Bioscience Resource Project News and Views

Most readers should be able to access the Independent Science News website again, either immediately or over the next day or two. We are still in the process of updating the website so the last few articles may be missing.

The automatic email list sign up is still not working. Please email via the CONTACT US page requesting to be put on the list.

Thank you for your patience.

We hope the service provider can have the Independent Science News website up and running soon. Apologies for the inconvenience.

You can also read Jonathan Latham’s  “Science as Social Control: Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda” on Truthout.

“Science and Social Control: Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda” written by Jonathan Latham PhD, Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project, was published on July 31st in Independent Science News.

Synopsis: Over the last twenty years, media accounts of human genetic research [including twin studies, the Human Genome Project, and many thousands of Genome-wide association (GWA) studies] have convinced the public that genetic factors underly most disease and human behavior. Yet in terms of actual scientific findings this massive effort, one of the most expensive scientific undertakings ever conceived, has almost entirely failed to identify the important genes that geneticists predicted, or to account for the occurrence of human illness. Thus the BRCA1 equals breast cancer example, which remains the most cited example of a genetic contribution to common disease, plays a role in less than 10% of all breast cancer cases. For most diseases or behaviors, the identified genetic contribution in total is less than what BRCA1 alone contributes to breast cancer. Moreover, many “predisposing” genes prominently reported in the media, turn out to have been false positives.

This contrast between the hype of genetics and the meager results exposes first a failure of geneticists to ensure their results are accurately reported in both the scientific literature and science media and second a failure of the science media to ask hard questions and put research findings in context. It also adds significance to the fact that human disease genetics first found political favor aided by hundreds of millions of research dollars from the tobacco industry.

Faced with a lung cancer epidemic, the tobacco industry looked to genetic research to shift blame from their product (cigarettes) to individuals (the smoker). While predisposing genes were never found, the search for genetic predispositions to nicotine addiction and lung cancer successfully confounded understanding of the negative health effects of cigarettes and transformed tobacco industry efforts to avoid liability and regulation.

This strategic success positioned human genetics as the go-to science of polluters and of governments disinclined to address politically challenging environmental and social issues. Human genetics conveniently and plausibly offered to locate the blame for unwanted social behaviors, inequality, and disease in the genomes of individuals rather than in their external experiences of unequal opportunity, social stress, and toxic environments. Thus the political impetus of democratic, environmental, and social movements has successfully been blunted even while the the presumed genetic predispositions have never materialized.

Read the full and fully referenced article at: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/science-and-social-control-political-paralysis-and-the-genetics-agenda/

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Latham, PhD published “The Goodman Affair: Monsanto Targets the Heart of Science” today (May 20th, 2013) in Independent Science News and simultaneously on Earth Open Source.

This article describes one of the most important ways that corporations ensure their viewpoint is heard over all others — by creating journals and by installing or otherwise manipulating editors on supposedly independent and peer-reviewed scientific journals. Robinson and Latham detail a series of examples of industry-friendly editorial decisions that seem intended to bias the science of genetically engineered plants.

The most recent case involves a scientific paper published in late 2012. The paper reported that a genetically engineered corn and the herbicide Roundup, both Monsanto products, caused organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death in rats (Seralini et al. 2012). The paper, published in the leading academic journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, caused an international storm of bad publicity for Monsanto and genetically engineered organisms. Three months later, a former Monsanto researcher with close ties to the biotech industry, Richard E. Goodman, joined the senior editorial staff of Food and Chemical Toxicology. The position, newly created for him, is “Associate Editor for biotechnology”. Is agribusiness calculating that by controlling the academic peer review process, it can choke off the flow of negative publicity at the source? What are the implications of editorial bias for the future of science? What are the publishing options left for scientists whose results don’t conform to industry wishes?

Read the full article at: Claire Robinson and Jonathan Latham, PhD (2013) “The Goodman Affair: Monsanto Targets the Heart of Science”, Independent Science News.

Reference: Séralini, G-E. et al. (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50: 4221–4231.

Published today in Independent Science News the article “The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt” by Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham describes important new research that strongly suggests animal testing does not meaningfully protect us from unsafe food additives, pesticide contaminants, and other industrial chemicals. read more…