On 15 Aug 2003 03:45:38 -0700, (Mike Lyle)
wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
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.

Not many NS readers, I suspect: and what harmful action would be
likely to result from a misunderstanding of this particular piece? (If
you're thinking of the outrageous case of the MMR vaccine panic, I
couldn't agree with you more; but it's hardly on that scale if some
farmer decides not to use glyphosate this year.)

and BSE?


and nvCJD?
--
Martin

In article ,
(Franz Heymann) wrote:

excellent journal for gleaning something about what happens in
fields other than my own.

And are these gleanings all peer-reviewed before appearing in New
Scientist?

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
snip
New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.


Or as a newsworthy story of public interest, in the judgement of the
magazine's editorial staff.

As the article remains clearly in the realms of speculation and is not
masquerading as a peer reviewed 'scientific' publication, I fail to see what
the problem is.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
snip
New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.


Or as a newsworthy story of public interest, in the judgement of the
magazine's editorial staff.

As the article remains clearly in the realms of speculation and is not
masquerading as a peer reviewed 'scientific' publication, I fail to see what
the problem is.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:31:07 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:

As the article remains clearly in the realms of speculation and is not
masquerading as a peer reviewed 'scientific' publication, I fail to see what
the problem is.


Nor me.
--
Martin

"Steve Harris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Franz Heymann) wrote:

excellent journal for gleaning something about what happens in
fields other than my own.

And are these gleanings all peer-reviewed before appearing in New
Scientist?

Far more often than not.

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
snip
New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to
be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.


Or as a newsworthy story of public interest, in the judgement of the
magazine's editorial staff.

As the article remains clearly in the realms of speculation and is not
masquerading as a peer reviewed 'scientific' publication, I fail to see
what
the problem is.

The problem is that there will be bandwaggoners who will disregard the
niceties of the situation and will start proselytising along the lines that
glyphosate encourages fusarium and should therefore not be used. Rather
comparable with the MMR vaccination fiasco.

Franz

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
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.

Not many NS readers, I suspect: and what harmful action would be
likely to result from a misunderstanding of this particular piece? (If
you're thinking of the outrageous case of the MMR vaccine panic, I
couldn't agree with you more; but it's hardly on that scale if some
farmer decides not to use glyphosate this year.)

I have used that example in another post on the matter.
A fellow gardener has already approached me with the suggestion that perhaps
we should not be using glyphosate. He got his oinformation fropm a source
other than the NS. Have you ever heard of the bush telegraph?

It must be better to publish a short news item like this, complete
with very clear caveats, and mention of research tending towards an
opposite conclusion, than to let the story spring out in garbled and
sensational form via the *Daily Mail*. You can't keep these things
secret.

Yes you can. I have spent a complete career doing research, and publishing
in refereed journals at a time of my and my colleagues' choosing, when our
research had reached an appropriate stage. Getting in touch with "the
media" came afterwards, if the matter was of sufficient public interest.

Franz



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?

As science, no use at all (unless the conclusion is that no conclusion
can be reached); but people want to know what fellow-workers are
doing, and what stage they have reached, and all the usual news. And
it's always ultimately the public who fund these programmes. As I
said, these things can't be kept secret.
[...]

Mike.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:38:11 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
snip
New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to
be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.


Or as a newsworthy story of public interest, in the judgement of the
magazine's editorial staff.

As the article remains clearly in the realms of speculation and is not
masquerading as a peer reviewed 'scientific' publication, I fail to see
what
the problem is.

The problem is that there will be bandwaggoners who will disregard the
niceties of the situation and will start proselytising along the lines that
glyphosate encourages fusarium and should therefore not be used. Rather
comparable with the MMR vaccination fiasco.

Did you mention nvCJD and the hundreds of thousands, who have not
died?
--
Martin

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:38:11 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
snip
New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and
publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it
seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item
rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore
to
be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.


Or as a newsworthy story of public interest, in the judgement of the
magazine's editorial staff.

As the article remains clearly in the realms of speculation and is not
masquerading as a peer reviewed 'scientific' publication, I fail to see
what
the problem is.

The problem is that there will be bandwaggoners who will disregard the
niceties of the situation and will start proselytising along the lines
that
glyphosate encourages fusarium and should therefore not be used. Rather
comparable with the MMR vaccination fiasco.

