4 ms·

Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to d

by finid 10y ago

Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically. Scientific studies in the public interest conducted by an organization like that should be open. Outside groups should be given the opportunity to verify your results. That's how science evolves.

Retric 10y ago
"verify your results' is fine, but they don't have results yet. They are being attacked simply for taking a while to decide an issue.
- aetherson 10y ago
  > The review, published in March 2015, concluded glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic", putting IARC at odds with regulators around the world.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Here is what they published. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.p... Which notes several cases without cancer links, but others with links "For all the children of the pesticide applicators, risk was increased for all childhood cancers combined, for all lymphomas combined, and for Hodgkin lymphoma, compared with the general population." It also notes there are "there are relatively few studies." So, noting that a link was 'probable' without saying "Yes" or "No" is not making up their minds. They are basically saying, their is not enough information to declare it safe or dangerous.
    - entee 10y ago
      Except that they didn't, they said "probably carcinogenic". That implies dangerous.
      - Retric 10y ago
        No, that's not what "probably carcinogenic" means. There is a 5 point scale, yes, likely yes, less likely yes, unstudied, no. It has been studied which removes the unstudied. However, they don't say there is enough evidence to say "Yes" or "No."
- finid 10y ago
  How then did they conclude that it's "probably carcinogenic"? Based on what we know about these things, I actually believe that it is, but lets see how they reached that conclusion. Show us the data.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You believe glyphosate is probably carcinogenic? Why?
    - jack9 10y ago
      Because every study I've seen uses and SOLELY RELIES on Monsanto supplied data and is usually run by a Monsanto agent (current employ, previous employ, or political friend of Monsanto), although there was one study from Germany that did not have a Monsanto agent and came up with "probably not carcinogenic". You do not get data on how Roundup affects a population, excepting through Monsanto's blessing.
    - Andys 10y ago
      There is also the question of whether they're talking about a direct carcinogenic effect on the personnel applying the Round Up product, versus antibiotic effect on consumers of food containing Round Up residue.
    - Retric 10y ago
      They published the studies they looked at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.p... I would not say it's a clear yes, but there is some evidence for a cancer link across a range of studies.
epistasis 10y ago
I'm not arguing that the IARC made the right scientific call on this monograph, and in fact I think they are likely to be wrong since so many other organizations disagree. However, I think it's absolutely essential to protect the private deliberations in science. What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process. There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation. In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.
- finid 10y ago
  Making the "final reasoning" open without also making the data that was used to reach that final reasoning creates too much room for speculation and conspiracy theories. Show me the data! If I can examine it and reach the same or a different conclusion, then we can begin a real discussion on why. That's science.
  - shapiromatron 10y ago
    The data are public. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php
  - cerebellum42 10y ago
    I don't think anyone was arguing the data that the final evaluation is based on should not be open. The point is that the intermediate drafts of the evaluation itself do not need to be public and it's fair to deliberately keep them in the circle of people who are working on it or reviewing it.
- entee 10y ago
  Generally, I think this is true. If a manuscript goes to review before publishing, typically the reviewers are anonymous and the reviews are shared only with the authors of the submitted manuscript. This process is usually secret and does protect the ability to be candid in review. The final published manuscript stands on its own atop its data, cited sources, and arguments. We could have a debate about whether this is a good way to do things, and surely it could be improved, but it has worked not too badly in the past. I think this is a little different though. The IARC is publishing a review of the literature, but it is both the author and the publisher. As such there's no intermediate, outside and independent step, and they should be extremely transparent about how they came to their conclusions. They should have reams of studies cited, and they should detail exactly how they weigh contrary strands of evidence. Simply saying, "it was sponsored by industry" is an inappropriate reason to eliminate a study. Again, each study stands on its own data, cited sources, and arguments. Be more critical if you don't trust the source, but consider the data and arguments. I'm struck by how the IPCC seems to operate by casting a wide net for experts and striving to build a consensus everyone can get behind, and sign their name to. Shouldn't the IARC work the same way? If the reasoning process is not thoroughly detailed in the original monograph, they absolutely should release an anonymized version of the deliberations.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically. Its the same idiotic rationale put forth by the FED and every other corrupt organization that wants to hide corruption, crime, and malfeasance. Even in cases where there are "legitimate" concerns about the sensitivity of released information (which isn't the case with the WHO), those concerns always pale in comparison to the benefits of transparency. Nobody should accept this sort of behavior from any organization that accepts any public funding or has influence over any public policy.

