John Pickett - Revision history

Claire Robinson at 15:00, 12 March 2014

2014-03-12T15:00:29Z

Claire Robinson at 19:08, 26 March 2009

2009-03-26T19:08:30Z

Claire Robinson at 19:04, 26 March 2009

2009-03-26T19:04:07Z

Claire Robinson at 19:02, 26 March 2009

2009-03-26T19:02:08Z

David at 18:36, 6 May 2007

2007-05-06T18:36:35Z

Michael at 15:14, 2 December 2005

2005-12-02T15:14:14Z

Michael at 15:13, 2 December 2005

2005-12-02T15:13:58Z

New page

Prof John Pickett is a Fellow of the [[Royal Society]] and an expert in plant chemistry who works at [[Rothamsted Research]] Centre which, although principally publicly funded via the [[BBSRC]], lists [[Sourcewatch:Aventis|Aventis]], [[Sourcewatch:Dupont|DuPont]], [[Sourcewatch:Novartis|Novartis]] and [[Sourcewatch:Syngents|Syngenta]], as amongst its 'partners'.

In the run up to the Lancet's publication of the Pusztai and Ewen's paper indicating ill effects of GM foods on rats, The Independentâ€™s science editor Steve Connor ran a spoiler piece based on an attack by Prof Pickett, the only reviewer of the paper to publicly argue against publication.

Pickett has subsequently sought to justify his having broken the norms of peer review by publicly attacking a scientific paper - sent to him in confidence - before it had even been published. He has [http://ngin.tripod.com/250103a.htm written], 'I was requested by The Lancet to review the paper submitted by Dr Pusztai in 1999 and I provided my written comments to the editor in the usual way. Despite my recommendation, the journal chose to publish the paper. On learning this, I decided that the interests of science would be best served if I made public my reasons (along with that of other colleagues) for believing Dr Pusztai's conclusions were not substantiated by the data.'

Prof Pickett went to a national newspaper, The Independent. It reported his concerns under the headline, Scientists revolt at publication of flawed GM study, and the article went on to state that Pusztai's study had 'failed the ultimate test of scientific credibility', ie peer review.

But it hadn't. Out of the 6 reviewers only Prof Pickett opposed publication and although one other reviewer (widely reported to be Prof [[Anthony Trewavas]], a well-known GM proponent) thought the paper should only be published in the public interest, the other 4 reviewers had all been sufficiently satisfied at the end of the peer review process to recommend publication on the grounds of scientific merit. 'A clear majority of The Lancetâ€™s reviewers were in favour,' [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Rowell_Hot-Potato.htm confirms Richard Horton], the editor of The Lancet.

Dr Pusztai also contests Pickett's claim that, 'I provided my written comments to the editor in the usual way. Despite my recommendation, the journal chose to publish the paper'. [http://www.btopenworld.com/nbsplash According to Pusztai], in 'none of the referees' comments passed on to us by the Lancet to reply to (by definition, one of these must have been from Prof Pickett) was there a statement that our paper must be rejected.'

The article in The Independent appears to have been part of a campaign to discredit the Pusztai paper prior to publication orchestrated by the Royal Society. In a front page article on the scandal The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3923559-103528,00.html Guardian reported], 'Prof Pickett said that when he realised that Dr Pusztai's paper had been accepted for publication, he took his concerns to the Royal Society' s biological secretary [Peter Lachmann] who told him the society was already preparing a press release. Five days before the Lancet published, an article appeared in a national newspaper in which Prof Pickett broke the protocols of peer review and publicly attacked the Lancet for agreeing to publish the Pusztai paper. Two days after the spoiler article appeared, Prof Lachmann made his phone call to the editor of the Lancet [in which he is said to have threatened the editor with the loss of his job if publication proceeded].'

The criticsms of the Pusztai and Ewen paper that Pickett made in The Independent were so misleading that [http://edit.europe.yahoo.com/config/login?.intl=uk&.partner=bt-1&.done=http%3a//bt.yahoo.com/%3f Pusztai] says the best interpretation that can be put upon Pickett's comments is that he had not actually read the paper he had been asked to review.

Pickett claimed:

:Pusztai "changed horses midstream" by changing the ratsâ€™ diet from raw potatoes to boiled. (This can easily be seen to be untrue from the paper. The rats were consistently fed on diets either containing raw potatoes or boiled potatoes, but never both. No change of diet took place part way through the experiment) ;

:The intestinal lesions caused in the GM-fed rats could be explained by higher levels of glycoalkaloids in the potatoes, rather than GM. (There is no data linking glycoalkaloids with this type of gut abnormality. In any case, the GM potatoes actually contained less glycoalkaloids than the non-GM ones);

:That the experiment was not valid because Pusztai didnâ€™t allow for the fact that the inserted gene could express differently in a potato from the way it would express in the snowdrop from which it was derived. (This is an extraordinary claim because Pusztaiâ€™s team was the first group of researchers (and possibly the only group) to isolate the gene product from the actual food crop being tested, the potato).

