In some instances (Reply #100) - Democratic Underground

In the discussion thread: Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? [View all]

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 04:29 PM

100. In some instances

it may have something to do with blatant conflict of interest.

Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy. Volume 36, Issue 2, April 2011, Pages 197–203.

Abstract

Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 1994, the rapidly expanding market of genetically modified seeds has given rise to a multibillion dollar industry. This fast growth, fueled by high expectations towards this new commercial technology and shareholder trust in the involved industry, has provided strong incentives for further research and development of new genetically modified plant varieties. Considering, however, the high financial stakes involved, concerns are raised over the influence that conflicts of interest may place upon articles published in peer-reviewed journals that report on health risks or nutritional value of genetically modified food products. In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001). We discuss these results by comparing them to similar studies on conflicts of interest in other areas, such as biomedical sciences, and hypothesize on dynamics that may help explain such connections.

Research highlights

► Observed relation between conflict of interest and GMO study outcome. ► Funding was not declared in 52% of the analyzed articles. ► Observed relation between funding declaration and author affiliation. ► At least one of the authors was connected with industry in 44% of the articles. ► 8% of articles received funding from industry.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

130 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? [View all]	HuckleB	Mar 2016	OP
Because if the earth was round, we'd slide off.	Nailzberg	Mar 2016	#1
Poor science.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#16
No such thing	Major Nikon	Apr 2016	#97
Because science isn't a priority in school curricula any more.	NV Whino	Mar 2016	#2
When I was teaching high school social studies	Bigmack	Apr 2016	#84
They are not reasonable people	malaise	Mar 2016	#3
Don't dis DRAMA!	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#4
you struck the nail on the proverbial head	TimeToEvolve	Mar 2016	#10
Precisely	malaise	Mar 2016	#24
My thoughts exactly.	we can do it	Mar 2016	#75
My own uninformed opinion is that its influenced by poor science reporting and lack...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2016	#5
I suspect your hypothesis is worth exploring.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#6
The media has never helped.	Archae	Mar 2016	#14
I would add movies and tv along with that	Proud Liberal Dem	Mar 2016	#35
Post removed	Post removed	Mar 2016	#7
Nice try - here's your new hat	hatrack	Mar 2016	#8
Oh, boy.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#11
they are called the laws of thermo-fucking-dymanics!!!!!!	TimeToEvolve	Mar 2016	#12
the main graph from the Mann paper	Angel Martin	Mar 2016	#19
That's like "my cancer isn't spreading as fast as the doctors said, so I must not have cancer"	progressoid	Mar 2016	#20
No, what the data in the Mann paper means	Angel Martin	Mar 2016	#25
Volcanic activity?	Ghost Dog	Mar 2016	#27
Temperatures have more or less flatlined?	SheilaT	Mar 2016	#53
That's the mantra of denialists.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#54
Uhhh... NO. You did not read the concluding remarks.	Adrahil	Mar 2016	#70
+1	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#71
+1 n/t	Gormy Cuss	Apr 2016	#86
Your graph is out of date	muriel_volestrangler	Mar 2016	#26
Climate science is more complex than you think. Here's is an explanation.	Chemisse	Apr 2016	#126
Reality is what's still there whether anyone believes it or not	bhikkhu	Mar 2016	#15
somebody better tell Antartica	edhopper	Mar 2016	#29
"had put something in the water"	awoke_in_2003	Mar 2016	#9
yet it is the Pb they should be worried about it.	TimeToEvolve	Mar 2016	#13
I was making a	awoke_in_2003	Mar 2016	#18
1. They're not reasonable and 2. An outsider describes it best - Richard Dawkins said	MillennialDem	Mar 2016	#17
Not so fast.	EllieBC	Mar 2016	#56
Unfortunately, many people with non-science higher educations...	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#125
The saddest aspect of life right now...	progressoid	Mar 2016	#21
+1,000... 000	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#41
also from Asimov...	alp227	Apr 2016	#101
many otherwise reasonable people have a lot invested in doubting science	0rganism	Mar 2016	#22
Answer seems simple to me. Money. There's money to be made.	Festivito	Mar 2016	#23
except the vast majority of people who deny science	edhopper	Mar 2016	#28
Conservatives don't hate facts. They don't trust facts.	DetlefK	Mar 2016	#32
good post.	edhopper	Mar 2016	#63
Didn't mean to say they did. Check out the leader's income from donations.	Festivito	Mar 2016	#49
I agree that the motivation for	edhopper	Mar 2016	#62
Because science is everywhere, but few people actually understand it.	DetlefK	Mar 2016	#30
The scientific method, I don't doubt	get the red out	Mar 2016	#31
Yes, this is a problem is science reporting.	alarimer	Mar 2016	#38
Reasonable people do not exist.	AngryAmish	Mar 2016	#33
They're not reasonable	rjsquirrel	Mar 2016	#34
Three possible reasons	whatthehey	Mar 2016	#36
Some aspect of Dunning-Kruger, possibly.	alarimer	Mar 2016	#37
Science is not about belief. nt	bemildred	Mar 2016	#39
I don't think numbers have changed, with the intertubes though every fucking idiot has a voice	snooper2	Mar 2016	#40
some of it is overreaction to exposed junk science	Amishman	Mar 2016	#42
It's amazing that the press miscovers most actual science, and then hypes the junk.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#43
