Documento de posición del Sur Global sobre Soberanía Alimentaria, Soberanía Energética y la transición hacia una sociedad post-petróleo.
Etiquetas: Agrocombustibles
Este es un blog bilingüe fundado en mayo de 2004, dedicado a proveer perspectivas críticas sobre biotecnología y bioseguridad … This is a bilingual blog, founded in May 2004, dedicated to providing critical perspectives on biotechnology and biosafety. Contact: ruiz@tutanota.com.
Etiquetas: Agrocombustibles
EXTRACT: Dr Richard Jennings, who lectures on scientific practice at Cambridge University, is adamant the paper should have been withdrawn. "The case is a flagrant fraud as far as I see it. It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed." But then, if the researchers had disclosed the wormy corn labels, would any respected scientific journal have published it?
---
Corn fakes
Private Eye, No. 1194, 28 September-11 October 2007
Heavy-handed libel threats on the part of a biotech researcher have done little to silence criticism of a scientific paper claiming that shoppers prefer GM produce.
Published in the British Food Journal three years ago, the paper was based on the findings from a Canadian farm store where customers were offered a choice of GM or non-GM sweetcorn. The four researchers concluded that 50 percent more people opted for the GM crop. The journal branded the study its "most outstanding paper" of the year.
Alas, the paper did not disclose that above the non-GM corn was a sign asking shoppers: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?", while the GM crop was signed: "quality sweetcorn." The Canadian journalist who originally uncovered the story said there had been pro-GM literature in the shop, but nothing from GM's critics.
UK campaign group GM Watch published a photo of the wormy sweetcorn sign under the title 'Award for Fraud'. Following its expose, in May last year, the New Scientist carried demands from a researcher on scientific ethics at Cambridge University that the British Food Journal withdraw the paper.
The journal's editor refused, although he did print a letter condemning the paper alongside one from one of its authors, Douglas Powell of Kansas State University, dismissing the allegations. Powell said the signs were only up for a week, contained the language of consumers and were "not intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns".
Then, last month another of the paper's authors, Canadian government analyst Shane Morris, threatened a libel action against GM Watch's internet service provider.
Morris said the wormy signs had been taken down long before he joined the research team on 27 September 2000. He put two photos on his blog that he said showed the "wormy" sign had been removed and replaced.
But a computer scientist who saw the images disputed this. And a Toronto-based food policy expert, Dr Rod MacCrae, who visited the shop on September 27 2000, told the Eye: "All I can tell you is that a wormy corn sign looking very much like the one in GM Watch's photo, was there at the farm the day I visited."
Dr Richard Jennings, who lectures on scientific practice at Cambridge University, is adamant the paper should have been withdrawn. "The case is a flagrant fraud, as far as I see it. It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed." But then, if the researchers had disclosed the wormy corn labels, would any respected scientific journal have published it?
Etiquetas: Bt
Etiquetas: Carmelo
Open Letter to the Editor of California Magazine
Re: the Dangers of the UC Berkeley-BP Research Deal on Biofuels; Mainly its Emphasis on the Use of GE Microbes
Web Note: As it does not appear that California magazine will be printing this letter to the editor that I submitted, I have turned it into an open letter to be posted on the web with the hope that it will be widely circulated. While the public is becoming more aware of some of the weaknesses of biofuels as a solution to global warming, there is one dangerous aspect of this approach that many are not aware of the use of genetically engineered microorganisms to degrade the cell walls of plants and to produce higher levels of ethanol.
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to the propaganda piece, "Start-up U," written by Lisa Margonelli and featured in the September/October edition of California magazine. One can only hope that the magazine’s audience, being primarily UC Berkeley alumni, will have the critical-thinking skills to unearth the facts that are buried under a mountain of hyperboles and draw its own conclusion about the wisdom of UC Berkeley accepting a half a billion dollars from an oil company (British Petroleum) to build a new lab on the Berkeley campus and fund research into biofuels. The article states that "green ideals are teaming up with the other green-money." However, there is nothing green about the UC Berkeley-British Petroleum deal; green washing would be a more accurate description of what is in the works.
The heart of the proposed research involves genetically engineering microbes to break down the cell walls of plants to produce fuel. Microbes are the foundation of the Earth’s ecosystem. What impact would genetically altering them and releasing them into the environment, where they can take hold and reproduce, have on that system? Would we be trading one environmental problem (global warming) for another set of environmental problems? Wouldn’t we be ending our dependency on one limited resource (oil) only to be tapping into other limited resources (i.e. land, nutrients, and water to grow plants for biomass)? If these genetically altered microbes were to make their way into the food supply, what impact would they have on human health? It’s naïve to believe that British Petroleum’s large investment wouldn’t influence Berkeley scientists’ ability to ask and answer these questions (and more) honestly, in the same way that large corporate donations influence our politicians and lead them to turn their backs on the general public and favor narrow private interests instead.
