Binksternet (talk | contribs) →BRD: Should Monsanto-funded studies be marked as such?: this is not an idealized case. Follow the sources. |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →BRD: Should Monsanto-funded studies be marked as such?: In case editors did not see it... |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
::::What's wrong with what I put in about it? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::What's wrong with what I put in about it? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::In case editors did not see it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glyphosate&type=revision&diff=895825304&oldid=895508605]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, of course we should tell the reader that Monsanto/Bayer is funding research intended to benefit the company. I'm not going to argue the idealized notion that a peer-reviewed publication always and completely clears the source study of bias. Instead, I note that there have been many articles written about how Monsanto/Bayer has been and still is funding research about the company's products, and how that research is being questioned for apparent bias. The idealized case is not what we have here – instead, this is a matter of following the reliable sources in their questioning of the funding sources. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
:Yes, of course we should tell the reader that Monsanto/Bayer is funding research intended to benefit the company. I'm not going to argue the idealized notion that a peer-reviewed publication always and completely clears the source study of bias. Instead, I note that there have been many articles written about how Monsanto/Bayer has been and still is funding research about the company's products, and how that research is being questioned for apparent bias. The idealized case is not what we have here – instead, this is a matter of following the reliable sources in their questioning of the funding sources. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:14, 7 May 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another recent edit
About: [1] (added by an IP, with a spelling correction by another editor). I think there might be a WP:POV problem with it. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I saw it at a glance while on mobile yesterday and gave the content an initial pass at least. Digging in a bit more after getting back to my desktop, the references seem to check out as ok. The first sentence ref is paywalled, though searching the title will give a full version elsewhere. I tweaked the first sentence a little bit to avoid "lucrative". The second sentence ref is in German, but looks to be a legitimate newspaper RS written by editorial staff. I'm not finding it exactly saying he never disclosed the conflict of interest in the source though, so I've removed that for now (though I don't think it was disclosed on personal perusal of the primary sources).
- That leaves the last sentence sourced to Reuters. I had been wrestling on how the source could be used well before these edits too, especially in terms of WP:MEDRS. It helps that we have MEDRS sourced directly contradicting and criticizing the IARC conclusions already, so the Reuters source can fall more into an lay explanatory source categorization within MEDRS, especially since it comments on the problems in the process of the IARC decision as opposed to criticism of the conclusion itself where MEDRS is definitely needed.
- I'm making a change to the last sentence after posting this message I think navigates that gray zone in an ok fashion, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a refimprove tag to have a paired MEDRS source directly cited there as well if there's a good one to compliment the Reuters source or vice versa to make it easier on us. This is tricky though because it's not like a journal where such actions would result in a statement by the journal staff. This is more like criticism of behavioral actions within government organization that's a little more the domain of news sources than the focus of scientific sources. Other scientific bodies would generally focus on refuting the conclusions rather than the committee's editing methods (as opposed to scientific methods that do get criticized), so I'm honestly not sure where we'd expect to find higher quality sourcing on this last sentence content. I'd like to see what other people think too or if text should be changed further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- My change to the last sentence ended up being a bit more than I thought while adding in another source, but it tries to take a more documentation approach than some of the editorializing in the previous version. I'm going to let that sit for now, but I'd be open to any tweaks or discussion on it at this point as I try to work on other things for a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingofaces43: Thanks for reviewing it. I'm not sure we should be citing Kabat though as forbes.com/sites/ are not under editorial control of Forbes and are generally not considered RS. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I looked into that a little bit when I made this edit where the article definitely shouldn't be attributed to Forbes' opinion. However, Kabat is a an expert when it comes to cancer and epidemiology, so their opinion does meet minimum RS when properly attributed (though really the lowest tier of RS only in specific cases like this), and one could invoke WP:PARITY if needed too. I'd prefer stronger sourcing too, but it's not uncommon to have attributed statements like this either from experts. I don't think anyone can just sign up to be a Forbes contributor though, so it does give Kabat's statements a little more weight compared to an open blog. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingofaces43: Thanks for reviewing it. I'm not sure we should be citing Kabat though as forbes.com/sites/ are not under editorial control of Forbes and are generally not considered RS. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you, for working on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Recent European Parliament report and Beanbrook claims
"However, an independent report mandated by several European Parliament groups alleged that EU regulators based a decision to relicense glysophate-based weedkillers based on an assessment plagiarized from industry reports and subjectively omitting research that would indicate carcinogenicity, thus putting into question the objectivity of the the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.[96] Similarly, a recent peer-reviewed research paper in comparing the IARC and American EPA assessment concluded that: "in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive".[97] Carcinogenicity. partially based on the IARC report, has been quoted as the reason behind a increasing number of glyphosate Roundup bans in countries like France[98], the Netherlands[99] or in states like California[100]."
Regarding this part. It should probably be broken up and moved to a different part of the wiki. However it seems like IARC gets an unfair amount of critique as compared to the EPA or EFSA. Especially the European Parliament report seems valid and important. It basically blasts one key agency in Europe of plagiarism and bias - you can't just ignore it. It's a key EP report!!! This report influenced a massive vote today to strengthen regulations against pesticides. Maruti (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The IARC is critiqued heavily because it falls into WP:FRINGE by opposing the scientific consensus. That is a function of WP:NPOV as well as why we don't give undue weight to claims opposing the consensus. Keep in mind that we also need WP:MEDRS sources, which the Guardian isn't. Not to mention that Benbrook typically isn't a reliable source in this subject either, but is also contradicting the scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus. But that's beside the point. You can just not mention the fact that an official European Parliament report criticizes the BfR, which in turn led to a massive for vote on increased oversight over pesticides. The Guardian link can be supplanted for the report itself, so that's no excuse. As to Benbrook - what credentials does Wiki have to decide who is a "credible" source? And who is a reliable source? Industry written reports? Besides the Benbrook paper suggests bias, not critique of assessments. I can agree these should be placed somewhere else in the article, but I can't see how you can ignore factual debates. Maruti (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I put a short concise info about the EP report plus about the Benbrook paper in the Government and organization positions section. It won't question the science, but if you list the Guardian article about plagiarism than you must list the EP paper that was mandated BECAUSE of that article. If you don't find Benbrook relevant enough - fine, but given the success he's had in the California trial - best to link him to his Wiki page and people to make up their own minds. Maruti (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- How can I demonstrate consensus for a report that was mandated by the EP? It's a fact, it happened, it was widely reported and it influenced a key vote yesterday in the EP. You have the Guardian article that started the allegations of plagiarism quoted, so why not the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT mandated report that was mandated because of that exact Guardian article just below it? The suggested content is:
- 1. IN EFSA: In January 2019 an independent assessment mandated by several European Parliament groups (Greens / EFA, Socialists & Democrats and European United Left–Nordic Green Left) alleged that the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment report was plagiarized from industry papers and subjectively omitted peer-reviewed research. (link directly to report or better yet to the Guardian article about it that would give the reader some background to it plus the link to the report is in the article). (If some wants the BfR response to these allegations maybe add it?)