Did you mention nvCJD and the hundreds of thousands, who have not
died?

Thanks for the reminder.

Franz

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:47:31 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


Did you mention nvCJD and the hundreds of thousands, who have not
died?

Thanks for the reminder.

A trend based on about 30 samples extrapolated to imply that UK was
facing something like the black death.
--
Martin

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"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.

New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.

Why? The article is genuine science news and the version in the printed
magazine is actually well balanced and informative about live research.

The headline "Weedkiller may encourage blight" is a bit sensationalist
but then journalists are paid to make mundane news sound interesting.
The article is otherwise pretty well written and covers what has been
observed already, plans for future work and the following caveats:

"But the investigators warn against jumping to conclusions."
[snip]
"Hanson stresses that the real issue is whether the fungi leave more
spores in the soil. It is also possible that the effect is simply due to
herbicides leaving more dead plant matter in the soil for fungi to grow
on and is not directly caused by glyphosate"

Seems to me like quite a good article on a potentially controversial
topic.

The fact that it is gossip does not detract from ite interest. The problem,
however, is that some readers might be misled by it.

It is impossible to prevent this.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"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.

New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to
be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.

Why? The article is genuine science news and the version in the printed
magazine is actually well balanced and informative about live research.

The headline "Weedkiller may encourage blight" is a bit sensationalist
but then journalists are paid to make mundane news sound interesting.
The article is otherwise pretty well written and covers what has been
observed already, plans for future work and the following caveats:

"But the investigators warn against jumping to conclusions."
[snip]
"Hanson stresses that the real issue is whether the fungi leave more
spores in the soil. It is also possible that the effect is simply due to
herbicides leaving more dead plant matter in the soil for fungi to grow
on and is not directly caused by glyphosate"

Seems to me like quite a good article on a potentially controversial
topic.

The fact that it is gossip does not detract from ite interest. The
problem,
however, is that some readers might be misled by it.

It is impossible to prevent this.

Not so. The problem can be avoided by delaying publication in any form
until the work is completed.

Franz

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"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.

New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to
be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.

Why? The article is genuine science news and the version in the printed
magazine is actually well balanced and informative about live research.

The headline "Weedkiller may encourage blight" is a bit sensationalist
but then journalists are paid to make mundane news sound interesting.
The article is otherwise pretty well written and covers what has been
observed already, plans for future work and the following caveats:

"But the investigators warn against jumping to conclusions."
[snip]
"Hanson stresses that the real issue is whether the fungi leave more
spores in the soil. It is also possible that the effect is simply due to
herbicides leaving more dead plant matter in the soil for fungi to grow
on and is not directly caused by glyphosate"

Seems to me like quite a good article on a potentially controversial
topic.

The fact that it is gossip does not detract from ite interest. The
problem,
however, is that some readers might be misled by it.

It is impossible to prevent this.

Not so. The problem can be avoided by delaying publication in any form
until the work is completed.

Franz

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"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.

New Scientist isn't a 'learned journal' where scientists publish
papers, it's a magazine that tries to popularise science and publishes
news to that end. This sounds like science news of a sort so it seems
reasonable for New Scentist to publish it. It is a news item rather
than an article so doesn't imply much regarding the truth of the
claims.

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection.
The results have not been subjected to peer review and are therefore to
be
regarded purely as gossip from publicity-seeking scientists.

Why? The article is genuine science news and the version in the printed
magazine is actually well balanced and informative about live research.

The headline "Weedkiller may encourage blight" is a bit sensationalist
but then journalists are paid to make mundane news sound interesting.
The article is otherwise pretty well written and covers what has been
observed already, plans for future work and the following caveats:

"But the investigators warn against jumping to conclusions."
[snip]
"Hanson stresses that the real issue is whether the fungi leave more
spores in the soil. It is also possible that the effect is simply due to
herbicides leaving more dead plant matter in the soil for fungi to grow
on and is not directly caused by glyphosate"

Seems to me like quite a good article on a potentially controversial
topic.

The fact that it is gossip does not detract from ite interest. The
problem,
however, is that some readers might be misled by it.

It is impossible to prevent this.

Not so. The problem can be avoided by delaying publication in any form
until the work is completed.

Franz