Japanese researchers from Kyoto University, concerned that the safety of genetically engineered organisms has not been adequately researched, genetically altered yeast cells and analyzed them. The results of their study showed that inserting genes into yeast cells significantly disturbed their metabolism and led to the accumulation of an unwanted toxic compound, methylglyoxal, at a mutagenic level [1]. The U.S. government doesn’t require any safety tests on genetically engineered organisms before they are released into the environment; instead, such safety tests are voluntary. The public would have to trust these Berkeley scientists, in partnership with British Petroleum, to conduct rigorous safety tests, including an environmental assessment, and animal and human feeding trials, of their own accord, and to scrap this multi-million dollar project, if they found that these organisms were unsafe for human consumption and the environment. Would we be able to trust them to do that, with so much money invested in a single project and with so much at stake? I don’t think so.
If this proposal moves forward, British Petroleum, through its targeted funding, will skew the research agenda at UC Berkeley, using professors, whose salaries are paid for by our tax dollars, to develop this new form of energy that it must predict will be profitable to the corporation but may not be the most economical one for consumers and may, again, be unsafe. It seems wrong that a group of professors, merely because they are interested in or at least willing to participate in this narrow, potentially dangerous project, will be housed in a brand new, state-or-the-art facility and have access to unlimited resources, while those professors who are committed to researching fuel conservation and alternatives to fossil fuels that do not carry such risks to the public health, environment, and economy, may be strapped for research dollars. It seems only prudent that at a time when we are discussing campaign finance reform as a nation to take corruption out of our government that Chancellor Birgenau reconsider the direction he is beginning to steer the university by developing closer and stronger ties to large, private corporations. UC Berkeley students, faculty, and alumni, as well as taxpayers in general, should demand nothing less, as we, the general public, will be impacted by the research that is developed there.
Erica Martenson
UC Berkeley Alumnus
1. Inose, T & Murata, K. (1995). Enhanced accumulation of toxic compound in yeast cells having high glycolytic activity: a case study on the safety of genetically engineered yeast. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 30, 141-146.
Etiquetas: Agrofuels, UC Berkeley
La trampa de los agrocombustiblesLaura Carlsen | 24 de septiembre de 2007 Versión original: americas.irc-online.org/am/4535 | |||
| |||
|
Etiquetas: Agrocombustibles, Laura Carlsen
Desde el 2004, a partir de una iniciativa de la “Red contra el Desierto Verde” (Brasil), cada 21 de setiembre se conmemora el día internacional contra los monocultivos de árboles. La Red Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de Árboles (RECOMA), una coalición que cuenta con miembros en 16 países, adhiere a esta fecha, denunciando los impactos negativos de las plantaciones de árboles a gran escala en los países de la región
En Argentina, gran parte de la selva de la provincia de Misiones ha sido sustituida por enormes monocultivos de pinos exóticos, en tanto que las plantaciones de eucalipto para celulosa avanzan en otras provincias como Corrientes y Entre Ríos.
En Brasil, grandes empresas plantadoras vinculadas a la industria de la celulosa están concentrando amplias áreas de tierra fértil en sus manos, constituyéndose en uno de los mayores obstáculos para la realización de la reforma agraria. Al mismo tiempo, los monocultivos de eucalipto están afectando la seguridad alimentaria de las poblaciones locales y volviendo imposibles las actividades tradicionales de las comunidades indígenas, afrobrasileñas y campesinas.
En Chile, la expansión de las plantaciones forestales se ha hecho a expensas de los territorios tradicionales del pueblo Mapuche y de la violación sistemática de sus derechos. Dicha expansión está además asociada a graves procesos de degradación ambiental, pérdida de biodiversidad, reducción y contaminación con agrotóxicos de las fuentes de agua superficiales y subterráneas, y la pauperización de la población local.
En Colombia, las plantaciones de palma aceitera han dado lugar a graves violaciones de los derechos humanos, incluyendo muertes, torturas, desapariciones y migración forzada de las comunidades locales, en tanto que situaciones similares han acompañado la instalación de plantaciones de pinos y eucaliptos.
En Costa Rica el gobierno incrementó el monto del subsidio para las plantaciones de monocultivos pasando de $500 a $800/ hectárea establecida. Asimismo, se aumentó el área total a subsidiar de 4000 a 7000 hectáreas por año. Todo esto a pesar de que los monocultivos de árboles para producir madera no han rendido lo esperado y se ha demostrado que 20 años de políticas de subsidios a las plantaciones de árboles han sido un fracaso.
