4 ms·

Some of us have our doubts about private companies and known scoundrels running experiments on US populations without their consent. https://www.the-scientist.

Some of us have our doubts about private companies and known scoundrels running experiments on US populations without their consent. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/gm-mosquito-progeny-not-dying-in-brazil--study-66434 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/gm-mosquito-proge...

smt88 5y ago
That study was a lie, as the first paragraph of your link clearly states. It was disowned by its own publishers.
- georgia_peach 5y ago
  Publishers != Authors https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 vs https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62398-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62398-w Throwing enough money around has a tendency to incorrectly flip those Ts and Fs. And trusty Ctrl-F does not substantiate your choice of word "lie".
  - smt88 5y ago
    > Publishers != Authors I agree! Perhaps you should actually read the criticism of this study, which also came from one of the authors[1][2]. So now we have Yale (the lead author's institution), the journal itself, and a co-author who all say that the conclusion in the paper is false. What is a false statement that someone makes despite knowing that their data does not support it? It is a lie. 1. https://www.science.org/content/article/dissent-splits-authors-provocative-transgenic-mosquito-study https://www.science.org/content/article/dissent-splits-autho... 2. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/speculative-scientific-paper-drives-false-media-reports-gmo-mosquitoes/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/speculat...
    - georgia_peach 5y ago
      > Capurro was "trying to solve this issue directly and amicably with the other authors… > Powell, listed in the Scientific Reports paper as the author who "conceived and directed the project and wrote the manuscript," says he stands by the validity of the paper's data and analysis. Quite a leap to call an ongoing disagreement among the authors a "lie". What the journal or the institution have to say means very little. True or false, at the first whiff of controversy, they always back down. Or from the PR outfit: > Oxitec has no quibble with the science, either, which complicates its efforts to correct the misperceptions. Gorman said he has never known a published paper to be withdrawn or revised because of the language that authors use. “True speculation is where you discuss on both sides of the argument,” Gorman said. “This is just one side, and that’s just bias.” As an example, Gorman pointed to a line in the news release: “Powell speculated that females had begun to avoid mating with modified males, fueling a rebound in population.” Speculation is a common (and necessary) aspect of discussion/conclusions, and a signpost to the next experiment. If you don't like it, hire enough lawyers, dole out enough threats, and wait for some people to get cold feet. edit: > which also came from one of the authors[1][2] Neither Kelly Servick nor Joan Conrow are listed as authors of the original paper.
    - georgia_peach 5y ago
      And this "Alliance for Science" seems like a real piece of work: https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-campaign-for-agrichemical-industry/ https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-sc...

smt88 5y ago

That study was a lie, as the first paragraph of your link clearly states. It was disowned by its own publishers.

georgia_peach 5y ago
Publishers != Authors https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 vs https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62398-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62398-w Throwing enough money around has a tendency to incorrectly flip those Ts and Fs. And trusty Ctrl-F does not substantiate your choice of word "lie".
- smt88 5y ago
  > Publishers != Authors I agree! Perhaps you should actually read the criticism of this study, which also came from one of the authors[1][2]. So now we have Yale (the lead author's institution), the journal itself, and a co-author who all say that the conclusion in the paper is false. What is a false statement that someone makes despite knowing that their data does not support it? It is a lie. 1. https://www.science.org/content/article/dissent-splits-authors-provocative-transgenic-mosquito-study https://www.science.org/content/article/dissent-splits-autho... 2. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/speculative-scientific-paper-drives-false-media-reports-gmo-mosquitoes/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/speculat...
  - georgia_peach 5y ago
    > Capurro was "trying to solve this issue directly and amicably with the other authors… > Powell, listed in the Scientific Reports paper as the author who "conceived and directed the project and wrote the manuscript," says he stands by the validity of the paper's data and analysis. Quite a leap to call an ongoing disagreement among the authors a "lie". What the journal or the institution have to say means very little. True or false, at the first whiff of controversy, they always back down. Or from the PR outfit: > Oxitec has no quibble with the science, either, which complicates its efforts to correct the misperceptions. Gorman said he has never known a published paper to be withdrawn or revised because of the language that authors use. “True speculation is where you discuss on both sides of the argument,” Gorman said. “This is just one side, and that’s just bias.” As an example, Gorman pointed to a line in the news release: “Powell speculated that females had begun to avoid mating with modified males, fueling a rebound in population.” Speculation is a common (and necessary) aspect of discussion/conclusions, and a signpost to the next experiment. If you don't like it, hire enough lawyers, dole out enough threats, and wait for some people to get cold feet. edit: > which also came from one of the authors[1][2] Neither Kelly Servick nor Joan Conrow are listed as authors of the original paper.
  - georgia_peach 5y ago
    And this "Alliance for Science" seems like a real piece of work: https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-campaign-for-agrichemical-industry/ https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-sc...