by finid 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

"verify your results' is fine, but they don't have results yet. They are being attacked simply for taking a while to decide an issue.

aetherson 10y ago
> The review, published in March 2015, concluded glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic", putting IARC at odds with regulators around the world.
- Retric 10y ago
  Here is what they published. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.p... Which notes several cases without cancer links, but others with links "For all the children of the pesticide applicators, risk was increased for all childhood cancers combined, for all lymphomas combined, and for Hodgkin lymphoma, compared with the general population." It also notes there are "there are relatively few studies." So, noting that a link was 'probable' without saying "Yes" or "No" is not making up their minds. They are basically saying, their is not enough information to declare it safe or dangerous.
  - entee 10y ago
    Except that they didn't, they said "probably carcinogenic". That implies dangerous.
    - Retric 10y ago
      No, that's not what "probably carcinogenic" means. There is a 5 point scale, yes, likely yes, less likely yes, unstudied, no. It has been studied which removes the unstudied. However, they don't say there is enough evidence to say "Yes" or "No."
finid 10y ago
How then did they conclude that it's "probably carcinogenic"? Based on what we know about these things, I actually believe that it is, but lets see how they reached that conclusion. Show us the data.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You believe glyphosate is probably carcinogenic? Why?
  - jack9 10y ago
    Because every study I've seen uses and SOLELY RELIES on Monsanto supplied data and is usually run by a Monsanto agent (current employ, previous employ, or political friend of Monsanto), although there was one study from Germany that did not have a Monsanto agent and came up with "probably not carcinogenic". You do not get data on how Roundup affects a population, excepting through Monsanto's blessing.
  - Andys 10y ago
    There is also the question of whether they're talking about a direct carcinogenic effect on the personnel applying the Round Up product, versus antibiotic effect on consumers of food containing Round Up residue.
  - Retric 10y ago
    They published the studies they looked at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.p... I would not say it's a clear yes, but there is some evidence for a cancer link across a range of studies.

epistasis 10y ago

I'm not arguing that the IARC made the right scientific call on this monograph, and in fact I think they are likely to be wrong since so many other organizations disagree. However, I think it's absolutely essential to protect the private deliberations in science. What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process. There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation. In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.

finid 10y ago
Making the "final reasoning" open without also making the data that was used to reach that final reasoning creates too much room for speculation and conspiracy theories. Show me the data! If I can examine it and reach the same or a different conclusion, then we can begin a real discussion on why. That's science.
- shapiromatron 10y ago
  The data are public. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/index.php
- cerebellum42 10y ago
  I don't think anyone was arguing the data that the final evaluation is based on should not be open. The point is that the intermediate drafts of the evaluation itself do not need to be public and it's fair to deliberately keep them in the circle of people who are working on it or reviewing it.
entee 10y ago
Generally, I think this is true. If a manuscript goes to review before publishing, typically the reviewers are anonymous and the reviews are shared only with the authors of the submitted manuscript. This process is usually secret and does protect the ability to be candid in review. The final published manuscript stands on its own atop its data, cited sources, and arguments. We could have a debate about whether this is a good way to do things, and surely it could be improved, but it has worked not too badly in the past. I think this is a little different though. The IARC is publishing a review of the literature, but it is both the author and the publisher. As such there's no intermediate, outside and independent step, and they should be extremely transparent about how they came to their conclusions. They should have reams of studies cited, and they should detail exactly how they weigh contrary strands of evidence. Simply saying, "it was sponsored by industry" is an inappropriate reason to eliminate a study. Again, each study stands on its own data, cited sources, and arguments. Be more critical if you don't trust the source, but consider the data and arguments. I'm struck by how the IPCC seems to operate by casting a wide net for experts and striving to build a consensus everyone can get behind, and sign their name to. Shouldn't the IARC work the same way? If the reasoning process is not thoroughly detailed in the original monograph, they absolutely should release an anonymized version of the deliberations.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

>Asked about its actions, the agency told Reuters on Tuesday it was seeking to protect its work from external interference and defending its panels' freedom to debate evidence openly and critically. Its the same idiotic rationale put forth by the FED and every other corrupt organization that wants to hide corruption, crime, and malfeasance. Even in cases where there are "legitimate" concerns about the sensitivity of released information (which isn't the case with the WHO), those concerns always pale in comparison to the benefits of transparency. Nobody should accept this sort of behavior from any organization that accepts any public funding or has influence over any public policy.