En Ecuador, las comunidades indígenas, afrodescendientes y campesinas están siendo afectadas por el avance de monocultivos de pinos, eucaliptos y palma aceitera, que destruyen las bases de sustentación de las poblaciones locales y expulsan a la población rural.
En Nicaragua se ha dado un importante paso en sentido inverso, cuando en junio de este año el Director del Instituto Forestal declaró que “No se derribarán más bosques para sembrar palma africana”, agregando que “No estamos permitiendo la siembra de monocultivos porque destruye la biodiversidad del ecosistema”.
En Paraguay en estos momentos está en discusión un proyecto de ley que estaría abriendo las puertas al monocultivo de árboles a través de una política de promoción basada en subsidios y otros apoyos estatales a la forestación. Genera una preocupación adicional el hecho de que en el proyecto en estudio se prevé una activa participación del sector maderero en la propia implementación de la ley.
En Perú, el gobierno ha aprobado el marco legal para la expansión de los monocultivos de árboles, en base a las mismas promesas de empleo y desarrollo que ya se han demostrado falsas en todos los países de la región.
En Uruguay, los monocultivos de eucaliptos y pinos han generado graves impactos sobre el principal ecosistema del país (la pradera) y han dado lugar a un agudo proceso de concentración y extranjerización de la tierra por parte de grandes empresas, que han desplazado a los tradicionales productores de alimentos. Además, han significado un uso masivo de agrotóxicos en toda la cadena productiva desde los viveros hasta la aplicación de herbicidas para matar los rebrotes.
En todos los países donde se han implantado estos monocultivos, las consecuencias han sido las mismas: mayor riqueza y poder para unas pocas empresas nacionales y extranjeras y mayor pobreza para las comunidades locales. Como contrapartida, la oposición a este modelo social y ambientalmente nefasto está creciendo a nivel local, nacional y regional.
Sin embargo pareciera que en la mayoría de nuestros países se hace oídos sordos a los reclamos de la gente y se continúan promoviendo políticas que están agravando aun más las situaciones descritas arriba y que incrementarían las áreas de “desiertos verdes”. Las que se anuncian como “soluciones” para el cambio climático, no sólo no solucionarán el problema sino que serán causa de mayores sufrimientos en las comunidades. Los mal llamados “sumideros de carbono” y los agrocombustibles son ejemplos de estas falsas soluciones que ya se están implementando en nuestros países. A ello se suma el peligro de los planes para la liberación de árboles transgénicos, que en nuestra región ya están siendo genéticamente manipulados en laboratorios en Chile y Brasil.
En este nuevo 21 de setiembre, hacemos entonces un llamamiento a unificar las luchas para forzar a los gobiernos a cambiar el rumbo y a volcar los recursos del Estado a la promoción de actividades agrícolas y forestales socialmente beneficiosas y respetuosas del medio ambiente.
Por mayor información contactar: Secretaría de RECOMA
Etiquetas: Arboles
En el Perú todavía la izquierda y el movimiento popular no han ingresado al análisis y discusión de las políticas biotecnológicas del imperio, estudio y discusión que se hace necesario en estos momentos en que Alan García y Alejandro Toledo, como representantes políticos de la oligarquía se encuentran moviendo mar, cielo y tierra
La aprobación en el congreso norteamericano del TLC y porque existe una política planetaria por parte de los monopolios para desaparecer a los pueblos indígenas del mundo
El determinismo biológico: moderna teoría hitleriana
La ideología, como sistema de representaciones posee un conjunto de significados que expresan el enmascaramiento de las relaciones sociales, destinadas a ocultar las contradicciones que existen al interior de las estructuras sociopolíticas. Tras la derrota del nazifascismo en los campos de batalla, la segunda post guerra significó la era dorada del imperialismo, el cual a través del estado de bienestar, articuló una serie de teorías científicas en los campos de la biología, la filosofía y las ciencias sociales, donde se recusaba la vieja teoría del determinismo malthusiano que había servido como base para la construcción de las ideologías racistas que sirvieron de sustento al régimen hitleriano.
El neoliberalismo en su desarrollo se imbricó a una serie de concepciones conservadoras, redefiniendo la teoría malthusiana para dar un nuevo sustento al determinismo biológico, con el fin expresar en el campo de las “ciencias”, lo que predica en el campo de la economía y las teorías sociales. Para los deterministas biológicos el ser humano, no es más que: una máquina de supervivencia, un medio automatizado que ha sido programado a ciegas para preservar los genes. Nos dicen que la conducta de los individuos está determinada por el genoma que poseen. Y definen a la sociedad como la suma de las conductas individuales. Reconocen las desigualdades sociales como desafortunadas, pero a la vez expresan que estas son innatas e inalterables y por ende, imposibles de remediar con medidas sociales, pues ello significa “ir contra la naturaleza”.