- As for Benbrook (If you don't think he's relevant here - fine, but the European Parliament paper? C'mon!):
- 2. In January 2019 Charles Benbrook, (maybe add here that he's an expert in the California case so people know 'he's an involved party'????) published a peer-reviewed research paper comparing the IARC and American EPA assessment and concluded that: "in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive". (link to paper) Maruti (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- In medical topics, we need WP:MEDRS sources, not newspapers, etc. That means things like review articles. We also generally do not discuss primary sources unless appropriate sources bring them up. When we have something like a scientific consensus on a subject, it's also generally WP:UNDUE to give significant weight to other viewpoints. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- That is why I suggested this go to Organizations positions. So it's not a discussion about science, but about positions. And under the EFSA you literally already have the whole controversy regarding the BfR assessment and it ends with this: "In September 2017, The Guardian reported that sections of the Renewal Assessment Report prepared by the BfR and used by Efsa were copy-pasted from a study done by Monsanto. Some sections of copy contained small changes such as using British spelling rather than American forms but others were copied word for word, including most of the peer-reviewed papers that were used in the report. The Guardian reported that a "Monsanto spokesperson said that Efsa allowed renewal reports to be written this way because of the large volume of toxicological studies submitted."" I think we can all agree that an independent report, written by academics specializing in their respective fields and mandated by three major European factions is more important than a Guardian article (who BTW makes the same claim but without a rigorous assessment to back it up. What's more the EP assessment is a direct consequence of the Guardian report. Furthermore it played a key role in a very important vote regarding enhancing objectivity and transparency of EFSA assessments (voted yesterday). Can anyone tell me any reason why this should not appear in the Glyphosate article? Please once again - indulge me. This is even a logical next step in the whole story. It's not even a viewpoint. I link the primary source - no good. I linked a Guardian article with a link to the primary source - not good. Because for now it just looks like you don't want this to be part of the article for... Why? Maruti (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you want maybe we can add some BfR refute of claims, if you think it's undue. It might also be worth noting something about the EP vote to make pesticide approval procedures more transparent and independent based on the whole EFSA controversy. Its on the frickin European Parliament website: https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2019/02/european_assessment_of_glyphosate_is_quality_assured_and_independent___industry_reports_are_routinely_part_of_assessment_reports-239502.html
- http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190115IPR23551/pesticides-meps-propose-blueprint-to-improve-eu-approval-procedure Maruti (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- In medical topics, we need WP:MEDRS sources, not newspapers, etc. That means things like review articles. We also generally do not discuss primary sources unless appropriate sources bring them up. When we have something like a scientific consensus on a subject, it's also generally WP:UNDUE to give significant weight to other viewpoints. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
New meta-analysis out today says "raises risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887
"Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR = 1.41, 95% CI, confidence interval: 1.13–1.75)." TimidGuy (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's already text stating the scientific consensus is that glyphosate does not pose a significant carcinogenic risk at Glyphosate#Cancer. Pretty much every regulatory agency, etc. agrees, and stronger meta-analyses than this new study show no risk too. Other studies on NHL and glyphosate links have been criticized for methodological issues, cherry-picking, confounding, etc. in reviews, so I don't think there's anything that could really be changed in the article based on this new study in terms of WP:DUE. It could be worth fleshing out what other reviews have said with respect to issues in the studies looking at NHL though since it seems to come up often. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- The deletion of this new research seems strange. If the article passed academic scrutiny, it by definition must provide new evidence that could change scientific opinion. The fact that there swas "scientific consensus" prior to this research does not mean the consensus cannot change once a new research is published. How can a Wikipedia editor be more knowledgeable than the academic reviewers of this paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit by 84.109, because it was sourced to an announcement from the university website, which is tantamount to a press release. I do realize that, just above, TimidGuy links to the actual journal article, and that the article is a meta-analysis. This has nothing to do with what Wikipedia editors know (and we have a policy against basing such decisions on what editors think that they know). Rather, because we are discussing a disease in human beings, the decisions about sourcing must be based on WP:MEDRS. And that rules out reporting something because it is "breaking news" in research. As Kingofaces correctly points out, this is one meta-analysis among multiple meta-analyses and review articles, and there is a high barrier to using it to effectively overrule the other sources. We don't know yet whether or not scientific consensus has changed. (The fact that the new paper could change scientific consensus isn't good enough: guessing whether something could do that is just editor opinion.) If it does change consensus, that will soon be reflected in other publications that are independent of this one, and if/when that happens, Wikipedia most certainly will report it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- IMO this reflects a very strange situation in U.S. Science (I am not American). (1) I would expect a university press release (which includes a link to the research paper) to be identical to the research findings, except that its stated in a layman's terms. It seems that you view it as an advertisement, i.e. something whose credibility should be questioned and whose purpose is (at least in part) to hype the university's status. (2) I would expect an academic article to advance science, i.e. to provide further evidence than known before. In such a case, I would have thought that Wikipedia should reflect that new information exists. It seems that you see a new article as merely a statement of fact (hopefully you don't question its correctness), without any say about its relevance. I wonder - in what cases do you thing the scientific community would reject the results of such a paper: wrong methodology? not enough analyses gathered for a meta-analysis? Why didn't the paper's reviewers reject it on these grounds? (3) Who decides what is the "scientific consensus" - Is this an NIH/WHO decision? -- Ronnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't about how US science works. It's about how Wikipedia works. If you want to change how Wikipedia works in this instance, the place to discuss it is at WT:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I opened a discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- That discussion is at WT:MEDRS#New research results about increased cancer risk of herbicide were not authorized. