. The documents have also spurred the retraction of several pro-GMO articles on Forbes.com written by Henry Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. Emails showed that one of the articles, which didn’t discuss Seralini’s paper, was ghostwritten by Monsanto.</span></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">The </span><a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">documents</span></a>, posted last week by the law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman,<span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> show Monsanto engaged with a network of scientists and other commentators to spread the message that the Seralini paper was bad science and should be retracted. Seralini told Retraction Watch that this proves what he has been saying all along, that Monsanto led a concentrated effort to discredit his science and protect its bottom line. He said:</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="more-51375" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" /></font></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I deduced from the beginning that it was organized….</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>But the effort to counteract Seralini’s work was not one-sided.</b> [what?! huh logic?] Bruce Chassy, at the time a professor at the University of Illinois, now retired, told us he approached Monsanto to ask if they would act as allies “in the fight against the abuse of science,” in the form of anti-GMO research that he believed to be shoddy. He said that he has been critical of Monsanto’s business practices, but thinks they hire good scientists and are thus a good source of information on GMOs:</font></span></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If I can use Monsanto to get science a fair hearing, I’ll do it. Since they know more about this than anybody else, they’re the people to go to.</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Monsanto tried to ensure that the campaign to retract the 2012 paper wouldn’t be linked back to the company. On Sept. 26, 2012 — a week after the paper came out, </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/7-Monsanto-Personnel-Discusses-Plan-Seeking-Retraction-of-Serlani-Glyphosate-Study.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Eric Sachs, a Monsanto executive, wrote several colleagues</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> to emphasize:</span></font></p><blockquote style="background-image: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" background-position="background-position" left="left" top="top" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We have done our part. It is time now for the public sector and especially our network of experts to do theirs…</font></span></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper… There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products.</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">To achieve this, Monsanto coordinated with the scientists mentioned in the documents on what to say in response to and how to maximize the impact of the response. Based on the documents obtained, that took the form of published articles, including letters to the editor of </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><b>FCT</b></i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><b>,</b> at least one of which called for retraction.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><b style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A contentious paper</font></b></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Seralini should be no stranger to our regular readers — controversy has followed the 2012 paper at almost every turn, from the <a href="https://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/stenographers-anyone-gmo-rat-study-co-sponsor-engineered-embargo-to-prevent-scrutiny/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">irregular methods Seralini used to promote it</a> to the media (such as asking some journalists to sign a non-disclosure agreement to see it in advance of publication) to initial publication in </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">. Even after it was retracted, it was republished in 2014 — by a journal that </span><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">didn’t subject it to peer review</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">. The <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</em> version has been cited 54 times since it was retracted, and 95 in total, <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/WOS-boilerplate3.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science</a>, earning it Clarivate’s “highly cited paper” designation.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">In a </span><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">statement issued</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> after the retraction, Seralini accused Monsanto of promoting criticisms of the paper and installing a former employee on the </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> editorial board.</span></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">While the documents highlight close ties between Monsanto and at least four people who criticized the study, plenty of scientists criticized the paper’s scientific merits in both the </span><a href="https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-academies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">mainstream</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> and </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">academic</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> press. Still, the <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/16/journal-editor-defends-retraction-of-gmo-rats-study-while-authors-reveal-some-of-papers-history/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">decision to retract</a> was as contentious as the decision to publish. An </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> investigation found no evidence of fraud, misconduct, or gross error, which are required by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for retraction; however, </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> cited COPE guidelines in their </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">retraction notice</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> anyway.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">As our co-founder Ivan Oransky </span><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-on-genetically-modified-corn-herbicide-and-tumors-reignites-controversy/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">told </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">CBS News</span></i></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> in 2014, after the paper was </span><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">republished</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> in a different journal:</span></font></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This whole episode has taken us farther away from knowing the truth …</font></span></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is a good example of what happens when people with hardened beliefs manipulate a system for the result they want …</font></span></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><b style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter”</font></b></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">The </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/7-Monsanto-Personnel-Discusses-Plan-Seeking-Retraction-of-Serlani-Glyphosate-Study.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">documents show that Monsanto was in contact with Chassy</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, who wrote several pieces attacking Seralini’s paper. On Sept. 25, 2012, Chassy </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170423075529/https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/#61a4757a689a" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">co-authored an article with Henry Miller</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, the fellow at the conservative think tank, which Miller published in his capacity as a Forbes.com contributor. The article suggested that Seralini had gone beyond “bad science” and into fraud. That article and two other posts from Miller related to GMOs have since been removed from Forbes.com, but are available through the internet archive (one, </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120923144417/https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/02/22/the-science-of-things-that-arent-so/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">co-written with Chassy</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, criticized an earlier 2012 Seralini paper; the other was </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/22-Internal-Email-Demonstrating-Monsanto-Ghostwriting-Article-Criticizing-IARC-for-Press.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">ghost-written by Monsanto</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> itself in 2015).</span></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mia Carbonell, senior VP of global communications at Forbes, told Retraction Watch that it has pulled down all of Miller’s articles on its site, because he violated the terms of his contract:</font></span></p><blockquote style="background-image: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" background-position="background-position" left="left" top="top" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">All contributors to </span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Forbes.com</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing.  When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed all of his posts from </span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Forbes.com</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> and ended our relationship with him.</span></font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b style="">Both Miller and Chassy said they weren’t involved in the decision to take down the Forbes articles and that they disagreed with the decision</b>. <span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Miller told us that, like Chassy, he has “sought information from [Monsanto] …on scientific issues when I thought they had information of value.” He said he does not have a financial connection to Monsanto. Chassy said that he has never personally accepted money from Monsanto, although his university did [see update].</span></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">One day after the Forbes.com article ran, Chassy sent </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> Editor-in-chief A. Wallace “Wally” Hayes a </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/9-Email-from-Monsanto-Collaborator-to-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Journal.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">strongly-worded email</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> in which he said the journal had an “ethical obligation” to retract the paper.</span></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Chassy was also </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007922" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">one of 25 co-authors of a formal letter to the editor</span></a> of the FCT <span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">t</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">h</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">a</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">t</span> <span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">c</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">a</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">l</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">l</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">e</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">d</span> <span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">f</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">o</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">r</span> the paper’s <span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">r</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">e</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">t</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">r</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">a</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">c</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">t</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">i</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">o</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">n</span><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">. (The letter has not been cited.) In September 2012, as the letter was being drafted, a Monsanto staff member asked about the company’s involvement with it and expressed hesitation about whether the company should even disclose its knowledge of the letter to investors. </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/14-Monsanto-Emails-Confirming-Undisclosed-Involvement-in-Successful-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Sachs wrote</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">:</span></font></p><blockquote style="background-image: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" background-position="background-position" left="left" top="top" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">We are “connected” but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">As </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">reported by the </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">New York Times</span></i></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, Hayes himself had a </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/10-Monsanto-Consulting-Agreement-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Editor.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">“contractual relationship” with Monsanto</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> while he was editor of </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">. Hayes, now an adjunct professor at the University of Massachusetts, told the </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Times</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> he was not under contract with Monsanto when the paper was retracted and that his relationship played “no role whatsoever” in that decision. However, Hayes was i</span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/7-Monsanto-Personnel-Discusses-Plan-Seeking-Retraction-of-Serlani-Glyphosate-Study.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">n contact with Monsanto executives soon after the paper came out</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, offering advice on what they might round up to submit to him as rebuttal.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">The docs also </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/70-Email-Details-Monsantos-Financial-Support-of-Glyphosate-Research-Without-Disclosing-Companys-Interest.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">reveal ties between Monsanto and Colin Berry,</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> a British toxicologist, who published his own letter in </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> criticizing the paper. On Sept. 20, 2012, the day after </span><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">FCT</i><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> published the Seralini paper, </span><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/12-Monsanto-Email-Confirming-Companys-Intimate-Relationship-with-Wallace-Hayes.pdf" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Berry emailed David Saltmiras</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, his contact at Monsanto, to ask:</span></font></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Have you seen this? I have been asked to comment asap – anything you want to say[?]</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Saltmiras replied:</font></span></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I hope scientist of your caliber and standing may consider penning a joint letter to the Editor focusing on scientific deficiencies and the flawed scientific review process.</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">A third scientist, </span><a href="http://abtrnetwork.com/andrewcockburn.html" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Andrew Cockburn</span></a><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">, a toxicology consultant who at the time was a visiting professor at UK’s University of Newcastle, was also on the email chain and chimed in:</span></font></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">…if you can provide the ammunition I’d be happy to respond …</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Monsanto did not respond to Retraction Watch’s request for comment.</b></font></span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sachs, the Monsanto executive, realized the risks of attacking the decision to publish the paper and call for retraction. On Sept. 26, as he insisted it should not be Monsanto to swing the axe, he wrote:</font></span></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We should not provide ammunition for Seralini, [genetic modification] critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted.</font></span></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Update 8/11/2017 </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">UTC 14:30:</span></font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bruce Chassy told us that he had never personally received money from Monsanto; however, several readers have pointed out that he has in fact accepted thousands of dollars from Monsanto</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, routed through the University of Illinois Foundation and nominally slated for “outreach” to avoid scrutiny. A </span><a href="https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Chicago Public Radio investigation</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> from March 2016 showed:</span></font></p><blockquote style="background: url(" images="images" quote.gif="quote.gif" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding="padding" px="px" margin="margin" min-height="min-height"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto sent more than $140,000 in “biotech research and outreach” payments through the University of Illinois Foundation between 2006 and June 2012, the month Chassy retired. Further documents confirm that at least $57,000 was routed to Chassy over a period of 23 months.</font></p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?r=0" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">New York Times</i> article</a> from September 2015 said that in 2011 Monsanto gave Chassy a grant for an undisclosed amount “to support ‘biotechnology outreach and education activities.’”</font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">usrtk</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/julie-kelly-cooks-up-propaganda-for-the-agrichemical-industry/">https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/julie-kelly-cooks-up-propaganda-for-the-agrichemical-industry/</a></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style=""><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelly is a food writer and cooking instructor who emerged in 2015 as a fierce advocate for the agrichemical industry, with articles defending pesticides, arguing against GMO labeling and attacking the organic food industry. Her work has appeared in the <a target="blank" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/author/julie-kelly2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">National Review</a>, The Hill, <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/julie-kelly" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Huffington Post</a>, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelly has not disclosed her funding sources.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Julie Kelly’s husband, <a target="blank" href="http://www.allcirco.com/john-j-kelly-jr" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">John Kelly Jr</a>., is a lobbyist for the <a target="blank" href="http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/mihalopoulos-ethanol-producer-tops-off-burkes-political-fund/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">agribusiness giant ADM</a>, among other corporate clients including Blackstone and CVS;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> and government clients including </span><a target="blank" href="http://press.senaterepublicancaucus.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=152848" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">DuPage County</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> where Julie Kelly </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120822/news/708229665/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">formerly worked</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> as a policy consultant to county board chairman Dan Cronin.</span></font></p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Articles Dropped from Forbes</font></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In August 2017, Forbes deleted articles by Julie Kelly that share a byline with <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Henry I. Miller</a>, a Hoover Institution fellow, following revelations that Monsanto ghostwrote an article attacking the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which Miller published under his own name in Forbes.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The New York Times <a target="blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">reported on Aug. 1</a>:</font></p><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Documents show that Henry I. Miller asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations.</font></li></ul><p style="margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Retraction Watch <a target="blank" href="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/10/unearthed-docs-monsanto-connected-campaign-retract-gmo-paper/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">further reported</a>: </span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">Forbes “has pulled down all of Miller’s articles on its site, because he violated the terms of his contract” which calls for authors “to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing.”</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The emails, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/22-Internal-Email-Demonstrating-Monsanto-Ghostwriting-Article-Criticizing-IARC-for-Press.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">posted here</a>, show how corporations work with with writers like Miller to promote industry talking points while keeping their collaborations secret. In this case, a Monsanto executive asked Miller to write a column and provided him with a “still quite rough draft” as “a good start for your magic.” The rough draft appeared a few days later, largely unchanged, under Miller’s name in <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160306162557/http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/03/20/march-madness-from-the-united-nations/#3a39a8be2e93" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">this Forbes column</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">Kelly and Miller have <a target="blank" href="http://www.hoover.org/profiles/julie-kelly" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">co-written at least a dozen articles</a> together, promoting pesticides, arguing for deregulation and attacking the organic industry</b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Kelly articles removed from the Forbes website include, among others: “Federal Subsidies to Organic Agriculture Should be Plowed Under” (7.12.17),  “Will the Trump Administration Usher in an Era of Less Cronyism and Pay-to-Play?” (11.16.16) and  “How Organic Agriculture Evolved from Marketing Tool to Evil Empire” (12.2.15).</span></font></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Inaccuracies</font></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">A July 12, 2017 article attacking the organic industry — removed from the web by Forbes because of the co-byline with Henry I. Miller — Kelly and Miller cited an </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Academics Review </b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">report attacking the organic industry as a reputable, independent source. Documents show Academics Review was set up as a front group </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">with the help of Monsanto</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> and </span><a target="blank" href="http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">with industry funding</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> to attack the organic industry and critics of GMOs.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Dec. 2, 2015 article in<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"> </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/12/02/how-organic-agriculture-evolved-from-marketing-tool-to-evil-empire/#4c80312f1f19" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Forbes</a> co-written by Kelly and Miller falsely claimed that University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta “turned over almost 5,000 emails” in response to <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/our-investigation-of-big-food-and-its-front-groups/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">pubic records requests</a>, “only <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">one </em>of which showed any connection with Monsanto.” In fact, the <a target="blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?r=0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">New York Times</a> posted <a target="blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-uoffloridadocs.html#document/p1/a238328" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">174 pages</a> of Folta’s emails showing many interactions with Monsanto and <a href="https://usrtk.org/russias-pr-firm-runs-the-agrichemical-industrys-big-pr-salvo-on-gmos/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Ketchum</a>, the agrichemical industry’s PR firm.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelly has <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-kelly/dont-be-fooled-by-gmo-lab_b_9337068.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">claimed</a>, inaccurately, that genetically engineered foods lead to lower pesticide use and create huge advantages for farmers; in fact, GMOs have led to <a target="blank" href="https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">higher</a> overall herbicide use due to herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and farmers have <a target="blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?smid=fb-share" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">experienced many problems</a>.</font></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Manufacturing Doubt about Climate Science / Pesticide Risk</font></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Julie Kelly’s work includes:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Casting doubt on the science of climate change in the <a target="blank" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">National Review</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Attacks on climate activists, for example tweeting to Bill McKibben, “You are a piece of shit.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben-.png" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img class="alignnone wp-image-3906" src="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben--300x117.png" alt="" width="467" height="182" srcset="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben--300x117.png 300w, https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben--768x300.png 768w, https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben--1024x400.png 1024w, https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben-.png 1188w" sizes="(max-width: 467px) 100vw, 467px" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: middle; border-radius: 5px; display: block; max-width: 100%; height: auto;" /></font></a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Calling on Congress to defund the International Agency for Research on Cancer,</b> the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, in <a target="blank" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/315715-congress-should-investigate-collusion-with-international-cancer" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">The Hill</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Kelly’s frequent co-author Miller is a <a target="blank" href="http://cei.org/adjunct-scholar/henry-i-miller" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">member of the “scientific advisory board”</a> of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is famous for its oil and gas <a target="blank" href="https://www.desmogblog.com/george-c-marshall-institute" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">industry funded denials</a> of climate change. In articles co-bylined with Miller, Kelly has:</font></p><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a target="blank" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426417/organic-farms-wasting-water-and-land-far-lower-yields-henry-i-miller-julie-kelly" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Argued</a> that organic farms are “an affront to the environment.”</font></li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a target="blank" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/438883/print" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Promoted</a> DDT as an effective pesticide that should not have been banned, and argued that “green zealots” and “ignorant ideological activists” could ruin the food supply by pressuring EPA to ban Monsanto’s glyphosate.</font></li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/11/16/will-the-trump-administration-usher-in-an-era-of-less-cronyism-and-pay-to-play/2/#366433204084" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Described the Trump Administration</a> as likely to usher in an era of “greater governmental transparency and accountability, and a more level playing field” that could be a huge boon to the GMO industry.</font></li></ul><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Hoover Institution, which <a target="blank" href="http://www.hoover.org/profiles/julie-kelly" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">promotes Kelly’s work,</a> has a mission to “limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.” Its <a target="blank" href="http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/4/21/how-the-hoover-institution-vacuums-up-big-conservative-bucks.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">top funder</a> is the <a target="blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Sarah Scaife Foundation</a>, which was identified in a 2013 <a target="blank" href="http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Drexel University study</a> as among “the largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial” and a foundation that promotes “ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.”</font></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chemical Industry Allies</font></span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">USRTK has compiled a series of fact sheets about writers and PR groups the agrichemical industry relies on to manufacture doubt about science that raises concern about risky products and argue against environmental health protections.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">– <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Why You Can’t Trust Henry I. Miller<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></a></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">– <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/kavin_senapathy_henry_miller/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Why Forbes Deleted Some Kavin Senapathy Articles</a></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/julie-kelly-cooks-up-propaganda-for-the-agrichemical-industry/?preview_id=2378&preview_nonce=218ca965dd&post_format=standard&thumbnail_id=2381&preview=true" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></a></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">– </em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">The American Council on Science and Health is  Corporate Front Group</a></em><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">– <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Jon Entine of Genetic Literacy Project: The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger</a></em><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">– <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/trevor-butterworth-spins-science-for-industry/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Trevor Butterworth / Sense About Science Spins Science for Industry<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></a></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">– <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Does Science Media Centre Push Corporate Views of Science?</a></em></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); margin: 0px 0px 25px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Follow the USRTK investigation of Big Food and its front groups: <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/</a></font></p><div class="clearfix" style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box;"><footer class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px;"><div class="entry-meta-category-tag" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="cat-links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="categories-icon glyphicon glyphicon-th-list" title="Posted in" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;"> <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/food-for-thought/" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Food For Thought</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/our-investigations/" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Our Investigations</a> </span><span class="tags-links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="tags-icon glyphicon glyphicon-tags" title="Tagged" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;">  <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/american-council-on-science-and-health/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">American Council on Science and Health</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/bill-mckibben/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Bill McKibben</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/climate-change-science-denial/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">climate change science denial</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/henry-miller/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Henry Miller</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/hoover-institute/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Hoover Institute</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/julie-kelly/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Julie Kelly</a></span></span></span></font></div></footer></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Willie Soon, a climate change skeptic at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?r=0%20" style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">took money from fossil fuel interests without disclosing it in papers</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><em style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The New York Times</em><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">reports. (The</span><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Boston Globe</em><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">had</span><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/01/26/harvard-smithsonian-climate-change-skeptic-accused-violating-academic-disclosure-agreement/Y1uMQ8yuLpYCjOHGckRArO/story.html" style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">some of this in a story in January</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.) The story has prompted an investigation by Congress that has</span><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><a href="https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/" style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">snared an unlikely target, Roger Pielke, Jr.</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and an op-ed by the </span><em style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Globe’s </em><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dante Ramos in which he points out that “for institutions, the term [academic freedom] </span><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/24/academic-freedom-for-sale/KC5jr8K6FVd9RpOxmFB6cI/story.html" style="line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">shouldn’t be bureaucratese for ‘looking the other way.’</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“</span></font></div><div><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2015/02/28/weekend-reads-p-values-banned-climate-skeptic-fails-to-disclose-corporate-funding-editors-behaving-badly/">http://retractionwatch.com/2015/02/28/weekend-reads-p-values-banned-climate-skeptic-fails-to-disclose-corporate-funding-editors-behaving-badly/</a></font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Former staff: </span><strong style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px;">Cat Ferguson</strong><span style="line-height: 18px;"> was Retraction Watch’s </span><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/09/meet-the-first-ever-retraction-watch-intern-and-thanks-readers/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px;">first intern</a><span style="line-height: 18px;"> — and was our first staff writer. She came to us from the </span><a href="http://scicom.ucsc.edu/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px;">University of California, Santa Cruz’s Science Communication Program</a><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span></span><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and had already written for the </span><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/valuable-antibodies-at-a-grisly-cost.html" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">New Yorker</em> online</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829205.600-old-smartphones-called-in-to-save-indonesian-forests.html#.U5R-2XZA6Ik" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">for</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">New Scientist</em><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, among other outlets. She’s now a reporter at BuzzFeed. To learn more about Cat, check out her </span><a href="http://catferg.com/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">website</a><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/11/researchers-call-for-retraction-of-nejm-paper-showing-dangers-of-e-cigarettes/#comment-704232</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">book and film = coi? really?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><h2 id="post-21180" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 7px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/" rel="bookmark" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished</font></a></h2><p class="comments" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(187, 187, 187); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/#comments" style="padding: 0px 7px 5px 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">with 39 comments</font></a></p><div class="main" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A highly controversial — and <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">retracted</a> — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been <a href="http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">republished</a>.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Food and Chemical Toxicology</em> decided to retract the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">heavily criticized</a> paper because it was “<a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">inconclusive</a>.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/16/journal-editor-defends-retraction-of-gmo-rats-study-while-authors-reveal-some-of-papers-history/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">we and many others disagreed</a>.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22999595" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">original abstract of the <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Food and Chemical Toxicology</em> paper</a>, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge:<span id="more-21180" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" /></font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">new paper</a>, which appears in a different journal (more on that in a moment), includes a new analysis. Here’s the abstract:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Background</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Results</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conclusion</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The team circulated an embargoed version of the study to members of the media last week. They withheld the name of the journal — a highly unusual move about which our sister blog, <a href="http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/seralini-republishes-retracted-gmo-rats-paper-again-with-an-unusual-embargo/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Embargo Watch, has more</a> — and said the name would be released at a press conference that’s starting as this post goes live. That omission — which Seralini told Retraction Watch was to prevent GMO and Roundup maker Monsanto from pressuring editors to revoke publication — extended to a passage that appears in italics before the study (more on this passage in a moment):</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Empirical natural and social sciences produce knowledge which should describe and explain past and present phenomena and estimate their future development. To this end quantitative methods are used. Progress in science needs controversial debates aiming at the best methods as basis for objective, reliable and valid results approximating what could be the truth. Such methodological competition is the energy needed for scientific progress. In this sense, [the editor] aims to enable rational discussions dealing with the article from G.-E. Séralini et al. (Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50:4221–4231) by re-publishing it. By doing so, any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted. The only aim is to enable scientific transparency and, based on this, a discussion which does not hide but aims to focus methodological controversies. [the editor and journal’s name will be released at the press conference, June 24th]</font></em></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Retraction Watch learned yesterday, however, that <a href="http://www.enveurope.com/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Environmental Sciences Europe</i></a> — a journal where Seralini has <a href="http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">published before</a> — was the journal publishing the new version. The journal, part of SpringerOpen, is too young to have an official Impact Factor (IF). <a href="http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19900191887&tip=sid&clean=0" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Using the same calculation</a>, however, the journal would have an IF of .55. That would place it about 190th out of the 210 journals in the “environmental sciences” category at Thomson Scientific. (For comparison, Food and Chemical Toxicology has an IF of just above 3, and a ranking of 27th.)</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is hardly the first time that the authors of a retracted paper have <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/25/ask-retraction-watch-can-authors-republish-their-own-previous-work-as-as-review/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">republished it</a>. In a recent case, they did so <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/29/researchers-repeat-retracted-study-republish-in-same-journal-sans-first-author/%20" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">in the same journal</a>. But in a more typical case, they <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2012/01/18/sebastiani-and-perls-longevity-work-finds-a-new-home-in-plos-one-following-science-retraction/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">republished the work in another journal</a>, with a lower IF.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">E<i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">nvironmental Sciences Europe</i></i>, <a href="http://www.bio5.rwth-aachen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49:prof-dr-henner-hollert&catid=34:institutsleiter&Itemid=138&lang=en" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Henner Hollert</a>, but neither responded.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seralini and his colleagues provide a timeline in the press materials of their version of events. One element in particular caught our eye:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wallace Hayes wrote an article to defend his position that raises doubts about his understanding of the study and raw data. He mentions in his defense he was unable to conclude that “there was a clear link between GMO and cancer.” An obvious error of W. Hayes as the term “cancer” has never been mentioned in the paper of Séralini’s research team. And it does not affect any aspect of the research on Roundup.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Now, “tumor” and “cancer” are <a href="http://pathology.jhu.edu/pc/BasicTypes1.php" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">not necessarily the same thing</a>. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But the original paper certainly referred to tumors repeatedly, and Seralini, as </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Nature</em> reported at the time</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">,</span></font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">…has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a<b> tightly orchestrated media offensive</b> that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Speaking of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tous-cobayes-pesticides-produits-chimiques/dp/2081300923/ref=la_B001K7OMLK_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403576083&sr=1-1" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">book</a> and film about Seralini’s work, the authors — who have lambasted their critics for failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest, including in a paper published alongside the new version – didn’t declare them as conflicts:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests, and that, in contrast with regulatory assessments for GMOs and pesticides, they are independent from companies developing these products.</font></p></blockquote><div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social sd-social-icon-text sd-sharing" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><h2 id="post-21243" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 7px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/" rel="bookmark" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor</font></a></h2><p class="comments" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(187, 187, 187); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/#comments" style="padding: 0px 7px 5px 0px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">with 38 comments</font></a></p><div class="main" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper</a>:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. </span>We asked Seralini and the editor of <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: initial;">E<i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">nvironmental Sciences Europe</i></i>, <a href="http://www.bio5.rwth-aachen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49:prof-dr-henner-hollert&catid=34:institutsleiter&Itemid=138&lang=en" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: initial;">Henner Hollert</a>, but neither responded.