Los sociobiólogos se empeñan en encontrar los “genes” de la inteligencia, la pobreza, la violencia, el liderazgo las tendencias criminales, la homosexualidad. Niegan que el hombre sea producto de la naturaleza y de la historia y que el material genético esté en imbricación dialéctica con las condiciones sociales, económicas y culturales del individuo. Esta teoría repite las concepciones de los nazifascistas alemanes, y se orienta a justificar la eliminación de los pueblos que ellos consideran inferiores.
La biopiratería
La conversión de nuestro país en un paraíso para la biopiratería de las multinacionales farmacéuticas, se debe a su gran diversidad biológica, lo que lo convierte en uno de los países más ricos del orbe. Esta es una de las causas por la cual Estados Unidos mediante el TLC trata de apoderarse de las riquezas genéticas de plantas, animales y el conocimiento de los pueblos indígenas para su manejo, desarrollado por estos durante milenios. Desde hace muchos años son muy secretas las investigaciones que se hacen en el Perú por parte de monopolios farmacéuticos y universidades extranjeras, estudios que no tienen ningún tipo de control por parte del estado; investigaciones en la que no sólo se hace recopilación de plantas medicinales sino que también se recolectan muestras de sangre de las comunidades indígenas-campesinas de los andes y la amazonía, las que terminan en los laboratorios norteamericanos y europeos.
La estrategia de las multinacionales farmacológicas se sustenta en emplear a las facultades e institutos de investigación de medicina, ingeniería forestal, agronomía, del medio ambiente y biología del país, en agencias de recolectores de material genético, convirtiéndolas en importantes agentes de saqueo del patrimonio natural de la nación, ya sea mediante convenios, certificación universitaria o mediante la participación de los investigadores nacionales en sus proyectos.
Los monopolios emplean tanto el etnoconocimiento, así como el material genético en estudios que se orientan en la mayoría de los casos, a la investigación de las enfermedades genéticas y degenerativas que afectan a los habitantes de los países capitalistas altamente desarrollados (arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cáncer, alzeimer) invirtiendo para estos fines miles de millones de dólares, sin embargo, restringen las investigaciones y el presupuesto para producir medicamentos que curen las enfermedades infectocontagiosas que matan a los niños de los países pobres del planeta.
La política del imperio, sustentada en la biopirateria, los estudios biotecnológicos sobre el genoma humano y el de las plantas, lo que está haciendo es no sólo ampliar las distancias socioeconómicas y culturales entre los pobres y ricos del mundo como muchos creen, sino que está sustentando toda una política criminal, para el exterminio de millones de personas. Pues una parte importante de las investigaciones se orientan a la modificación genética de virus, microbios y bacterias destinadas a la guerra bacteriológica contra nuestras naciones, especialmente está dirigida a exterminar a los indígenas, porque ellos ocupan territorios que por sus grandes riquezas naturales son ambicionados por las transnacionales, convirtiéndose los pueblos amerindios, en las primeras victimas de la guerra silenciosa del imperialismo.
La Royal Society señaló al Instituto Wischar como principal responsable de la exportación y expansión del SIDA, porque empleó en la fabricación de vacunas antipolio cultivos de células de chimpances infectados. El resultado de esta aplicación experimental de la vacuna: un millón de personas contaminadas en el Congo Belga, la que se extendió por todo el planeta producto de las muestras de tejidos que fueron enviados a laboratorios existentes en distintas partes del planeta. Epidemia que es la peor catástrofe sanitaria, 26 millones de muertos y más 40 millones de afectados.
En un país como el Perú, que posee un insignificante desarrollo agrario e industrial, donde los gobiernos neoliberales abrieron totalmente su economía, donde a millones de personas se les ha condenado a vivir en la miseria, donde la salud se rige por las leyes del “mercado” y además, no posee un adecuado desarrollo científico y tecnológico y gran parte de sus irrisorios cuadros científicos no poseen el concepto antiimperialista de patria, se hace indispensable elaborar una plataforma científica y programática para el manejo nacional del germoplasma y uso de la etnociencia para la producción de fármacos mediante el desarrollo y empleo intensivo de la bioquímica molecular. Este debe ser otro de los puntos en nuestra lucha por la independencia nacional.
