"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message
...
There's a news story at

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994051

which reports that laboratory studies have suggested that glyphosate
increases the risk of fungal infections.

I have read the URL. The item is interesting, but it was quite
incorrect to
publish it in New Scientist at this stage, since the work is quite
inconclusive so far, and the article contains zero quantitative
information
to help the reader decide whether the effect is statistically
significant or
not.. The folk involved are not making any claims yet, they are only
making
suggestions.

My initial reaction is that since it is known that water also affects
the
population of a number of malignant organisms, one should ban the use
of
water in agriculture.

That's unfair to *New Scientist*, an entirely responsible weekly.

What I said is not at all unfair to New Scientist. It was a criticism of
the scientists who got their work published in a pop journal prior to a peer
reviewed publication. There is far too much jumping the gun in this manner,
particularly in the life sciences.
It
would be wrong not to report initial and interim findings as they
become available.

They had no findings worth publishing. They talked about a "suggestion".
Many readers will misunderstand the posiotion and waffle about the article
as if it contained scientific information rather than "suggestions". Some
idiot is going to take action based on what he/she thinks the article avers.

Those who have read the article properly must have
noticed that it contains clear cautionary remarks such as:

QUOTE/
But the investigators warn against jumping to conclusions. "We're
deferring judgement until we have all the data," says Hanson. His team
is now planning field and greenhouse trials.

Of what use is a scientific publication without conclusions?

The team's initial findings are likely to be seized upon by anti-GM
activists.

Precisely. You have stated the problem in a nutshell. That typifies my
objection to premature publication.

But switching to other herbicides could be bad news for the
environment - glyphosate is one of the least harmful herbicides, as it
quickly breaks down in the soil.

Again, yes.

Ironically, Syngenta, another biotech giant, based in Basle,
Switzerland, has been developing and testing both GM and conventional
wheat strains that are resistant to the fusarium head fungi. "The
results have been promising," says a Syngenta spokesman.
/ENDQUOTE

I've mentioned in this newsgroup today the tendency for some people to
drag in utterly irrelevant distractors, such as your mention of water,
whenever anybody says something not fully in favour of the
agricultural chemical industry.


Is there something you aren't telling
us?

Yes, of course. A truly vast amount.
However, to set your mind at rest about what I think you are driving at, I
have no connection with any chemical firm, agri or not.
I am, however a scientist who abhors the growing habit, particularly amongst
folk working in the life sciences of getting half done work published in a
pop journal. It could, as you yourself pointed out, lead to a nonsensical
reaction.

And let me forestall a possible forthcoming comment: I am a subscriber to
New Scientist and I think it is an excellent pop science journal.

(You certainly didn't tell us what the article actually said when
attacking it for not saying it.)

The URL was given in this thread. That is how I found it. Look up the
article and read it for yourself.

Franz