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hollert has responded to the same question from <em style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Nature</em>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">which reports</a>:<span id="more-21243" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" /></font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: initial;">Environmental Sciences Europe</i> (<i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: initial;">ESEU</i>) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper, editor-in-chief Henner Hollert told <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: initial;">Nature</i>. “We were Springer Publishing’s first open access journal on the environment, and are a platform for discussion on science and regulation at a European and regional level.”<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">ESEU </i>conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Food and Chemical Toxicology</i>, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.</span>” The role of the three reviewers hired by <i style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: initial;">ESEU</i> was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is actually what we thought that passage meant, and that makes it all the more mystifying why Seralini told us, in press materials and in a follow-up email, that the republished paper was peer-reviewed. At least one Retraction Watch commenter has <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/#comment-115740" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">repeated that claim</a>.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s this sort of thing that made one of us (Ivan) say the following <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-on-genetically-modified-corn-herbicide-and-tumors-reignites-controversy/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">when a reporter from CBS News called earlier this week</a>:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This whole episode has taken us farther away from knowing the truth,” Ivan Oransky, a founder and editor of <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/" target="blank" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">retractionwatch.com</a>, told CBS News.</font></p><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The ratio of politics to science when it comes to discussions of GMOs [genetically modified organisms] is so high that I think it often ceases to be useful,” said Oransky, a journalist with a medical degree who is also vice president and global editorial director of <a href="http://medpagetoday.com/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</a>.</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also said:</font></p><blockquote style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 60px; margin: 0px; min-height: 50px; background-image: url(http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;"><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This is a good example of what happens when people with hardened beliefs manipulate a system for the result they want,” Oransky told CBS News. “Science should be about following the evidence, appropriately changing your mind if the evidence warrants it. But in this case people seem to reject the evidence that doesn’t suit their needs.”</font></p></blockquote><p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><span style="line-height: 28.16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ivan Oransky is a journalist, as well as a medical doctor, who broke this story. He is co-founder of the blog Retraction Watch and global editorial director of MedPage Today, an online medical news service for physicians and other medical professions.</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">---</font></div><div><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="xn-location" itemprop="contentLocation" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Place" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">EW YORK</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, July 17, 2013 /</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">PRNewswire/ </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-- </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://corporate.everydayhealth.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Everyday Health, Inc</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the leading health and wellness media company, has announced today that </span><span class="xn-person" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Ivan Oransky</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, M.D., </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">formerly Executive Editor, Reuters Health,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> has joined the company as Vice President and Global Editorial Director for </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the trusted resource for breaking medical news and critical information for healthcare professionals. Oransky joins Everyday Health's preeminent roster of MD reporters and contributors including </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/TheGuptaGuide/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Sanjay Gupta</a>, MD,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Kevin Pho</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, MD.  Everyday Health attracts 41 million monthly visitors and staffs the largest medical news gathering team in the country.</span></font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(Logo: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20101112/NY00568LOGO" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20101112/NY00568LOGO</a>)</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(Logo: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110317/NY67235LOGO" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110317/NY67235LOGO</a>)</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oransky's primary responsibility will be to lead the global content strategy by developing new <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> offerings in news, features, and commentary.  <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> publishes daily, reaching 35 medical specialties as well as healthcare administrators, policy-makers, and medical researchers. Through a variety of strategic partnerships and e-newsletters <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> delivers peer-reviewed news from medical journals as well as more than 100 medical conferences worldwide to more than a third of U.S. physicians and a half million allied health professionals daily.</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Everyday Health continually invests to provide the best user experience to our audience of consumers and professionals," said <span class="xn-person" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Paul Slavin</span>, Chief Operating Officer, Everyday Health. "With the addition of Dr. Oransky, <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> furthers its leadership position in providing medical news coverage on a global scale. This will be a great benefit to our fast-growing audience of healthcare professionals."</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I'm excited to join <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> and work with <span class="xn-person" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Peggy Peck</span>, <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> Editor-in-Chief, and a highly-regarded team of journalists, many of whom I've known for years," Oransky said. "Medical news has the ability to help physicians and others provide better care. <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> continues to strive to provide doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other members of the health care team with the critical information they need to improve outcomes for their patients."</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Previously, Oransky was the executive editor of Reuters Health and held editorial leadership roles at publications such as <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Scientific American</i> and <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">The Scientist</i>. His byline has also appeared in the <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Boston Globe, Fitness</i>, <b>The <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Lancet, Slate, </i>and<i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;"> The Wall Street Journal</i>.</b> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As a frequent contributor of compelling and thought-provoking commentaries, Oransky is well-known to the audiences at NPR and the CBC, as well as readers of </span><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The</i><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span class="xn-org" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">New York Times</span>. </i><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">He has spoken at TEDMED, and has presented at both journalism and industry conferences worldwide.</span></font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word;"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Oransky also is the co-founder of </span><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Retraction Watch</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span></i><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and founder of </span><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Embargo Watch,</i><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> two blogs that bridge the gap between journalism and science.</span></font></b></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oransky also serves on the board of directors for the <b>Association of Health Care Journalists </b>and as AHCJ treasurer and is a member of the <b>National Association of Science Writers</b>. He has taught medical journalism in <span class="xn-org" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;"><b>New York University's</b></span> Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program since 2002, and has also taught at the <span class="xn-org" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">City University of New York's</span> Graduate School of Journalism. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the <span class="xn-org" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">New York University</span> School of Medicine, where he received his MD. During medical school, he served as co-Editor-in-Chief of <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Pulse</i>, the medical student section of the <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Journal of American Medical Association</i>. He completed his internship at <span class="xn-org" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Yale University</span> and has a BA from <span class="xn-org" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">Harvard</span>.</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">About <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i></b> <br style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i></a> is the leading medical news organization serving healthcare professionals. The company's daily, peer-reviewed news coverage delivered via the web and several mobile applications allows healthcare professionals to put breaking medical news into practice. <i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">MedPage Today</i> also offers coverage of health conferences from around the world in almost any specialty, and physicians can access live video interviews and dialogues to encourage conversation and better health outcomes.</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;">About Everyday Health, Inc.</b> <br style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://corporate.everydayhealth.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Everyday Health</a> is the leading digital health and wellness company.  Attracting 40+ million people monthly through its popular websites, mobile applications, and social media presence, Everyday Health inspires consumers to live healthier lives and helps doctors make more informed decisions for their patients. Everyday Health reaches an additional one million viewers per episode through its weekly TV series on ABC stations.  The company's broad portfolio of products spans the health spectrum, from in-depth medical content for condition prevention and management to healthy lifestyle offerings. Everyday Health was founded in 2002 by CEO, <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://corporate.everydayhealth.com/about-eh-management.aspx#Wolin" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Ben Wolin</a>, and President, <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://corporate.everydayhealth.com/about-eh-management.aspx#Keriakos" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Mike Keriakos</a>.</font></p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> <span style="line-height: 19.6000003814697px;">SOURCE Everyday Health, Inc.</span></font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 19.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RELATED LINKS</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><a title="Link to www.everydayhealth.com" href="http://www.everydayhealth.com/" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">www.everydayhealth.com</a><br style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><a title="Link to www.medpagetoday.com" href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">www.medpagetoday.com</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">claims leadership at sci am but this is recycled from nature?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">cams Prompt Attempt to Plug Holes in Scientific Publishing System</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>Some scientists have found highly unethical or duplicitous routes to tamper with and game the peer-review system designed to ensure the validity of findings</div><div> </div><div>By Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus,<b> Ivan Oransky </b>and Nature magazine | December 1, 2014</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>Lax password protection has resulted in breaches. </b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Most journal editors know how much effort it takes to persuade busy researchers to review a paper. That is why the editor of The Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry was puzzled by the reviews for manuscripts by one author — Hyung-In Moon, a medicinal-plant researcher then at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, South Korea.</div><div>
</div><div>The reviews themselves were not remarkable: mostly favourable, with some suggestions about how to improve the papers. What was unusual was how quickly they were completed — often within 24 hours. The turnaround was a little too fast, and Claudiu Supuran, the journal's editor-in-chief, started to become suspicious.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2012, he confronted Moon, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. The deception had not been hard to set up. Supuran's journal and several others published by Informa Healthcare in London invite authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> So Moon provided names, sometimes of real scientists and sometimes pseudonyms, often with bogus e-mail addresses that would go directly to him or his colleagues. His confession led to the retraction of 28 papers by several Informa journals, and the resignation of an editor.</span></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Moon's was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers' computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that — in at least one of the systems — could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. </span>“For a piece of software that's used by hundreds of thousands of academics worldwide, it really is appalling,” says Mark Dingemanse, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who has used some of these programs to publish and review papers.</div><div>
</div><div>But even the most secure software could be compromised. That is why some observers argue for changes to the way that editors assign papers to reviewers, particularly to end the use of reviewers suggested by a manuscript's authors. Even Moon, who accepts the sole blame for nominating himself and his friends to review his papers, argues that editors should police the system against people like him. “Of course authors will ask for their friends,” he said in August 2012, “but editors are supposed to check they are not from the same institution or co-authors on previous papers.”</div><div>
</div><div><b>Peer-review ring</b></div><div>
</div><div>Moon's case is by no means the most spectacular instance of peer-review rigging in recent years. That honor goes to a case that came to light in May 2013, when Ali Nayfeh, then editor-in-chief of the Journal of Vibration and Control, received some troubling news. An author who had submitted a paper to the journal told Nayfeh that he had received e-mails about it from two people claiming to be reviewers. Reviewers do not normally have direct contact with authors, and — strangely — the e-mails came from generic-looking Gmail accounts rather than from the professional institutional accounts that many academics use (see 'Red flags in review').</div><div>
</div><div>Nayfeh alerted SAGE, the company in Thousand Oaks, California, that publishes the journal. The editors there e-mailed both the Gmail addresses provided by the tipster, and the institutional addresses of the authors whose names had been used, asking for proof of identity and a list of their publications. One scientist responded — to say that not only had he not sent the e-mail, but he did not even work in the field.</div><div>
</div><div>This sparked a 14-month investigation that came to involve about 20 people from SAGE's editorial, legal and production departments. It showed that the Gmail addresses were each linked to accounts with Thomson Reuters' ScholarOne, a publication-management system used by SAGE and several other publishers, including Informa. Editors were able to track every paper that the person or people behind these accounts had allegedly written or reviewed, says SAGE spokesperson Camille Gamboa. They also checked the wording of reviews, the details of author-nominated reviewers, reference lists and the turnaround time for reviews (in some cases, only a few minutes). This helped the investigators to ferret out further <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">suspicious-looking accounts; they eventually found 130.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>As they worked through the list, SAGE investigators realized that authors were both reviewing and citing each other at an anomalous rate.</b> Eventually,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 60 articles </span>were found to have evidence of peer-review tampering, involvement in the citation ring or both. “Due to the serious nature of the findings, we wanted to ensure we had researched all avenues as carefully as possible before contacting any of the authors and reviewers,” says Gamboa.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">When the dust had settled, it turned out that there was one author in the center of the <b>ring:</b> Peter Chen,</span> an engineer then at the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan, who was a co-author on practically all of the papers in question. After “a series of unsatisfactory responses” from Chen, says Gamboa, SAGE contacted the NPUE, which joined the investigation into Chen's work. Chen resigned from his post in February 2014.</div><div>
</div><div>In May, Nayfeh resigned over the scandal at his journal, and SAGE contacted the authors of all 60 affected articles to let them know that the papers would be retracted. Chen could not be reached for comment for this story, but Taiwan's state-run news agency said in July that he had issued a statement taking sole responsibility for the peer-review and citation ring, and admitting to the “indiscreet practice” of adding Taiwan's education minister as a co-author on five of the papers without his knowledge. That minister, Chiang Wei-ling, denies any involvement, but nevertheless resigned “to uphold his own reputation and avoid unnecessary disturbance of the work of the education ministry”, according to a public statement.</div><div>
</div><div>The collateral damage did not stop there. A couple of authors have asked SAGE to reconsider and reinstate their papers, Gamboa says, but the publisher's decision is final — even if the authors in question knew nothing of Chen or the peer-review ring.</div><div>
</div><div>Password loophole</div><div>
</div><div>Moon and Chen both exploited a feature of ScholarOne's automated processes. When a reviewer is invited to read a paper, he or she is sent an e-mail with login information. If that communication goes to a fake e-mail account, the recipient can sign into the system under whatever name was initially submitted, with no additional identity verification. Jasper Simons, vice-president of product and market strategy for Thomson Reuters in Charlottesville, Virginia, says that ScholarOne is a respected peer-review system and that it is the responsibility of journals and their editorial teams to invite properly qualified reviewers for their papers.</div><div>
</div><div>Nature Publishing Group (NPG) owns a few journals that use ScholarOne, but Nature itself and Nature-branded journals use different software, developed by eJournalPress of Rockville, Maryland. Véronique Kiermer, Nature's executive editor and director of author and reviewer services for NPG in New York City, says that NPG does not seem to have been the victim of any such peer-review-rigging schemes.</div><div>
</div><div>But ScholarOne is not the only publishing system with vulnerabilities. Editorial Manager, built by Aries Systems in North Andover, Massachusetts, is used by many societies and publishers, including Springer and PLOS. The American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC uses a system developed in-house for its journals Science, Science Translational Medicine and Science Signaling, but its open-access offering, Science Advances, uses Editorial Manager. Elsevier, based in Amsterdam, uses a branded version of the same product, called the Elsevier Editorial System.</div><div>
</div><div>Editorial Manager's main issue is the way it manages passwords. When users forget their password, the system sends it to them by e-mail, in plain text. For PLOS ONE, it actually sends out a password, without prompting, whenever it asks a user to sign in, for example to review a new manuscript. Most modern web services, such as Google, hide passwords under layers of encryption to prevent them from being intercepted. That is why they require users to reset a password if they forget it, often coupled with checking identity in other ways.</div><div>
</div><div>SEE ALSO:</div><div>Energy & Sustainability: 5 Steps to Feed the World and Sustain the Planet | Evolution: What Siberian Burials Reveal about the Relationship between Humans and Dogs | Health: The Conflicted History of Alcohol in Western Civilization | Mind & Brain: Nail Biting May Arise from Perfectionism | Space: Pluto Lover Alan Stern Discusses Historic July Flyby [Q&A] | Technology: Timeline: The Amazing Multimillion-Year History of Processed Food</div><div>Security loopholes can do more than compromise peer review. Because people often use the same or similar passwords for many of their online activities — including banking and shopping — e-mailing out the password presents an opportunity for hackers to do more than damage the research record. Dingemanse, who has published in a number of journals that use Editorial Manager, including PLOS ONE, says: “It's quite amazing that they haven't got around to implementing a safe system.” Neither Aries nor PLOS ONE responded to several requests for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>Safety measures</div><div>Lax password protection has resulted in breaches. In 2012, the Elsevier journal Optics & Laser Technology retracted 11 papers after an unknown party gained access to an editor's account and assigned papers to fake reviewer accounts. The authors of the retracted papers were not implicated in the hack, and were offered the chance to resubmit.</div><div>
</div><div>Elsevier has since taken steps to prevent reviewer fraud, including implementing a pilot programme to consolidate accounts across 100 of its journals. The rationale is that reducing the number of accounts in its system might help to reveal those that are fraudulent, says Tom Reller, a spokesperson for Elsevier. If it is successful, consolidation will roll out to all journals in early 2015. Furthermore, passwords are no longer included in most e-mails from the editorial system. And to verify reviewers' identities, the system now integrates the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) at various points. ORCID identifiers, unique numbers assigned to individual researchers, are designed to track researchers through all of their publications, even if they move institutions.</div><div>
</div><div>ScholarOne also allows ORCID integration, but it is up to each journal to decide how to use it. Gamboa says that not enough scientists have adopted the system to make it possible to require an ORCID for each reviewer. And there is another problem: “Unfortunately, like any online verification system, ORCID is also open to the risk of unethical manipulation,” says Gamboa — for example, through hacking.</div><div>
</div><div>That is a common refrain. “As you make the system more technical and more automated, there are more ways to game it,” says Bruce Schneier, a computer-security expert at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “There are almost never technical solutions to social problems.”</div><div>
</div><div>It ultimately falls to editors and publishers to be on the alert, particularly when contacting potential reviewers. Carefully checking e-mail addresses is one way to ferret out fakes: a non-institutional e-mail address such as a free account from Gmail is a red flag, say sources. But at the same time, it could also be a perfectly legitimate address.</div><div>
</div><div>Jigisha Patel, associate editorial director of BioMed Central in London, says that it is definitely possible to catch cheaters by being on the alert for dubious e-mail addresses. “We've had some cases where we've caught them tweaking the e-mail addresses to try to steal someone's identity,” she says. But such screening is imperfect. In September, the publisher retracted a paper in BMC Systems Biology, stating that it believed that “the peer-review process was compromised and inappropriately influenced by the authors”.</div><div>
</div><div>Some scientists and publishers say that journals should not allow authors to recommend reviewers in the first place. John Loadsman, an editor of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, which is published by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists in Sydney, calls the practice “bizarre” and “completely nuts”, and says that his journal does not permit it.</div><div>
</div><div>It is unclear exactly what proportion of journals allows the practice, but as fields become more specialized it provides an easy way for busy editors to find relevant expertise. Jennifer Nyborg, a biochemist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, says that most of the journals to which she submits articles request at least five potential reviewers.</div><div>
</div><div>For most of the 60 articles retracted by SAGE, the original peer review had used only author-nominated reviewers. Despite this experience, the Journal of Vibration and Control still allows authors to suggest peer reviewers (and provide their contact e-mails) when they submit a manuscript — although more safeguards are now in place, says Gamboa.</div><div>
</div><div>The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which serves as a kind of moral compass for scientific publishing (but has no authority to enforce its advice) has no guidance on the practice, but urges journals to vet reviewers adequately. Good practice is always to check the names, addresses and e-mail contacts of reviewers, says Natalie Ridgeway, operations manager for COPE in London. “Editors should never use only the preferred reviewer.”</div><div>
</div><div>NPG journals do allow authors to suggest independent reviewers. “But these suggestions are not necessarily followed,” says Kiermer. “The editors select reviewers and the selection includes checking for the absence of conflict of interests.” On the flip side, authors can ask an editor to exclude reviewers who they believe to have unmanageable conflicts, such as competing research. The publisher usually honours such requests, as long as authors do not ask to exclude more than three people or labs, Kiermer says.</div><div>
</div><div>Sometimes, recommending reviewers can backfire. Robert Lindsay, one of two editors-in-chief of the Springer-published journal Osteoporosis International, says that his publication allows authors to recommend up to two reviewers — but that he often uses this information to rule those reviewers out. This is based on past experience, in which he has seen authors recommend their own contacts, or worse: “We have had family members, folks in the same department, postgraduate students being supervised by an author,” he says. The journal generally uses suggested reviewers — who have passed screening — only if it runs into trouble finding other scientists to perform the task.</div><div>
</div><div>But screening can be difficult. Usually, editors in the United States and Europe know the scientific community in those regions well enough to catch potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. But Lindsay says that Western editors can find this harder with authors from Asia — “where often none of us knows the suggested reviewers”. In these cases, the journal insists on at least one independent reviewer, identified and invited by the editors.</div><div>
</div><div>In what Lindsay calls the worst case that he has seen, an author suggested a reviewer who shared her first name but not her surname. Some investigation revealed that the surname was the author's maiden name — she was recommending that she review her own paper. “I don't think she is going to submit anything to us again,” says Lindsay.</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">pbs punked</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> study published in Science magazine suggested that attitudes toward same-sex marriage were more likely to be changed by face-to-face conversations with gay canvassers over straight ones. But now that study has been redacted, spurring questions about how scientific research is published. Hari Sreenivasan talks to <b>Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch,</b> who broke the story.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> COMMENTS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">227 64 +1 EMAIL</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">TRANSCRIPT</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">JUDY WOODRUFF: Next, we explore questions about how scientific findings are published and verified, and whether allegations of fraud involving a top science journal are damaging credibility with the wider public.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Yesterday, “Science” magazine retracted a study published in December that found people’s attitudes toward same-sex marriage were more likely to be changed by face-to-face conversations with gay canvassers over straight ones. It was a study that got quite a bit of pickup in the media. Now that it’s been retracted by a leading journal, it poses questions for the scientific establishment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Again to Hari, who has more on the story.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: The study’s lead author asked for the retraction after the original findings could not be duplicated, and his co-author<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, a graduate student,</span> was accused of misrepresenting how the work was done.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This is the latest retraction in a major journal. In recent years, there have been others involving cloning and stem cell research.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Ivan Oransky is a journalist, as well as a medical doctor, who broke this story. He is co-founder of the blog Retraction Watch and global editorial director of MedPage Today, an online medical news service for physicians and other medical professions.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">So, first of all, this particular case, how did we get here? What went wrong?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY, Co-Founder, Retraction Watch: So, what seems to have gone wrong is that only some of this study — or at least we can only see that some of this study actually happened.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Lots of pressure on researchers. We don’t exactly know what happened here in the sort of early days, but part of the study, which was that gay people went to people’s houses and tried to convince them that gay marriage was a good thing, that they should agree with it, that part seems to have happened.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">What’s a little unclear is whether surveying them afterwards to tell whether you actually changed their minds, which in this case was a pretty important part of the study, whether that actually happened. And so you fast-forward a little bit. The paper gets published in a really big journal, as you said, in “Science,” a major medical — excuse me — a major science journal.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: Yes.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY: And that happens in December, and then a couple of month later, some grad students at Berkeley, they decide, oh, we want to do the next set of experiments. We think this is pretty cool.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: And this is science works.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY: That’s supposed to be how science works.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">So, they start looking at it and something doesn’t look right to them. They start asking a lot of questions, which, again, is supposed to be the way science works, ask the lead author, hey, what’s actually happening here? And no one can find the data.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Some admissions were made about what had happened and what hadn’t happened and how it had been misrepresented. And very quickly, which is I think an important point here, very quickly, the author said — one of the authors said, we should retract this. The journal said, we’re going to put a big stamp on this saying expression of concern.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Within a week, and that just happened this week, the paper’s gone from the record. It’s retracted.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: Yes, but people are going to look at this and say but there is supposed to be a system of checks and balances before it gets to the journal, at the journal, the peer review process. We have esteemed colleagues. There’s lots of smart people that could have poked a hole in this before you got to it.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY: There are lots of smart people who can poke a hole in it if they sort of take the opportunity.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scientists are under a lot of pressure. You and I, as journalists, we’re under a lot of pressure. We know what this is like. And, quite frankly, peer review, it’s something you do, I wouldn’t say exactly spare time, but you’re not paid for it. And so in order to have found what was wrong here, you really would have had to have seen, actually had to have looked at the original data.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">And what most people don’t realize is that this sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that journalists would like you to think peer review, this vaunted peer review system is, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">it’s not really Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. There are a lot of holes. You have got to look at the original data.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">And that speaks to how science is supposed to work, because you shouldn’t take any particular study, in this case a study that actually showed something that was really very surprising and new and different from what other studies had shown. You shouldn’t take it, even if it turns out to be true, as the answer.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: So there are different causes for why certain studies over the years have fallen through the cracks. Right? Sometimes, it’s malicious intent, someone actively trying to doctor the data. Other times, it’s careless error, et cetera.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Are these fabrications more common now or are we in this Internet era able to detect them faster?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY: It’s very clear that we’re able to detect these, sort of whether they’re fraud or just sloppiness or honest error, much more quickly.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Here we are, we’re able to look at all these papers online. We have plagiarism detection software. Plagiarism is a big reason for retraction as well in science, as well in journalism. And so about two-thirds of the time, they’re due to fraud, something that would be considered misconduct.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But it’s very clear that in the last like 15 years, the number of retractions has gone up by 10. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">So there are 10 times as many retractions — there were times as many retractions in 2010 as in 2001. And, again, it’s because we’re better at finding it.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Whether there’s also more pressure on scientists and more — therefore more fraud, it is a bit of an open question. But it’s also important to keep in mind thes<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">e 400 — and maybe now it’s 500 or 600 retractions a year — that’s out of like two million or three million papers. So let’s not sort of say, oh, well, everything is fraudulent just because this is on the rise.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: Right. This is something that scientists have to now become more vigilant about.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But also who gets hurt by this? In this specific study, it’s kind of a social science experiment. But there are some ethical lines that have been crossed.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY: So, in this particular case, I think one sort of person — it’s not a person, but a group that might take a hit is science itself.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Here we are talking about this study, what went wrong, why did this get into such a major journal. My understanding is that some of the findings here, the sort of — at least the idea, was used as part of the sort of canvassing on the referendum in Ireland that just happened.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">So this actually had some real-life ramifications. Maybe it was not a cancer trial or something like that. But, often, some of these studies actually do involve real people who are having terrible diseases like cancer. And they all are — I shouldn’t say all, but many of them involve federal funding.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">So you and I are paying for these studies, and then they turn out to be fraudulent. Well, that’s not a great thing.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, Ivan Oransky, editor of Retraction Watch, thanks so much for joining us.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IVAN ORANSKY: Thanks for having m</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Seralini publicized by oz, thus attack</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Dr oz cited by NYer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://<b>academicsreview.org</b>/reviewed-content/dr-oz-show-introduction/dr-oz-conclusion-how-to-avoid-gmos/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">redo of 2x below:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You are here: Home » News » Letter to Dr. Oz Show Producers by Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Letter to Dr. Oz Show Producers by Bruce <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Chassy</span>, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Academics Review | Oct 06, 2012 | 16 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">5 October 2012</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Greg Tufaro, producer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Brook Jacobsen, producer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz Show</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Zoco Productions, LLC/ <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Harpo Studios  OPRAH</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">110 N. Carpenter Street</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chicago, IL 60607</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dear Greg and Brook:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">I am following up on my conversations and previous correspondence with you regarding the plans by the Dr. Oz Show to air health and safety claims by Jeffrey Smith about agricultural biotechnology (GMOs) and food issues. As discussed, I was unable to participate in your program due to a family conflict. After consulting with other colleagues who were similarly approached by you and those who did participate, however, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">I am compelled to again voice my concerns regarding the potential violation by Dr. Oz of medical ethics and high risk of misrepresentation of human health information by Dr. Oz, Zoco Productions and Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios on this issue.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>As a public sector scientist</b>, researcher and academic administrator with more than 40 years experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public. Mr. Smith has no accredited or formal education in any health, nutrition, or other related science fields. Research into Mr. Smith’s credentials reveals that his only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a<b> ballroom dance teacher, yogic flying instructor and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural law party</b>. The fact that Mr. Smith was even allowed to appear on stage on a nationally broadcast television health-oriented program is hard to believe; hearing from my colleagues who did participate that Dr. Oz referred to Smith as a “scientist” during the program taping is an egregious misrepresentation.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Simply put, Mr. Smith’s health, environmental and safety claims about biotechnology have no basis whatsoever in medicine or science. Thousands of published and peer reviewed studies conducted over the past thirty-plus years contradict his claims and bizarre hypotheses associating health dangers linked to foods derived using biotechnology production methods. This is corroborated by such respected scientific and medical authorities as the American Medical Association, World Health Organization with the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Institute for Food Technologists and the American Dietetic Association. Regulatory bodies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) all confirm this safety.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[<b>Institute for Food Technologists </b> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Food_Technologists</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Further, our correspondence and conversations, as well as those you had with other academic colleagues who were invited to participate, suggests you engaged in questionable and misleading tactics to secure our participation on your show.</span> When we raised concerns about past treatment of academic participants discussing biotechnology on the Dr. Oz show, you stated “I understand the suspicion and the reservations any scientist would have after the last go-round. My best assurance can only come from the fact that producing a show in that vein isn’t something I agree with at all. That producer is no longer with us. I’m not into producing surprises or blindsiding anybody…” Yet, neither you nor Ms. Jacobsen disclosed that Lisa Oz, the show’s co-producer and wife of Dr. Oz, was the narrator for Mr. Smith’s video attacking biotechnology and an active campaigner for the Proposition 37 efforts in California.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As to you assurances that there would be no surprises or “bait-and-switch” tactics involved, I was informed that “deals were cut” between Dr. Oz and other participants like Organic Valley CEO Gary Hirshberg to prevent the scientists from fully participating in the program. These back-room deals caused changes to the described format for the interviews as laid out by you in advance of the program. Yet, apparently Mr. Hirshberg objected to appearing side-by-side with actual scientists as he made his claims but was allowed to remain on stage while they made their rebuttals. Further, Dr. Oz allowed Mr. Smith to re-tape his segment after the scientists spoke in response to his segment’s initial taping and after they had left the program.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You assured me and the other invited participants that the show was interested in a fair hearing of views from all sides with no pre-judged conclusions. Yet, I also learned that Dr. Oz practiced a pre-scripted conclusion to the program warning viewers to avoid the risks of GMOs by purchasing only organic foods prior to interviewing the scientists and hearing both sides. Similarly, during the taping of the Dr. Oz Show you incorporated graphics provided by Jeffrey Smith implying correlated health risks with the use of biotechnology crops that are simply not based in any medical science or study. These graphics are crude and inaccurate representation which will mislead people to believe biotechnology crops are associated with these diseases – the very same representation could be done showing, for example, that as viewership for the Dr. Oz show rose so did incidents of these diseases, suggesting watching your show is a health risk. Neither is of course true. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Biotechnology crops are as safe, if not safer, than their conventional and organic counterparts.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4"><b>All of this would lead any reasonable person to believe your representations were disingenuous and that this show was orchestrated theater on behalf of Mr. Smith and the Proposition 37 campaign. </b>Since Mr. Smith and his collaborator, Dr. Oz show co-producer Lisa Oz, are active proponents behind the Proposition 37 California Ballot Initiative, the program you intend to air on the <b><u>Fox network</u></b> prior to the November 6, 2012 election <b>appears by all manners to be an orchestrated and essentially in-kind donation of a free campaign commercial for this initiative</b>. Worse, Dr. Oz will be amplifying thoroughly debunked and potentially dangerous nutrition and health-related advice to his viewing audience.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Your assurances and the tactics of the Dr. Oz show fall short of even the lowest standards of media and medical ethics.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sincerely,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor<b> Emeritus,</b> Department of Food Science & Nutrition</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of Illinois</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://cei.org/sites/default/files/ASCH%20Conko%20Food%20and%20You%203-24-14.pdf</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Written by

William P. Kucewicz

Based on a book authored by

Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc.

Director, UC Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program

University of California,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Davis</span>

Bruce Chassy, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, Department Food Science and Human Nutrition

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Gregory<b> Conko</b>, J.D.

Executive Director and Senior Fellow

Competitive Enterprise Instite</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This publication is based on the book Food and You: A Guide

to Modern Agricultural Biotechnology (ISBN 978-0-9727094-

8-4) by Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Dr. Bruce M. Chassy

and Gregory Conko, J.D., published by the<b> American Council on

Science and Health. </b>The following people reviewed the original

book on which this summary is based: </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kent Bradford, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor of Plant Sciences

Director, Seed Biotechnology Center

University of California, <b>Davis</b>

James I. Burke, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair of Crop Science

University College Dublin

Christopher J. Leaver, Ph.D.

Fellow of St John’s College

University of Oxford

Alan G. McHughen, D.Phil.

CE Plant Biotechnologist

University of California, Riverside</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...A Distinction Without a Difference </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">All new varieties of crops are the result of genetic modification regardless

of the technology used for their development. To date, new crop varieties

have been almost without exception safe to plant and safe to consume. The

small number of documented cases in which a new variety was found to be

unsafe for consumers were all the products of classical breeding methods

(NRC 2004). Nevertheless, new varieties have proven so comparatively safe

that non-biotech ones are released to farmers with essentially no oversight by

regulators and, with very few exceptions, no requirements for safety testing.

Crops produced using modern biotechnology are, however, all subject to

special regulation with associated significant cost implications</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">....</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">No Evidence of Harm </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The consensus of scientific opinion and evidence is that the application of

GE technology introduces no unique food or feed safety concerns or environmental

impacts and that there is no evidence of harm from those products

that have been through a regulatory approval process. This conclusion has

been reached by numerous national and international bodies, including the

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health

Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

the European Commission, the French Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National

Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of

London, and the <b>Society of Toxicology.</b></span> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Take the U.S. National Research Council, for instance. In its report

“Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation” (NRC,

2000), it determined that no difference exists between crops modified

through modern molecular techniques and those modified by conventional

breeding practices. The NRC emphasized that the authors were not aware of

any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat because

of genetic modification. In fact, the scientific panel concluded that growing

such crops could have environmental advantages over other crops. In a 2003

position paper, the Society of Toxicology (SOT, 2003) corroborated this finding

and noted that there is no reason to suppose that the process of food production

through biotechnology leads to risks of a different nature than those

already familiar to toxicologists or to risks generated by conventional breeding

practices for plant, animal or microbial improvement. It is therefore important

to recognize that it is the food product itself, rather than the process through

which it is made, that should be the focus of attention in assessing safety.

Similarly, a European Commission report (EU, 2001, 2008) that summarized

biosafety research of 400 scientific teams from all parts of Europe

conducted over 15 years stated that research on GE plants and derived products

so far developed and marketed, following usual risk assessment procedures, has

not shown any new risks to human health or the environment beyond the usual

uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise

technology and the close regulatory scrutiny probably make GE plants even

safer than conventional plants and foods. More recently, EU-funded research

from 130 projects involving 500 independent research groups over 25 years

concluded, “There is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with

higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional

plants and organisms” (Europa Press Release, 2010)....</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Regulations pose even greater difficulties. In the U.S., regulatory compliance

adds at least $1 million to the cost of developing a GE variety for

each transformation event (Redenbaugh and McHughen, 2004). For crops

intended for international commerce, the regulatory costs in key producing

and importing countries have been estimated to range from $6 million

to $15 million (Kalaitzandonakes et al., 2007) and as high as $35 million

(McDougall, 2011). Unjustifiably burdensome rules add little to environmental

and human health protection and, arguably, do more harm than good,

especially in less developed countries. Complicating matters further is the

highly charged political environment in which biosafety regulatory decisions

are made</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chassy, B. et al. (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally

improved through biotechnology – Prepared by a task force of the ILSI International Food

Biotechnology Committee. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 3, 35-104

Chassy, B. et al. (2008) Recent developments in the safety and nutritional assessment of

nutritionally improved foods and feeds. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety 7, 50-113</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prakash, C.S. & Jaynes, J. (2000) Increasing the protein content in sweet potato using a

synthetic storage protein gene. Abstr. Papers Am. Chem. Soc. 219, U36</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Society of Toxicology</b> (2003) The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through

Biotechnology. Toxicological Sciences 71, 2-8</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">whelan</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Nigel Bark, M.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Albert Einstein College of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Medicine</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Robert L. Brent, M.D., Ph.D.,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">D.Sc. (Hon)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Thomas Jefferson University / A. I.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">DuPont Hospital for Children</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">James E.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Enstrom,</span> Ph.D.,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">M.P.H.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of California, Los</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Angeles</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Thom Golab</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Media Research Center</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Herbert I. London, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">New York University / Hudson</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Institute / Manhattan Institute</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Paul A. Offit, M.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Fred L. Smith, Jr.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Competitive Enterprise Institute</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Daniel T. Stein, M.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Albert Einstein College</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">---</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Margareta Becker, CPA

Accountant

Jonathan Bloom, Ph.D.

Director of Chemical and

Pharmaceutical Sciences

Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.

Senior Fellow in Nutrition

Erik Lief

Director, Media and Publications

Cheryl Martin

Associate Director and Director of

Development

William McCain

Development Associate

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Gilbert Ross, </span>M.D.

