Bad science and public perceptions

[coreyfyfe]

I got to reading this story about Roundup today. The full report is available here for anyone interested.

The basic gist of the report is that the authors believe the EU chemical safety/regulatory groups are covering up pre-natal toxicity of glyphosate to protect the industry, but they fail to address some basic facts of human metabolism which are cited by the safety agencies as reasoning for the product's continued usage. Namely, the chemical is slow to cross the placental barrier, is not readily metabolized by the body, and the concentrations found to be toxic in the studies cited are essentially unattainable in man. By failing to address the disconnect between the in vitro and animal model data with actual human PK and exposure data they do a disservice to the public good and public perceptions of scientific research. It's like the whole vaccine/autism thing again, they clearly have a point to push and are manipulating data to get that across in an attempt to influence public opinion.

tl;dr: It grinds my gears when people publish biased articles/studies as scientific fact, and I feel like it gives science a bad name. What's your take?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

As someone who works in science, it gets me too.

Bad science and bad scientific journalism and two pet hates of mine.

[Absentia]

Yes, but you get whatever opinion of whoever paid for the study or article in question.

[coreyfyfe]

Originally Posted by Absentia

Yes, but you get whatever opinion of whoever paid for the study or article in question.

Well written science is free of opinion - simply statements of fact and possible interpretation. It's scientific journalism that turns it into this crap, and influences the public to have opinions like the one you've stated.

[Gard]

I think the people that published that article should be forced to drink a gallon of Roundup.





...seriously, biased media reporting on scientific topics using misquoted and manipulated data drives me NUTS. It is so easy to manipulate those that are not educated - even if they are intelligent! - in science with "facts" that are only reported in a way that agrees with the pre-determined conclusion the writer or editor wishes to promote.

The individuals that do this type of "reporting" should be pointed out loudly and repeatedly for being the liars that they are. They are the worst type of liar in my book, one that will take statistics and actual facts, then twist them to support their own politically driven motivations. So much bad can be done this way, it frightens me, and we need to make it a point to call these types of "reporters" and their outlets out at every opportunity for the good of everyone.

[Pilgrim]

Gard and others, agreed. One of the casualties of modern "journalism" is that reporters are often not given - or do not take - time to really understand what they're reporting on. As a result, we get a skewed interpretation of the facts.

That is especially critical in science news. The entire meaning of a study can depend on understanding a few critical details; the first post did an excellent job of pointing those out.

[iamlowsound]

This is the same thing that has bugged me about all of the media reports of the Nuclear problems in Japan.

lowsound

[teleharmonium]

Anytime detailed information where precise wording matters meets an industry where sensationalism pays meets an audience that is predisposed to believe that they are just as smart as anybody else if not smarter, it's not going to end well.

[The Lurker]

The biological effects are possible, but glyphosate's half-life in soil is only about 60 days, and only a few days in water. That influences the possible human exposures. I keep finding DDT in places where it was last applied thirty-odd years ago.

The main problems with Roundup are that it's non-specific (kills any broadleaf stuff not immune to it) and not a pre-emergent.... so you're spraying it all over the place, onto everything, and that means it could potentially get into everything. I've also worked on some water pollution jobs where there were ridiculously huge amounts of ammonia and nitrogen (breakdown products) coming off land that had been sprayed with Roundup.

Personally, I think Monsanto's handling of Roundup, Roundup-ready plants, and some of its other product lines are a direct reaction to the fallout from Monsanto's PCB liabilities, by trying to prevent the same sort of response from government, users, or the public.

[hrodbert696]

As a non-scientist, may I chime in my wholehearted agreement. It's very hard to sort out truth from fiction about alleged scientific findings. I am an academic, and I know that what was probably originally phrased to say, "Preliminary findings possibly suggest..." turns into "New scientific fact" in the media.

It's not just science. We get it in history too. There's all sorts of crap out there based on utterly distorted notions of what happened in the past and its supposed implications for the future.

[Metal Matt]

Everyone should check out the documentaries 'Food INC.' and 'The World According to Monsanto' (full movie in first link).

The World According to Monsanto.

Couldn't find an online stream of Food INC, but here's a link and summary...

Food, Inc. | Watch Free Documentary Online

Both films look at the impact of GMO's (genetically modified organisms) on our health, and on the food chain itself along with issues surrounding Roundup. Food INC. touches on some of the topics that make up the entirety of The World According to Monsanto. The Monsanto corporation is actively trying to control the food chain. When they genetically alter a seed, it becomes their intellectual property. They convince farmers to use their Roundup ready products (seeds that are immune to Roundup) and then make them buy the seed every year instead of re-using it. They have their own team of investigators to make sure no one is illegally using their patented product. When pollen from GMO's blows into the field of a farmer who never made an agreement with Monsanto to grow their seed, the company will go after them and accuse them of illegally using their patent, and they have enough money to drag out court cases until the defendant (the farmer) is financially unable to continue fighting them. It's disgusting, morally and ethically wrong, but it's been going on for decades.

They also have enough money and enough sway in our governments regulatory agencies (you know, those regulations that are supposed to keep everyone safe?) to basically get rid of laws and regulations that keep them from making more profit. People that used to work for Monsanto have held various high level jobs in the government which should legally be considered a conflict of interest but no one seems to be doing a damn thing about it.