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I opened a discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't about how US science works. It's about how Wikipedia works. If you want to change how Wikipedia works in this instance, the place to discuss it is at WT:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- IMO this reflects a very strange situation in U.S. Science (I am not American). (1) I would expect a university press release (which includes a link to the research paper) to be identical to the research findings, except that its stated in a layman's terms. It seems that you view it as an advertisement, i.e. something whose credibility should be questioned and whose purpose is (at least in part) to hype the university's status. (2) I would expect an academic article to advance science, i.e. to provide further evidence than known before. In such a case, I would have thought that Wikipedia should reflect that new information exists. It seems that you see a new article as merely a statement of fact (hopefully you don't question its correctness), without any say about its relevance. I wonder - in what cases do you thing the scientific community would reject the results of such a paper: wrong methodology? not enough analyses gathered for a meta-analysis? Why didn't the paper's reviewers reject it on these grounds? (3) Who decides what is the "scientific consensus" - Is this an NIH/WHO decision? -- Ronnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit by 84.109, because it was sourced to an announcement from the university website, which is tantamount to a press release. I do realize that, just above, TimidGuy links to the actual journal article, and that the article is a meta-analysis. This has nothing to do with what Wikipedia editors know (and we have a policy against basing such decisions on what editors think that they know). Rather, because we are discussing a disease in human beings, the decisions about sourcing must be based on WP:MEDRS. And that rules out reporting something because it is "breaking news" in research. As Kingofaces correctly points out, this is one meta-analysis among multiple meta-analyses and review articles, and there is a high barrier to using it to effectively overrule the other sources. We don't know yet whether or not scientific consensus has changed. (The fact that the new paper could change scientific consensus isn't good enough: guessing whether something could do that is just editor opinion.) If it does change consensus, that will soon be reflected in other publications that are independent of this one, and if/when that happens, Wikipedia most certainly will report it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The deletion of this new research seems strange. If the article passed academic scrutiny, it by definition must provide new evidence that could change scientific opinion. The fact that there swas "scientific consensus" prior to this research does not mean the consensus cannot change once a new research is published. How can a Wikipedia editor be more knowledgeable than the academic reviewers of this paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I gotta say the framing of this discussion of how science works versus how WP works rubs me really wrong. Yes, WP is not a part of scientific process and the scientific process and debate has to happened outside WP and WP merely reflects the (settled) results or in (large) unresolved cases the current state of the debate. However Glyphosate is not Climatechanges and the above boldly claimed scientific consensus imho simply does not exist. And while it is true that many scientific organisations currently state that there is cancer risk associated with Glyphosate, it isn't true for all (see the IARC case). And while you can argue most studies don't show associations, it is again by far not true for all and imho if one were to declare a supposed consensus it is more along the line of "association with cancer is currently very weak, further research is needed", which is miles away from a supposed consensus a la "no association with cancer". The latter however seems to be used here to be able to argue that WP policy requires to dismiss this study (or any other new differing result) out of hand.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- "There's already text stating the scientific consensus..." A meta analysis has been posted. This isn't fringe content this is the most recent, MEDRS compliant information which adds to the growing scientific body of information on glyphosate and whatever its impact on health maybe. We overstep ourselves as editors when we decide that scientific consensus does not include the most recent meta analysis. We can decide weight and report this new meta anlysis carries less weight in terms of our articles, but we can't decide it doesn't exist in favor of an already determined POV. Again this isn't fringe content; we must report this, taking into account due weight, this new compliant content. I'm scratching my head on this.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest a version of this."our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.Littleolive oil (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- That would go against the scientific consensus and violate WP:DUE (the opposite of "we must report this"). The scientific consensus is very clear that practically all national-level scientific groups and agencies agree with the consensus, and the lone outlier, the IARC, has been heavily criticized for its methodology. It's even to the point that the WHO, which the IARC is housed within, has ignored their designation and considers glyphosate not to be as significant carcinogen. Things going against the scientific consensus are indeed frequently WP:FRINGE (glyphosate and cancer claims frequently fall under that), but they are instead almost always undue weight until a consensus has actually changed. There's nothing even close to such as change yet, and a single meta-analysis cannot be used to contradict higher level sources. If those high-level scientific groups starting changing their designations, then there would be something to discuss. Until that happens though, Wikipedia cannot try to get ahead of the science.
- The other issue is that we've seen these kinds of meta-analyses on the subject already (see Glyphosate#Human. The problem is that the underlying literature is easily prone to bias and confounding, particularly on the non-Hodgkins lymphoma topic (the studies are correlational and frequently confounded with other pesticide use). There are weight issues with even including this study in the lower-tier of just looking at meta-analyses, so it's really become a topic where secondary coverage of the meta-analyses is frequently needed at this point. The status of that last paragraph I linked to stays the same in either case where some studies saw a correlation with NHL, but many find none with the positive associations often having methodological issues.
