Scientists accused of plotting to get pesticides banned
Bjørn Lomborg
Yesterday at 11:50am ·
Shameful. Scientists decided beforehand that they wanted to blame neonicotinoid pesticides on bee deaths and then made the research to fit.
Here from the Times:
A leaked memo has sparked a tense debate about the impartiality of the science behind European restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides, widely blamed for killing honeybees. www.tinyurl.com/prroxt8 The June 2010 document was first revealed by a blogger on Tuesday then reported in yesterday’s Times under the headline: “Scientists accused of plotting to get pesticides banned”.
It appears to suggest that the researchers had already made up their minds before seeking evidence to support their opinions, and wanted to publish papers in respected journals in order to pressure governments to act.
“If we are successful in getting these two papers published, there will be enormous impact, and a campaign led by WWF* etc could be launched right away,” it said. “The most urgent thing is to obtain the necessary policy change to have these pesticides banned.”
The Crop Protection Association, an agri-business lobby group that represents Bayer and Syngenta, makers of neonicotinoids, argued that the memo discredits a task force on systemic pesticides set up by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
The task force reported in June this year that the chemicals are causing “significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees”.
Nick von Westenholz, the CPA’s chief executive, told The Times: “It looks to me that this group decided on its conclusions first and then embarked on the research to back them up.”
The IUCN insisted last night that it had not taken a position on neonicotinoids and said that the conversation reported in the memo was based on existing scientific evidence at the time. “The suggestion that it is putting an idea before the evidence is completely erroneous,” Ricardo Tejada, an IUCN spokesman, told Forbes.com.
Dr Simon Stuart, one of four scientists attending the 2010 meeting in Switzerland, told Forbes that the allegations were the reverse of what actually happened.
The meeting was held between two senior IUCN scientists: Dr Stuart, the chairman of the Species Survival Commission, and Ir (“Engineer”, a Dutch equivalent of “Dr”) Piet Wit, head of the Ecosystems Management Commission; and two researchers who were to attend the International Workshop on Neonicotinoids at the Université de Paris Sud, Dr Maarten Bijleveld van Lexmond (who would later lead the IUCN’s taskforce on systemic pesticides) and Professor Pierre Goeldlin de Tiefenau.
The latter two were seeking IUCN support for an expert review panel’s findings on research into neonicotinoids over the previous decade, which were being discussed at the Paris meeting, recalled Dr Stuart.
“We said nothing about calling for a moratorium because that would depend on the results of the assessment,” he said.
“We had not been involved up to that point and we told them it had to be a totally open process. It would have to be independent and peer reviewed.
“You can’t have a predetermined end result,” he added. “We say that to people all the time.”
Although Dr Stuart suggested the authors at the Paris conference try to get an overview story and a review of policy options in Science, they eventually had seven papers published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
“This has to be dealt with scientifically,” he said. “I haven’t seen anyone respond to these published papers and identify errors or biases in the science.”
The dispute has the potential to rival the “Climategate” scandal in 2009 when hacked emails from the University of East Anglia appeared to show a scientific conspiracy to massage data and suppress critics, allegations that were rejected by the Climate Research Unit.
The release of the emails was widely seen as a smear campaign ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and determined that there was no fraud or scientific misconduct.
*WWF stands for World Wide Fund for Nature everywhere except the US and Canada, where the organisation still uses its old name, the World Wildlife Fund.
BeeGate: Science Scandal Or Smear Campaign? - Forbes
goddamn peabody society and their pimps
Bjørn Lomborg
Yesterday at 11:50am ·
Shameful. Scientists decided beforehand that they wanted to blame neonicotinoid pesticides on bee deaths and then made the research to fit.
Here from the Times:
A leaked memo has sparked a tense debate about the impartiality of the science behind European restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides, widely blamed for killing honeybees. www.tinyurl.com/prroxt8 The June 2010 document was first revealed by a blogger on Tuesday then reported in yesterday’s Times under the headline: “Scientists accused of plotting to get pesticides banned”.
It appears to suggest that the researchers had already made up their minds before seeking evidence to support their opinions, and wanted to publish papers in respected journals in order to pressure governments to act.
“If we are successful in getting these two papers published, there will be enormous impact, and a campaign led by WWF* etc could be launched right away,” it said. “The most urgent thing is to obtain the necessary policy change to have these pesticides banned.”
The Crop Protection Association, an agri-business lobby group that represents Bayer and Syngenta, makers of neonicotinoids, argued that the memo discredits a task force on systemic pesticides set up by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
The task force reported in June this year that the chemicals are causing “significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees”.
Nick von Westenholz, the CPA’s chief executive, told The Times: “It looks to me that this group decided on its conclusions first and then embarked on the research to back them up.”
The IUCN insisted last night that it had not taken a position on neonicotinoids and said that the conversation reported in the memo was based on existing scientific evidence at the time. “The suggestion that it is putting an idea before the evidence is completely erroneous,” Ricardo Tejada, an IUCN spokesman, told Forbes.com.
Dr Simon Stuart, one of four scientists attending the 2010 meeting in Switzerland, told Forbes that the allegations were the reverse of what actually happened.
The meeting was held between two senior IUCN scientists: Dr Stuart, the chairman of the Species Survival Commission, and Ir (“Engineer”, a Dutch equivalent of “Dr”) Piet Wit, head of the Ecosystems Management Commission; and two researchers who were to attend the International Workshop on Neonicotinoids at the Université de Paris Sud, Dr Maarten Bijleveld van Lexmond (who would later lead the IUCN’s taskforce on systemic pesticides) and Professor Pierre Goeldlin de Tiefenau.
The latter two were seeking IUCN support for an expert review panel’s findings on research into neonicotinoids over the previous decade, which were being discussed at the Paris meeting, recalled Dr Stuart.
“We said nothing about calling for a moratorium because that would depend on the results of the assessment,” he said.
“We had not been involved up to that point and we told them it had to be a totally open process. It would have to be independent and peer reviewed.
“You can’t have a predetermined end result,” he added. “We say that to people all the time.”
Although Dr Stuart suggested the authors at the Paris conference try to get an overview story and a review of policy options in Science, they eventually had seven papers published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
“This has to be dealt with scientifically,” he said. “I haven’t seen anyone respond to these published papers and identify errors or biases in the science.”
The dispute has the potential to rival the “Climategate” scandal in 2009 when hacked emails from the University of East Anglia appeared to show a scientific conspiracy to massage data and suppress critics, allegations that were rejected by the Climate Research Unit.
The release of the emails was widely seen as a smear campaign ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and determined that there was no fraud or scientific misconduct.
*WWF stands for World Wide Fund for Nature everywhere except the US and Canada, where the organisation still uses its old name, the World Wildlife Fund.
BeeGate: Science Scandal Or Smear Campaign? - Forbes
goddamn peabody society and their pimps
