http://www.gene.ch/genet.html Nature Refuses to Publish Mexican Government Report Confirming
Contamination of the Mexican Maize Genome by GMOs
Original Berkeley Contamination Report Published in Nature Created Storm of
Controversy
(Oakland, Ca.) The scientific magazine Nature has refused to publish a
report by scientists contracted by the Mexican government that confirms the
contamination of local varieties of Mexican maize with Genetically Modified
(GM) material, according to Food First/The Institute for Food and
Development Policy, and confirmed by the Mexican daily newspaper La Jornada
in an October 22 story.
(
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2002/oct02/021022/014n2pol.php?origen=politica.html)
The new scientific paper was rejected after two external peer reviewers
recommended against publication for opposite reasons. One reviewer
recommended rejection of the Mexican report because the results were
"obvious," while the other recommended rejection because the results "were
so unexpected as to not be believable." A third reviewer emphasized
technical issues. When asked for comment, Nature editor-in-chief Philip
Campbell said the paper was rejected on "technical grounds." He added "the
conclusions of the paper could not be justified on the grounds of the
reported evidence."
This latest controversy comes after the magazine last year published a
report by University of California researchers David Quist and Ignacio
Chapela, who concluded that the Mexican maize genome had been contaminated
with GMOs. That report brought swift attacks from biotech industry
advocates, and Nature quickly reversed itself on the findings, running
commentaries casting doubt on the report, an unprecedented move by the
magazine.
"The authors of the new Mexican government study were extra careful with
their methodology, precisely because of the controversy surrounding the
Quist and Chapela paper," said Dr. Peter Rosset, co-director of Food First.
"They actually took into account every scientific critique of the first
study, and their results are crystal clear," he added. "At worst the new
paper suffers from some lack of clarity in explaining all of their methods
and conclusions, but a scientific journal would normally respond in such
cases by requesting a rewrite."
This should be particularly true in this case, given the scientific
importance of the issue, and the role of Nature itself in generating the
controversy. "How can the results be unexpected and unbelievable if they
confirm earlier results?" said Dr. Rosset. "After Nature, by its erratic
behavior, generated controversy on this important issue, they have a duty
to the world's scientific community to open their pages to follow-up
studies. To do otherwise is to give the impression of a cover-up, perhaps
motivated by biotech industry advertising pages, especially in light of how
Nature jumped to do ow Nature jumped to do industry bidding the first time
around."
If there are technical questions of how best to document incidents of GMO
contamination, "surely this an argument in favor of publication of the new
Mexican report, so we can all draw our own conclusions," he said.
Food First is calling on Nature to reconsider the rejection of the new
Mexican report and allow for a full airing of all available scientific fact
surrounding the genome contamination.
Nature Refuses to Publish Mexican Government Report Confirming
Contamination of the Mexican Maize Genome by GMOs
Original Berkeley Contamination Report Published in Nature Created Storm of
Controversy
(Oakland, Ca.) The scientific magazine Nature has refused to publish a
report by scientists contracted by the Mexican government that confirms the
contamination of local varieties of Mexican maize with Genetically Modified
(GM) material, according to Food First/The Institute for Food and
Development Policy, and confirmed by the Mexican daily newspaper La Jornada
in an October 22 story.
(
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2002/oct02/021022/014n2pol.php?origen=politica.html)
The new scientific paper was rejected after two external peer reviewers
recommended against publication for opposite reasons. One reviewer
recommended rejection of the Mexican report because the results were
"obvious," while the other recommended rejection because the results "were
so unexpected as to not be believable." A third reviewer emphasized
technical issues. When asked for comment, Nature editor-in-chief Philip
Campbell said the paper was rejected on "technical grounds." He added "the
conclusions of the paper could not be justified on the grounds of the
reported evidence."
This latest controversy comes after the magazine last year published a
report by University of California researchers David Quist and Ignacio
Chapela, who concluded that the Mexican maize genome had been contaminated
with GMOs. That report brought swift attacks from biotech industry
advocates, and Nature quickly reversed itself on the findings, running
commentaries casting doubt on the report, an unprecedented move by the
magazine.
"The authors of the new Mexican government study were extra careful with
their methodology, precisely because of the controversy surrounding the
Quist and Chapela paper," said Dr. Peter Rosset, co-director of Food First.
"They actually took into account every scientific critique of the first
study, and their results are crystal clear," he added. "At worst the new
paper suffers from some lack of clarity in explaining all of their methods
and conclusions, but a scientific journal would normally respond in such
cases by requesting a rewrite."
This should be particularly true in this case, given the scientific
importance of the issue, and the role of Nature itself in generating the
controversy. "How can the results be unexpected and unbelievable if they
confirm earlier results?" said Dr. Rosset. "After Nature, by its erratic
behavior, generated controversy on this important issue, they have a duty
to the world's scientific community to open their pages to follow-up
studies. To do otherwise is to give the impression of a cover-up, perhaps
motivated by biotech industry advertising pages, especially in light of how
Nature jumped to do ow Nature jumped to do industry bidding the first time
around."
If there are technical questions of how best to document incidents of GMO
contamination, "surely this an argument in favor of publication of the new
Mexican report, so we can all draw our own conclusions," he said.
Food First is calling on Nature to reconsider the rejection of the new
Mexican report and allow for a full airing of all available scientific fact
surrounding the genome contamination.