Executive and Medical Director

Ariel Savransky

Associate Director of Public Health

Ana Simovska

Director of Video Productions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CC:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bill Becker, General Counsel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Harpo Studios</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">110 N. Carpenter St.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chicago, IL 60607</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Michael Angus, Executive Vice President & General Counsel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Fox Broadcasting ??</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2121 Avenue of the Stars</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Los Angeles, CA 90067</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Zackery P. Morazzini, General Counsel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">California Fair Political Practices Commission</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">428 J Street, Suite 620</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sacramento, CA 95814</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Gary Schwitzer, Publisher Health News Review  ??</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The California Endowment Health Journalism Fellowships</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Alhambra, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit 83, Building A-0, Office 0204</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alhambra, CA 91803</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bruce M. Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">No related posts.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Filed Under: News</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz Show Introduction:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">< Previous: 8.2—Mold-free food better for babies</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Next: Dr. Oz Show Presentation ></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On October 17, 2012 – just weeks prior to the November election on which a California ballot initiative proposed to make sweeping changes to the way foods are labeled, Jeffrey Smith (a previous program guest) was invited by Dr. Oz  to share his views on the health risks of GMOs on his nationally syndicated television program.  Dr. Oz also invited GMO labeling advocate and organic food CEO Gary Hirshberg on the show to lobby on behalf of the California initiative known as Proposition 37.  Two respected academics from the <b>University of California at Davis </b>also agreed to appear and respond to Smith and Hirshberg’s claims about agricultural biotechnology (which these activists prefer to call ‘genetically engineered foods’).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Click here to download a PDF transcript of the Dr. Oz program.  <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Academics Review has posted the various segments of this show with comments from academic reviewers about the accuracy of claims made here:</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz introduction (below – scroll down)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation on GMOs </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Jeffrey Smith</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Robin Bernhoft</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation of Seralini rat study pictures</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Martin McGloughlin</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Gary Hirshberg and Alison Van Eenennaam</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz concluding presentation</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Also read the letter from Academics Review co-founder Bruce Chassy to Dr. Oz’s producers about the show’s misrepresentations and mistreatment of academics.  Click here for Dr. Chassy’s letter to Dr. Oz.   And click here to see the petition signed by more than<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 100 other independent academic experts</span> calling on Dr. Oz to disavow the false and misleading health claims made on his show.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">note, theirs, not the show (compare?)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DR_OZ_SHOW_10-17-2012_TRANSCRIPT.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">DR. OZ PROGRAM SEGEMENT TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17, 2012</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz introduction: I'm throwing out a term today that affects what you're eating each and every day.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Genetically modified foods, well you're probably eating them right now and don't even know it. And<b> a new</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>report claims they can damage your health and even cause cancer.</b> But some experts say they're</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">inexpensive and healthy way to put dinner on your table. Are they safe? Should they be labeled? What</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">do you need to know?"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Voiceover on images: "It's the brave new world of food and it's probably already on your plate.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scientists can now take DNA from one species, a plant, bacterium or (emphasis added) even a fish! and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">add it to another. The goal? <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">To produce bigger crops, ward off plant diseases and ultimately lower the</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">price of the food on your table</span>. Introduced less than 20 years ago, nearly 90 percent of the corn,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">soybeans and sugar beets grown in America have been genetically modified. As a result, experts</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">estimate up to 3 out of 4 of your favorite foods have been genetically modified. Many of these foods have</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">been banned by some European countries and even in Peru. But the FDA says they are not harmful.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">There's enough controversy that Californians will soon vote to decide if genetically modified foods should</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">be labeled. You have a right to know what's in your food. So what do you need to know about genetically</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">modified foods?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation: "Let me show you in more detail how genetically modified food is made. The basic</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">idea is to take a feature from one organism and you put it into another organism. You might take</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bacteria genes and mix them into a plant like in corn.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> In plain English that means right now we can take</span></font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">corn with built in pesticide that kills off any bugs and makes it resistant to all those toxic chemical sprays</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">we put on to kill weeds and other things</span>. Now in the future, scientist might be able to move genes from a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">fish that lives in cold water and put it into a tomato so maybe that tomato can easily survive in the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">weather, especially if that weather is cold. That's the aspiration, the hope."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview: "<b>Dr. Robin Bernhoff past president of the American Academy of Environmental</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Medicine</b> and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Jeffrey Smith author of Genetic Roulette and he's a filmmaker </span>as well are concerned about</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the potential health risks of genetically modified foods. No for the sake of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">full disclosure, my wife Lisa was</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">a narrator on Jeffrey's film. </span>And because the things Jeffrey says <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">are so controversial nearly every</span></font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">scientist we reached out to, to defend genetically modified foods said no to coming on the show for one</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">reason or another. Or, they refused to share the stage with him. So today we are doing something we</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">have <b>never done before.</b> After Jeffrey makes his points,<b> he has to leave the stage </b>before we can speak</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">to the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods.</span> (To Jeffrey) I know that will be a little awkward, but</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">we're going to have this conversation. Why are you so concerned about genetically modified foods?"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith: "Well there’s thousands of doctors around the United States who prescribe non-GMO...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">DR. OZ PROGRAM SEGEMENT TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17, 2012</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Academics Review responded to an October 17, 2012 airing of the Dr. Oz Show promoting claims by Jeffrey Smith about the safety of foods derived from agricultural biotechnology (GMOs).    The elements of this response included:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A letter to Dr. Oz producers prior to the program airing to share concerns about the information being presented and experience of the scientists who did participate in the show.  Click here to read the letter to Dr. Oz Show producers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Response letter signed by more than 100 independent scientists to “highly misleading and inaccurate information” presented by the Dr Oz Show.  Click here to read the scientists’ open letter to the Dr. Oz Show.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A transcript with analysis and response from academics to the Dr. Oz program on GMOs.  Click here to read the transcript and response to the Dr. Oz program on GMOs.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A resulting detailed analysis of Dr. Oz by<b> Michael Specter, published in the New Yorker.</b>  Click her to read about Academics Review and Dr. Oz in the New Yorker Magazine.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You are here: Home » News » Letter to Dr. Oz Show Producers by Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Letter to Dr. Oz Show Producers by Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Academics Review | Oct 06, 2012 | 16 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">5 October 2012</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Greg Tufaro, producer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Brook Jacobsen, producer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz Show</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Zoco Productions, LLC/ Harpo Studios</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">110 N. Carpenter Street</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chicago, IL 60607</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dear Greg and Brook:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">I am following up on my conversations and previous correspondence with you regarding the plans by the Dr. Oz Show to air health and safety claims by Jeffrey Smith about agricultural biotechnology (GMOs) and food issues. As discussed, I was unable to participate in your program due to a family conflict. After consulting with other colleagues who were similarly approached by you and those who did participate, however, I am compelled to again voice my concerns regarding the potential violation by Dr. Oz of medical ethics and high risk of misrepresentation of human health information by Dr. Oz, Zoco Productions and Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios on this issue.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As a public sector scientist, researcher and academic administrator with more than 40 years experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public. Mr. Smith has no accredited or formal education in any health, nutrition, or other related science fields. Research into Mr. Smith’s credentials reveals that his only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom dance teacher, yogic flying instructor and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural law party. The fact that Mr. Smith was even allowed to appear on stage on a nationally broadcast television health-oriented program is hard to believe; hearing from my colleagues who did participate that <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Dr. Oz referred to Smith as a “scientist”</span> [did he?]during the program taping is an egregious misrepresentation.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Simply put, Mr. Smith’s health, environmental and safety claims about biotechnology have no basis whatsoever in medicine or science. Thousands of published and peer reviewed studies conducted over the past thirty-plus years contradict his claims and bizarre hypotheses associating health dangers linked to foods derived using biotechnology production methods. This is corroborated by such respected scientific and medical authorities as the American Medical Association, World Health Organization with the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, <b>Institute for Food Technologists </b>and the American Dietetic Association. Regulatory bodies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) all confirm this safety.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Further, our correspondence and conversations, as well as those you had with other academic colleagues who were invited to participate, suggests you engaged in questionable and misleading tactics to secure our participation on your show. When we raised concerns about past treatment of academic participants discussing biotechnology on the Dr. Oz show, you stated “I understand the suspicion and the reservations any scientist would have after the last go-round. My best assurance can only come from the fact that producing a show in that vein isn’t something I agree with at all. That producer is no longer with us. I’m not into producing surprises or blindsiding anybody…” Yet, neither you nor Ms. Jacobsen disclosed that Lisa Oz, the show’s co-producer and wife of Dr. Oz, was the narrator for Mr. Smith’s video attacking biotechnology and an active campaigner for the Proposition 37 efforts in California.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As to you assurances that there would be no surprises or “bait-and-switch” tactics involved, I was informed that “deals were cut” between Dr. Oz and other participants like Organic Valley CEO Gary Hirshberg to prevent the scientists from fully participating in the program. These back-room deals caused changes to the described format for the interviews as laid out by you in advance of the program. Yet, apparently Mr. Hirshberg objected to appearing side-by-side with actual scientists as he made his claims but was allowed to remain on stage while they made their rebuttals. Further, Dr. Oz allowed Mr. Smith to re-tape his segment after the scientists spoke in response to his segment’s initial taping and after they had left the program.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You assured me and the other invited participants that the show was interested in a fair hearing of views from all sides with no pre-judged conclusions. Yet, I also learned that Dr. Oz practiced a pre-scripted conclusion to the program warning viewers to avoid the risks of GMOs by purchasing only organic foods prior to interviewing the scientists and hearing both sides. Similarly, during the taping of the Dr. Oz Show you incorporated graphics provided by Jeffrey Smith implying correlated health risks with the use of biotechnology crops that are simply not based in any medical science or study. These graphics are crude and inaccurate representation which will mislead people to believe biotechnology crops are associated with these diseases – the very same representation could be done showing, for example, that as viewership for the Dr. Oz show rose so did incidents of these diseases, suggesting watching your show is a health risk. Neither is of course true. Biotechnology crops are as safe, if not safer, than their conventional and organic counterparts.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">All of this would lead any reasonable person to believe your representations were disingenuous and that this show was orchestrated theater on behalf of Mr. Smith and the Proposition 37 campaign. Since Mr. Smith and his collaborator, Dr. Oz show co-producer Lisa Oz, are active proponents behind the Proposition 37 California Ballot Initiative, the program you intend to air on the Fox network prior to the November 6, 2012 election appears by all manners to be an orchestrated and essentially in-kind donation of a free campaign commercial for this initiative. Worse, Dr. Oz will be amplifying thoroughly debunked and potentially dangerous nutrition and health-related advice to his viewing audience.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Your assurances and the tactics of the Dr. Oz show fall short of even the lowest standards of media and medical ethics.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sincerely,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Emeritus, Department of Food Science & Nutrition</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of Illinois</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CC:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bill Becker, General Counsel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Harpo Studios</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">110 N. Carpenter St.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chicago, IL 60607</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Michael Angus, Executive Vice President & General Counsel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Fox Broadcasting ??</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2121 Avenue of the Stars</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Los Angeles, CA 90067</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Zackery P. Morazzini, General Counsel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">California Fair Political Practices Commission</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">428 J Street, Suite 620</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sacramento, CA 95814</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Gary Schwitzer, Publisher Health News Review  ??</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The California Endowment Health Journalism Fellowships</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Alhambra, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit 83, Building A-0, Office 0204</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alhambra, CA 91803Bruce M. Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">No related posts.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Filed Under: News</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz Show Introduction:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">< Previous: 8.2—Mold-free food better for babiesNext: Dr. Oz Show Presentation ></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On October 17, 2012 – just weeks prior to the November election on which a California ballot initiative proposed to make sweeping changes to the way foods are labeled, Jeffrey Smith (a previous program guest) was invited by Dr. Oz  to share his views on the health risks of GMOs on his nationally syndicated television program.  Dr. Oz also invited GMO labeling advocate and organic food CEO Gary Hirshberg on the show to lobby on behalf of the California initiative known as Proposition 37.  Two respected academics from the University of California at Davis also agreed to appear and respond to Smith and Hirshberg’s claims about agricultural biotechnology (which these activists prefer to call ‘genetically engineered foods’).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Click here to download a PDF transcript of the Dr. Oz program.   Academics Review has posted the various segments of this show with comments from academic reviewers about the accuracy of claims made here:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz introduction (below – scroll down)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation on GMOs </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Jeffrey Smith</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Robin Bernhoft</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation of Seralini rat study pictures</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Martin McGloughlin</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview with Gary Hirshberg and Alison Van Eenennaam</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz concluding presentation</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Also read the letter from <b>Academics Review co-founder Bruce Chassy t</b>o Dr. Oz’s producers about the show’s misrepresentations and mistreatment of academics.  Click here for Dr. Chassy’s letter to Dr. Oz.   And click here to see the petition signed by more than 100 other independent academic experts calling on Dr. Oz to disavow the false and misleading health claims made on his show.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">note, theirs, not the show (compare?)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DR_OZ_SHOW_10-17-2012_TRANSCRIPT.pdf</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">DR. OZ PROGRAM SEGEMENT TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17, 2012</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz introduction: I'm throwing out a term today that affects what you're eating each and every day.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Genetically modified foods, well you're probably eating them right now and don't even know it. And a new</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">report claims they can damage your health and even cause cancer. But some experts say they're</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">inexpensive and healthy way to put dinner on your table. Are they safe? Should they be labeled? What</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">do you need to know?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Voiceover on images: "It's the brave new world of food and it's probably already on your plate.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scientists can now take DNA from one species, a plant, bacterium or (emphasis added) even a fish! and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">add it to another. The goal? To produce bigger crops, ward off plant diseases and ultimately lower the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">price of the food on your table. Introduced less than 20 years ago, nearly 90 percent of the corn,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">soybeans and sugar beets grown in America have been genetically modified. As a result, experts</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">estimate up to 3 out of 4 of your favorite foods have been genetically modified. Many of these foods have</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">been banned by some European countries and even in Peru. But the FDA says they are not harmful.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">There's enough controversy that Californians will soon vote to decide if genetically modified foods should</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">be labeled. You have a right to know what's in your food. So what do you need to know about genetically</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">modified foods?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation: "Let me show you in more detail how genetically modified food is made. The basic</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">idea is to take a feature from one organism and you put it into another organism. You might take</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bacteria genes and mix them into a plant like in corn. In plain English that means right now we can take</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">corn with built in pesticide that kills off any bugs and makes it resistant to all those toxic chemical sprays</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">we put on to kill weeds and other things. Now in the future, scientist might be able to move genes from a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">fish that lives in cold water and put it into a tomato so maybe that tomato can easily survive in the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">weather, especially if that weather is cold. That's the aspiration, the hope."</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine  <span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The AAEM opposes the use of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)" title="Mercury (element)" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">mercury</a><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-containing compounds in any product for human consumption, including </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_vaccines" title="Mercury in vaccines" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">mercury in vaccines</a><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. The AAEM also opposes </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation" title="Water fluoridation" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">water fluoridation</a><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a></sup><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and has called for a moratorium on food from </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified" title="Genetically modified" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">genetically modified</a><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">crops.</span><sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a></sup><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The AAEM has been cited as an illegitimate organization by </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch" title="Quackwatch" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Quackwatch</a><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, for promoting the diagnosis of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_chemical_sensitivity" title="Multiple chemical sensitivity" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">multiple chemical sensitivity</a><span style="line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span><sup id="cite_ref-qw_4-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine#cite_note-qw-4" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a>]</sup></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview: "Dr. Robin Bernhoff past president of the American Academy of Environmental</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Medicine and Jeffrey Smith author of Genetic Roulette and he's a filmmaker as well are concerned about</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the potential health risks of genetically modified foods. No for the sake of full disclosure, my wife Lisa was</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">a narrator on Jeffrey's film. And because the things Jeffrey says are so controversial nearly every</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scientist we reached out to, to defend genetically modified foods said no to coming on the show for one</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">reason or another. Or, they refused to share the stage with him. So today we are doing something we</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">have never done before. After Jeffrey makes his points, he has to leave the stage before we can speak</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods. (To Jeffrey) I know that will be a little awkward, but</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">we're going to have this conversation. Why are you so concerned about genetically modified foods?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith: "Well there’s thousands of doctors around the United States who prescribe non-GMO...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">DR. OZ PROGRAM SEGEMENT TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17, 2012</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz introduction: I'm throwing out a term today that affects what you're eating each and every day.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Genetically modified foods, well you're probably eating them right now and don't even know it. And a new</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">report claims they can damage your health and even cause cancer. But some experts say they're</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">inexpensive and healthy way to put dinner on your table. Are they safe? Should they be labeled? What</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">do you need to know?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Voiceover on images: "It's the brave new world of food and it's probably already on your plate.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scientists can now take DNA from one species, a plant, bacterium or (emphasis added) even a fish! and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">add it to another. The goal? To produce bigger crops, ward off plant diseases and ultimately lower the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">price of the food on your table. Introduced less than 20 years ago, nearly 90 percent of the corn,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">soybeans and sugar beets grown in America have been genetically modified. As a result, experts</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">estimate up to 3 out of 4 of your favorite foods have been genetically modified. Many of these foods have</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">been banned by some European countries and even in Peru. But the FDA says they are not harmful.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">There's enough controversy that Californians will soon vote to decide if genetically modified foods should</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">be labeled. You have a right to know what's in your food. So what do you need to know about genetically</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">modified foods?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz presentation: "Let me show you in more detail how genetically modified food is made. The basic</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">idea is to take a feature from one organism and you put it into another organism. You might take</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bacteria genes and mix them into a plant like in corn. In plain English that means right now we can take</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">corn with built in pesticide that kills off any bugs and makes it resistant to all those toxic chemical sprays</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">we put on to kill weeds and other things. Now in the future, scientist might be able to move genes from a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">fish that lives in cold water and put it into a tomato so maybe that tomato can easily survive in the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">weather, especially if that weather is cold. That's the aspiration, the hope."</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz interview: "Dr. Robin Bernhoff past president of the American Academy of Environmental</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Medicine and Jeffrey Smith author of Genetic Roulette and he's a filmmaker as well are concerned about</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the potential health risks of genetically modified foods. No for the sake of full disclosure, my wife Lisa was</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">a narrator on Jeffrey's film. And because the things Jeffrey says are so controversial nearly every</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scientist we reached out to, to defend genetically modified foods said no to coming on the show for one</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">reason or another. Or, they refused to share the stage with him. So today we are doing something we</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">have never done before. After Jeffrey makes his points, he has to leave the stage before we can speak</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods. (To Jeffrey) I know that will be a little awkward, but</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">we're going to have this conversation. Why are you so concerned about genetically modified foods?"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith: "Well there’s thousands of doctors around the United States who prescribe non-GMO...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">O</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bs</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Academics Review was founded by two independent professors of food-related microbiology, nutritional, and safety issues on opposite ends of the planet: in rural central Illinois, and in urban Melbourne, Australia. Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D., and David Tribe, Ph.D., are two of the most widely recognized experts in the world on how plants grow, and the resulting effects plants, as foods, can have on human health.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Chassy is a professor of food microbiology and a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  He received his B.A. in chemistry from San Diego State University, and his Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cornell University.  Dr. Chassy previously worked as a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> research chemist</span> in the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s <b>National Institute of Dental Research,</b> and he has served as a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Food Advisory Council, and as a councilor and a member of the executive committee for the <b>Institute of Food Technologists</b>.  He has been a Fulbright Scholar and has served as an NIH visiting professor.  Dr. Chassy was head of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois from 1989-2000, and he served as an Assistant Dean in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences from 2000-2009.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">David Tribe, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Tribe is a senior lecturer in food science, food safety, biotechnology and microbiology in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, Australia.  He received his B.Sc. in biochemistry and chemistry and a Ph.D. in applied molecular genetics at the University of Melbourne.  Dr. Tribe’s current research focuses on food<b> risk analysis and management</b>, with a particular emphasis on the risks of microbes in food and epidemics caused by bacterial pathogens.  He has been active in the Australian Society for Microbiology, and he previously served as vice-president and as a member of the Council of Directors of the Australian Biotechnology Association.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Foundation/Non-profit Links</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>American Council on Science and Health</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (formerly AgBios</span>)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Center for Food Integrity</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CheckBiotech</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GMO Compass EU</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">ILSI</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">International Food Information Council Foundation</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Government Links</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Australia, New Zealand Regulators</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">European Food Safety Authority</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">U.S. Food and Drug Administration</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">USDA</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Other Links</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Biofortified</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GMO Answers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GMO Pundit</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">PG Economics</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University Links</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Agbioforum Journal</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">AgBiosafety, University of Nebraska</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Information Systems for Biotechnology, Virginia Tech.