Thursday, June 26, 2003

This is what I would have eloquently written about yesterday:

Archibald, et al., "Lateral gene transfer and the evolution of plastid-targeted proteins in the secondary plastid-containing alga Bigelowiella natans," PNAS 2003 100: 7678-83 -- also commentary by Raymond and Blankenship. Demonstrates multiple horizontal gene transfer events in the evolutionary history of this alga.

Bresnahan, et al., "Glyphosate Applied Preharvest Induces Shikimic Acid Accumulation in Hard Red Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum)," J. Agric. Food Chem. 51 (14), 4004-7: Glyphosate applied preharvest resulted in 3x "normal concentration of shikimic acid in flour (shikimic acid is an important precursor of some aromatic phenolic and amino acids).

Saladin, et al., "Effects of Flumioxazin Herbicide on Carbon Nutrition of Vitis vinifera L.," J. Agric. Food Chem., 51 (14), 4017-22: herbicide inexplicably had opposite effects on vine cuttings and field-grown plants.

NCFAP released a study claiming EU adoption of biotech crops would increase annual yields by 7.8bn kg, cut pesticide consumption by 9.7m kg and increase farm income by�$1.22bn (see FT article).

Subversion at the Ag conference, from the Bee and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

Finally, Nature tore a rotator cuff trying to pat its own back:

Earlier this year, Australian activists noticed that a 2002 paper on the spread of herbicide resistance from transgenic canola to nearby fields (M. A. Rieger, M. Lamond, C. Preston, S. B. Powles and R. T. Roush Science 296, 2386�2388; 2002) did not mention that two biotechnology firms � Monsanto and Aventis Crop Sciences (now owned by Bayer) � paid nearly 20% of the costs of the trials.

Alerted to the fact by a reporter for an Australian television programme in early May, Science contacted the authors for an explanation. Science requires contributors to declare financial ties that might be construed as influencing the outcome of their research.

The authors responded that they did not view the company funding as a conflict of interest. Industry co-sponsors don't participate in the design or conduct of the study, nor are they permitted to vet the findings or stop publication, claims co-author Christopher Preston, a molecular ecologist at the University of Adelaide. "I refuse to participate unless I can call the shots," Preston told Nature.

Although Science concluded that the funding did not amount to a conflict of interest, it has now revised its disclosure policy as a direct result of the incident, according to a statement provided to Nature on 23 June. Now, all funding sources must be revealed in the paper's reference section, Science says.

Many journals ask about conflicts of interest, but some authors don't realize that they have them, says Nicholas Cozzarelli, editor-in-chief of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. For instance, one contributor didn't feel that his position as chief scientist of a firm that was supporting his academic work needed to be mentioned as he didn't think the paper would affect the company's stock price, Cozzarelli says.

Nature has requested and published details of competing interests for every paper accepted since October 2001. Despite the rising number of researchers with ties to industry, of the 1,300 or so papers published under the policy, only 50 have declared competing interests.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

©2002-2005 by the author