Manuel Mosquera
Fuente: Rebelión
Etiquetas: Wilderswil
Please circulate widely and write your own letter to Nature Biotechnology
To: Andrew Marshall, Editor, Nature Biotechnology
a.marshall@natureny.com
Richard Charkin, Chief Executive, MacMillan Ltd
c/o exec@nature.com
Annette Thomas, Managing Director of Nature Publications, London
c/o exec@nature.com
Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief, Nature Publications, London
c/o exec@nature.com and p.campbell@nature.com
We are writing on behalf of the Institute of Science in Society* to express our deep concern over your recently published article about Dr Irina Ermakova and her work (“GM soybeans and health safety - a controversy re-examined”, Marshall, A. Nature Biotechnology 25, 981 – 987, 2007, http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html ). The article is grossly unfair to Dr Ermakova and certainly not in the best traditions of scientific publishing.
We have been told Dr Ermakova was given to understand that she would be the co-author of an article describing her work. What actually appeared was one written by you, containing comments by a panel composed entirely of people linked to the biotech industry. These comments were never shown to Dr. Ermakova before the article was published, and she was given no right of reply.
There are journals that routinely publish criticisms of papers along with the papers themselves. This can be an effective way of drawing attention to important but possibly controversial work, while not allowing it to go unchallenged. These journals generally adhere to some important rules. The target paper is written by the researcher(s); not by a journalist.
Comments from other scientists are published along with the paper, followed by a general reply by the author(s). Some of the commentators may be known to be critical of or even hostile to the author’s point of view, but the panel will include others who are not. That is quite different from what you have done.
You were wrong not to make it clear to Dr Ermakova how you proposed to use her contribution, even to the extent of not showing her the proofs of what would actually appear in your journal. Such practice is more appropriate to a tabloid newspaper than to a serious scientific journal, and a public acknowledgement of the oversight from you would be in order. You were also wrong not to allow Dr. Ermakova to reply to the criticisms. She must now be given the appropriate platform in your journal to respond fully to the criticisms of her work, without further comment either from you or from your panel of committed biotech supporters.
Dr, Mae-Wan Ho
Professor Peter T. Saunders,
Institute of Science in Society
PO Box 51885
London NW2 9DH
Etiquetas: Ermakova, Irma Ermakova
Climate of change for supporters of GM crops
The Guardian (Letters), September 19, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2171992,00.html
So the biotech industry is having another try. Having been defeated comprehensively in 2004 after the GM field-scale trials I set up, they have the gall to suggest (like the nuclear industry) that climate change might provide the way back in. Your report says an unnamed "senior government source" claims the tide will turn because, allegedly, GM crops are higher-yield and hardier to help feed the world's increasing population and will help provide biofuels to limit climate change. These claims are bunkum.
The most authoritative study on crop yields - by Charles Benbrook, an independent US scientist - found that over a five-year period yields actually fell and pesticide use increased to deal with superweeds. The real answer to feeding a growing world population, in addition to more widespread family planning, is reversing the gross maldistribution of land in developing countries, phasing out the US and EU agricultural subsidies that wreck the market for developing-world farmers, and ending the rich countries' discriminatory trade policies. Any role for GM is, by comparison, piffling.
The claim that GM will assist production of biofuels is equally mischievous. If it did this (which is unlikely), it would actually diminish the world's food supply, given the competition for land. If government officials were genuinely concerned about combating climate change, they wouldn't be making Monsanto's case to raise biotech's profits by cornering the world's food supply; they would be increasing the use of renewable energy, not expanding airports, and signing up industry to much tighter annual CO2 reductions.
Michael Meacher MP
Former environment minister
Etiquetas: Michael Meacher
SUBJECT: The sordid side of Nature
17 September 2007
Dr. Andrew Marshall Editor
Nature Biotechnology
345 Park Avenue South
New York NY 10010-1707
a.marshall@natureny.com
mailto:a.marshall@natureny.com
Dear Dr. Marshall,
I am writing about the publication 'GM soybeans and health safety - a controversy reexamined' Marshall, A. Nature Biotechnology 25, 981 - 987 (2007) http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html I was recently informed about disturbing revelations concerning the manner in which the authorship of the article was attributed and how one contributor, Dr.Irina Ermakova , was solicited to participate on an article as author then, without her knowledge or permission, had her contribution added to the final article authored by you, Dr. Marshall
My understanding of the sequence of events as lined out by Dr. Brian John is as follows: On 20 August 2007 the Senior Production Editor of Nature Biotechnology sent Dr. Ermakova a "dummy proof" in PDF format, with the title "GM Soybeans and health safety - a controversy reexamined" and with Irina V Ermakova listed beneath the title as author. Eight of the original 12 references had been deleted. In the introductory paragraph (presumably written by the Editor) were the words
"Nature Biotechnology approached Dr. Ermakova to ask for a detailed account of her work in her own words. Her answers are presented below together with comments solicited from a group of researchers working in the field." The comments from the group of researchers were NOT included in the dummy proof, which was referred to as a "publication proof."
