5 ms·

This study has been debunked. It was paid for by an environmentalist group and the people behind the study used a faulty methodology to get the results that the

by Tomco 16y ago

This study has been debunked. It was paid for by an environmentalist group and the people behind the study used a faulty methodology to get the results that they wanted.

derwiki 16y ago
Citation?
- theodore 16y ago
  Here is Monsanto's response to a more recent paper by the same authors: "The authors present no new information, raise no new issues, and reiterate theoretical concerns that already have been dismissed by experts and regulatory authorities around the world." http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/IJBS-GMO-health-risk-article-not-backed-by-data.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/IJBS-GMO-health-risk...
  - GrooveStomp 16y ago
    That is what you'd expect from the company who produces GM corn. Any third-party non-partial analyses of papers by those same authors?
    - theodore 16y ago
      There was some interesting discussion over at Discover magazine: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn... They mainly channel Karl Haro von Mogel, who notes on his blog "the authors have a little history of making mistakes with statistics with this same data set" and points to further information: http://www.biofortified.org/2010/01/organ-failure-organ-damage-cancer/ http://www.biofortified.org/2010/01/organ-failure-organ-dama...
    - pygy_ 16y ago
      Sorry, accidental downvote (big thumb, small screen). I'd like to add that, partiality aside, the Monsanto's argument is fallatious and unconvincing (appeal to authority). Give me data from independent, properly designed studies, not the mere opinion of experts.
      - varjag 16y ago
        Consider a set of politicized disciplines, S1, S2, .. Sn (e.g. climate science, GM foods research). Let P1, P2.. Pn be proponents of prevailing theory in respective discipline, and D1, D2, ...Dn be their detractors. Define coherence K as cardinality of (P1 & P2 &... &Pn) | (D1 & D2 &...&Dn). Varjag's conjecture: as n approaches infinity, K asymptotically approaches zero. Therefore if true, the argument from authority is rendered relevant. (the proof is left as an exercise to a reader)
        pygy_ 16y ago
        I'm not sure I follow you. P_i and D_i are sets of proponenents/detractors for discipline S_i, right? I so, I assume that the & and | boolean operators you use are substitutes for set union and intersection, respectively. Assuming that the opinions on the various topics are independent, I would rather see K tend to \sum |P_i| == \sum |D_i| What am I missing? ___ Also, for my previous post: s/(appeal to authority)/(appeal to potentially corrupt authority)/
        varjag 16y ago
        The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC authority on it. Given enough controversial subjects people care for, no one is going to be knowledgeable in all of them. But people invoke "arguing from authority is a fallacy" only when they are not sided with the said authority.
        Locke1689 16y ago
- mattmcknight 16y ago
  This study is actually a statistical reanalysis of earlier studies that was found lacking. The same group also produced a 2007 Greenpeace funded study that was rejected. The 2009 reanalysis was also widely rejected (by the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee, The European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_863 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_863
gruseom 16y ago
Who funded the debunking?
- Dove 16y ago
  I find it disturbing when conversations about the validity of studies (or criticisms thereof) center around things like funding or ideology rather than methodology. It is another way of saying, "I don't take seriously anyone who disagrees with me," which is not good intellectual hygiene.
  - mentat 16y ago
    The problem is that science is being essentially undermined by funding battles. The lay person or even casual scientist can't make substantial fact based decisions and can't trust the summaries. Hence the doubt about any study.
  - gruseom 16y ago
    I agree with your first statement (though your second takes it too far IMO). Still my question was relevant. Our judgments of these things are necessarily probabilistic and trust-based, at least in the absence of personally replicating a given result. Following the money is important in estimating the odds. Money involves desire. Desire involves emotion. Emotion trumps intellect. That may be disturbing, but it's a bedrock fact about human nature.

by Tomco 16y ago

This study has been debunked. It was paid for by an environmentalist group and the people behind the study used a faulty methodology to get the results that they wanted.

derwiki 16y ago

Citation?

theodore 16y ago
Here is Monsanto's response to a more recent paper by the same authors: "The authors present no new information, raise no new issues, and reiterate theoretical concerns that already have been dismissed by experts and regulatory authorities around the world." http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/IJBS-GMO-health-risk-article-not-backed-by-data.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/IJBS-GMO-health-risk...
- GrooveStomp 16y ago
  That is what you'd expect from the company who produces GM corn. Any third-party non-partial analyses of papers by those same authors?
  - theodore 16y ago
    There was some interesting discussion over at Discover magazine: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn... They mainly channel Karl Haro von Mogel, who notes on his blog "the authors have a little history of making mistakes with statistics with this same data set" and points to further information: http://www.biofortified.org/2010/01/organ-failure-organ-damage-cancer/ http://www.biofortified.org/2010/01/organ-failure-organ-dama...
  - pygy_ 16y ago
    Sorry, accidental downvote (big thumb, small screen). I'd like to add that, partiality aside, the Monsanto's argument is fallatious and unconvincing (appeal to authority). Give me data from independent, properly designed studies, not the mere opinion of experts.
    - varjag 16y ago
      Consider a set of politicized disciplines, S1, S2, .. Sn (e.g. climate science, GM foods research). Let P1, P2.. Pn be proponents of prevailing theory in respective discipline, and D1, D2, ...Dn be their detractors. Define coherence K as cardinality of (P1 & P2 &... &Pn) | (D1 & D2 &...&Dn). Varjag's conjecture: as n approaches infinity, K asymptotically approaches zero. Therefore if true, the argument from authority is rendered relevant. (the proof is left as an exercise to a reader)
      - pygy_ 16y ago
        I'm not sure I follow you. P_i and D_i are sets of proponenents/detractors for discipline S_i, right? I so, I assume that the & and | boolean operators you use are substitutes for set union and intersection, respectively. Assuming that the opinions on the various topics are independent, I would rather see K tend to \sum |P_i| == \sum |D_i| What am I missing? ___ Also, for my previous post: s/(appeal to authority)/(appeal to potentially corrupt authority)/
        varjag 16y ago
        The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC authority on it. Given enough controversial subjects people care for, no one is going to be knowledgeable in all of them. But people invoke "arguing from authority is a fallacy" only when they are not sided with the said authority.
        Locke1689 16y ago
mattmcknight 16y ago
This study is actually a statistical reanalysis of earlier studies that was found lacking. The same group also produced a 2007 Greenpeace funded study that was rejected. The 2009 reanalysis was also widely rejected (by the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee, The European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_863 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_863

gruseom 16y ago

Who funded the debunking?

Dove 16y ago
I find it disturbing when conversations about the validity of studies (or criticisms thereof) center around things like funding or ideology rather than methodology. It is another way of saying, "I don't take seriously anyone who disagrees with me," which is not good intellectual hygiene.
- mentat 16y ago
  The problem is that science is being essentially undermined by funding battles. The lay person or even casual scientist can't make substantial fact based decisions and can't trust the summaries. Hence the doubt about any study.
- gruseom 16y ago
  I agree with your first statement (though your second takes it too far IMO). Still my question was relevant. Our judgments of these things are necessarily probabilistic and trust-based, at least in the absence of personally replicating a given result. Following the money is important in estimating the odds. Money involves desire. Desire involves emotion. Emotion trumps intellect. That may be disturbing, but it's a bedrock fact about human nature.