GLP Research Library

Results (up to 200) displayed in date order. Add more terms to refine results. Browse Author or Source for complete set.

Due to our vast database, some search results may be very slow. Thank you for your patience. Use specific keywords and filters for faster results.
Results: 

Regulatory risk management process allowed policymakers to govern over the last 60 years of technological and industrial development.

A lot has been said about the journal Pediatrics December 2023 Clinical Report on “Using GMOs on Children”. The poor scholarship and citation bias are alarming, and the bias against safe technology is clear.

Peer review came about to ensure new scientific claims are vetted by scientists prior to publication. The practice is captured in the Ingelfinger Rule, named for the former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. This set a standard that respected publications would not publish claims that had been pre-promoted prior to academic review. This process of checking and rechecking any scientific discovery or research claim for accuracy and bias – before it reaches public audiences – serves as a guardrail to prevent the spread of inaccurate or flawed research.

In 2022 and 2023, two papers analyzing the intersection of genetic engineering and disinformation were published. Neither were in very high-impact journals and neither made a huge impact on social media. But for people watching the evolution of GMO regulation and acceptance, it was time to bring out the popcorn.

ho is David and who is Goliath when it comes to the GMO debate? Anti-biotech activists have long maintained that the agro-chemical industry, led by Monsanto, is a financial and political juggernaut, flooding the media with propaganda and pulling political levers to maintain support for GMOs despite public skepticism. They claim they are fighting a … Read more

In today’s world, due to the lopsided impact of the bullshit asymmetry principle, the internet is overflowing with misinformation. However, amidst this deluge of falsehoods, there are organisations that steadfastly promote scientific facts rather than succumbing to the influence of interest groups or fashion.

| | January 15, 2024

California’s Proposition 65 has become a poster child for ineffective and counterproductive over-warning. You know what we are talking about. Prop 65 is the voter-enacted law that requires businesses to warn Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that allegedly cause cancer or birth defects… A decent idea in concept, but California is now blanketed with boilerplate warnings of chemicals “known” to cause cancer, to which literally no one pays any attention.

Until the 1990s, research was often low-budget, done in government agencies or industry funded. But as universities acquired expensive analytical technologies, as industry science was labeled as biased, as foundations and activist groups started to fund their own scientists and as the journal publication process changed to a digital, market-driven model, so did the science, the scientist and the scientific method.

In the introduction to this Firebreak series on how foundations fund activists, I noted there were a wide variety of foundations: from generous endowments to publicly funded humanitarian organizations to donor-advised money mills. Many do due diligence and cooperate with their recipients to ensure that the funds are well used. The money mills, though, just take money from a secret donor or interest group, wash it clean of any fingerprints, and, according to the advice of the donor, pass it on to the targeted recipient (minus a hefty laundering fee for the fund manager).

Leave a Reply

glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists