GM-free Scotland

April '08 | Irina Ermakova and a case of tabloid science?

In September, 2007, a 'FEATURE' appeared in the scientific journal, Nature Biotechnology, entitled “GM soybeans and health safety – a controversy reexamined”. Since very few readers of this journal would have heard of this 'controversy', it served to draw wide attention among the biotech scientific community to a study which could simply have been ignored.

The subject of the feature was a report by Russian neuroscientist, Irina Ermakova, that rats fed GM herbicide-tolerant soya gave birth to pups with low survival rates and stunted growth. The report caused some disquiet because the soya in question has been in commercial production and used world-wide since 1996. (If you want to read Nature Biotechnology's feature you can access it online www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/full/nbt0907-981.html)

The article was assembled by the Editor and consists of his own short introduction with an “appended” “account of the work” from Ermakova, together with comments from “researchers in the field”. The account is broken down into Ermakova's answers to eleven questions on her experimental design, her findings, her conclusions, future work required, accuracy of translations and reason for non-publication. Each response was followed by comments. In column inches, Ermakova's account comprised some 45% of the article, while 55% was taken up by the comments. There is no final response from Ermakova.

The alert reader, even with limited understanding of the scientific points made, may notice some apparent carelessness.

The preamble refers to the study as “unprecedented”. Three sentences later the “findings contradict publications in the literature”. Later comments on Ermakova's account include: “previous reports in the literature have shown no effect”, “her results depart ... dramatically from previously reported findings”, and the observations “contrast sharply with the results of all previous studies”.

OUR COMMENT: An unprecedented study which contradicts a previous one must, indeed, be unprecedented.

The commentators, introduced as “group of researchers working in the field”, collectively describe themselves as having no experience of reproductive toxicological animal study.

OUR COMMENT: 'The field' must have a very elastic definition.

The questions are all brief, but six of them are complicated by being, in fact, two different questions tacked together. Ermakova was asked by Nature Biotechnology to give a “detailed account of (her) work in (her) own words”. Many of the 'comments' were made in a critical tone but were, in fact, questions, and at least eight criticisms regarding a lack of data or methodology were made. This suggests that more extensive information was needed. However, there is no evidence that any clarification was provided of the scope or detail expected either from Ermakova, nor from the critics.

OUR COMMENT: Think about how much detail could be put into a scientific account in your own words, without running to the length of a text-book: the chosen format.

intrinsically limited the level of detail it was possible to present. The commentators clearly indicate they haven't been given enough information to evaluate the work, but seem quite prepared to criticise it in print nevertheless. Since Ermakova was writing in a foreign language, the unnecessary use of doubled-up questions and lack of clarification over what was required gave her presentation a considerable handicap.

In six-pages of closely typed text, the feature dismisses the entire study as too flawed to permit any “meaningful inferences”.

OUR COMMENT: If the study was that bad, why is the issue being raised in a mainstream science journal at all? More disturbingly, the tone and style of the comments are not in accord with normal scientific debate, especially in print in a leading journal. In fact, the following examples might strike you as downright discourteous.

The wording of several comments clearly express disbelief: one claim 'defies credibility'; 'we are being asked to accept' a claimed result; the results 'would be remarkable' if true; Ermakova is 'claiming to entertain doubts in her own mind'; the results should not have been presented 'if she had questions about her own results as she says'.

One commentary posted by the Bioscience Research Project describes the feature as 'rather aggressive', pointing out that 'it is not usual to attempt to embarrass opponents with overt public criticism'. One German publications ethicist described the article as anything but balanced, commenting that the reviewers hardly had a good word to say about Ermakova. Subsequent letters to Nature Biotechnology describe the feature as 'hostile' and an organised attack on a scientist.

OUR COMMENT

What are we seeing here?

A 'scientific' article which uses the words 'health safety', 'controversy' and 'unprecedented' in the first two lines the reader will see

A format which encourages elastic specifications on the required content, all the better to leave plenty of room for free criticism

A study, which would certainly have gone unnoticed and unpublished if it was as deficient as the commentators believe, was given a forum. It appeared in journalistic form, and the science was publicly criticised in detail.

As the Institute of Science in Society suggested, are we seeing tabloid science?

Since the feature was published, a number of very disturbing factors have come to light.

The impetus for the article apparently came originally from the commentators themselves who wanted Nature Biotechnology to publish their critique of Ermakova's study. The Editor, therefore, asked Ermakova to provide answers to their questions which he could publish as part of an article, together with “community feedback”. At no time was Ermakova told who this “community” was, and assumed trustingly that Nature Biotechnology would refer her work to scientists qualified to evaluate it. No proof of the comments was ever submitted to her, and no opportunity to reply was offered. (If you are curious by now about the nature of this 'community' of 'researchers' working in an elastic 'field', check out IRINA ERMAKOVA AND THE REVIEW IN NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY – News, April 2008)

At the same time as she was asked to contribute in this non-scientific format, Ermakova repeatedly asked Nature Biotechnology if she could submit a paper in the normal way, presenting her results for consideration, peer review, and eventual acceptance or rejection. Nature Biotechnology refused on the grounds that it was against its policy to consider papers which had been published publicly and discussed widely in the media. However, Ermakova by this time had new data from fresh repeats of her experiment which had not yet been reported, and offered to submit a paper entitled “Comparison of effects of different kinds of maternal diet with soy modified by gene CP4 EPSP on rat offspring”. This was also turned down by Nature Biotechnology as inappropriate for the journal.

OUR COMMENT

As GM-free Cymru commented, the affair has all the hallmarks of a set up.

Nature Biotechnology found reasons to refuse the submission of a paper in the usual way, but was extremely keen to put the study into print. The chosen format gave more column inches to criticism of the work than to the account itself. It allowed a headline introducing a CONTROVERSY, rather than Ermakova's comparatively tame description of what her study really was (maternal effects of a GM diet). In view of the hesitation of science journals to publish material which has already received wide media coverage, it would have the effect of significantly decreasing the likelihood of the study being independently repeated, and the findings possibly confirmed.

We can only speculate why Nature Biotechnology was so willingly complicit in this venture. Would the Journal be out of business if the biotech industry collapsed under the weight of its own invalid safety testing and controlled science?

Many of the points made by the commentators are perfectly valid, but are certainly not in any way peculiar to Ermakova's experiments. Put another way, the criticisms levied could probably be applied to just about every one of the tiny number of actual safety tests carried out on GM food. If you're interested in following up this aspect of Nature Biotechnology's FEATURE on a controversy reexamined, check out MUSINGS ON AN INFANT SCIENCE – News, April 2008.

Note. The Bioscience Resource Project wants the future to be biodiverse, sustainable, just and peaceful. It believes that science and technology can, and should, be consistent with these values. The commentaries on its website are well worth checking out, http://www.bioscienceresource.org/

SOURCES

About Us | Contact Us | 2008 GM-free Scotland