Because they don't understand it.	Avalux	Mar 2016	#44
Education in this country is in need of serious reform	seanjoycek476	Mar 2016	#45
Look how many people attack GMO foods.	former9thward	Mar 2016	#46
The article addresses that topic.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#50
No, they have all sorts of evidence	Major Nikon	Apr 2016	#106
It's a disc on elephants riding on the Great Sky Turtle, Atuin.	GoneOffShore	Mar 2016	#47
In this country we stupidly venerate "faith" over facts.	Arugula Latte	Mar 2016	#48
It took me about 3 years to convince a friend of my who is smart that "reality TV"	LiberalArkie	Mar 2016	#51
Oh, goodness.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#52
To begin with, science is often not very well taught in high school in the first place.	SheilaT	Mar 2016	#55
Your explanation doesn't cover the other half.	EllieBC	Mar 2016	#57
Even in non Bible belt	SheilaT	Mar 2016	#59
And a lot of it is that even the well educated	EllieBC	Mar 2016	#61
Yes. Logic and logical thinking	SheilaT	Mar 2016	#67
Because science is sometimes wrong.	kwassa	Mar 2016	#58
You've outlined the ways that pseudoscience promoters push mistrust of science.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#64
You are incorrect, sir.	kwassa	Mar 2016	#76
And then you continue to add to the ways that pseudoscience demonizes logic and science.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#80
I am not demonizing science at all ...	kwassa	Apr 2016	#81
Oh, goodness.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#82
What are you talking about?	kwassa	Apr 2016	#83
You're running the pseudoscience justification module to the T.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#85
and you are labeling my argument without supplying a cogent and coherent rebuttal.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#91
I'm not trying to rebut anything.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#93
of course not, because your argument doesn't hold water ...	kwassa	Apr 2016	#94
You don't have an argument. The "science was wrong fallacy" is, well, a fallacy.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#99
That wasn't my argument.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#110
It was, and I understand it perfectly well.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#111
Well, continue on in your misbelief.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#113
You really think you can fool people that easily?	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#115
Science --> pseudoscience ? Care to give some examples ?	Bonx	Apr 2016	#95
It was recognized as non-science, or bad science, after it was disproved.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#96
But none of those were good science to begin with.	Bonx	Apr 2016	#98
They were good science for their time and place.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#108
Scientific theory =/ science	Major Nikon	Apr 2016	#107
I don't disagree.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#109
The sun may not come up tomorrow	Major Nikon	Apr 2016	#112
+1	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#116
You failed to point out that its the scientific process that corrects for these errors...	Humanist_Activist	Apr 2016	#87
True, however the history of such reversals creates doubt ....	kwassa	Apr 2016	#89
If they are doing it due to conflicting evidence or the lack of evidence, that's one thing...	Humanist_Activist	Apr 2016	#92
I agree completely.	kwassa	Apr 2016	#114
Folks have been raised to get the truth one time...	TipTok	Mar 2016	#60
We have to teach the need for challenging our own beliefs, indeed.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#65
Thinking is hard!	yortsed snacilbuper	Mar 2016	#66
Because there is no law in nature that states people have to agree with you or use common sense.	Rex	Mar 2016	#68
Your gifs are mesmerizing.	HuckleB	Mar 2016	#73
Thanks, we have some talented gif makers!	Rex	Mar 2016	#74
Because they are not really "reason"able.	Adrahil	Mar 2016	#69
You certainly have a good point.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#78
It goes against their reliigion!	yortsed snacilbuper	Mar 2016	#72
In the case of liberals, it's an issue of trust and conflation	chade	Mar 2016	#77
It's because they aren't reasonable.	Act_of_Reparation	Apr 2016	#79
Why do so many reasonable people think they will win the lottery when the value goes up?	Rex	Apr 2016	#88
That's where it starts.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#120
Some believe that gut instinct is better than objective evidence	sakabatou	Apr 2016	#90
In some instances	frustrated_lefty	Apr 2016	#100
Because science doesn't have a public relations or communications arm.	cheapdate	Apr 2016	#102
You are definitely on to something here.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#103
This is a large part of the problem, one reason it is hard to talk logic to RWingers.	Rex	Apr 2016	#117
Because they believe science is Satan's religion?	B Calm	Apr 2016	#104
Or Satan's Helper?	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#105
To some degree, the "everybody wins" mentality says that the opinion of people who	Thor_MN	Apr 2016	#118
You're spot on.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#119
The letters to the editor are some funny if not depressing reads.	Rex	Apr 2016	#121
It's called motivated reasoning	caraher	Apr 2016	#122
A good size chunk of the population	LadyHawkAZ	Apr 2016	#123
Yeah, that does not help!	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#124
Because tomorrow's science will disprove today's science...	egduj	Apr 2016	#127
It can, but that's not necessarily so.	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#128
Science is a conservative, constructive enterprise.	longship	Apr 2016	#129
+1	HuckleB	Apr 2016	#130

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.