On 12th September, without any further reference to DrErmakova , the article was published on the Nature Biotechnology web site. It was now a totally different article, with Andrew Marshall listed as author, with 20 new references (all chosen to bolster the case made by the critics), with photos and biographical notes on Val Giddings, Bruce Chassy, Alan McHughen and Vivian Moses, and with lengthy critiques by the group inserted after every one of the answers provided by Dr. Ermakova to the questions provided to her by you, Dr. Marshall.
On the day of publication, Dr. Ermakova asked for a copy of the published article, and it was sent to her in PDF format . This was the first time she had seen it in its final form, and the first time she had seen the comments from the "group of four." She was surprised to see that her name had been replaced by that of Andrew Marshall as author. On the same day the Editor sent an Email to Dr. Ermakova to explain the rationale behind the change of attribution at the head of the article
You wrote: ......."it was decided to present the article from a neutral point of view of an editor, with both your viewpoints and those of the other authors presented together."
I wish to point out first, Dr. Ermakova had no opportunity to respond to the criticism of your panel of 'researchers working in the field'. The lack of an opportunity to face those hostile comments lacks any sense of fundamental justice. Next, your researchers working in the field had not published animal feeding studies and their fields, like yours, were primarily public relations on behalf of the biotechnology industry. Furthermore, you have no 'neutral point of view' and should have sought
a neutral person to put together an article should Dr. Ermakova have agreed to the takeover and change of authorship of the article authored by her as agreed in a publication proof!
Plagiarism (from the Latin ,/ plagiare/ "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism ). Dr. Marshall, you seem to have plagiarized Dr. Ermakova's article by incorporating it into your article without first obtaining permission from Dr. Ermakova. You may be surprised to know that editors have no right to scoop up others articles and incorporate them into their own or others articles , without first obtaining agreement from the authors. If Nature is planning to promote plagiarism by editors as a general practice they should inform the scientific public that they have moved in that direction.
In conclusion, the world requires that you should provide Dr. Ermakova a publication platform to reply to the critics of her work. Furthermore, I wish to urge you to take time off, go back to the Microbiology laboratory and re-educate yourself in the practice of full and truthfull scientific reporting.
Sincerely, Professor Emeritus Joe Cummins. University of Western Ontario
Etiquetas: Ermakova, Irma Ermakova
Nature Biotechnology facilitates premeditated GM Rottweiler attack
How a well-known scientific journal "set up" an honest scientist through a conspiracy of lies and deception
GM Free Cymru (GM Free Wales), 17 September 2007.
Jeremiah 11:19:
But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me...
Background
When Russian scientist Irina Ermakova revealed the results of her studies of rats which had been fed on a diet of GM soy in 2005, there was immediate and widespread press coverage, since her findings indicated that the fertility of animals fed on the GM material was compromised, and that the survival rates of offspring were dramatically reduced (1). Her results were seized upon by anti-GM campaigners and consumer groups, since they seemed to confirm other published research showing damage to the vital organs of animals fed on GM plants of various kinds (2). The GM industry and the regulatory bodies in Europe and elsewhere were not best pleased, and over the past two years they have sought to marginalise and vilify Dr Ermakova, to demonstrate that her research methods were fundamentally flawed, and to spread the message that her findings were anomalous and untrustworthy. One of their on-going criticisms has been that the research cannot be trusted because it is not peer-reviewed and published in a "respectable" scientific journal. However, Dr Ermakova has admitted over and again that her facilities in Moscow and her research design are not perfect, and that there may be aspects of her work that can be improved. She has had no cooperation whatsoever from Monsanto or from the Russian Academy of Science, and indeed they have sought to block her research by starving her of funds and refusing to supply her with GM soy for the feeding experiments. Against all the odds, she has repeated her experiments five times, with very similar results on each occasion. And she has repeatedly called for others to replicate or improve her experiments -- a call which has gone unheeded thus far. It does not take a genius to work out that the GM industry is very scared that any new research will simply confirm Ermakova's findings. For the same reason, Pusztai's controversial research involving GM potatoes (3) has never been repeated. So the instinct of the GM industry, when shown research results which are uncomfortable, is to do what it has always done -- shoot the messenger.
The set-up
The key events are as follows. We have in our possession the crucial documents to support every single point.
1. In the summer of 2007 a group of four scientists (Bruce M Chassy, L. Val Giddings, Alan McHughen and Vivian Moses) contacted the Editor of Nature Biotechnology and asked him if he would facilitate an opportunity for them to attack the research methods and findings of Dr Irina Ermakova (4). He agreed to this request (5).