- Scientific consensus is already a high bar though. If it's climate change, we don't say we need to include sources that go against that consensus, we don't include studies saying there is a significant health risk to GMOs, etc. even if they are meta-analyses. Doing otherwise would contradict too many polices. A lot needs to happen for a study like this to be mentioned here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Again this is NOT chlimate change and the scientific consensus you claim simply does not exist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please avoid violating WP:OR by claiming there is no consensus. The relevant portion of current text is very clear on this. A scientific consensus can occur in areas other than climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Again you claiming a scientific consensus, doesn't make one. And yes a scientific consensus is not restricted to climate change, in fact most of our science articles live in a consensus space. Glyphosate and various related issues however fail a scientific cosnsensus on many topics as far as I can see, instead you can only talk of majority opinions (in a heavily lobbied field). Also you can't really violate WP:OR on a talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please avoid violating WP:OR by claiming there is no consensus. The relevant portion of current text is very clear on this. A scientific consensus can occur in areas other than climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Again this is NOT chlimate change and the scientific consensus you claim simply does not exist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Scientific consensus is already a high bar though. If it's climate change, we don't say we need to include sources that go against that consensus, we don't include studies saying there is a significant health risk to GMOs, etc. even if they are meta-analyses. Doing otherwise would contradict too many polices. A lot needs to happen for a study like this to be mentioned here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've read through the paper (being summoned from
FTNWT:MEDRS) and I do think a sentence should go in the article at some point, perhaps after waiting a few weeks to make sure no major flaws are uncovered. We're already citing other NHL meta-analyses, and if there isn't anything wrong with this one then consistency would suggest adding it as well. The sources do seem pretty clear that there's a consensus with respect to general carcinogenicity, but my impression (I can't say for sure) is that this might indicate a minority view for NHL in particular that's significant enough to mention, again with the caveat that the paper's methods and results are not substantially questioned in the future. If not, then the presence of the other NHL meta-analyses should be re-evaluated.
- That said, if we want to consider additions, the text that was originally inserted and Olive's above proposal both contain editorializing as well as at least one major problem. For the latter version, the language "our current meta-analysis" suggests the most recent meta-analysis is necessarily the most authoritative, or even subsumes previously published meta-analyses, which are definitely not the case. For the former, it emphasizes the observed risk estimate when the authors specifically de-emphasize it and instead offer cautions on interpretation, and the use of the vague plural "some cancers" (while it could arguably be considered technically correct) gives the false impression of greater severity. (And on that note, while it's not explicitly laid out in this source, for context it may also be necessary to make the point that this is essentially focused on occupational exposures, which is very different from the environmental exposures that tend to be of greater interest to the general public.) Sunrise (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve mentioned weight issues, and part of what you mention for other NHL text if somewhat historical. That is included because those initial NHL analyses caused a splash at the time, but were largely later discredited, hence the current layout. This source hasn’t reached that bar yet. Including itwould become more like dueling sources when the current version provides how other sources summarize the progression of literature instead. That background is a little buried within the sources if only glancing at text.
- As for where the consensus applies with respect to “general cancer”, the NHL studies were prominently weighed in on within the various consensus statements in the sources. They were looked at, and the weight of evidence was considered as no significant risk. That’s why we need to be careful about contradicting the consensus that includes NHL with a single meta-analysis when there has already been a lot of weighing in with previous sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any mention of this at WP:FTN. Was it actually my post at WT:MEDRS? If not, Sunrise, could you please link to the discussion? Also, I believe that a thoughtful reading of WP:MEDRS does not lead to the overly simplistic conclusion that this is a MEDRS-compliant source, at least not if we present it in a way that gives it more weight than the source material as a whole. That doesn't mean that we are going to dismiss it out of hand. (Also, although no one is doing anything wrong here, I just want to remind everyone that the discretionary sanctions from the ArbCom GMO case apply to this page. Just giving the reminder before there is any problem.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- (For my part, I probably wouldn't have considered commenting here at all if I didn't know the atmosphere was being controlled by the DS! And yes, I meant WT:MEDRS, sorry for the mixup.) Your proposal below is in line with the sort of thing I was thinking of for the ideal case - minority (or fringe) positions, if mentioned, must be placed in the context of the majority view, and any addition would have to comply with that. However, I agree with the comment that this isn't coming across very well for the existing text. In particular, to me the weighting in the current version of the lead seems to imply there is at least a serious possibility of cancer risk: emphasis on "concerns" with no direct counterbalance, a lot of use of attribution and quotation, the 2014 meta-analysis getting the final word in paragraph 4, and IARC being given the most visible position in paragraph 5. The situation becomes clearer after reading the body, but the same kind of thing applies there too, such as giving the "limited evidence" statement the first position in the paragraph that describes the consensus statement. Sunrise (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Sunrise. Sorry if anything caused you any stress. I agree with you overall on the content issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- (For my part, I probably wouldn't have considered commenting here at all if I didn't know the atmosphere was being controlled by the DS! And yes, I meant WT:MEDRS, sorry for the mixup.) Your proposal below is in line with the sort of thing I was thinking of for the ideal case - minority (or fringe) positions, if mentioned, must be placed in the context of the majority view, and any addition would have to comply with that. However, I agree with the comment that this isn't coming across very well for the existing text. In particular, to me the weighting in the current version of the lead seems to imply there is at least a serious possibility of cancer risk: emphasis on "concerns" with no direct counterbalance, a lot of use of attribution and quotation, the 2014 meta-analysis getting the final word in paragraph 4, and IARC being given the most visible position in paragraph 5. The situation becomes clearer after reading the body, but the same kind of thing applies there too, such as giving the "limited evidence" statement the first position in the paragraph that describes the consensus statement. Sunrise (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sunrise, I've taken a stab and rearranging this section a little bit to at least be more in line with what an intended reading should be with appropriate weighting. That would be the prime spot for adding the example citations like Tryptofish mentioned. That being said, it's currently written to rely on other studies commenting on the minority viewpoint rather than standalone, so I'm still not sure how best to fit in the new study with regards to my SYNTH comment above. If this version at least makes better sense, we can go forward from there on whether it's better to wait awhile before adding anything about this new study. We'll be getting ourselves into less trouble at least trying to add it in to some variation of the change I just made.