So when you have the governments regulatory agencies being run by people that used to work for the company that is supposed to be regulated, and you have them taking the companies own research as bare fact instead of relying on independent research (independent from the companies interest of profit) you end up with bad science, because it's being driven by a force (profit) that is outside of what should be the driving force behind science which is truth.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by coreyfyfe

Well written science is free of opinion - simply statements of fact and possible interpretation.

Contradiction alert!

If there is interpretation, it isn't free of opinion by definition.

Pretty much all well written science contains opinion - but it's educated opinion that is in line with (and doesn't contradict) the known evidence.

Originally Posted by coreyfyfe

It's scientific journalism that turns it into this crap, and influences the public to have opinions like the one you've stated.

Yeah - journalists don't have a good reputation for doing good scientific reporting.

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

As someone who works in science, it gets me too.

Bad science and bad scientific journalism and two pet hates of mine.

Ditto.

[LiquidMidnight]

Most journalists really have no business reporting scientific findings unless they've had training in research methodology and have a firm grasp on scientific epistemology. Unfortunately, they often - either purposefully or through their own ignorance - misrepresent studies and overreach with the principal investigators' conclusions.

I don't have a problem with journalism as a discipline. It's just I'm a trained researcher, so it chaps my ass when I read mainstream publications in which the findings from the original study and the reporting are obvious being misrepresented by the person writing the story. Does it give science a black eye? Perhaps, but that is actually a falsifiable empirical question.

Bottomline, it's interesting to read about new scientific studies in the mainstream media, but without a report on the principal investigators' methodology, you have to take the reporting at face value...and that's not always a good move in the world of science.

(p.s. my singer used to be a newspaper journalist )

[bassybill]

Scaremongering is bread and butter to many journalists, and some have zero regard for the consequences.

[The Lurker]

Probably because for scientific publishing, you need maybe twenty people who know what's going on to read something in order to make your career.... and for journalism you need twenty million to read it and it doesn't matter whether they understand it or not.

[coreyfyfe]

Originally Posted by The Lurker

The biological effects are possible, but glyphosate's half-life in soil is only about 60 days, and only a few days in water. That influences the possible human exposures. I keep finding DDT in places where it was last applied thirty-odd years ago.

The issues they're focusing on here with birth defect just plain can't happen. The minimum doses can't be achieved naturally, it's an entirely artificial system and they're treating it as fact. That's not to say it doesn't and wont cause toxicity, but there is a big disconnect between what this report is pushing and what is physically possible.

Originally Posted by The Lurker

Personally, I think Monsanto's handling of Roundup...

They've done a poor job all around, don't get me wrong. They have a history of dealing with shady contract labs and falsifying data, but that doesn't mean that data should be misinterpreted the other way around either.

[coreyfyfe]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Pretty much all well written science contains opinion - but it's educated opinion that is in line with (and doesn't contradict) the known evidence.

Obviously interpretation/opinion within the context and reasoning of the results shown and previously generated knowledge should have been the interpretation of my statement

[Pilgrim]

I'm on the advisory board for one of the foremost communications and journalism colleges in the US. IMO journalism is a rare skill today, but it's a skill set we try hard to teach. A true journalist needs to spend enough time digging into a problem to understand it to a reasonable degree, then do his/her best to present the issue in a way that gives the audience an understanding of the issue. Mere recitation of facts is not usually sufficient, as the journalist needs to provide context, and often needs to interpret the meaning of context and facts.

This is obviously a challenging and subjective exercise, because what the journalist is doing is interpreting reality for the audience. As pointed out above, the more that sensationalism and quick turnaround are factors, the harder it is for responsible journalism to take place.

[Hawaii Islander]

Originally Posted by coreyfyfe

I got to reading this story about Roundup today. The full report is available here for anyone interested.

The basic gist of the report is that the authors believe the EU chemical safety/regulatory groups are covering up pre-natal toxicity of glyphosate to protect the industry, but they fail to address some basic facts of human metabolism which are cited by the safety agencies as reasoning for the product's continued usage. Namely, the chemical is slow to cross the placental barrier, is not readily metabolized by the body, and the concentrations found to be toxic in the studies cited are essentially unattainable in man. By failing to address the disconnect between the in vitro and animal model data with actual human PK and exposure data they do a disservice to the public good and public perceptions of scientific research. It's like the whole vaccine/autism thing again, they clearly have a point to push and are manipulating data to get that across in an attempt to influence public opinion.

tl;dr: It grinds my gears when people publish biased articles/studies as scientific fact, and I feel like it gives science a bad name. What's your take?

Do you have a link to Monsanto's research data? Where did they publish their data? I cannot make a reasonable assessment of the argument without access to all the data surrounding the issue.

Rather than point fingers in a general direction and say “bad journalism”, it would be more informative to have a compare and contrast of the pertinent data. Links to peer reviewed research papers published on the topic would be required to make any judgment, one way or the other.

Also, there seems to be some ambiguity as to whether we are talking about toxicity versus mutagenic effects of Round-up on humans, animals and plants. Toxicity studies and mutagenic effect studies of chemicals on organisms are not the same thing.

I am not siding with either camp on this, because much more information is needed to draw a logical and reasonable conclusion. The information currently presented in this thread is insufficient to make a meaningful and deliberate assessment of the data.