Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed
ISIS Press Release 07/01/08
Letter to Nature Biotechnology: Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed
I am writing in response to your article defending the ‘new format’ of your Feature on Ermakova’s findings of adverse health and reproductive impacts on rats fed genetically modified (GM) soya, and on the validity of the ‘scientific criticisms’ of her work.
You are still being unfair to Ermakova, especially in allowing the panel of critics in your original Feature2 - all well known for their writings and public appearances if not in declared financial interests to be strongly pro-GM - to have the last word.
You asked for suggestions regarding the format you might use for Features of this kind. The real issue, however, is not the format but the journal’s policy on reviewing. When there is a debate or a controversy about an issue, reviewers must apply the same standards to papers on both sides, and that Chassy et al did not do. They explicitly wrote that Ermakova’s work should be judged by a more rigorous standard because it contradicts earlier work that showed no adverse effects from GM food. Yet the crucial earlier work that they repeatedly cited was indeed, not subjected to same rigorous standard they are demanding for Ermakova’s study; far from it. The same applies to other earlier research purportedly demonstrating that GM food is safe.
Read the rest of this letter here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NatureBiotechnologyLetterErmakova.php
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=GM+feed
Letter to Nature Biotechnology: Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed
I am writing in response to your article defending the ‘new format’ of your Feature on Ermakova’s findings of adverse health and reproductive impacts on rats fed genetically modified (GM) soya, and on the validity of the ‘scientific criticisms’ of her work.
You are still being unfair to Ermakova, especially in allowing the panel of critics in your original Feature2 - all well known for their writings and public appearances if not in declared financial interests to be strongly pro-GM - to have the last word.
You asked for suggestions regarding the format you might use for Features of this kind. The real issue, however, is not the format but the journal’s policy on reviewing. When there is a debate or a controversy about an issue, reviewers must apply the same standards to papers on both sides, and that Chassy et al did not do. They explicitly wrote that Ermakova’s work should be judged by a more rigorous standard because it contradicts earlier work that showed no adverse effects from GM food. Yet the crucial earlier work that they repeatedly cited was indeed, not subjected to same rigorous standard they are demanding for Ermakova’s study; far from it. The same applies to other earlier research purportedly demonstrating that GM food is safe.
Read the rest of this letter here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NatureBiotechnologyLetterErmakova.php
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=GM+feed
rudkla - 7. Jan, 18:40