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Landgrant Universities About Agricultural Biotechnology</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sense About Science</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The GMO misinformation page. University of Georgia</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You are here: Home » Individuals » Tyrone Hayes: The infamous “gay frog” creating “IDGAF!” Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes: The infamous “gay frog” creating “IDGAF!” Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">< Previous: Wall of fameNext: Mehmet Oz ></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“IDGAF! Come on?????… do you think I care about propriety and professionalism?” –  Tyrone Hayes email 2010.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Tyrone Hayes</b> has been characterized as the Kanye West of the academic world for his controversial ethics, bizarre behavior and apparent insatiable desire for theatrically promoting his un-replicated research claims.  Like television producers forced to cut off hip hop artist West’s microphones during unscripted rants, it’s time for the academic community to do the same with the “gay frog” creating “environmental biologist rap artist” Tyrone Hayes.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Hayes is a tenured professor at the University of California Berkeley turned litigation consultant for hire and documentary movie star whose claims and self-described “IDGAF!” (I don’t give a f@k!) behavior[1] clearly stretch the boundaries of sound science and typical academic ethics.  He’s made his fame via allegations that a common agricultural herbicide is turning male frogs into females and vice-a-versa, which he giddily promotes on any stage provided with his slide show of photos he suggests are copulating gay frogs.  These gay frog claims landed Hayes cameo appearances in multiple documentary films including Academy Award winning Jessica Yu’s 2012 Last Call at the Oasis.  His exploitative gender and sexual orientation stereotyping aside, were such claims valid it would certainly be something meritorious of broader scientific review and exploration.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Therein lays the problem with Professors Hayes’ work and claims.  Valid claims are those which are verifiable through replication by other scientists.  Honest and acceptable peer review of academic research claims requires that data and processes by which that data and corresponding conclusions are drawn be transparent and made available to other independent scientists for corroboration.  And where such data and conclusions are being used to make demands of regulators to ban products associated with these claims, the research and data should be openly shared with those regulators to inspect and validate on behalf of the public whose health and interests they are entrusted.   Yet, Tyrone Hayes refuses to share his data with peers, regulators or any other independent academic or scientific review.  Further, thousands of studies over more than 50 years, including dozens seeking to replicate his specific claims, failed to replicate or confirm his results and conclusions.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Engaging in flawed or un-replicated research from which you make personal fame and derive your income in and of itself may or may not be academic misconduct.  There are plenty of bad scientists in academia and elsewhere who have promoted flawed ideas for various personal and profit motivations.  Yet here again, Professor Hayes offers us fodder for questioning how and why any academic institution sees him as a fit and upstanding professional whose research is supported.[2]  Berkeley dean Mark Schlissel notes Hayes’ decade-long email campaign has “moved increasingly into the personal arena” but the school has not chosen to investigate the matter. Hayes’ behavior also raises  questions as to how he is so oft quoted for his “expertise” by such noteworthy and mainstream media outlets as the New York Times, NPR and National Geographic.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes has created a cottage industry for himself via his tongue-in-cheek “Atrazine Lovers” website, paid speaking tours and as a well compensated “expert” consultant to plaintiff’s attorneys seeking to profit from public fears generated by Hayes’ gender-bending pesticide claims.  He’s always good for a salacious and alarm-raising sound bite for any inquiring reporter which makes him a darling of the environmental activist fringe which frequently invokes his name and claims in their attacks on farming and related crop protection practices .   He openly attacks scientists, government regulators and critics with sexually graphic and threatening verbal assaults found in trails of thousands of email screeds he has let lose when his claims are challenged or dismissed.  While Tyrone Hayes may not “GAF” about academic professionalism or scientific integrity when justifying his claims with open, credibly peer reviewed research, we do. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The mission of <b>Academics Review </b>is to independently, dispassionately and objectively scrutinize claims based on scientific research regardless of the style or form of the source.   Stay tuned here as Academics Review dissects Tyrone “IDGAF” Hayes </span>research claims made in his Last Call at the Oasis cameo and his other publications and sources.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For now, here are some additional sources on this subject:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Science Magazine,</b> published by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (AAAS), report:‘I Told Ya, You Can’t Stop the Rage, August 19, 2010 detailing the Hayes ethics issues.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Nature Magazine, </b> E-mails spark ethics row, August 18, 2010, on the Hayes email ethics challenge.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The New York Times, Enviro Groups Cheer as Scientist Bombards Agribusiness With Profane E-Mails, on August 26, 2010, citing “reams of explicit, taunting e-mails sent to company employees by a professor whose research on the health risks of their product had won nationwide notice…”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Other sources on Tyrone Hayes include: Mother Jones Magazine, The<b> Washington Times</b>, Harpers Magazine, Ethics Education Library, and the UC Berkeley newspaper The Daily Californian.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[1] The Frog War, by Dashka Slater, Mother Jones Magazine, January/February 2012.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[2] E-mails spark ethics row, by Rex Dalton, Nature, August 18, 2010.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">HAYES</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Turning Science into a Circus: The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv and Tyrone Hayes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Syngenta may have good reason to feel it was treated unfairly, even dishonestly, in the New Yorker article. The real damage, however, is that such shoddy journalism debases the public’s understanding of how science should be conducted and the importance of non-politicized, sound science-based regulatory systems to protect consumers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mar 07, 2014 | 2 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes: The infamous “gay frog” creating “IDGAF!” Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant is now profiled under individuals on Academics Review.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb 19, 2013 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes: The infamous “gay frog” creating “IDGAF!” Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“IDGAF! Come on?????… do you think I care about propriety and professionalism?” –  Tyrone Hayes email 2010. Tyrone Hayes has been characterized as the Kanye West of the academic world for his controversial ethics, bizarre behavior and apparent insatiable desire for theatrically promoting his un-replicated research claims.  Like television producers forced to cut off hip […]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb 13, 2013 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1.16—Rats fed Roundup Ready Canola have healthy livers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feeding Roundup Ready canola to rats had no effect on the weights of their livers See Genetic Roulette’s False Claims at Bottom of Page Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Research: First, it should be said that the feeding tests mentioned in Genetic Roulette were carried out on canola meal, which is not used in food. Edible canola […]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb 19, 2010 | 0 comments |</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">stay tuned above links to:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In this section we organize and present content evaluated against peer reviewed and published findings by academics whose expertise in in the field of presented claims.   We review books, movies and other publications which seek to further advocacy goals using unfounded claims mis-attributed to scientific findings.  Examples you can find in our reviews include:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Genetic Roulette is Jeffrey Smith’s second self-published book </b>in which he rants against biotech agriculture. In it, he details 65 separate, “documented” claims that the technology causes harm in a variety of ways. Click here to see each of those claims – referred here as Myths — stack up against peer-reviewed science.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 2012 Smith collaborated with Lisa Oz and  turned his book into a movie promoted as part of a campaign in support of mandatory labeling of GMOs.  In his movie, Smith  explains how a mandatory labeling initiative in California (called Proposition 37) will create a tipping point for food companies and result in a ban on the use of biotechnology in all agricultural food production in the United States.  In October of 2012 Smith appeared on the Dr. Oz Show to promote the claims made in his film.  Details of his appearance along with comments from academic reviewers can be found here. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Additionally, we offer a glossary of important terms found throughout our site, which you may view here.  You can navigate to other reviewed content from the content link at the top of this page.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">If you have content you’d like to recommend we review, please share it with us using the comment form below.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>gmopundit is tribe</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">PETITION</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz Presents Highly Inaccurate Information</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Academics Review | Oct 17, 2012 | 25 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">An October 2012 airing of the Dr. Oz television program includes the use of graphic images alleging associations between specific health risks and foods from crops produced using agricultural biotechnology.  We the undersigned academics, scientists, researchers, health and related professionals find these claims and corresponding graphic representations to be highly misleading and irresponsible.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Mehmet Oz has repeatedly allowed Jeffrey Smith, an activist with no scientific or medical background or other relevant credentials, to appear on his program and make claims that GMOs are somehow associated with human health and safety risks.   As Dr. Oz  and his producers have been repeatedly informed: </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The safety of biotech-derived foods has been thoroughly addressed by the international scientific community through decades of peer reviewed, published research.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">U.S.  and international regulatory, science and health agencies including the Food & Drug Administration, European Food Safety Authority and the World Health Organization confirm these foods are safe.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Highly respected, independent academic, science and health organizations such as the American Medical Association, the National Academies of Science and the American Dietetics Association have all confirmed these foods are safe.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The health and safety claims made by Jeffrey Smith, repeatedly promoted on the Dr. Oz Show, his affiliated radio programs and websites, are without basis and refuted by extensive peer reviewed scientific and medical research.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Yet, after being clearly informed of these facts, the Dr. Oz Show aired graphic images of tumor-riddled laboratory rats and charts implying associations with the use of biotechnology crops and alleged increases in human health issues ranging from ulcerative colitis to gastrointestinal disorders.</span>  Academic health experts, invited to appear on the program by Dr. Oz, informed the host and program producers that the graphics provided by Jeffrey Smith had no medical relevance or accuracy whatsoever and urged that they not be used. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Viewers of this and similar Dr. Oz productions with Jeffrey Smith are being presented with highly inaccurate and irresponsible health-related advice.  That Dr. Oz Show program co-producer Lisa Oz, a <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">collaborator </span>and narrator for Mr. Smith’s latest video which uses these same graphics and which is being used to promote a California ballot initiative about GMOs, presents a further impression of a <b>conflict-of-interest</b> in the program’s promotion of Smith and these baseless safety allegations so close to the November election date.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We urge Dr. Oz to make an immediate public statement disavowing these misleading health claims promoted by his show, and we urge his program promoters, sponsors and distributors (including: Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios and Sony Pictures Television Distribution) to reevaluate their continued involvement with this or any programs which promote such baseless and irresponsible health claims.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(Scroll to bottom of page to sign and view additional names and comments.)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Nina V. Fedoroff, Ph.D.</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Distinguished Professor, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “I am particularly outraged because Dr. Oz’s producer assured me repeatedly that this show would not be structured to support the “GMOs are dangerous” scenario, but would present a scientifically defensible perspective. What a joke! My only regret is that I actually helped engage two very respected scientists, Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin and Dr.Alison L. Van Eenennaam in this farce. My apologies to them.” </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wayne <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Parrott,</span> PhD <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ACSH BIB</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> University of Georgia</span>, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Director, UC Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program (UCBREP), Co-Director, NIH Training Program in Biomolecular Technology, Adjunct Associate Professor,  University of California Davis,</span> United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Prof. Chris J Leaver, PhD, CBE, FRS, FRS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Emeritus</span> Professor Plant Science University of Oxford, England</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Peggy G. Lemaux, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">University of California Berkeley</span>, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “This is irresponsible journalism and a disservice to the American people, raising a health specter that simply is not true.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Emeritus of Food Science, Nutritional Sciences FSHN, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Ingo Potrykus, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor emeritus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zuerich, Switzerland</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Kent J. Bradford, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Director, Seed Biotechnology Center,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> University of California Davis, </span>United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prof. Dr. Hans-Jörg Jacobsen, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Leibniz-Universität Hannover, Germany</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Prof. Atanas Atanassov, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Joint Genomic Center, Sofia University, Bulgaria</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prof. Robert Wager, BSc, MA </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Microbiology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Vancouver Island University, Canada</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Henry I. Miller, MD PROP 37 ads</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Robert Wesson Fellow, Hoover</span> Institution, Stanford University, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Regrettably, Dr. Oz has demonstrated yet again his inclination to embrace and promulgate New Age nescience.  He is a fraud and a huckster, a Jeffrey Smith with a stethoscope.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Piero Morandini, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Assistant professor in Plant Physiology, Lecturer in Plant Biotecnology Dept. of BioScience, University of Milan, Italy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “The graphics are of the ‘Stork type.’  In the late ’50s the stork population was declining in Germany and the same was true for the human population. The conclusion for some people was then that grandma was right, storks bring babies! Even if there is any time coincidence between two phenomena, this does not mean that one causes the other.  The graphs are also highly misleading since the vast majority of genetically engineered plants are used as feed and not for food. Claiming that they cause an increase in all the mentioned illnesses in some indirect way is nonsense.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jonathon Harrington, BSc, Chartered Biologist & Farmer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wales, United Kingdom</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Maria Mercedes Roca, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Plant Pathologist, Biosafety Program, Department of Environmental and Development Studies, Zamorano University,  Honduras</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Drew L. Kershen, J.D., LL.M</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus),<b> University of Oklahoma, College of Law, </b>United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Luis Destefano Beltrán, Ph.D</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Genomics Research Unit, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Malcolm Elliott, BSc, PhD, DSc, CBiol, FSB</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security, United Kingdom</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Steven H. Strauss, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University, United States </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment:  ”Dr. Oz needs to distance himself from outrageous charlatans such as Smith. It will undermine his credibility, and thus the value and trust in other information he presents. This would be a piety as he often presents good, highly valued health information.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Gilbert L. Ross, MD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">American Council on Science & Health, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment “As medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, a consumer education nonprofit devoted to sound-science based public health policy, I would like to sign the petition for myself and for ACSH as well. acsh.org“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prof. Jonathan Gressel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “The rats shown on the Oz show are a strain that has a very high incidence of cancer, and would have developed the same proportion of cancers no matter what fed – including organic food and herbal teas, or whatever.  If Dr Oz is a competent medical practitioner, he surely should have known that. “</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Alan McHughen, D.Phil.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of California Riverside, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tony Shelton, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Department of Entomology, International Professor; Associate Director International Programs, Cornell University, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4"> C.S. Prakash, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Tuskegee University, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Rakha Hari Sarker, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Department of Botany, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">L Val <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Giddings </span>PhD. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Senior Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Washington, DC.  United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Dr. William J. Price</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Statistician, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Steven  N. Blair, Professor</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “I am very concerned with the growing amount of ‘false science’ promoted via the popular media. We need higher standards.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Elizabeth Hodson de J. Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Emeritus Professor Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Anthony Trewavas Ph.D. FRS.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Unfortunately the world is full of opinionated people who do not have either the qualifications or understanding to make any sensible comment on food or food technology. To ask Jeffrey Smith about food is as about as useful as asking the meat counter employee in the supermarket how to conduct a detailed heart operation.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>David Tribe, Ph.D. </b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Senior Lecturer in Food Microbiology and Safety, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Healthy food decisions very important to us all. It is unfair to ordinary Americans to have a TV program that mentions misleading, badly designed and wrongly interpreted experiments on rats as if they were good health advice. Film directors are not qualified health advisers either. The American public deserve much better than Dr Oz gives them on this program. “</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Camille (Cami) D. Ryan,</span> B.Comm., Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kevin M. Folta, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Associate Professor, Asst. Director, Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program, University of Florida, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “There’s an oath somewhere that says, “Do no harm”. Perpetuation of misinformation from profiteering, scare-mongering, non-scientific authors harms the advancement of applied science and ultimately harms the people that need science the most.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">L. Curtis Hannah, PhD,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program, University of Florida, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Foods, like people, should be judged by their intrinsic merits and not their genetic origin.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Meghan Wulster-Radcliffe, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CEO, American Society of Animal Science, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Robert Stone, BSA UofS Saskatoon SK</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Stone Farms, Davidson Sk., Canada</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Neal Carter, P.Eng</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “I have worked around the globe for ~30 years as a bioresource engineer, which has given me a first-hand look at the value of biotechnology and the challenges it can help to overcome. As president and founder of an agriculture biotechnology company, I am painfully aware of the lack of public understanding of biotech foods. One of the main reasons for this lack of knowledge is the misinformation propagated by influential individuals that consumers trust, like Dr. Oz. It is extremely unfortunate when consumers turn to “health experts” for advice and instead are given misleading information based on pseudoscience that has been refuted by nearly all reputable scientific bodies. If Dr. Oz truly is concerned with providing his followers with reputable health advice, he will focus on the scientific evidence and, like the AMA, WHO, UN FAO and many more, will acknowledge that approved biotech foods are just as healthy and safe as their conventional counterparts.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Leah McGrath – RD, LDN</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Thank you. This only confirms my fears about Dr. Oz. It’s unfortunate that he has become so widely watched when he promotes no or bad science. This type of tabloid TV attracts and alarms many needlessly.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Gary B. Anderson, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Distinguished Professor <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Emeritus,</span> Department of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Animal</span> Science, University of California<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, Davis</span>, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Josephine Trott, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Department of Animal Science, University of California, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Davis,</span> United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “GMO foods have decades of sound scientific research behind them to prove they are perfectly safe. Scare mongering based on shoddy science is not a public service and any medical professional should be smart enough to know that.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Juan F. Medrano, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alex Murdoch, B.Sc., CPHI(C)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Certified Public Health Inspector, Canada</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Ralph A. Ernst, PHD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Retired Extension Poultry Specialist</b>, University of California,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Davis,</span> United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">James D. Murray, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Department of Animal Science, Department of Population Health and Reproduction, Chair, Animal Biology Graduate Group, University of California, Davis CA, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Gary B. Anderson, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alan B. Bennett, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Shanthu Shantharam</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor of Seed Technology and Biosafety Institute for the Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, Iowa State University, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Formerly, Branch Chief of the Biotechnology Regulatory Services, USDA-APHIS, Riverdale, MD, USA. Taught Agbiotech Policy Development and Analysis at Princeton University and Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prof. em. Klaus Ammann</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Steering Committee Public Research and Regulation Initiative, University of Bern, Switzerland</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “It is time to stop this kind of misinformation ignoring science, it’s a new kind of analphabetism by just following hearsay information.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mark Cantley, BA (Cantab, mathematics), MSc, Dip Operational Research (London School of Economics), CDipAF (Accounting and Finance), United Kingdom</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Currently retired. Previously head of the Concertation Unit for Biotechnology in Europe (CUBE) in the Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, 1978-1992, and 1999-2005; and of the Operational Research group in the Management and Technology Unit at OECD, Paris, 1993-1998).Our Unit in the EC fought against regulatory follies on biotechnology, from 1979 to 1992; losing the battle with the envirocrats at European and national levels. Our unit was closed. Sunt lacrimae rerum – it would make you weep.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Jany</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor for Biochemistry and Biology, Germany</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Former director of the Centre for Molecular Biology at the Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food, Karlsruhe (Germany)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Allen Van Deynze, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “It is concerning that someone who claims to be a trained medical practicioner does not have the scientific scrutiny to question the facts before publicizing them. A disservice to his audience making one question the rest of his claims.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Raman Meenakshi Sundaram, PhD, Sr. Scientist (Crop Improvement)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad, India</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Selim Cetiner, Ph. D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Vivian Moses</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Queen Mary College, University of London, United Kingdom</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor of Economics, University of Houston, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alan Conley, BVSc, MS, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Department of Population Health & Reproduction, School of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Veterinary </span>Medicine, University of California, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Davis </span>CA United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alan B. Bennett, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Robert Wager B.Sc., M.Sc.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Vancouver Island University,</span> Nanaimo BC Canada</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alan Conley, BVSc, MS, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor, Department of Population Health & Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis CA United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Joe Kamalay, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of Missouri, St. Louis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. S.M. Balachandran</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Principal Scientist (Biotechnology), Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad, India</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “It is unfortunate that this sort of malicious reports are being tolerated by genuine scientifc community. As socially responsible scientists, we must join together to thwart any attempt to subvert the scientific truth about GM foods which can help feed millions of people.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Felix M’mboyi, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Environmental Resources Management Centre for Sustainable Development, Nairobi, Kenya [Deputy Director],  St Paul’s University [Adjunct Senior Lecturer], Consortium for Economic Research and Development Studies, CERDS Consult [CEO], Consortium for Commercialization of GM Crops in Kenya [Member/Advisor], Kenya</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “I am a Deputy Director at the Environmental Resources Management Centre for Sustainable Development and also a Chief Coordinating member of the Consortium for <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Commercialization of GM Crops in Kenya.</span> Here in Africa, we have viewed Dr Oz programme as an insult to the intelligence of the scientific community. In our recent meeting in Nairobi Kenya, stakeholders from East Africa felt aggrieved by Dr Oz Programme given that biotechnology and especially GM crops give the best promise for reducing incidences of food insecurity and low productivity on our continent. In fact stakeholders from across the divide including relevant government agencies that regulate GM crops activities were of the view that Dr Oz programme would not have any significant impact on the resolve of governments in the region to embrace biotechnology for food production, income generation and reduction of poverty amongst Africans.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Elizabeth Maga, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Eduardo Blumwald</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jason Schneiderman Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Fellow, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, United States</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “This, like many of Dr. Oz’s reports, is a case of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">false balance.”</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">K. K. Narayanan, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Metahelix Life Sciences, Bangalore, India</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Misleading the lay public about a technology which can potentially address the problems of the poor is totally irresponsible. The half-truths and patently false assertions made in the television program has to be exposed.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">J. Scott Vernon, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor of Agricultural Communication, California Polytechnic State University</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Comment: “Dr. Oz should reevaluate his code of ethics.“</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Joseph G Dickenson BSc (Agr)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario, Canada</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">James Moller</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">UC <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Davis Animal Science</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kellie Bauman BSc, MSc, Animal Sciences</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Quality Assurance, Food Safety</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mark Walton, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CMO, Recombinetics</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor Vivian Moses</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Queen Mary, University of London</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Institute for Responsible Technology</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">IFRT, YES! Books & Coordinating Council</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Institute for Responsible Technology (IFRT), also known as “A project of The Coordinating Council” in promotional materials and IRS tax filings, is a non-profit tax-exempt organization founded by Jeffrey Smith in 2003 and located at his home in Fairfield, Iowa.  From 2003-2011 IFRT operated as a project of “The Coordinating Council” – a Seattle, Washington based 501c3 non-profit organization formed by alternative health industry lobbyists Craig Winters from which he operated his “Campaign to Label GE Foods.”  Winters worked closely with such anti-biotech advocacy groups as the Center for Food Safety (Andrew Kimbrell), Organic Consumers Association (Ronnie Cummins) and the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (Mark Ritchie) in promoting regulatory, legal and legislative barriers to agricultural biotechnology.  Winters frequently acknowledged his Coordinating Council campaign goals were to ban all GMOs, and that labeling GE foods would “have nearly the same effect as a ban.”  Winters became ill in 2008 and passed away in 2009 around which time Jeffrey Smith took over responsibility for the organization.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Based on tax returns filed by Jeffrey Smith on behalf of “The Coordinating Council,” the organization reported no income or expenditures from 2004-2007.  