- Something like that could also be copied into the lede too to replace the problem areas you brought up if people are ok with that idea. I'm not beholden to my particular version, but that's the gist to get across at least using the sources we have so far. I can do more digging if we want to discuss specifically how international agencies have discounted many meta-analysis in this subject, though it may be redundant to some degree too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this, and while I would oppose giving this one paper a prominent treatment in the form of something like a paragraph of its own, I do think that we could cite it in the form of something like: "Although some reviews of the literature have concluded that there is evidence of occupational carcinogenicity, (cite papers, including this one) most analyses have concluded that the weight of evidence is against that being the case. (cites)" Or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve been batting around a similar idea. Basically this conversation so far is showing readers aren’t catching that scientific agencies haven’t been giving these studies weight due to various issues in the studies (that would also at least in part be inherent in this study too). We skim over that in our current content aside from the single sentence mentioning bias and confounding, so that’s a prime candidate to flesh out. Your example could fit in that paragraph, but it also wouldn’t really matter whether this new study is included or not since the sources already mention them. I’ll looking into fleshing out based on previous sources in the morning.
- The only caution I would have against citing the study even as an example would by a SYNTH concern. The sources we can bring up talk about previous meta-analyses and the underlying literature’s issues that this new study would have run into as well, but those sources don’t discuss this new study directly. Not sure how best to tackle that aspect if someone is adamant about including the example listing as you mention quite yet, but your approach looks ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think we are moving in the right direction, but I'll wait to see what other editors think at this point. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
good source for improving the intro and making it more user friendly
http://www.speclab.com/compound/c1071836.htm --Espoo (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is not a good source. Much better sources are available and have already been cited. I don´t think your addition of language dictionaries in the lead/1st sentence improved the article. JimRenge (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
New verdict
There have just been news reports of a verdict in a new case in the same topic as Glyphosate#Lawsuits claiming links to cancer. I expect that this may set off a round of edits that may be poorly formed. I suggest that it be treated with similar weight as the previous case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Questionable source
I question the use of this review article:[2] It is a review done by :Professor of Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology, Assiut University and Deputy Chairman of the Agricultural Pesticide Committee (APC), Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, Arab Republic of Egypt. It appeared in the Journal of Toxicology and Health, which brings up nothing other than its own information when googled. I'd appreciate some feedback. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question. The first thing I thought of was whether it might be a predatory journal, so I looked into it. At the link you provided, it's shown as being part of Herbert Open Access Journals (Herbert Publications). And that publisher is on this list: [3], which is generally considered the definitive list of such publishers. As such, it fails WP:RS and needs to be removed from this page and any other page that cites it.
- That's a pity, because it probably is not the fault of the author of the review, because most authors who publish at these journals have been hoodwinked into thinking that the journal is legit. The author appears to be a full professor, and we obviously do not reject sources by authors from non-first-world countries, so the opinions there are probably on the up-and-up, and critical reviews of the literature are normally exactly what we want to use as MEDRS sources. Maybe that author also has published in a valid journal, which would be worth a look. But this one has to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I looked at what else the author has published, and he is really a very distinguished authority on the chemistry of these kinds of things, but he has only one other review about pesticides, and it's in the same publication. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, what a pity indeed. That he would submit both reviews about pesticides to a predatory journal that uses made-up names as peer reviewers is probably not his fault. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's so difficult to read affect online, that I have to check. I'm not sure whether you are being sarcastic about that, but I hope that's not the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- In case you didn't know, legitimate scientific journals almost never tell the authors who the reviewers were. Peer-review is typically done anonymously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am, of course, aware of that. Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. So I guess that means that you agree that he
likelypotentially did not know that it was a predatory journal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC) word changed --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- Thanks to both of you. I agree, we better avoid citing predatory journals. I am surprised to see that the same author who wrote: "When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose." concludes one year later "(...) Taken all together, it can be fairly said that confidence in the regulatory certified ADI values is highly eroded." and proposes a new acceptable daily intake of 2.5 ng/kg bw/day, 1/400 000 of the existing ADI of 1mg/kg bw/day. (Yehia A. Ibrahim (2015). A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health 2, 1. Yehia A. Ibrahim (2016). Hypothetical adjustment of the acceptable daily intake and correction of the underrated risk: A case study of glyphosate based herbicides, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Science 8 (7), 57.) The website academicjournals.org, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Science, is blacklisted by wikipedia. JimRenge (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC) suppl. JimRenge (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. So I guess that means that you agree that he
- I am, of course, aware of that. Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The source is still on the page (and the other pages where it was cited). That's because it's cited multiple times, and it was only removed at one place. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done, removed it in Bayer, Monsanto, Roundup, Glyphosate, GBH, etc. JimRenge (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, JimRenge, that's much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done, removed it in Bayer, Monsanto, Roundup, Glyphosate, GBH, etc. JimRenge (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, what a pity indeed. That he would submit both reviews about pesticides to a predatory journal that uses made-up names as peer reviewers is probably not his fault. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. I didn't find anything that set off any red flags on predatory journals when I first found the source and looked at the time. I'll do a little bit more digging on replacement sources, but there are some pointing out that some of those Herbert journals are legitimate, and another review does point out Ibrahim as a good source for what various agencies have said on the matter. I'd have to dig into the specifics on this journal more though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus at RSN and elsewhere has been pretty clear that we should not cite anything from sources that are on Beall's list of predatory journals, and I want to adhere to that consensus. I'm glad that you found that other review, however, because taking it along with the first one that I cite just below in "Other sources", they do fill the gap left behind by omitting Ibrahim. On the other hand, I'm pretty well convinced by my look for sources that it is no longer valid for us to say that IARC was the "only one". Flawed yes, and we should say so, but there are clearly newer sources that also raise concerns, and I want us to present a balanced view of both "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's my general sentiment too. I was curious if there was any such coverage of the journal itself in terms of reliability, but I didn't find any in a quick search. It's better to focus on other sources as you say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus at RSN and elsewhere has been pretty clear that we should not cite anything from sources that are on Beall's list of predatory journals, and I want to adhere to that consensus. I'm glad that you found that other review, however, because taking it along with the first one that I cite just below in "Other sources", they do fill the gap left behind by omitting Ibrahim. On the other hand, I'm pretty well convinced by my look for sources that it is no longer valid for us to say that IARC was the "only one". Flawed yes, and we should say so, but there are clearly newer sources that also raise concerns, and I want us to present a balanced view of both "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Other sources
I've looked for some better sources on the same issue.
