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.

--
dave @ stejonda

"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.

Franz

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.

--
Chris Green )

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.

--
Chris Green )

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.

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

Franz

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.

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

Franz

"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. It
would be wrong not to report initial and interim findings as they
become available. 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.

....

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

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

Mike.

In article ,
(Franz Heymann) wrote:

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection. The results have not been subjected to peer review

What makes you select New Scientist in particular as a publication that
should change its editorial policy?


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

"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. It
would be wrong not to report initial and interim findings as they
become available. 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.

....

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

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

Mike.

In article ,
(Franz Heymann) wrote:

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection. The results have not been subjected to peer review

What makes you select New Scientist in particular as a publication that
should change its editorial policy?


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

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

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection. The results have not been subjected to peer review

What makes you select New Scientist in particular as a publication that
should change its editorial policy?

I did not suggest that the New Scientist should change its publication
policy. It is the scientists who should complete their work and publish in
a peer reviewed journal before getting themselves published in a pop
journal.

In case you still misunderstand me, I am a New Scientist subscriber and I
find it an excellent journal for gleaning something about what happens in
fields other than my own.

Franz




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

"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

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

That the matter is discussed in New Scientist is in fact my main
objection. The results have not been subjected to peer review

What makes you select New Scientist in particular as a publication that
should change its editorial policy?

I did not suggest that the New Scientist should change its publication
policy. It is the scientists who should complete their work and publish in
a peer reviewed journal before getting themselves published in a pop
journal.

In case you still misunderstand me, I am a New Scientist subscriber and I
find it an excellent journal for gleaning something about what happens in
fields other than my own.

Franz




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

"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

"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.)

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.

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.