A review paper on glyphosate safety from 2000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715) has now been retracted. It turned out that the authors overemphasized unpublished Monsanto data, while not including other papers that were published at that time. While it is not unusual that reviews might omit papers (accidental or by choice), recent litigations have shown that parts of the paper were in fact written by Monsanto scientist, which was not disclosed.

See the retraction notice here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230025002387

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

A review paper on glyphosate safety from 2000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715) has now been retracted. It turned out that the authors overemphasized unpublished Monsanto data, while not including other papers that were published at that time. While it is not unusual that reviews might omit papers (accidental or by choice), recent litigations have shown that parts of the paper were in fact written by Monsanto scientist, which was not disclosed.

See the retraction notice here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230025002387

Hideous.

On a positive note, it shows that peer review works.

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

On a positive note, it shows that peer review works.

We don't know this without knowing how many fraudulent papers have passed through it.

47 minutes ago, Genady said:

We don't know this without knowing how many fraudulent papers have passed through it.

I meant it has been flagged. I imagine reviewers will be following the paper trail leading from this (or lack of) and seeking depositions.

Edited January 3Jan 3 by StringJunky

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I meant it has been flagged. I imagine reviewers will be following the paper trail leading from this (or lack of) and seeking depositions.

I expect it will end up with Monsanto paying into a fund similar to what happened with Johns-Manville and the asbestos settlement. BTW Johns-Manville is still in business all these 30+ years later after filing for bankruptcy because of that settlement.

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

On a positive note, it shows that peer review works.

This is more editorial work as peer reviewers wouldn't have had access to that level of information. I would call it one of the self-correction mechanisms of science.

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

A review paper on glyphosate safety from 2000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715) has now been retracted. It turned out that the authors overemphasized unpublished Monsanto data, while not including other papers that were published at that time. While it is not unusual that reviews might omit papers (accidental or by choice), recent litigations have shown that parts of the paper were in fact written by Monsanto scientist, which was not disclosed.

See the retraction notice here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230025002387

It's like the Dupont thing at Parkersburg WV with C8 (aka PFOA) - bullshit studies relying solely on Dupont/Chemours data and industry contributors.

We really need those editor gatekeepers.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

I expect it will end up with Monsanto paying into a fund similar to what happened with Johns-Manville and the asbestos settlement. BTW Johns-Manville is still in business all these 30+ years later after filing for bankruptcy because of that settlement.

As a sometimes renovator, I'm aware of how JM sought to scrub their public image by starting a line of itch-free roll insulation, stressing how safe it was for workers. IIRC, it's called encapsulated - no fiberglass bits will touch your skin or get breathed in. That reboot probably helped save their asses.