‘Advocacy research’ tying neonicotinoids to bee deaths debunked, but still effective propaganda

, | | October 6, 2016
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

…[A] worrisome… trend is the increasing frequency of articles containing flawed “advocacy research” that is actually designed to give a false result. This phenomenon is increasingly common in studies of the supposed adverse effects of chemical pesticides and genetically engineered plants or the ostensible benefits of organic foods. … [E]ven long after the findings have been discredited, [these studies] provide propaganda value to support a certain cause …as they continue to be cited by activists.

. . . .

By far the worst case… was uncovered by David Zaruk… who discovered a document on an activist scientist’s website that documents a scheme hatched by a group of scientists… They intended to orchestrate the production and publication of a series of “high impact” scientific papers, using respected scientist authors and targeting the most prominent scientific journals, to support a pre-determined conclusion: that neonicotinoid pesticides were dangerous and must be banned. The … plan was explicitly designed to ratchet up pressure on … regulatory authorities to achieve the desired policy outcome–a ban–before any of the actual research… had been done.

Related article:  GLP’s Top 6 Stories for the Week

Why do they do it?

…Scientists cheat and lie for the same reasons that people commit espionage and betray their country–money, ideology, disillusionment or delusion.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: ‘Advocacy Research’ Discredits Science And Aids Unprincipled Activism

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend