by Darwin Bell
Apparent spread of transgenes from GM corn:
[Via Effect Measure]
In 2001 Ignacio Chapela, an ecologist from the University of California, Berkeley, and co-author David Quist published a highly controversial paper in Nature that appeared to show that genetically engineered genes used in genetically modified (GM) corn (maize) was spreading from GM cornfields in Mexico into traditional corn crops. This set off a firestorm where proponents of GM agriculture declared the paper fatally flawed, pointing out some apparent errors. Accusations of agribusiness conflicts of interest were traded with those of political agendas. Nature subsequently published an “editor’s note” stating the journal felt the paper’s data were insufficient to support its conclusions. The journal has been careful to say that the editor’s note was not the same as a retraction, although advocates of GM crops have claimed it was. A subsequent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Ohio State plant ecologist Allison Snow failed to find transgenes in maize in the same areas sampled by Chapela and Quist, although questions about that paper were raised on the grounds of statistical power. Now the latest chapter, a forthcoming paper in the journal Molecular Ecology by yet another researcher, Elena Álvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City:
Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…
First one paper indicates that genetic material from GM crops has been exchanged with traditional corm crops. People with vested interested on both sides of the GM matter come out to either praise or eviscerate the work.
Another paper this possibility found no evidence for such a transfer. But a paper about to be published looks at a lot more fields and finds evidence just the sorts of DNA traces if there was mingling of the GM genetic material in traditional fields.
The real controversy for me, though, is the publication history of the new paper. It was described in Nature, thusly:
Jose Sarukhán, a biologist at the UNAM and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, recommended the Álvarez-Buylla article for publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was rejected; in a letter to the authors on 14 March this year, the journal’s editor-in-chief Randy Schekman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote that the biology and genetics didn’t warrant publication, and that a reviewer had pointed out the report could “gain undue exposure in the press due to a political or other environmental agenda”. Sarukhán responds: “I saw no reason why it should not be published.”
Now, PNAS is a pretty nice journal but one of its caveats is that researchers who are members of the National Academy of Sciences get some special perks. First, they can publish almost anything they want without needing peer review at all. While this encourages some very novel works, it does mean that some weird stuff gets out.
But members can also recommend a paper to be published. Usually this goes through some review, but not as strenuous as full peer review. The feeling is that if a member wants to ’sponsor’ the paper, they have already done some peer review to protect their reputation.
This is the first time I have beard about a member of the Academy recommending a paper to PNAS that was subsequently rejected. In fact, I have never heard of a reviewer comment that referenced the controversy that paper might produce.
Why bring up possible controversies if the science was not up to snuff? And what snub a member of the Academy? Was the paper rejected from PNAS more because of the fear of controversy by the popular press or because there were problems with the science?
This seems familiar. Large organizations that have vested interests in the science looking a certain way and highlight research that fits their pre-determined models. Work that does not fit is tarnished as rapidly as possible. We seem to see this a lot these days.
I would just hate to see a premier publication such as PNAS make decisions that reflect possible controversy than the science. I guess we will have to wait for the paper to see how good the science really is.
The final paragraph is depressing to contemplate. That instead of following the scence to the truth, researchers have self-imposed linits to the areas of research due to the controversial nature of the work:
However, the new paper doesn’t confirm an important conclusion from the original Nature paper — whether the transgenes had been integrated into landrace genomes and passed along to progeny plants. Álvarez-Buylla suspects this may be the case, but she’s not interested in pursuing another round of politically charged battles — and will leave that work to others.
Technorati Tags: Science
by cliff1066
