Dirty secrets dept: Scientists must get permission from seed corps to publish research on GM seeds:

[Hannah Bell]

Scientific American 8/09 p. 28 "A Seedy Practice"

"...Unfortuntely it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, customers must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them...For a decade their (Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta..) user agreements have explicitly forbid the use of the seeds for any independent research...

...only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal..."


Sorry no link, this is from hard copy.

But I'd say this = pretty much all published GM seed research = bullshit.

[Hannah Bell]

1. The unrec squad is here, within 1 minute. amazing! & this is from Scientific American,

so they can't do their usual schtick on "teh stooo-pid" & "the whacko anti-science people".

[Hannah Bell]

16. kik

[lindisfarne]

2. I'd be surprised if a simple search on google wouldn't turn up a link. OP should try to find a link.

[Hannah Bell]

3. This is it, first para & 1/2 only.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=7EE6C58A-237D-9F22-E8896B9C9DBC76BE

Seedy Practice; August 2009; Scientific American Magazine; by The Editors; 1 Page(s)

Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech com­panies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

[Hannah Bell]

4. kik

[formercia]

5. Too late suckas

I just sent it to the GP.

This thread has enough votes but it doesn't show on the GP.

[Hannah Bell]

7. :>)

[formercia]

8. Why doesn't this thread show up on the greatest page?

Right now it has 7 +votes.

[Hannah Bell]

9. showing now for me.

[formercia]

6. kick n/t

[NashVegas]

10. Goodness, Now There's a Shock

Frankly, I'd think it was worth getting sued if one's findings were important enough and replicable enough.

Daniel Ellsworth makes these guys look like punes.

[Hannah Bell]

13. Check out the likelihood of publication of "illegal" research in the mainstream journals.

[NashVegas]

15. HB, Are You Saying That Scientists Wouldn't Study Something If It Wasn't Good For Their Career?

Or publish the conclusion?

Say it ain't so!

[Hannah Bell]

17. Yes, since most researchers are paid employees, I think it unlikely they'd put in time

on a project 1) not sanctioned by their employer, 2) unpublishable 3) which would leave them, their employer, & anyone who might try to publish the research, open to prosecution.

Which is why the pharma/ag corps set up the regs, after all - so that only corporate-funded & approved "research" would see the light of day.

But keep on pretending it's about cowardly researchers & not about the corporations & bought-off politicians who put the corrupt regulations in place.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Excellent find. Thank you for posting it! k+r, n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. Steal 1 bag of seeds...

Find a farmer with seeds your'e interested in.
Take 1 bag and leave a roll of cash and a note appologizing for inconvenience.
Perform research project & publish findings.

Are you boud to the "terms of sale" if there is no terms of sale? :D

[fascisthunter]

14. Here's another Rec

and by default another kick