- This: [4], looks to be a valid review by a qualified expert in a legitimate journal, that makes criticisms of IARC that are similar to what Ibrahim said.
- This: [5], is another good recent review, that says that current safety evaluations of glyphosate are out-of-date and that it should be regarded more critically.
- These: [6] and [7], present both "sides" of the issue.
--Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would want to know if the IARC claims that Monsanto's lawyers retained Bob Tarone (#1) were true, before paying $47 to read it. I've read the others (quickly) and it's true that they seem more balanced than what was in the article before, but they pretty clearly don't say the same thing as what the entry currently does so the text will need significant rewriting. The comments about non-US, non-European data/studies in #3 are particularly of interest. SashiRolls t · c 00:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It appears that Tarone has testified under oath that he did not receive any money and was not influenced in any way by Monsanto: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- A similar commentary by him here: [9]. But I don't think it adds much to the other article. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I should add that I came across that while searching for anything else about Tarone having had a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, all of the accusations come out of the IARC letter. And that letter says that the European Journal of Cancer Prevention was going to reclassify Tarone's piece from a "research paper" to an "opinion paper"; however, the present-day online version of the article still calls it a "research paper". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
About MEDRS sources
I've just made this edit: [10], and I want to explain why, because it may not be entirely obvious.
For content such as this, that says or implies that something may cause birth defects, Wikipedia relies on WP:MEDRS to evaluate sources, so that we don't mislead readers with preliminary or one-off health information (which gets published in the scientific literature all the time, and needs to be replicated subsequently by independent researchers). I previously had placed this tag: [11]. That's because the source was a press report rather than a peer-reviewed study, and because it was about a case report of a single patient, rather than a retrospective review of the literature as a whole. More information was then added, which I appreciate: [12]. But that only compounded the problem. First of all, these amount to three separate reports, so there is WP:SYNTH in treating two of them as justifying the first. Also, the two new sources are primary sources, rather than retrospective reviews of the kind of observation reported in the first press report. That's why I removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
About that deleted material
This is the text that was deleted.
- In a legal case filed against Monsanto in France in May 2018, a surgeon who operated on a boy born with multiple deformities said that without any genetic antecedents, it was "highly probable" that the pesticide played a role in his deformities.[1]
- Correlations between high glyphosate levels in urine and shortened pregnancy have been observed.[2] An Argentine study of vertebrate embryos concluded that "the direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields."[3]
References
- ^ Raphaëlle Chabran (13 August 2018). "En France, deux procès attendent Monsanto". La Croix (in French). Retrieved 29 March 2019.
l'implication du glyphosate dans l'apparition du syndrome poly-malformatif de Théo (…) est hautement probable en l'absence de facteurs génétiques chez la mère et l'enfant.
- ^ Parvez S, Gerona RR, Proctor C, Friesen M, Ashby JL, Reiter JL, Lui Z, Winchester PD (2018). "Glyphosate exposure in pregnancy and shortened gestational length: a prospective Indiana birth cohort study". Environmental Health. 17 (23). doi:10.1186/s12940-018-0367-0.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Alejandra Paganelli; Victoria Gnazzo; Helena Acosta; Silvia L. López; Andrés E. Carrasco (2010). "Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling". Chemical Research in Toxicology. 23 (10): 1586–1595. doi:10.1021/tx1001749.
As I understand it Trypto's complaint is not that we report the fact that Monsanto is being sued in a case related to birth defects (though he *did* admittedly delete that), nor with the research into retinoic acid and reduced gestation periods, but the fact that these were right next to each other in the text. How would others (or Trypto) suggest these 3 items be arranged to keep everyone happy and still to provide readers with the information. (cf. wp:notcensored, etc.) p.s. there are some photo-pages about Argentinian birth defects in rural areas, but I thought that probably wouldn't pass the censors. SashiRolls t · c 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- In general it's a bad idea to comment on legal cases that have only been filed. Anyone can claim anything in a filing, but that doesn't mean it is true. The primary research references are obviously not MEDRS-compliant (or even SCIRS) and I agree with Tryptofish that it is especially problematic to use these to reinforce the suggestion that the birth defect was caused by glyphosate when this is contrary to the status-quo that it does not affect reproductive health. Please knock it off with your mentions of censorship etc. these are long-established principles for dealing with health-related information on Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is also the issue of WP:SYNTH. For WP to imply that primary source: 'Glyphosate can shorten the duration of pregnancy' plus primary source: 'Glyphosate does stuff in lab animals' equals 'what the surgeon said about a single case of a baby with birth defects', that's what WP:SYNTH is about. It's not about putting the sources in different places. It's about WP:NOR. And that in turn is why we use literature reviews rather than have editors decide to combine primary sources to communicate something. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I see there's a study on the correlation between high levels of glyphosate pollution in Argentina and miscarriage (3x more likely) and congenital abnormalities (2x more likely). That said, the publisher is blocked as predatory on en.wp (SCIRP: [1]) It's very curious all that I am learning about how research gets banned/blocked/blacklisted from en.wp.