2. The Editor of the journal wrote to IE on 25th June 2007. Extracts: "I am writing to you because the journal has been approached by a group of authors wishing to critique the results of your work that have been discussed in public forums." "......... the journal would, however, prefer to provide you with an opportunity to present your own findings and conclusions in your own words, rather than a critique from one side. I was therefore wondering whether you be willing to answer (via e-mail or telephone) a set of questions about your work, with a view to their questions and answers being published as part of an article?"
3. In a letter dated 28 June the editor stated: "I envisage an article that would present the results and conclusions you previously discussed at the NAGS symposium on genetic modification in Russia, together with community feedback." (6)
4. In the exchange of correspondence between June and September 2007 IE repeatedly asked if she could submit a paper in the normal way, presenting her results for consideration, peer review, and eventual acceptance / rejection (6). But the Editor (letter dated 29 June) indicated his reluctance to accept a submission on the grounds that the research results "have already been published publicly and discussed widely in the media". He indicated that the results were "no longer eligible for peer review at Nature Biotechnology under our policies." On the same day IE responded that, having repeated her experiments five times, she had new data to report. The Editor then agreed to accept a short "presubmission enquiry", but continued to encourage her to participate in a question and answer session.
5. On 19 July the Editor sent his list of questions to IE, and she sent her responses to him on 2nd August. Her text was edited and finalized on 14th August after the provision of certain additional information requested by the Editor. With the text she provided 12 references.
6. On 7th August Ermakova's offer to submit a paper entitled "Comparison of effects of different kinds of maternal diet with soy modified by gene CP4 EPSPS on rat offspring" was turned down by Dr Kathy Aschheim, Senior editor of Nature Biotechnology, on the pretext that it would be more appropriate for another journal.
The betrayal
7. On 20 August the Senior Production Editor of Nature Biotechnology sent IE a "dummy proof" in PDF format (7), with the title "GM Soybeans and health safety -- a controversy reexamined" and with Irina V Ermakova listed beneath the title as author. Eight of the original 12 references had been deleted. In the introductory paragraph (presumably written by the Editor) were the words "Nature Biotechnology approached Ermakova to ask for a detailed account of her work in her own words. Her answers are presented below together with comments solicited from a group of researchers working in the field." The comments from the group of researchers were NOT included in the dummy proof, which was referred to as a "publication proof." (8)
8. On 12th September, without any further reference to IE, the article was published on the Nature Biotechnology web site. It was now a totally different article, with Andrew Marshall listed as author, with 20 new references (all chosen to bolster the case made by the "group of four"), with photos and biographical notes on Val Giddings, Bruce Chassy, Alan McHugh and Vivian Moses, and with lengthy critiques by the group inserted after every one of the answers provided by IE.
9. The critiques printed in the article are not attributed to individuals, but appear to be the "agreed positions" of the four of them working together. There must have been considerable communication between them before the wording of each critique was finalized for publication.
10. On the day of publication, IE asked for a copy of the published article, and it was sent to her in PDF format (9). This was the first time she had seen it in its final form, and the first time she had seen the comments from the "group of four." She was surprised to see that her name had been replaced by that of Andrew Marshall as author. On the same day the Editor sent an Email to IE to explain the rationale behind the change of attribution at the head of the article. He wrote: ......."it was decided to present the article from a neutral point of view of an editor, with both your viewpoints and those of the other authors presented together."
The cunning little plan
It is clear from the early correspondence that the initiative for this extraordinary piece of deception and duplicity came from the "group of four". At no time was IE told who these people were, or what sort of "community" they represented. Had she been told, she would certainly not have cooperated in this exercise, in view of the known reputations of the "group of four" as spokesmen for the GM industry and as researchers with no expertise in her research field (10). She was not told at any stage what final form the article would take, and as we can see from the above she was led to believe that the "other side" would ask the questions, and she would be able to provide the answers.
The statement in the article referring to "comments solicited from a group of researchers" is patently untrue, since the Editor's letter dated 25 June makes it clear that the researchers made the first approach to him, and that he responded favourably to their suggestion.
Throughout the correspondence, IE was cooperative and trusting, and clearly assumed that the Editor was intent upon publishing an honest discussion of assorted scientific issues (6). As recently as publication day (12th September 2007), she was under the impression that this was "her" article, and that her name should have been on the piece as author. Indeed, this was a natural conclusion, given the nature of the "dummy proof" which she was sent.
The sending of this "dummy proof" is in our experience absolutely unprecedented, and is in total contravention of good academic practice. It is also unethical, and can only be interpreted as a deliberate (and successful) attempt to lead an honest scientist into a sordid trap laid by academics who should know better, with the connivance of a supposedly respectable journal. The actions of this group of five men are doubly reprehensible when one considers that English is not Dr Ermakova's first language and that she was not in a position to interpret the subtleties of wording in the Editor's letters to her.
