I stumbled upon this article on how to evaluate scientific papers/articles (advice for the layperson). Although this article pertains to the safety of GMOs, the approach can be applied to any scientific subject. I'm probably preaching to the choir here but one can never learn too much.
(The article's) Conclusion
So where does this leave us? The answer seems pretty clear: anti-GMO studies represent a tiny portion of the literature, they are usually published in low-quality journals, they are riddled with statistical and methodological problems, several of them have been retracted (sometimes because of scientific fraud), and they are refuted by a vast body of literature. Further, before you baselessly suggest that the pro-GMO papers were all bought off by big companies, please note that less than half of the general body of GMO literature contains conflicts of interest, whereas 60% of the anti-GMO papers contain conflicts of interest. In short, the anti-GMO papers are, at best, statistical noise, and they do not, in any way shape or form represent compelling evidence that GMOs are dangerous. Most of them are junk science and should be rejected as such.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Pseudoscience is a big pain in the ass. Being anti-GMO doesn't mean you are stupid or should be shunned by your friends. It does mean that you should read some better scientific literature. [geneticliteracyproject.org]
Panicking about your food is super hip these days.
Anonamoose
Level 5
Apr 4, 2019
0
Another POV on GMO's from the popular and articulate Neil DeGrasse Tyson..
Robecology
Level 9
Mar 28, 2019
2
Wait, wait, wait. "...please note that less than half of the general body of GMO literature contains conflicts of interest, whereas 60% of the anti-GMO papers contain conflicts of interest." I don't know that this instills a lot of confidence in papers on either side of this issue. Less than 50% probably means more than 40% and that's still pretty damn high; a large percentage of papers.
bingst
Level 8
Mar 28, 2019
1
You're correct! but this is not about GMOs
@Lukian Actually, and to be honest, I read only the bit of it that you included in your post. I just skimmed the article. The author seems to be giving the issue of conflicts of interest a pass.
"(Sanchez 2015 found that 58.3% of GMO studies had no conflicts of interest, 25.8% had clear conflicts of interest, and the remaining 15.9% could not be assessed [i.e., the authors were not linked to companies, but did not declare their funding sources])." I'm sorry, but that 15.9% concerns me. Likely intentional? If so, meaning it's somehow worse than just their funding source. It also makes me question the journal that published those papers. Assuming that disclosing funding sources is the standard, why would a journal accept and publish papers that don't make those disclosures?
"Note: The authors of the review paper did acknowledge that they themselves have conflicts of interest, but that does not invalidate their results, and it does not give you carte blanche to ignore their findings. As always, when a conflict of interest is present, you should apply greater scrutiny, but you should not blindly disregard the study."
No. I think these papers should be rejected. They shouldn't be published in the first place. We should ignore them. Actually, we should probably complain to and about such publications that follow the practice. Otherwise, we're condoning a practice that has no place in scientific research. It undermines confidence in the results, and raises questions of motivation and bias in the rest of the work.
@bingst conflict of interest combined with low-impact journals is the problem. There would not be much science if industry were not allowed to pay universities to do research. That said, highly reputable journals have a robust peer review process that can justify the science independently from the conflict of interest.
@traceyanarchist can you dial-up your wisdom woo any higher? I'm sure every scientist have now thrown the towel with your witty rebuttal. (word of advice... read the OP and the comments, this post was not about GMOs but knowing how to read scientific journals). My turn to laugh, get me a minute, I'll probably be able to gain some composure to reply to your next comment (that I'm sure is coming).
@traceyanarchist ad hominem will not get you far in this forum. Better change tactics.
With dogmatic thinking evaluating the literature is not a thing.
Stephanie99
Level 8
Mar 28, 2019
1
Recent Visitors 46
AtheistInNC
NC, USA
Metahuman
Somewhere In,
bingst
NW GA But Would Rather Be In,
Lukian
Canada
TheMiddleWay
OH, USA
Photos 136 More
Posted by racocn8I saw some articles on meteorite composition and ended up with this picture.
Posted by racocn8Here are some photos of eggs deposited on the underside of leaves.
Posted by racocn8Here are some photos of eggs deposited on the underside of leaves.
Posted by racocn8Here are some photos of eggs deposited on the underside of leaves.
Posted by racocn8Here are some photos of eggs deposited on the underside of leaves.
Posted by racocn8Here are some photos of eggs deposited on the underside of leaves.
Posted by Slava3That makes me nervous
Posted by Slava3So we are part of a Cosmic ecosystem?
Posted by SergeTafCamNot too long ago I had the opportunity to take a couple of pictures of a peacock's feather.
Posted by SergeTafCamNot too long ago I had the opportunity to take a couple of pictures of a peacock's feather.
Posted by SergeTafCamWhat's your favorite color?
Posted by SergeTafCamWhat's your favorite color?
Posted by SergeTafCamWhat's your favorite color?
Posted by SergeTafCamWhat's your favorite color?
Posted by SergeTafCamWhat's your favorite color?
Posted by SergeTafCamExciting times.