The tax returns for the organization in subsequent years reveal the following:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2008 IRS form 990: “Implemented education and public awareness regarding public health issues in food production” – Jeffrey Smith, sole listed board member and sole employee, paid <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">$24,000 </span>from a total income of $261,316 and expenditures of $209,506 (Return filed September 15, 2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2009 IRS form 990: “Implemented education and public awareness regarding public health issues in food production” – Jeffrey Smith sole listed board member and sole employee paid $24,000 from a total income of $202,052 and expenditures of $216,154 (Returned filed September 15, 2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2010 IRS form 990: “Implemented education and public awareness regarding public health issues in food production”  – Jeffrey Smith sole listed board member and sole employee paid $24,000 from a total income of $315,612 and expenditures of $254,509 (Returned dated September 12, 2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2011: No return yet on file.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 2012, Jeffrey Smith filed new 501c3 paperwork to establish the Institute for Responsible Technology as a separate entity from “The Coordinating Council.”   Since the IFRT project founding in 2003, Jeffrey Smith has been the only listed employee in tax filings and only references person in media reports associated with the organization.    </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith has similarly created a “publishing house” called Yes! Books.  Also co-located at Smith’s home in Fairfield, Iowa with the IFRT and sharing the same phone number as IFRT and the Coordinating Council, Yes! Publishing’s only listed books are Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette.  There are no other formal business filings for Yes! Publishing with the Iowa Secretary of State and it appears this “publishing house” is another “project” operating and funded under “The Coordinating Council” for business and tax purposes.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith’s loosely organized “non-profit” and self-publishing house appear to all be sole proprietorship’s with Jeffrey Smith as the only listed board member and employee.  However, Smith uses these organizations to assert his expertise in the area of genetic engineering claiming to be a “best selling” author for his publications.  His books appear on no publishing industry recognized “best seller” lists and his “research” institute’s foundation appears to rest solely on Smith’s self-published books, pamphlets and DVDs.  Smith appears to be the sole beneficiary of these books and pamphlet sales, combined with speaking fees and donations to his “non-profit” organization.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Some of the sources of IFRT’s annual budgets can gleaned from financial sponsors acknowledged on Jeffrey Smith’s website.  They include a range of organic, natural products and alternative health providers that mirror reported contributors to GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California and other states.  Among the largest donors are Organic Valley (George Simeon), Stonyfield Organic Yogurt (Gary Hirshfield), Natural News Insider (Mike Adams) and Mercola.com -  alternative health and nutraceuticals (Joe Mercola).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">* It is worth noting that Andrew Kimbrell, a well known anti-biotech activist and litigator, is also founding board member of the <b>Alliance for Bio-Integrity i</b>n Fairfield, Iowa with Maharishi Institute executive vice president Steven M. Druker. The Alliance sued the U.S. FDA to block the development of GMOs and this 1999 anti-biotech litigation relied upon expert witness Jeffrey Smith’s employer John Fagan at the Genetic-ID GMO testing service. The Alliance for Bio-Integrity operated from 1996-2001 overlapping with Jeffry Smith’s tenure at Genetic-ID as director of business development and marketing.  Kimbrell and Smith continue to work together on anti-biotechnology campaigns including the 2012 California Proposition 37 ballot initiative to label GE foods.  A similar organization “Truth in Labeling” coalition was formed by Alliance for Bio-Integrity co-founder and Maharishi Institute teacher Anne Dietrich, also active in the anti-GMO labeling movement.  All have file tax returns from Fairfield, IA sharing the same accountants who handle the books for the Maharishi Institute’s various ventures.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> (Last updated November 2012)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">8/14</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">targets;</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CNN “UpWave” article: 10 ways to keep your diet GMO-free</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">No related posts.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 12 (1 votes, average: D out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Apr 11, 2014 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Debunking pseudo science “lab testing” health risk claims about glyphosate (Roundup)</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“Recently claims of adverse effects caused by glyphosate have begun to appear. Although none of the reports has proven credible, it appears that these reports are part of a deliberate campaign to create the False impression that glyphosate is highly toxic and harmful as a basis of calling for bans…”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 12 (1 votes, average: D out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Apr 10, 2014 | 1 comment | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Reuters' Gillam earns failing grade, </span>again, for coverage of GMO science issues</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reuters’ Gillam earns failing grade, again, for coverage of GMO science issues</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reuters’ Carey Gillam repeated citing of false claims ignores the robust global consensus on the safety of crops improved through biotechnology, earning her another failing grade for accuracy and science journalism.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 12 (1 votes, average: D out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Apr 09, 2014 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Why Consumers Pay More for Organic Foods? Fear Sells and Marketers Know it.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">An academic review of more than 25 years of market research, marketing tactics and government programs driving sales in the organic and natural product industries</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 121 vote, average: 1.00 out of 12 (1 votes, average: D out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Apr 07, 2014 | 1 comment | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CNN Health earns D- grade</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CNN Health article ignores overwhelming scientific consensus on GMO safety: D-</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This article comes from the website unwave, a new Turner Corporation venture that proudly claims to provide “a distinctive opportunity for Turner to leverage our vast branding and content expertise to create business opportunities with advertisers and consumers in a high-growth, high-impact business segment.” In short, it’s slick deceptive internet advertising for the lucrative health […]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Apr 02, 2014 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Turning Science into a Circus: The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv and Tyrone Hayes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Turning Science into a Circus: The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv and Tyrone Hayes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Syngenta may have good reason to feel it was treated unfairly, even dishonestly, in the New Yorker article. The real damage, however, is that such shoddy journalism debases the public’s understanding of how science should be conducted and the importance of non-politicized, sound science-based regulatory systems to protect consumers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mar 07, 2014 | 2 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">USDA ERS 2014 GE Crops Report</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Grading the Science: USDA’s Economic Research Report & Coverage by Reuters</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Grading the Science: USDA’s Economic Research Report A- & Coverage by Reuters D</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mar 01, 2014 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beneficial insects not harmed by GM crops</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feedstuffs Food Link article on GMOs and beneficial insects earns A for science</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A LARGE body of literature has shown that genetically modified (GM) plants that produce proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to protect themselves from insect pests have little to no effect on a wide range of non-target insects.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb 20, 2014 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tufts University statement on Golden Rice Research</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Multiple reviews found no concerns related to the integrity of the study data, the accuracy of the research results or the safety of the research subjects. In fact, the study indicated that a single serving of the test product, Golden Rice, could provide greater than 50 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A in these children, which could significantly improve health outcomes if adopted as a dietary regimen.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sep 19, 2013 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A critical assessment of the paper ‘GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?’</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 2010, Antoniou et al published a paper entitled GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? This made a number of claims of alleged negative impacts associated with the global use of genetically modified (GM) soybeans on human and animal health, on environmental safety and on socio-economic status. This briefing note examined and assessed the main claims in this paper.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Aug 07, 2013 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz and Academics Review in the New Yorker</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Trouble with Dr. Oz by Michael Specter in the New Yorker Magazine.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb 19, 2013 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Tyrone Hayes: The infamous “gay frog” creating “IDGAF!” Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant is now profiled under individuals on Academics Review.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Feb 19, 2013 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dr. Oz Presents Highly Inaccurate Information</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We urge Dr. Oz to make an immediate public statement disavowing these misleading health claims promoted by his show, and we urge his program promoters, sponsors and distributors (including: Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios and Sony Pictures Television Distribution) to reevaluate their continued involvement with this or any programs which promote such baseless and irresponsible health claims.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Oct 17, 2012 | 25 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Letter to Dr. Oz Show Producers by Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">I am compelled to again voice my concerns regarding the potential violation by Dr. Oz of medical ethics and high risk of misrepresentation of human health information by the Dr. Oz Show with regard to GMOs.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Oct 06, 2012 | 16 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Study</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Maybe we have reached a turning point where the media will finally realize that they have been played for years by expert professional con-men. Not only was there never any plausible scientific reason to believe that genetically engineered crops posed risks any different from other crops, but hundreds of risk-assessment experiments and vast cultivation and consumption of them provides a high level of confidence about their safety and usefulness.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 120 votes, average: 0.00 out of 12 (0 votes, average: F out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sep 24, 2012 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Academics Review Multimedia Gallery Updated</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Julie Taylor earns a D- for her CNN Health article published via upwave – “Turner Broadcasting’s new lifestyle brand designed to entertain the health into you!”  Taylor writes, “There is no consensus in the scientific community that GMOs are safe, says David Schubert at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies…”  To read Taylor’s article which opens, […]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 12 (1 votes, average: C- out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jul 03, 2012 | 0 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">New Site Pushes Peer-Reviewed Science Over Misinformation</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">AcademicsReview.org launches with point-by-point analysis of Jeffrey Smith’s claims against GM foods and genetic engineering, holding each up to peer-reviewed, international science. The founders, two professors from the United States and Australia, invite other scientists to join the mission.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 12 (1 votes, average: C- out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mar 23, 2010 | 5 comments | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Food Safety: Focus on Real Risks, Not Fake Ones</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Food Safety: Focus on Real Risks, Not Fake Ones</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Disease microbes, nutrient shortages and lack of access are greatest threats, not biotechnology. Contamination of fish and meat with parasites, or grains with mold toxins, are also significant food health hazards.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 121 vote, average: 1.70 out of 12 (1 votes, average: C- out of 12)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">You need to be a registered member to rate this post.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mar 18, 2010 | 1 comment | View Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith: False Claims Unsupported by Science</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith has gained fame for claiming biotech foods are dangerous, but  none of his claims are based on sound science. Smith has no discernible scientific training  yet makes 65 such claims in his book Genetic Roulette. Click here for a point-by-point response based on peer-reviewed science.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">final entry on seralini suggest he's getting rich from a kid's book and doc film?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with 39 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">env sci europeA highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has beenrepublished.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although we and many others disagreed.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Here’s the original abstract of the Food and Chemical Toxicology paper, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The new paper, which appears in a different journal (more on that in a moment), includes a new analysis. Here’s the abstract:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Background</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Results</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Conclusion</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The team circulated an embargoed version of the study to members of the media last week. They withheld the name of the journal — a highly unusual move about which our sister blog, Embargo Watch, has more — and said the name would be released at a press conference that’s starting as this post goes live. That omission — which Seralini told Retraction Watch was to prevent GMO and Roundup maker Monsanto from pressuring editors to revoke publication — extended to a passage that appears in italics before the study (more on this passage in a moment):</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Empirical natural and social sciences produce knowledge which should describe and explain past and present phenomena and estimate their future development. To this end quantitative methods are used. Progress in science needs controversial debates aiming at the best methods as basis for objective, reliable and valid results approximating what could be the truth. Such methodological competition is the energy needed for scientific progress. In this sense, [the editor] aims to enable rational discussions dealing with the article from G.-E. Séralini et al. (Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50:4221–4231) by re-publishing it. By doing so, any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted. The only aim is to enable scientific transparency and, based on this, a discussion which does not hide but aims to focus methodological controversies. [the editor and journal's name will be released at the press conference, June 24th]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch learned yesterday, however, that Environmental Sciences Europe — a journal where Seralini has published before — was the journal publishing the new version. The journal, part of SpringerOpen, is too young to have an official Impact Factor (IF). Using the same calculation, however, the journal would have an IF of .55. That would place it about 190th out of the 210 journals in the “environmental sciences” category at Thomson Scientific. (For comparison, Food and Chemical Toxicology has an IF of just above 3, and a ranking of 27th.)[cf entine?]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This is hardly the first time that the authors of a retracted paper have republished it. In a recent case, they did so in the same journal. But in a more typical case, they republished the work in another journal, with a lower IF.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Seralini and his colleagues provide a timeline in the press materials of their version of events. One element in particular caught our eye:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wallace Hayes wrote an article to defend his position that raises doubts about his understanding of the study and raw data. He mentions in his defense he was unable to conclude that “there was a clear link between GMO and cancer.” An obvious error of W. Hayes as the term “cancer” has never been mentioned in the paper of Séralini’s research team. And it does not affect any aspect of the research on Roundup.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Now, “tumor” and “cancer” are not necessarily the same thing. But the original paper certainly referred to tumors repeatedly, and Seralini, as Nature reported at the time,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">…has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Speaking of the book and film about Seralini’s work, the authors — who have lambasted their critics for failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest, including in a paper published alongside the new version – didn’t declare them as conflicts:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests, and that, in contrast with regulatory assessments for GMOs and pesticides, they are independent from companies developing these products.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>RETRACTIONWATCH</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers.[1] The blog was launched in August 2010 and is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (executive editor of Reuters Health) and Adam Marcus (managing editor of Anesthesiology News).[2]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Contents  [hide] </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1 Scope</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2 Case discussions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2.1 Watch view</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">3 Impact</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">4 References</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">5 External links</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scope[edit]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Oransky and Marcus were motivated to launch the blog to increase the transparency of the retraction process.[3] They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, and the reasons for retractions are not publicized.[3] One result is that other researchers or the public who are unaware of the retraction may make decisions based on invalid results. Oransky describes an example of a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that reported the identification of a molecule that could cause breast cancers to respond to a drug that otherwise was not effective on this type of tumor. Although the paper was retracted, its retraction was not reported in the media outlets that had reported on its conclusions, and before it was retracted a company had been established to make use of the reported discovery.[4]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The blog argues that retractions provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, and can provide insight into cases of scientific fraud.[5] Its operators say that as science journalists, they have "found retractions to be the source of great stories that say a lot about how science is conducted."[4]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Case discussions[edit]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">When asked why a particular paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society had been retracted, the author told Retraction Watch that an error in the study had been discovered after publication, and that the technique he had described in the paper as an advancement was actually no more useful than the existing technique.[6] Science journalist Ben Goldacre commented, "That's useful information, much more informative than the paper simply disappearing one morning," noting that the retracted paper had already been cited 14 times "by people who believed it to be true."[6]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Watch view[edit]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Some journal editors are unwilling to respond to enquiries from Retraction Watch. On one single instance, when contacted about a retracted paper, the editor of one medical journal told the blog: “It’s none of your damn business,” and that retraction notices were issued “to inform our readers that the article is retracted," but "the public doesn’t need to know the details".[7]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Impact[edit]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought.[4] When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we’d have enough material".[8] It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually.[4] However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions.[9] Retraction Watch has garnered praise[2][10] as useful to aspiring scientific journalists or people interested in the issue of accuracy."[3][6]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">References[edit]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jump up^ Strauss, Stephen (April 7, 2011). "Searching for truth in published research". CBC News. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">^ Jump up to:a b Collier R (2011). "Shedding light on retractions.". CMAJ 183(7): E385–6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3827. PMC 3080553.PMID 21444620.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">^ Jump up to:a b c Silverman, Craig (August 9, 2010). "Retraction Action".Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">^ Jump up to:a b c d Kelly Oakes, Helping journalists track retractions: one year of Retraction Watch, Association of British Science Writers, 20 August 2011</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jump up^ Oransky, Ivan; Adam Marcus (August 3, 2010). "Why write a blog about retractions?". Retraction Watch. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">^ Jump up to:a b c Goldacre, Ben (January 14, 2011). "Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink retractions". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jump up^ Marcus, Adam (January 5, 2011). "Why was that paper retracted? Editor to Retraction Watch: 'It’s none of your damn business'". RetractionWatch. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jump up^ Wade, Nicholas (October 14, 2010). "3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells". New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jump up^ "Making science transparent". Ottawa Citizen. August 12, 2011. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jump up^ Revkin, Andrew (September 6, 2011). "A Reality Check on Clouds and Climate". New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2011.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">External links[edit]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Categories: Science blogsMedical controversiesScientific misconduct</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">--</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Ivan Oransky is vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today. He also blogs at Embargo Watch and Retraction Watch.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">He spent 2009 to 2013 as executive editor of Reuters Health. Previously, he was managing editor, online, of Scientific American. From 2002 to 2008, he was at The Scientist, Magazine of the Life Sciences, first as web editorial director (2002-2004) and then as deputy editor (2004-2008), overseeing day-to-day editorial operations of print and online. Under his leadership, the editorial team of The Scientist earned the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Gold Eddie Awards for science magazines from FOLIO, the 2008 Magazine of the Year Award from the American Society of Business Publication Editors' Magazine of the Year contest (80,000 and under division), and the and finalist (top 10) status in the 2007 Magazine of the Year contest. He also conceived of and edited a supplement on schizophrenia that won ASBPE's top award for supplements in 2008.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In its first year of publication, Praxis Post, an online magazine of medicine and culture of which he was the founding editor, was a finalist for the 2001 Online News Association Award for General Excellence.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">He has written for publications including the Boston Globe, Fitness, The Lancet, Slate, and the Wall Street Journal Online. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">He serves on the board of directors of the Association of Health Care Journalists, and as AHCJ treasurer since 2009. He has taught medical journalism in New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting program since 2002, and taught at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism from 2007 to 2009. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the New York University School of Medicine, where he received his MD. During medical school, he served as editor-in-chief of Pulse, the medical student section of the Journal of American Medical Association. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">He completed his internship at Yale University and has a BA from Harvard.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">--</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">related http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/page/3/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Archive for the ‘gilles seralini’ Category</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with 38 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">env sci europeIn our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Hollert has responded to the same question from Nature, which reports: Read the rest of this entry »</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">About these ads</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Written by Ivan Oransky</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">June 26, 2014 at 12:15 pm</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Posted in elsevier, environmental science, gilles seralini, springer retractions,unreliable findings</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with 39 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has beenrepublished.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although we and many others disagreed.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Here’s the original abstract of the Food and Chemical Toxicology paper, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Read the rest of this entry »</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Written by Ivan Oransky</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">June 24, 2014 at 5:00 am</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Posted in environmental science, france, gilles seralini, italy retractions, springer retractions, unreliable findings</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Weekend reads: Seralini GMO-rat study retraction aftershocks; NEJM investigates conflicts of interest</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with 12 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a sampling of items about scientific publishing, research misconduct, and related issues from around the web:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read the rest of this entry »</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Written by Ivan Oransky</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">February 8, 2014 at 9:41 am</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Posted in gilles seralini</b>, studies about retractions, weekend reads</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Journal editor defends retraction of GMO-rats study while authors reveal some of paper’s history</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with 44 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The debate over the retraction of a highly controversial paper on the effects of GMOs on rats continues unabated. This week, Adriane Fugh-Berman and Thomas Sherman wrote on the Hastings Center website that Read the rest of this entry »</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Written by Ivan Oransky</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">January 16, 2014 at 9:30 am</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Posted in elsevier, food and chemical toxicology, france, freely available, gilles seralini, toxicology, unhelpful retraction notices, unreliable findings</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Controversial Seralini GMO-rats paper to be retracted</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with 189 comments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">food and chemical toxicology A heavily criticized study of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats is being retracted — one way or another.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The paper — by Gilles Seralini and colleagues — was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology last year. There have been calls for retraction since then, along with other criticism and a lengthy exchange of letters in the journal. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited 28 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and the French National Assembly (their lower house of Parliament) held a long hearing on the paper last year, with Seralini and other scientists testifying.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Now, as reported in the French media, the editor of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, has sent Seralini a letter saying that the paper will be retracted if Seralini does not agree to withdraw it.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Here’s most of the November 19 letter, including Hayes’ proposed retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Written by Ivan Oransky</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">November 28, 2013 at 9:13 am</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Posted in elsevier, environmental science, food and chemical toxicology, france,gilles seralini, toxicology, unreliable findings</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see retraction.txt</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">retraction</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div></div><div><b>ebsco 6/15 back to 2006</b></div><div>
</div><div><b>The Year in Fraud.</b></div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: MARCUS, ADAM; ORANSKY, IVAN. Discover. Jan/Feb2015, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p20-20. 1p.</div><div>Subjects: FRAUD; SCHOLARLY publishing; PUBLISHERS & publishing; SCIENCE publishing; PLAGIARISM -- Prevention; Other publishers; All Other Publishers; Book Publishers; SOCIAL aspects</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The suicide of a stem cell researcher in Japan last summer prompted a great deal of soul searching in science. Yoshiki Sasai's death came after a scandal involving two papers retracted for fraud -- the most high-profile case of scientific misconduct in 2014. But it was far from the only one.</div><div>Serious questions were also raised about stem cell research by Harvard's Piero Anversa. We learned more about Cory Toth, a former diabetes researcher at the University of Calgary, whose lab fabricated data in nine published articles. And we saw the discovery of an apparent ring to generate positive assessments, aka peer reviews, of submitted manuscripts, 60 of which wound up being retracted.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">It might seem, then, that 2014 was an annus horribilis in the world of science fraud. For many in the public, which pays for much of this research in tax dollars,</span> news of these events may have come as a rude awakening. But at Retraction Watch, when we see and hear that kind of commentary, we feel a little like the police captain in Casablanca who proclaims he's "shocked, shocked!" to learn there is gambling at Rick's, only to be handed his winnings a moment later.</div><div>
</div><div>We started Retraction Watch in 2010, and every year since then, we've witnessed at least a few cases big enough to warrant headlines: anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, record holder for retractions at 183; Diederik Stapel, whose groundbreaking social psychology work was almost entirely fabricated; Joachim Boldt, the German critical-care specialist and previous retraction record holder. The list goes on.</div><div>
</div><div>So what can we learn from all these scandals? Are scholarly journals and their editors, who insist that their peer-reviewed studies are more trustworthy than everything else the public hears about science, little better than carnival barkers hawking bogus trinkets?</div><div>
</div><div>The short answer is no. Journals and publishers are, for the most part, doing a good job. They increasingly use software to screen manuscripts for plagiarism, and some even employ statistics experts to review papers for signs of data fabrication. In the Fujii case, for example, the British journal Anaesthesia had a stats guru analyze Fujii's articles. His verdict: The chances that the data were valid were infinitesimal.</div><div>
</div><div>It's impractical to apply this sort of extensive scrutiny to every one of the nearly 2 million manuscripts submitted each year. But conducting statistical reviews of papers that get flagged during the editorial process -- or, perhaps more important, after publication -- is an achievable goal, one that would make a significant contribution to the integrity of the scientific literature.</div><div>
</div><div>In fact, post-publication peer review is an emerging phenomenon in scholarly publishing. On sites like Pub Peer, researchers critique papers, pointing out everything from errors or other problem spots to potentially manipulated images and other evidence of misconduct. One of the reasons there seems to be more fraud is simply that we're better at finding it.</div><div>
</div><div>Many scientists, journal editors and publishers have reacted warily to Pub Peer and its ilk. Some contend that the anonymity of the post-publication reviewers breeds witch hunts and harms innocent bystanders. But the sites are doing a service by catching horses even though they have already left the barn. In addition, small but growing efforts have also begun, to test whether research holds up by repeating -- in scientific parlance, replicating -- experiments in cancer and psychology research.</div><div>
</div><div>All of these efforts underscore a critical point, one that science may need some time to embrace: The paper is not sacrosanct. It does not come into the world like a flawless, shining deity immune to criticism or critique. If more scientists come to think of a new publication as a larval stage of scientific knowledge and if fewer schools and funding agencies prize the high-profile journal article -- basing tenure, grant and promotions on it -- then researchers will feel less pressure to cut corners and manufacture dramatic results.</div><div>Reporting on cases in which scientists have committed fraud can be disheartening, even heartbreaking. But for every fraudster out there, we know there are dozens of scientists who are quick to correct the record when they discover problems in their work. And they rail against the reluctance of many of their peers to do the same. Sadly, many scientists are worried that acknowledging any fraud in their midst will discourage funding.</div><div>
</div><div>We are guided by the old chestnut: The cover-up is worse than the crime. If the growing awareness of an ongoing problem has led to more transparency, the scientific process, and the public who benefits from the knowledge it generates, will be better off.</div><div></div><div>By ADAM MARCUS and IVAN ORANSKY, CO-FOUNDERS OF RETRACTIONWATCH.COM</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>2.</div><div><b>Publishing: The peer-review scam.</b></div><div>Detail Only Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Ferguson, Cat; Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan. Nature. 11/27/2014, Vol. 515 Issue 7528, p480-482. 3p. 1 Illustration. DOI: 10.1038/515480a.</div><div>Subjects: PEER review of academic writing; AUTHORS; REPORT writing; NATURE Publishing Group (Company); Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers; Independent writers and authors; HYUNG-In Moon</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>3.</div><div><b>Fit for print?</b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan. Biologist. Oct/Nov2014, Vol. 61 Issue 5, p9-9. 1p.</div><div>Subjects: PEER review of academic writing; <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">INCENTIVES in industry</span></div><div>
</div><div>These days, it feels impossible</div><div>to go a month without</div><div>reading about some scandal</div><div>involving a scientific paper - from</div><div>manipulated images in supposedly</div><div>groundbreaking stem cell research</div><div>to misconduct in social psychology</div><div>experiments. But four years ago,</div><div>when we launched Retraction Watch</div><div>to monitor retracted scientific</div><div>papers, we were not sure we would</div><div>have enough material.</div><div>
</div><div>Coincidentally, we had</div><div>established the blog in the middle</div><div>of a rapid increase in the rate of</div><div>retractions. The average annual</div><div>number of retractions grew tenfold</div><div>from 2001 to 2010, while the</div><div>number of papers published per</div><div>year grew by just 44%.</div><div>
</div><div>Why that is the case is not clear,</div><div>although it is fairly evident that</div><div>having more eyes scrutinising papers</div><div>online is one factor, as is the greater</div><div>use of plagiarism detection software.</div><div>What many of these retractions</div><div>reveal, however, are the limitations</div><div>of peer review as it exists today.</div><div>
</div><div>Journals often say that their</div><div>peer review isn't designed - or</div><div>adequate - to catch brazen fraud.</div><div>That was more or less the argument</div><div>Nature made in the wake of two</div><div>high-profile stem cell retractions in</div><div>July - a case which tragically ended</div><div>in the suicide of one of the authors.</div><div>Sometimes journals even say</div><div>plagiarism and image manipulation</div><div>are outside the purview of the</div><div>process. If that's the case, does peer</div><div>review really add enough value to</div><div>be worth waiting for?</div><div>
</div><div>In a word, yes. However,</div><div>traditional pre-publication peer</div><div>review is not enough. We doubt</div><div>very much that we have to tell</div><div>The Biologist's readers about peer</div><div>review's vulnerabilities. In highly</div><div>specialised fields, double-blind</div><div>peer review is a bit of a farce,</div><div>given how particular authors write</div><div>and which papers they cite. Yet</div><div>it can still be used to slow down</div><div>competitors' work. And how can</div><div>we expect there to be enough</div><div>scientists to properly peer review,</div><div>given the sheer number of journals</div><div>created every year?</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The solution to a lot of these</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">problems lies outside of peer</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">review, in fixing the incentives</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">that have grown up around</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">scientific <b>funds</b></span>. Put plainly,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> the</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">currency of the realm is the peer</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">reviewed paper, </span>especially if it's</div><div>in a high impact factor journal.</div><div>As long as that's true, scientists</div><div>will find ways to make the system</div><div>work for them, whether it's by</div><div>'salami slicing' their data to</div><div>bulk up their publication count,</div><div>manipulating the peer review</div><div>process or committing fraud.</div><div>
</div><div>Until those incentives change,</div><div>science can begin to improve peer</div><div>review by embracing the idea that</div><div>papers aren't gospel merely because</div><div>they've been published. They are</div><div>living, breathing documents that</div><div>should be discussed and debated in</div><div>the open - not just privately in journal</div><div>clubs. Check out PubPeer.com, where</div><div>those discussions are happening,</div><div>and leading to corrections and</div><div>retractions. Researchers needn't</div><div>fear PubPeer, though. So far, it hasn't</div><div>borne out the predictions of critics</div><div>that it would become a forum for</div><div>pettiness and hatchet jobs. There's</div><div>even evidence that researchers</div><div>who come clean about their honest</div><div>mistakes and retract flawed studies</div><div>see a bump in citations, rather than</div><div>punishment by their peers.</div><div>Journals should be leading</div><div>this movement by endorsing post</div><div>publication peer review. If they</div><div>don't, we will all know that peer</div><div>review as it stands today is still as</div><div>ineffective as it appears to be every</div><div>time a retraction catches journal</div><div>editors with their pants down.</div><div>
</div><div>Ivan Oransky is</div><div>global editorial</div><div>director of</div><div>MedPage Today and</div><div>the vice-president</div><div>of the Association</div><div>of Health Care</div><div>Journalists. </div><div>Adam</div><div>Marcus is the</div><div>managing editor of</div><div>Gastroenterology</div><div>& Endoscopy News.</div><div>Ivan and Adam are</div><div>the co-founders of</div><div>Retraction Watch</div><div>(www.retraction</div><div>watch.com).</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>4.</div><div>Dr. Know.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. New Republic. 3/26/2008, Vol. 238 Issue 5, p20-21. 2p. 1 Color Photograph, 1 Illustration.</div><div>Subjects: EVIDENCE-based medicine; CLINICAL trials; SURGICAL stents; ADRENERGIC beta blockers; PHYSICIANS (General practice); HEALTH care reform</div><div> </div><div>Illustration Color Photograph</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>HTML Full TextPDF Full Text (153KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>5.</div><div><b>What's Behind Big Science Frauds?</b></div><div>
</div><div>News</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan. New York Times. 5/23/2015, Vol. 164 Issue 56875, pA19-A19. 1/6p.</div><div>Subjects: FRAUD in science; BIAS (Law); UNITED States</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>6.</div><div><b>Science publishing: The paper is not sacred.</b></div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan. Nature. 12/22/2011, Vol. 480 Issue 7378, p449-450. 2p. 1 Illustration. DOI: 10.1038/480449a.</div><div>Subjects: SCIENCE publishing; SCHOLARLY publishing; JOURNALISTIC errors; PEER review of academic writing; SCIENTISTS; SCHOLARLY periodicals; Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books); Other printing; Periodical Publishers; Book Publishers</div><div> </div><div>Illustration</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>Cited References: (5)</div><div>PDF Full Text (582KB)</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Peer review continues long after a paper is published,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and that analysis should become part of the scientific</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">record, say Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">22/29 DECEMBER 2011 | VOL 480 | NATURE | 449</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The paper is not sacred</font></b></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Two months after we started a blog</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">that tracks scientific retractions —</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Retraction Watch — in 2010, one of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">us (A.M.) told The New York Times that we</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">weren’t sure we would have enough material</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to post with any regularity. That concern</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">turned out to be unfounded — in just</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">16 months, we have written about some</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">250 retractions. Little did we know that, in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scientific publishing, 2011 would become</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the Year of the Retraction.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Here’s what grabbed everyone’s attention:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">retractions have increased 15-fold</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">over the past decade, while the number of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">papers has risen by less than 50%</span> (see Nature</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">478, 26–28; 2011). It is not clear why, and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">it is always dangerous to draw too many</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">conclusions from what is a relatively rare</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">occurrence — some 300 retractions among</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1.4 million papers published annually. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">About</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">90 retractions, after all, have come from one</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">author, Joachim Boldt, a German anaesthesiologist,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">largely because he <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">failed to obtain</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">the appropriate approvals for his research.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Still, it is clear that software that detects</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">plagiarism has played a part in the retraction</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">spike, as has the larger number of eyeballs on</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">papers, thanks to the Internet. It is important</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to point out that an increase in retractions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because they</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">correct the scientific record. But the greater</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">visibility of papers and retractions today</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">adds to the evidence revealing why editors</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">need to handle retractions more transparently.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In turn, researchers need to stop</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">emphasizing the paper so much.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">What is needed, instead, is a system of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">publication that is <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">more meritocratic </span>in its</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">evaluation of performance and productivity</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">in the sciences. It should expand the record</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of a scientific study past an individual</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">paper, including additional material such as</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">worthy blog posts about the results, media</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">coverage and the number of times that the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">paper has been downloaded.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The expanded model would also make</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">it crystal clear to readers when a paper has</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">been corrected or retracted, and why. This</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">would start with better notices from journals</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to explain those changes. Take the retraction</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> of a paper earlier this year in The</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">EMBO Journal by immunologist Silvia Bulfone-Paus.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bulfone-Paus was at the centre of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">a misconduct scandal at the Research Centre</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Borstel in Germany, where she stepped</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">down as lab head under pressure in 2010.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Borstel board found her “ultimately</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">responsible” for the misconduct in her lab</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and for failing to deal with it in a timely and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">open manner. (Bulfone-Paus has made few</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">public statements about the case, but she</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">has noted that her results were confirmed</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">by other researchers.) In 2011, journals</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">retracted 13 of her published articles, the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">stated reasons varying from detailed explanations</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">such as “evidence of data manipulation</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">in Fig. 2C, 4B, and 9, a clear violation</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of ASM’s ethical standards”2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">, to the wholly unhelpful “This article has been withdrawn</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">by the authors”.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Lines like the latter make us want to pull</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">out whatever hair we have left on our heads.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Journal readers should find them similarly</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">frustrating. But we singled out this particular</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">notice for concern not because it said too</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">little, but because, in our view, it allowed the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">authors to say too much.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">TOO LAISSEZ-FAIRE?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The EMBO Journal’s notice1</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> also included</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">this: “The authors declare that key experiments</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">presented in the majority of these figures</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">were recently reproduced and that the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">results confirmed the experimental data and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the conclusions drawn from them.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The statement from Bulfone-Paus and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">her colleagues described new data and signalled</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to readers that they could still rely on</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the original paper, even though it had been</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">retracted. It suggested that the journal stood</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">behind the statement. But when we asked the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">editor whether that was the case, we were told:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“We did not formally investigate this case at</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the journal and we have not seen this data, as</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">it does not affect the retraction.”3</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We’ve seen a similar lack of close editorial</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">review in correction notices, too. Two recent</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">corrections in Nature, and one in Nature</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Medicine, which can only be described</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">as massive, describe in painful detail the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">number of errors in the original papers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In one, images were improperly labelled</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and cropped, requiring a solid page of text</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to explain the changes and how they affect</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the paper, while another acknowledged that</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">images had been manipulated, which was</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“not acceptable”.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">One of those correction notices, published</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">on 28 September of this year, included this</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">line: “We have also included results from</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">a new, reproduced experiment recently</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">performed with an additional cohort of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">animals that shows exactly the same results.”4</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Including new data in a correction notice</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">seemed unusual, so we wanted to know if</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">that line had been subject to peer review.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As we reported on our blog5</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">, the journal</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">wouldn’t say, responding only that peer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">review is confidential, and that we should</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">talk to the authors — who never responded</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to our requests for comment.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We don’t mean to question the claims in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">these particular notices, and we appreciate</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the arguments for keeping the peer-review</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">process confidential, but we believe it should</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">be no secret whether something has been</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">peer reviewed. Any publishing scientist</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">would surely want journals to assure their</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">readers that vigorous peer review is occurring.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">After all, peer review is not merely a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">deterrent, like hydrogen bombs, but an essential</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">element of quality control for journals</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and for the research community writ large.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">If it doesn’t occur, we think journals owe it</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to readers to say so, and to explain why. An</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">affidavit from the authors is insufficient.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Requiring any new findings discussed in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">a correction or retraction notice to be peer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">reviewed is one step on the route to keeping</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the scientific record as up-to-date as possible.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We believe that some editors also need to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">work to ensure that their retraction notices</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">say why a paper has been withdrawn, rather</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">than just the exasperating “this paper was</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">retracted by the authors” that we see so often.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Editors have many reasons to pay more</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">attention to retraction and correction</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">notices. For one, scientists often cite papers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">after they’ve been retracted, and a clear,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">unambiguous note explaining why the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">findings are no longer valid might help to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">reduce that. But, more importantly, a vaguely</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">worded note that includes further claims</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">from researchers whose work has been seriously</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">questioned, in turn raises questions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">about the integrity of the journal itself, and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">about the overall scientific record.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">An even more important step for boosting the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">long-term credibility of the scientific record</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">is for journals — and scientists — to embrace</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">post-publication peer review. We saw glimmers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of this new world after Science published</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the ‘arsenic life’ paper6. Bloggers such as biologist</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Rosie Redfield attacked the paper7</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">, and journalist Carl Zimmer interviewed a dozen</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">experts who had sharp criticisms8. But NASA,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">who employs the lead author, Felisa WolfeSimon,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">refused to engage in the debate until</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Science published a compilation of letters to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the editor on the subject (see Nature 474, 19;</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2011). (Wolfe-Simon, for her part, has said</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">that the critics are misinterpreting her group’s</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">paper.) Responding to critiques in real time</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">has not quite gained widespread acceptance,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">but many scientists were forced to sit up and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">take notice of how the scientific record of a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">paper is expanding.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">True, the current system does already</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">allow for critiques. There are letters to the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">editor, which are robust but also limited by</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">space and often slow to appear. There are</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">online comments on papers, but hardly</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">anyone uses them. Even when scientists do</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">comment, many journals refuse to investigate</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">anonymous criticisms, a policy we’ve argued</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">against elsewhere. (We applaud the fact that</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Nature does look into such critiques.) Faculty</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of 1000, in which experts flag important</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">papers in their field, is another approach to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">post-publication peer review.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But these methods are scattered, and there</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">is no reasonable way for scientists to have</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">them all in hand when they’re citing a paper.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">These developments are why CrossMark</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(www.crossref.org/crossmark), soon to be</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">launched by CrossRef — a collaborative</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">agency formed by publishers — is so promising.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The idea is for every piece of content</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to include a clickable logo that will let a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">reader know whether there have been any</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">corrections, retractions or other revisions. It</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">is a solution to the fact that such changes are</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">at best difficult to find — and are sometimes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">not mentioned at all on ‘current’ versions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of papers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">That is the ‘Status’ tab on CrossMark. But</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the platform will also have a ‘Record’ tab</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">that gives publishers a way to take the idea</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">even further. They will be able to include</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">material they didn’t produce, such as blog</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">posts, media coverage, letters, additional</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">data and metrics such as downloads.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This does not mean the end of journals. In</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">fact, it could strengthen the value and extend</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the imprimatur of those journals that are</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">willing to embrace these new tools, allowing</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">them to isolate the useful notes from the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">cacophony of what is</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">available, and judge</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the value of a particular</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">post-publication</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">contribution. Readers</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">will reward those value</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">judgements, passing to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">their colleagues those</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">papers with additional content that validates</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and expands on the results, rendering them</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">particularly trustworthy. If journals aren’t</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">willing to start reviewing and compiling</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">additional content related to their papers,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">someone else will do it.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">All of this may mean fewer retractions,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">because editors would no longer feel limited</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to such a blunt instrument. We see many</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">papers retracted now that may not need to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">be, but they contain some nuances that editors</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">don’t know how to handle. In the new</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">system, a fleshed-out addendum, or correction,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">could suffice if the paper included</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">some of the post-publication discussion. We</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">would hope to see fewer cases of the sort that</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">happened this autumn at the Elsevier journal</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Genomics: an “un-retraction” of a study. The</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">journal resurrected a paper that it had withdrawn</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">for authorship reasons, and nothing</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to do with the substance of the paper9. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">And</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">publishers (we hope) would no longer issue</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">retractions for their own errors, such as running</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the same study twice 10.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Such a decline would be bad for business</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">at Retraction Watch, but we would be</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">happy if it meant that the scientific record</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">had become more self-correcting.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We realize that diminishing the importance</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of the scientific paper will require</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">universities and funding agencies to come</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">up with new ways to judge researchers’</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">productivity. This is a change that most</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scientists should find heartening. After all,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">tenure and grant decisions rely heavily on</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">current publication metrics — a flawed system</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">that doesn’t reflect how science works.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Many people, including Nature editor-inchief</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Phil Campbell and Cameron Neylon,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">a senior scientist at the UK Science and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Technology Facilities Council, have already</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">begun thinking about how to give credit</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">for contributions other than papers, such</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">as depositing data and writing software or</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">especially worthwhile critiques (see Nature</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">469, 286–287; 2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">There are other hurdles. How should</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scientists treat papers that are hardly read,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">so are never evaluated post-publication?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Does a lack of comment mean that the findings</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and conclusions are extremely robust,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">or that no one has cared enough to check?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Including readership metrics alongside</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">comments should help here.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">None of these issues, however, should stand</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">in the way of taking the crucial steps to make</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the scientific record more self-correcting.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">And it is possible now, for the first time,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">because of the power of the Internet. As a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">blog that attracts 150,000 page views a month</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and has tapped into a community of scientists</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">that wants to keep the scientific record</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">up-to-date, Retraction Watch is evidence of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">how science publishing has changed. It is time</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">to change it further. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">are the creators of Retraction Watch</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(retractionwatch.com).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">e-mails: ivan-oransky@erols.com;</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">adam.marcus1@gmail.com</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">1. EMBO J. 30, 627 (2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31, 1330 (2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">3. Retraction Watch. In retraction notice, BulfonePaus</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“declares” data and conclusions confirmed;</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">journals accept six more retractions. (2 February</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">2011); available at http://go.nature.com/ugld7y</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">4. Sentürk, A., Pfennig, S., Weiss, A., Burk, K. &</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Acker-Palmer, A. Nature 478, 274 (2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">5. Retraction Watch. You can do that? A massive</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">correction in Nature, but no retraction.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(28 September 2011); available at http://</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">go.nature.com/arwqjj</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">6. Wolfe-Simon, F. et al. Science 332, 1163–1166</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(2011).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">7. Redfield, R. Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA’s</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">claims). (4 December 2010); available at http://</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">go.nature.com/xcwlys</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">8. Zimmer, C. Of arsenic and aliens: What the critics</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">said. Discover Magazine (8 December 2010);</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">available at http://go.nature.com/k3i8mt</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">9. Retraction Watch. Retracted retraction leaves</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Genomics paper intact — but authors wonder if</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">anyone will know. (26 October 2010); available</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">at http://go.nature.com/rxtn75</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">10.Retraction Watch. What’s going on at</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Haematologica? Journal double-publishes three</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">different studies. (13 Octobe</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">7.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>LOSING PATIENTS.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. New Republic. 11/17/97, Vol. 217 Issue 20, p16-17. 2p.</div><div>Subjects: HOSPITAL patients; MEDICAL education; MEDICAID; MEDICAL students -- United States; NURSE practitioners; UNITED States; Administration of Human Resource Programs (except Education, Public Health, and Veterans' Affairs Programs); Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>HTML Full TextPDF Full Text (972KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>8.</div><div>PERSONAL HEALTH.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: Dyer, Nicole; Marsa, Linda; Oransky, Ivan; Weed, William Speed. Popular Science. Dec2004, Vol. 265 Issue 6, p126-130. 3p. 10 Color Photographs.</div><div>Subjects: HEALTH products; THERMOMETERS; DRUGS; WEIGHT loss preparations; WEIGHT loss; Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers; Pharmaceuticals and pharmacy supplies merchant wholesalers; Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing; Professional machinery, equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>HTML Full TextCheck for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>9.</div><div>Disarming life's invisible enemies: Mikhail Bulgakov's A Country Doctor's Notebook.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 6/12/1999, Vol. 353 Issue 9169, p2059-2061. 3p. 1 Black and White Photograph.</div><div>Subjects: PHYSICIANS; PHYSICIANS as authors; RUSSIA; Offices of physicians; Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists); COUNTRY Doctor's Notebook, A (Book); BULGAKOV, Mikhail Afanasevich, 1891-1940</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (92KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>10.</div><div><b>Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters.</b></div><div>Detail Only Available</div><div>News</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan. New York Times. 7/11/2014, Vol. 163 Issue 56559, pA25-A25. 2/5p.</div><div>Subjects: FRAUD in science; GRANTS in aid (Public finance); Administration of General Economic Programs; DONG-Pyou Han</div><div>