The liaison between the "peer reviewers" in this case also raises serious questions, since traditionally peer reviewers should be acknowledged experts in the field; they should be chosen by the Editor; they should act independently, without reference to one another; they should be prepared to put their names to their own comments; and they should be willing to communicate with the author prior to publication with a view to improving the quality of the submitted material. But the most crucial point of all is that reviewers should always assume that the colleague whose work is being scrutinized is honest and sincere; and the comments from the "group of four" are singularly lacking in respect for an honest scientist who has been working under very difficult conditions.
Since none of the comments in the final article is attributed to any individual, there is a distinct possibility that they were written either (a) by a "ghost writer" or (b) by a much larger group of individuals from the GM industry working together.
As a piece of crude character assassination, this is on a par with what happened to Arpad Pusztai in 1999, and there are some VERY serious questions that now need to be asked about the editorial practices, affiliations and motives of a journal which used to be a serious scientific publication (11). This is "tabloid academic publishing" involving deception, lies, duplicity and editorial malpractice. What we effectively have in this article is a piece of very brutal and biased (and inaccurate) peer reviewing by a self-selected and ill-qualified group of GM proponents (12), in print and on the record, and published without the vilified scientist being given any opportunity to defend herself.
Etiquetas: Ermakova, Irma Ermakova, Russia
La legislación obliga a que si un alimento contiene transgénicos, esta información figure en la etiqueta. Sin embargo, se tolera una contaminación de hasta un 0,9% en cada ingrediente sin que el consumidor tenga que ser informado, permitiendo en la práctica que los OMG entren en nuestra dieta sin que tengamos la posibilidad de evitarlo.
Amigos de la Tierra ha analizado varios alimentos con maíz como ingrediente principal, no etiquetados como transgénicos. Tres de estos productos contenían OMG [1]. Los datos de los análisis que la AESA realiza de forma periódica de productos con maíz y soja muestran que en los años 2004 y 2005, entre el 15 y el 17% de los alimentos analizados contenían OMG. Estos productos, no identificados como transgénicos, incluyen papillas y leches infantiles, yogures, platos preparados o productos cárnicos [2].
David Sánchez, Responsable de Agricultura y Alimentación de Amigos de la Tierra afirmó: “La legislación no permite que los consumidores ejerzamos nuestro derecho a no comer transgénicos. A pesar del rechazo social a estos alimentos, están entrando en nuestra dieta sin que seamos informados.”
El origen de esta presencia generalizada de OMG en productos de alimentación se explica por las condiciones en las que se cultiva el maíz transgénico en España desde 1998 y por las importaciones de soja transgénica. La falta de transparencia y la ausencia total de información y de controles reales impide que los agricultores puedan evitar ver sus cosechas contaminadas por maíz transgénico o que la separación entre las materias primas transgénicas y las convencionales o ecológicas sea efectiva.
Las incertidumbres sobre la seguridad de los OMG para la salud y el medio ambiente continúan. La propia Ministra de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Elena Espinosa, afirmó en una entrevista al periódico 20 Minutos el 12 de febrero de este año que los transgénicos: “Nunca han aportado estudios de impacto ambiental ni garantías sobre la salud de los consumidores”.
David Sánchez añadió: “Los transgénicos en nuestro país están fuera de control y nuestra comida termina contaminada. Mientras, la máxima responsable en Agricultura y Alimentación reconoce sus dudas sobre su seguridad. No podemos permitir que sigan experimentando con nuestra salud y nuestro medio ambiente.”
Más información: informe de Amigos de la Tierra “Transgénicos y Alimentación: Nuestra comida contaminada”: http://www.tierra.org/spip/IMG/pdf/Transgenicos_y_Alimentacion__
Nuestra_comida_contaminada.pdf
Etiquetas: Spain
REFERENCIAS:
McDonagh, Sean, SSC, MA, Ph.D. “A criticism of the World Bank document on Biotechnology and Biodiversity”. http://www.columban.com/criticism_wb.html
Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Yes! Books, 2007.
PARA MAS INFORMACIÓN:
Proyecto de Bioseguridad de Puerto Rico. http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/
Ruiz Marrero, Carmelo. Balada Transgénica: Biotecnología, Globalización y el Choque de Paradigmas. Proyecto de Bioseguridad, 2005.
Ruiz Marrero, Carmelo. "Puerto Rico: Biotecnología y la Economía del Conocimiento". Biodiversidad, Sustento y Culturas, julio de 2007. http://www.grain.org/biodiversidad/?id=363
Etiquetas: Carmelo, Puerto Rico