- There is also the issue of WP:SYNTH. For WP to imply that primary source: 'Glyphosate can shorten the duration of pregnancy' plus primary source: 'Glyphosate does stuff in lab animals' equals 'what the surgeon said about a single case of a baby with birth defects', that's what WP:SYNTH is about. It's not about putting the sources in different places. It's about WP:NOR. And that in turn is why we use literature reviews rather than have editors decide to combine primary sources to communicate something. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- In general it's a bad idea to comment on legal cases that have only been filed. Anyone can claim anything in a filing, but that doesn't mean it is true. The primary research references are obviously not MEDRS-compliant (or even SCIRS) and I agree with Tryptofish that it is especially problematic to use these to reinforce the suggestion that the birth defect was caused by glyphosate when this is contrary to the status-quo that it does not affect reproductive health. Please knock it off with your mentions of censorship etc. these are long-established principles for dealing with health-related information on Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Environmental Exposure to Glyphosate and Reproductive Health Impacts in Agricultural Population of Argentina". JEP. doi:10.4236/jep.2018.93016.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
- In matters related to this page, Trypto, could you also explain why since 2015 you haven't ever deemed it useful to add that the IARC had found the herbicide to be a "probable carcinogen" on the Roundup page you've principally authored (in large part by copying from this page)? Or why no mention had ever been made of the Monsanto Papers on this page or that one? (the prize, much less the articles, aren't exactly new...) These two facts are very, very strange.
- I appreciate that you don't wish to consider the World Health Organization a *notable* exception to the list of regulatory / advisory institutions that have deemed the herbicide to be non-carcinogenic. Even if it *is* the WHO, "notable" could, I suppose be construed as editorializing. However, let's keep this in perpective. What follows is the one-sided story I found and had to fix at the Roundup entry you "steward"... (see here in particular which you said you copied from this page in Sept 2018). Could you explain why there was no mention whatsoever of the IARC finding, while that finding is an essential element of the article you were citing (the main purpose of the article being to react to / investigate that claim). This would seem to be WP:NOR of the highest degree... taking one article and skipping over the parts it is "inconvenient" that the article mentions.
- Finally, any ideas why there is a line through the principal author of this entry's pseudonym on the talk page? Have they been blacklisted/blocked/banned/shot or are they OK? SashiRolls t · c 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't really sound to me like you are asking me about content, which I would be happy to do, but rather that you are making innuendos about me. If you actually feel that there are problems with my conduct, take it to the appropriate venue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Knock it off", SmartSE? I beg your pardon? Who are you to speak with me in such a manner? Please focus on arguing convincingly why the studies should be "removed". I don't think the average passerby will be convinced by your statement above. How is it that the Egyptian researcher mentioned two sections ago passed MEDRS? (because he was entrusted with making a national recommendation?)
- Now as for whether RS reporting on a widely publicized lawsuit should be included in an encyclopedia entry, that's a different question. Also SmartSE & Tryptofish I would ask that you refrain from refactoring TP comments. SashiRolls t · c 12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with SmartSE that we should be avoiding using anything from ongoing cases where anything can be alleged. There are definitely WP:MEDRS issues with this too, so I don't really see anything we can do right now at least. Something to discuss if there are new secondary sources though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
BRD: Should Monsanto-funded studies be marked as such?
There is a discussion going on in edit summaries about whether research funded by Monsanto should be marked as such (see most recently here). This, I suppose, is a sort of intellectual mise en abîme. Wikipedia policy says that contributors having a vested interest must declare that interest on the talk page and wait for other contributors to validate (or reject) their proposed contributions.
The article cited includes a disclosure statement saying that one of the principal authors has worked, as an employee of the subcontractor "Exponent", for Monsanto. The authors are employed by Exponent, a scientific research and consulting firm that provides services for private and governmental clients, including on projects concerning glyphosate and other pesticides. In the past five years, Ellen Chang has provided consulting services through Exponent on behalf of Monsanto Company on other issues, and she also has provided consulting services on other pesticides and lymphohematopoietic cancers for other clients.
It also notes that the research was wholly funded by Monsanto.(source)
I see no reason for en.wiki not to indicate who paid for the research. Doing so does not invalidate the study, but dutifully mirrors the disclosure statement and funding sections in the conclusions to the article. IMO, 19 bytes won't break the servers' backs. SashiRolls t · c 17:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- About a month ago, a statement about funding was added in the "Cancer" section: [13], and I tagged it, with the edit summary
Saying "funded by Monsanto" in this way seems to me to go too far towards editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. Do sources demonstrate that the paper was actually biased as a result?
: [14], which I think is self-explanatory. Actually, despite my most recent edit summary, I misremembered what I had done as a revert; in fact, all I did was put a tag after the phrase, explaining the tag in my edit summary just above, and the tagged passage is still there as of today. About a month later, the same statement about the same source was added in the "Human" section, without taking note of the earlier tag: [15]. And that is what I reverted yesterday: [16].
- As per my earlier edit summary, saying "funded by Monsanto" in Wikipedia's voice makes it sound like Wikipedia is passing judgment on the soundness of the study, which violates WP:NOR. The correct way to write about it would be to cite a reliable source, such as a journalist or an academic (and not a conspiracy theorist), writing about the funding of the study and saying that the funding had a noteworthy influence on what the study said – and to attribute that view to that source. And if there are different sources that come to differing conclusions about it, we would have to reflect that difference. But not to say it in Wikipedia's voice. If we can say it in an NPOV way, with proper attribution, that would be fine with me. I'm not looking to prevent the information from appearing in an appropriate way. (It certainly has nothing to do with the number of bytes.)
- I have a concern about the quoting of the WP:COI policy. If it was simply intended to draw a parallel between COI issues at Wikipedia, and possible influences of funding on the source being discussed, that's fine, no problem. But if there were any intent to imply that I am an editor with a COI and should not have made the edits that I did, that's a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sources too closely associated with the subject, can prevent an article from being neutral. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:RS/overview) When the author is writing about the toxicity of a product that is sold by his employer he may have a conflict of interest. JimRenge (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- This does seem straightforward. Without the declaration of funding the paper would not have been published in the source (Journal of Environmental Science and Health). Why would different standards hold here? SashiRolls t · c 04:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- At the same time, the journal did decide to publish the paper, calling it a "systematic review" rather than an opinion piece, and it would be original research for Wikipedia to imply in Wikipedia's voice that there had been something dodgy about the editorial decision to publish it that way. Our standards require us to go by what the sources say, not by what editors think about the sources (and because this is health-related, our requirements for going with what academic journals decide are reviews are all the more stringent). But as I already said, I would be happy to support adding the information, if it were attributed to secondary, reliable sources that say that the funding is something that, in the opinion of the secondary sources, is important to consider when evaluating the paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly considering that it is extremely unlikely that any corporation has ever published a study or a review that found their product to be problematic it should not be considered unimportant to know exactly just who paid for the study or review. If we are not allowed to mention funding I assume we have a guideline saying just exactly that. Right? Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Who is the editor who said that we should never mention it? Certainly not me.