</div><div>The New York Times</div><div>
</div><div>July 11, 2014 Friday </div><div>Late Edition - Final</div><div>
</div><div>Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters</div><div>
</div><div>BYLINE: By ADAM MARCUS and IVAN ORANSKY.</div><div>Adam Marcus, the managing editor of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy News, and Ivan Oransky, the global editorial director of MedPage Today, are co-founders of Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks scientific errors.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">OP-ED</span> CONTRIBUTORS; Pg. 25</div><div>
</div><div>LENGTH: 880 words</div><div>
</div><div>DONG-PYOU HAN needed impressive lab results to help his team at Iowa State University move forward with its work on an AIDS vaccine -- and to continue receiving millions of dollars in federal grants. So Dr. Han did what many scientists are probably tempted to do, but don't: He faked the tests, spiking rabbit blood with human proteins to make it appear that the animals were responding to the vaccine to fight H.I.V.</div><div>
</div><div>The reason you're reading about this story, and not about the glowing success of the therapy, is that Dr. Han was caught. In October, following an investigation, he resigned in disgrace. In December, the Office of Research Integrity, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, announced that he had agreed to a three-year ban on federal funding. Last month, federal authorities arrested Dr. Han and charged him with four felony counts of making false statements. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on bail.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Even though research misconduct is far from rare, Dr. Han's case was unusual in that he had to resign.</span> Criminal charges against scientists who commit fraud are even more uncommon. In fact, according to a study published last year, ''most investigators who engage in wrongdoing, even serious wrongdoing, continue to conduct research at their institutions.'' As part of our reporting, we've written about multiple academic researchers who have been found guilty of misconduct and then have gone on to work at pharmaceutical giants. Unusual, too, is the fact that Iowa State has agreed to reimburse the government about $500,000 to cover several years of Dr. Han's salary and that the National Institutes of Health has decided to withhold another $1.4 million that it had promised the university as part of the grant.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But don't applaud yet, taxpayers: The N.I.H. isn't doing anything about the rest of the $10 million granted to Dr. Han's boss,</span> Michael Cho, after the two scientists announced the apparently exciting results now known to be fraudulent.</div><div>
</div><div>In the vast majority of cases, in fact, funding is not repaid. And just a few of the hundreds of American scientists found to have committed misconduct have served prison time. In 2006, Eric T. Poehlman was sentenced to a year in prison -- the first scientist to be imprisoned for falsifying a grant application -- and also had to pay about $200,000 in restitution for whistle-blower lawsuits and lawyers' fees. But the millions awarded to the University of Vermont for his work were never repaid.</div><div>Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist, spent six months in federal prison starting in 2010 for faking data in many of his studies. Dr. Reuben was also forced to pay back more than $360,000 to Pfizer as restitution for misusing the drugmaker's grant money.</div><div>
</div><div>But these are the rare cases. And Dr. Han may have remained one of the hundreds of fraudster scientists who faced little punishment if it weren't for the attention of a senator. The three-year ban, <b>Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, told the Office of Research Integrity </b>in a Feb. 10 letter, ''seems like a very light penalty for a doctor who purposely tampered with a research trial and directly caused millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fraudulent studies.'' (In fact, just two of the 11 cases reported by the O.R.I. last year led to outright bans. Most only required supervision by a scientist in good standing with research overseers.)</div><div>
</div><div>Senator Grassley is correct: The office needs teeth, and the people who helped pull them, not surprisingly, were scientists. The office never recovered from its case against Thereza Imanishi-Kari, a Tufts University researcher accused of fraud in her work with a Nobel laureate, the biologist David Baltimore. In 1991, investigators at the O.R.I. -- then called the Office of Scientific Integrity -- found Dr. Imanishi-Kari guilty of misconduct and lying to cover up her actions, but in 1996 they were overruled by panelists for its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, who concluded that the office had failed to prove its case.</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists used the Imanishi-Kari case as an example of government oversight run amok. But the O.R.I.'s presence as a deterrent, and oversight, does far more good than harm. Congress should give it even more needed authority. A good starting point would be to grant the office the right to issue administrative subpoenas like those its sister agency, the National Science Foundation, can use to gain access to university documents. Without subpoena power, the O.R.I. is able to see only what institutions want to share. Congress should also help by apportioning more funding to the office, whose budget is currently about $8.6 million, down from $9.1 million in 2010.</div><div>
</div><div>There are suggestions that other countries may be starting to take the lead on stronger penalties, based on recent cases in France, Italy and Britain. Recouping losses from fraud and deliberate misconduct -- not shrugging them off -- should be a high priority for federal agencies that fund scientific research.</div><div>
</div><div>The good news is that finding a cure for federal-funding amnesia isn't difficult. If the O.R.I. feels that its mandate does not include getting misused public money back, then Congress should widen the office's authority and expand its budget.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>URL: http://www.nytimes.com.oca.ucsc.edu/2014/07/11/opinion/crack-down-on-scientific-fraudsters.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>11</div><div>Bloggers beware: conflicts of interest and diabetes.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 11/11/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9548, p1641-1642. 2p. 1 Color Photograph. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69680-3.</div><div>Subjects: BLOGS; MARKET-driven journalism; JOURNALISTIC ethics; PHARMACEUTICAL industry; DIABETICS; DRUGS -- Marketing; DISCLOSURE; Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing; Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing; Pharmaceuticals and pharmacy supplies merchant wholesalers; Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers; Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (68KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>12.</div><div>From narratives of illness to "edutainment".</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 10/9/2004, Vol. 364 Issue 9442, p1305-1306. 2p. 2 Color Photographs.</div><div>Subjects: MASS media & education; HEALTH education; TELEVISION programs; PATIENT education; MULTIPLE sclerosis; PATIENTS; SUSPENSE fiction; DOCUMENTARY films; PHYSICIANS -- United States; UNITED States; Motion Picture and Video Production; POINT Source (Book); TAKING Back the Future: Living With MS (Film); PELLEGRINO, Richard</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (763KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>13.</div><div>Limits imposed on residents' work hours.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 8/2/2003, Vol. 362 Issue 9381, p378. 2p. 1 Black and White Photograph.</div><div>Subjects: RESIDENTS (Medicine); WORKING hours; HOSPITAL medical staff; MEDICAL personnel</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>Times Cited in this Database: (1)</div><div>HTML Full TextPDF Full Text (155KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>14.</div><div>Esther Miriam Lederberg.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 12/23/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9554, p2204-2204. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69880-2.</div><div>Subjects: News Syndicates; OBITUARIES; LEDERBERG, Esther Miriam</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (84KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>15.</div><div>Richard Joseph Mulvaney.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 12/16/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9553, p2120-2120. 1p. 1 Color Photograph. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69851-6.</div><div>Subjects: News Syndicates; OBITUARIES; MULVANEY, Richard Joseph</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (74KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>16.</div><div>Sima Samar: safeguarding human rights in Afghanistan.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 12/9/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9552, p2047-2047. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69823-1.</div><div>Subjects: WOMEN'S health services; WOMEN -- Social conditions; MEDICAL care; HUMAN rights; AFGHANISTAN; UNITED Nations; International Affairs; International and other extra-territorial public administration; AFGHANISTAN. Ministry for Women's Affairs; DARFUR (Sudan) -- Social conditions; SAMAR, Sima</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (43KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>17.</div><div>Saul J Farber.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 12/2/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9551, p1958-1958. 1p. 1 Black and White Photograph. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69793-6.</div><div>Subjects: News Syndicates; OBITUARIES; FARBER, Saul J.</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (78KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>18.</div><div>Robert Petersdorf.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 11/18/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9549, p1764-1764. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69722-5.</div><div>Subjects: News Syndicates; OBITUARIES; PETERSDORF, Robert</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (56KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>19.</div><div>Wayne S Fenton.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 11/4/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9547, p1568-1568. 1p. 1 Black and White Photograph. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69650-5.</div><div>Subjects: News Syndicates; OBITUARIES; FENTON, Wayne S.</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>PDF Full Text (59KB)Check for full text.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>20.</div><div>Robert Gorlin.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Oransky, Ivan. Lancet. 10/21/2006, Vol. 368 Issue 9545, p1414-1414. 1p. 1 Color Photograph. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69593-7.</div><div>Subjects: News Syndicates; OBITUARIES; GORLIN, Robert</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>marcus birder:</div><div>
</div><div>How liberals put teachers in the line of fire.</div><div>
</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam. Washington Monthly. Jun94, Vol. 26 Issue 6, p16. 5p. 1 Black and White Photograph.</div><div>Subjects: SCHOOL violence; STUDENTS -- Conduct of life; PUBLIC schools; MANAGEMENT; UNITED States; Elementary and Secondary Schools</div><div>...The Cincinnati public school district is getting acquainted with the absurdities of this kind of policy. As part of the settlement in a lawsuit brought by the NAACP in 1984, the school system is being monitored by the courts to ensure that suspensions are proportional to the number of black and white students. With school systems facing the prospect of this kind of court oversight, administrators act preemptively. That is exactly what seems to have happened at San Francisco's McAteer High. Jonathan Frank, a former teacher at the school, believes that the reduction of suspensions has come about because most of the students being suspended are minorities and school administrators have decided that minority suspensions are, in his words, a "political hot potato."</div><div>The ACLU, for its part, hasn't helped matters much either. The group has consistently argued--in amicus briefs and public awareness brochures--that metal detectors, random searches, and mandatory expulsion for weapons possession in school infringe on a student's constitutional rights. In 1993, for example, the Southern California chapter condemned the Los Angeles school district's policy of automatic suspension for bringing both real and toy guns to school as something just short of "academic capital punishment."</div><div>So the ACLU worries about unlawful searches and seizures, the NAACP frets about discrimination, the courts try to protect students' rights, and Congress pushes for more democratic schools. Everyone's heart is in the right place, no one's intentions are easily impugned. Yet the sum total effect is to create a public school classroom that is so hellbent on inclusion and so obsessed with students' rights that the point of school--learning--ends up getting short shrift. Meanwhile, the children of many of the well-intentioned folks whose good intentions brought disruptive and violent behavior to public schools--the children of lawyers, lawmakers, and judges--are safely ensconced in private schools where students who can't behave are wisely, swiftly ejected.</div><div>In Virginia's Fairfax County public schools, on the other hand, any recommendation for expulsion must travel four rungs up a bureaucratic ladder before action is taken. In Los Angeles, to suspend or expel a student a principal must submit a recommendation for action to the school system's Student Discipline Proceedings Unit. This office then holds a hearing to decide whether or not to recommend action against the student, and then, if the unit feels the recommendation has merit, passes on its findings to the Los Angeles City Board of Education. Board members make the final decision, but here's the catch--every case has its own statute of limitations. If the time limit expires before the board meets, the case is dismissed.</div><div>According to Linda Wilson of the Student Discipline Proceedings Unit, if the board cancels a meeting, as it sometimes does, review of some serious cases can be delayed until past their expiration dates. While the most egregious incidents (often those involving guns) get handled first, usually that simply means frightening cases get pushed aside so that the board can handle really frightening cases. Last December, for instance, the board had so many cases in the pipeline and delayed hearings so long that two cases of possession of a knife, one case of brandishing a knife, and one possession of a dangerous object were neglected....</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>13.</div><div>Making an Impact with Impact Studies.</div><div>Detail Only Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam; Leman, Melissa. School Library Monthly. Sep2011, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p11-13. 3p. 1 Illustration.</div><div>Subjects: SCHOOL libraries; SOCIAL impact assessment; EDUCATIONAL programs; LIBRARY advocacy & activism; BROOKLYN (New York, N.Y.); NEW York (N.Y.); NEW York (State); Libraries and Archives; MARCUS, Adam; KACHEL, Debra E.</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>Check for full text.</div><div>14.</div><div>Pull Up a Chair.</div><div>Full Text Available</div><div>Periodical</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam. Scientific American Mind. Sep/Oct2011, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p10-10. 1/2p.</div><div>Subjects: PSYCHOLOGY -- Research; PERSONALITY; IMPULSE (Psychology); Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>HTML Full TextCheck for full text.</div><div>15.</div><div>Traditional publications: An endangered species?</div><div>Detail Only Available</div><div>Academic Journal</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam. Arthritis & Rheumatism. Feb2008 Supplement 2, Vol. 58, pS149-S152. 4p. DOI: 10.1002/art.23365.</div><div>Subjects: MEDICAL literature; MEDICAL publishing; CORPORATE profits; ADVERTISERS; KELSALL, Brian</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>Check for full text.</div><div>16.</div><div>Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters.</div><div>Detail Only Available</div><div>News</div><div>By: Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan. New York Times. 7/11/2014, Vol. 163 Issue 56559, pA25-A25. 2/5p.</div><div>Subjects: FRAUD in science; GRANTS in aid (Public finance); Administration of General Economic Programs; DONG-Pyou Han</div><div>Add to folder</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>Scams Prompt Attempt to Plug Holes in Scientific Publishing System</b></div><div><b>
</b></div><div>Some scientists have found highly unethical or duplicitous routes to tamper with and game the peer-review system designed to ensure the validity of findings</div><div> </div><div>By Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus, Ivan Oransky <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">and Nature magazine |</span> December 1, 2014</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Lax password protection has resulted in breaches. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Most journal editors know how much effort it takes to persuade busy researchers to review a paper. That is why the editor of The Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry was puzzled by the reviews for manuscripts by one author - <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Hyung-In Moon, </span>a medicinal-plant researcher then at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, South Korea.</div><div>
</div><div>The reviews themselves were not remarkable: mostly favourable, with some suggestions about how to improve the papers. What was unusual was how quickly they were completed - often within 24 hours. The turnaround was a little too fast, and Claudiu Supuran, the journal's editor-in-chief, started to become suspicious.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2012, he confronted Moon, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. The deception had not been hard to set up. Supuran's journal and several others published by Informa Healthcare in London invite authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers. So Moon provided names, sometimes of real scientists and sometimes pseudonyms, often with bogus e-mail addresses that would go directly to him or his colleagues. His confession led to the retraction of 28 papers by several Informa journals, and the resignation of an editor.</div><div>
</div><div>Moon's was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers' computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that - in at least one of the systems - could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. "For a piece of software that's used by hundreds of thousands of academics worldwide, it really is appalling," says Mark Dingemanse, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who has used some of these programs to publish and review papers.</div><div>
</div><div>But even the most secure software could be compromised. That is why some observers argue for changes to the way that editors assign papers to reviewers, particularly to end the use of reviewers suggested by a manuscript's authors. Even Moon, who accepts the sole blame for nominating himself and his friends to review his papers, argues that editors should police the system against people like him. "Of course authors will ask for their friends," he said in August 2012, "but editors are supposed to check they are not from the same institution or co-authors on previous papers."</div><div>
</div><div><b>Peer-review ring</b></div><div>
</div><div>Moon's case is by no means the most spectacular instance of peer-review rigging in recent years. That honor goes to a case that came to light in May 2013, when Ali Nayfeh, then editor-in-chief of the Journal of Vibration and Control, received some troubling news. An author who had submitted a paper to the journal told Nayfeh that he had received e-mails about it from two people claiming to be reviewers. Reviewers do not normally have direct contact with authors, and - strangely - the e-mails came from generic-looking Gmail accounts rather than from the professional institutional accounts that many academics use (see 'Red flags in review').</div><div>
</div><div>Nayfeh alerted SAGE, the company in Thousand Oaks, California, that publishes the journal. The editors there e-mailed both the Gmail addresses provided by the tipster, and the institutional addresses of the authors whose names had been used, asking for proof of identity and a list of their publications. One scientist responded - to say that not only had he not sent the e-mail, but he did not even work in the field.</div><div>
</div><div>This sparked a 14-month investigation that came to involve about 20 people from SAGE's editorial, legal and production departments. It showed that the Gmail addresses were each linked to accounts with Thomson Reuters' ScholarOne, a publication-management system used by SAGE and several other publishers, including Informa. Editors were able to track every paper that the person or people behind these accounts had allegedly written or reviewed, says SAGE spokesperson Camille Gamboa. They also checked the wording of reviews, the details of author-nominated reviewers, reference lists and the turnaround time for reviews (in some cases, only a few minutes). This helped the investigators to ferret out further suspicious-looking accounts; they eventually found 130.</div><div>
</div><div>As they worked through the list, SAGE investigators realized that authors were both reviewing and citing each other at an anomalous rate. Eventually, 60 articles were found to have evidence of peer-review tampering, involvement in the citation ring or both. "Due to the serious nature of the findings, we wanted to ensure we had researched all avenues as carefully as possible before contacting any of the authors and reviewers," says Gamboa.</div><div>
</div><div>When the dust had settled, it turned out that there was one author in the center of the ring: Peter Chen, an engineer then at the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan, who was a co-author on practically all of the papers in question. After "a series of unsatisfactory responses" from Chen, says Gamboa, SAGE contacted the NPUE, which joined the investigation into Chen's work. Chen resigned from his post in February 2014.</div><div>
</div><div>In May, Nayfeh resigned over the scandal at his journal, and SAGE contacted the authors of all 60 affected articles to let them know that the papers would be retracted. Chen could not be reached for comment for this story, but Taiwan's state-run news agency said in July that he had issued a statement taking sole responsibility for the peer-review and citation ring, and admitting to the "indiscreet practice" of adding Taiwan's education minister as a co-author on five of the papers without his knowledge. That minister, Chiang Wei-ling, denies any involvement, but nevertheless resigned "to uphold his own reputation and avoid unnecessary disturbance of the work of the education ministry", according to a public statement.</div><div>
</div><div>The collateral damage did not stop there. A couple of authors have asked SAGE to reconsider and reinstate their papers, Gamboa says, but the publisher's decision is final - even if the authors in question knew nothing of Chen or the peer-review ring.</div><div>
</div><div>Password loophole</div><div>Moon and Chen both exploited a feature of ScholarOne's automated processes. When a reviewer is invited to read a paper, he or she is sent an e-mail with login information. If that communication goes to a fake e-mail account, the recipient can sign into the system under whatever name was initially submitted, with no additional identity verification. Jasper Simons, vice-president of product and market strategy for Thomson Reuters in Charlottesville, Virginia, says that ScholarOne is a respected peer-review system and that it is the responsibility of journals and their editorial teams to invite properly qualified reviewers for their papers.</div><div>
</div><div>Nature Publishing Group (NPG) owns a few journals that use ScholarOne, but Nature itself and Nature-branded journals use different software, developed by eJournalPress of Rockville, Maryland. Véronique Kiermer, Nature's executive editor and director of author and reviewer services for NPG in New York City, says that NPG does not seem to have been the victim of any such peer-review-rigging schemes.</div><div>
</div><div>But ScholarOne is not the only publishing system with vulnerabilities. Editorial Manager, built by Aries Systems in North Andover, Massachusetts, is used by many societies and publishers, including Springer and PLOS. The American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC uses a system developed in-house for its journals Science, Science Translational Medicine and Science Signaling, but its open-access offering, Science Advances, uses Editorial Manager. Elsevier, based in Amsterdam, uses a branded version of the same product, called the Elsevier Editorial System.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Editorial Manager's main issue is the way it manages passwords. When users forget their password, the system sends it to them by e-mail, in plain text. For PLOS ONE, it actually sends out a password, without prompting, whenever it asks a user to sign in, for example to review a new manuscript. Most modern web services, such as Google, hide passwords under layers of encryption to prevent them from being intercepted. That is why they require users to reset a password if they forget it, often coupled with checking identity in other ways.</div><div>
</div><div>SEE ALSO:</div><div>Energy & Sustainability: 5 Steps to Feed the World and Sustain the Planet | Evolution: What Siberian Burials Reveal about the Relationship between Humans and Dogs | Health: The Conflicted History of Alcohol in Western Civilization | Mind & Brain: Nail Biting May Arise from Perfectionism | Space: Pluto Lover Alan Stern Discusses Historic July Flyby [Q&A] | Technology: Timeline: The Amazing Multimillion-Year History of Processed Food</div><div>Security loopholes can do more than compromise peer review. Because people often use the same or similar passwords for many of their online activities - including banking and shopping - e-mailing out the password presents an opportunity for hackers to do more than damage the research record. Dingemanse, who has published in a number of journals that use Editorial Manager, including PLOS ONE, says: "It's quite amazing that they haven't got around to implementing a safe system." Neither Aries nor PLOS ONE responded to several requests for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>Safety measures</div><div>Lax password protection has resulted in breaches. In 2012, the Elsevier journal Optics & Laser Technology retracted 11 papers after an unknown party gained access to an editor's account and assigned papers to fake reviewer accounts. The authors of the retracted papers were not implicated in the hack, and were offered the chance to resubmit.</div><div>
</div><div>Elsevier has since taken steps to prevent reviewer fraud, including implementing a pilot programme to consolidate accounts across 100 of its journals. The rationale is that reducing the number of accounts in its system might help to reveal those that are fraudulent, says Tom Reller, a spokesperson for Elsevier. If it is successful, consolidation will roll out to all journals in early 2015. Furthermore, passwords are no longer included in most e-mails from the editorial system. And to verify reviewers' identities, the system now integrates the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) at various points. ORCID identifiers, unique numbers assigned to individual researchers, are designed to track researchers through all of their publications, even if they move institutions.</div><div>
</div><div>ScholarOne also allows ORCID integration, but it is up to each journal to decide how to use it. Gamboa says that not enough scientists have adopted the system to make it possible to require an ORCID for each reviewer. And there is another problem: "Unfortunately, like any online verification system, ORCID is also open to the risk of unethical manipulation," says Gamboa - for example, through hacking.</div><div>
</div><div>That is a common refrain. "As you make the system more technical and more automated, there are more ways to game it," says Bruce Schneier, a computer-security expert at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "There are almost never technical solutions to social problems."</div><div>
</div><div>It ultimately falls to editors and publishers to be on the alert, particularly when contacting potential reviewers. Carefully checking e-mail addresses is one way to ferret out fakes: a non-institutional e-mail address such as a free account from Gmail is a red flag, say sources. But at the same time, it could also be a perfectly legitimate address.</div><div>
</div><div>Jigisha Patel, associate editorial director of BioMed Central in London, says that it is definitely possible to catch cheaters by being on the alert for dubious e-mail addresses. "We've had some cases where we've caught them tweaking the e-mail addresses to try to steal someone's identity," she says. But such screening is imperfect. In September, the publisher retracted a paper in BMC Systems Biology, stating that it believed that "the peer-review process was compromised and inappropriately influenced by the authors".</div><div>
</div><div>Some scientists and publishers say that journals should not allow authors to recommend reviewers in the first place. John Loadsman, an editor of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, which is published by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists in Sydney, calls the practice "bizarre" and "completely nuts", and says that his journal does not permit it.</div><div>
</div><div>It is unclear exactly what proportion of journals allows the practice, but as fields become more specialized it provides an easy way for busy editors to find relevant expertise. Jennifer Nyborg, a biochemist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, says that most of the journals to which she submits articles request at least five potential reviewers.</div><div>
</div><div>For most of the 60 articles retracted by SAGE, the original peer review had used only author-nominated reviewers. Despite this experience, the Journal of Vibration and Control still allows authors to suggest peer reviewers (and provide their contact e-mails) when they submit a manuscript - although more safeguards are now in place, says Gamboa.</div><div>
</div><div>The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which serves as a kind of moral compass for scientific publishing (but has no authority to enforce its advice) has no guidance on the practice, but urges journals to vet reviewers adequately. Good practice is always to check the names, addresses and e-mail contacts of reviewers, says Natalie Ridgeway, operations manager for COPE in London. "Editors should never use only the preferred reviewer."</div><div>
</div><div>NPG journals do allow authors to suggest independent reviewers. "But these suggestions are not necessarily followed," says Kiermer. "The editors select reviewers and the selection includes checking for the absence of conflict of interests." On the flip side, authors can ask an editor to exclude reviewers who they believe to have unmanageable conflicts, such as competing research. The publisher usually honours such requests, as long as authors do not ask to exclude more than three people or labs, Kiermer says.</div><div>
</div><div>Sometimes, recommending reviewers can backfire. Robert Lindsay, one of two editors-in-chief of the Springer-published journal Osteoporosis International, says that his publication allows authors to recommend up to two reviewers - but that he often uses this information to rule those reviewers out. This is based on past experience, in which he has seen authors recommend their own contacts, or worse: "We have had family members, folks in the same department, postgraduate students being supervised by an author," he says. The journal generally uses suggested reviewers - who have passed screening - only if it runs into trouble finding other scientists to perform the task.</div><div>
</div><div>But screening can be difficult. Usually, editors in the United States and Europe know the scientific community in those regions well enough to catch potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. But Lindsay says that Western editors can find this harder with authors from Asia - "where often none of us knows the suggested reviewers". In these cases, the journal insists on at least one independent reviewer, identified and invited by the editors.</div><div>
</div><div>In what Lindsay calls the worst case that he has seen, an author suggested a reviewer who shared her first name but not her surname. Some investigation revealed that the surname was the author's maiden name - she was recommending that she review her own paper. "I don't think she is going to submit anything to us again," says Lindsay.</div><div>=</div><div>= end</div></div><div>
</div>