- (Parenthetically, one of the most landmark analyses of climate change was written by a scientist who accepted funding for it from the Koch brothers and then used their funding to publish the opposite of what they wanted. And I have a friend who took funding from the tobacco industry to support studies he published that demonstrated the toxicity of nicotine. Scientists actually do that sort of thing a lot more often than the public realizes. And anyway, Monsanto did not publish the review. A peer-reviewed scientific journal did.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly considering that it is extremely unlikely that any corporation has ever published a study or a review that found their product to be problematic it should not be considered unimportant to know exactly just who paid for the study or review. If we are not allowed to mention funding I assume we have a guideline saying just exactly that. Right? Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- At the same time, the journal did decide to publish the paper, calling it a "systematic review" rather than an opinion piece, and it would be original research for Wikipedia to imply in Wikipedia's voice that there had been something dodgy about the editorial decision to publish it that way. Our standards require us to go by what the sources say, not by what editors think about the sources (and because this is health-related, our requirements for going with what academic journals decide are reviews are all the more stringent). But as I already said, I would be happy to support adding the information, if it were attributed to secondary, reliable sources that say that the funding is something that, in the opinion of the secondary sources, is important to consider when evaluating the paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I fixed it myself: [17]. And it wasn't that difficult to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. I also noticed that some more recent reviews have cited the 2016 one. On a quick read, two agreed with the 2016 review and one disagreed; I haven't looked into the authors or their funding. I don't have time right now, but it would be worth looking into that further and maybe updating the page accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I'm just catching up, but where did this NRDC source come in? Had it been discussed before and I missed it, or was it just brought in? The issue I'm seeing is that it is not MEDRS (not to mention an advocacy group) and can't really be used to criticize a MEDRS source.
- Below, I mentioned two reviews, but what's the third review you mention? At least in my look of the secondary sources so far barring a third one, I'm not seeing any criticism of the 2016 review we can use here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- You asked me just as I was about to log out for tonight, so I'll have to get back to you tomorrow about the reviews that I saw. The NRDC came from me, in my comment immediately above, about "I fixed it myself". I'm conflicted about this: I at least partly agree with you about MEDRS issues; on the other hand, I appreciate that there is a controversy that is separate from the health science aspects, and I don't want to leave that out, and although NRDC is an advocacy group, I think they are reasonably mainstream. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I've gone back and looked closely at sources. First of all, I have some hesitation about the two that you listed just below. Both of them only mention the 2016 review very briefly, in passing, without really expressing an evaluation of it one way or the other, more like "here are some analyses that found a correlation, and here are some that didn't", with Chang 2016 among the latter. And the second one has a lot of authorship from Monsanto people, so it will be more of a battle to get editors to agree to using it than it's worth, given how little it really tells us about Chang 2016.
- The three that I saw were:
- This, which on looking more closely I am going to quickly rule out, because it's on Beall's List of predatory journals.
- A large health study from 2017. It cites Chang favorably and reaches the same conclusions (albeit with some caveats about not-quite significant effects in "highest exposure" groups). It's not exactly a review article though. The authors seem to have no conflicts of interest.
- A meta-review from 2019. Cites Chang, no COI issues. But it concludes that there is a "compelling link" between glyphosate and those kinds of cancers.
- I think we might want to significantly update the sourcing we use on this and related pages, but we must include that meta-review (#3) and present both sides. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- In general, it's inappropriate to call out funding source alone on peer-reviewed research when it's done by independent researchers, and a common mistake made by non-scientists as Tryptofish alluded to above. If there was some connection with the funding source that biased the study design or findings, then peer-reviewers or future MEDRS sources will ultimately call that aspect out, not us. If I'm peer-reviewing a paper for a journal that has an article with industry funding, it gets treated the same as any other where I try to fish out methodological issues, etc., though maybe with more scrutiny on methodological "positive" biases. If it passes peer-review, we can't cast shade on an article for solely due to funding source done by independent researchers.
- In this case, the disclosure statement makes clear the authors had sole control of the article, not the funder. That's the main criteria for independence for us here (if a current Monsanto employee were an author, that would be a different story). Independent consulting agencies alone are more variable quality quality compared to university researchers, but while Chang has the affiliation with the independent consulting agency, both Chang and Delzell are affiliated with Standford University.
- I took a look on Web of Science though to see what MEDRS reviews are citing the study. There are two:
- Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union
- Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma
- In either case, there is no criticism of methodology, findings, etc. It's been nearly three years with no critical coverage so we have to consider criticisms of the meta-analysis with respect to just funding source WP:UNDUE unless a source shows there was a problem with the funding source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody is "shading on an article". The reverted addition was a neutral and verifiable statement of fact: "funded by Monsanto". Wikipedia should not have lower standards for documenting that fact than the original journal does. The idea that the original journal is committing "a common mistake made by non-scientists" by reporting the funding is strange. SashiRolls t · c 05:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- What's wrong with what I put in about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- In case editors did not see it: [18]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, of course we should tell the reader that Monsanto/Bayer is funding research intended to benefit the company. I'm not going to argue the idealized notion that a peer-reviewed publication always and completely clears the source study of bias. Instead, I note that there have been many articles written about how Monsanto/Bayer has been and still is funding research about the company's products, and how that research is being questioned for apparent bias. The idealized case is not what we have here – instead, this is a matter of following the reliable sources in their questioning of the funding sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)