In the newspaper article Prof Pickett said he was acting in the interests of truth and science. In point of fact he seems to have misled the paper which in turn misled its readers.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Pickett has subsequently sought to justify his having broken the norms of peer review by publicly attacking a scientific paper - sent to him in confidence - before it had even been published. He has [http://ngin.tripod.com/250103a.htm written], 'I was requested by The Lancet to review the paper submitted by Dr Pusztai in 1999 and I provided my written comments to the editor in the usual way. Despite my recommendation, the journal chose to publish the paper. On learning this, I decided that the interests of science would be best served if I made public my reasons (along with that of other colleagues) for believing Dr Pusztai's conclusions were not substantiated by the data.'
-Prof Pickett went to a national newspaper, The Independent. It reported his concerns under the headline, Scientists revolt at publication of flawed GM study, and the article went on to state that Pusztai's study had 'failed the ultimate test of scientific credibility', ie peer review.
+Prof Pickett went to a national newspaper, The Independent. It reported his concerns under the headline, "Scientists revolt at publication of flawed GM study", and the article went on to state that Pusztai's study had 'failed the ultimate test of scientific credibility', ie peer review.<ref>Steve Connor, [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scientists-revolt-at-publication-of-flawed-gm-study-737888.html Scientists revolt at publication of flawed GM study]  Independent, 11 Oct 1999, acc 12 Mar 2014</ref>
 But it hadn't. Out of the 6 reviewers only Prof Pickett opposed publication and although one other reviewer (widely reported to be Prof [[Anthony Trewavas]], a well-known GM proponent) thought the paper should only be published in the public interest, the other 4 reviewers had all been sufficiently satisfied at the end of the peer review process to recommend publication on the grounds of scientific merit. 'A clear majority of The Lancet&#39;s reviewers were in favour,' [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Rowell_Hot-Potato.htm confirms Richard Horton], the editor of The Lancet.

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :That the experiment was not valid because Pusztai didn&#39;t allow for the fact that the inserted gene could express differently in a potato from the way it would express in the snowdrop from which it was derived. (This is an extraordinary claim because Pusztai's team was the first group of researchers (and possibly the only group) to isolate the gene product from the actual food crop being tested, the potato).
-In the newspaper article Prof Pickett said he was acting in the interests of truth and science. In point of fact he seems to have misled the paper which in turn misled its readers.
+In the newspaper article Prof Pickett said he was acting in the interests of truth and science. In point of fact he seems to have misread or misrrepresented Pusztai's paper, which in turn will have misled the newspaper's readers.
 ===References===
 <references/>
 [[Category:GM|Pickett, John]]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Pickett claimed:
-:Pusztai "changed horses midstream" by changing the rats&#39; diet from raw potatoes to boiled. (This can easily be seen to be untrue from the paper. The rats were consistently fed on diets either containing raw potatoes or boiled potatoes, but never both. No change of diet took place part way through the experiment) ;
+:Pusztai "changed horses midstream" by changing the rats&#39; diet from raw potatoes to boiled. (This can easily be seen to be untrue from the paper. The rats were consistently fed on diets either containing raw potatoes or boiled potatoes, but never both. No change of diet took place part way through the experiment);
 :The intestinal lesions caused in the GM-fed rats could be explained by higher levels of glycoalkaloids in the potatoes, rather than GM. (There is no data linking glycoalkaloids with this type of gut abnormality. In any case, the GM potatoes actually contained less glycoalkaloids than the non-GM ones);
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 In the newspaper article Prof Pickett said he was acting in the interests of truth and science. In point of fact he seems to have misled the paper which in turn misled its readers.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Prof John Pickett is a Fellow of the [[Royal Society]] and an expert in plant chemistry who works at [[Rothamsted Research]] Centre which, although principally publicly funded via the [[BBSRC]], lists [[Aventis]], [[DuPont]], [[Novartis]] and [[Syngenta]], as amongst its 'partners'.
+Prof '''John Pickett''' is a Fellow of the [[Royal Society]] and an expert in plant chemistry who works at [[Rothamsted Research]] Centre which, although principally publicly funded via the [[BBSRC]], lists [[Aventis]], [[DuPont]], [[Novartis]] and [[Syngenta]], as amongst its 'partners'.
-In the run up to the Lancet's publication of the Pusztai and Ewen's paper indicating ill effects of GM foods on rats, The Independent&#39;s science editor Steve Connor ran a spoiler piece based on an attack by Prof Pickett, the only reviewer of the paper to publicly argue against publication.
+In the run up to ''The Lancet'''s publication of Pusztai and Ewen's paper indicating ill effects of GM foods on rats, The Independent's science editor Steve Connor ran a spoiler piece based on an attack by Prof Pickett, the only reviewer of the paper to publicly argue against publication.
 Pickett has subsequently sought to justify his having broken the norms of peer review by publicly attacking a scientific paper - sent to him in confidence - before it had even been published. He has [http://ngin.tripod.com/250103a.htm written], 'I was requested by The Lancet to review the paper submitted by Dr Pusztai in 1999 and I provided my written comments to the editor in the usual way. Despite my recommendation, the journal chose to publish the paper. On learning this, I decided that the interests of science would be best served if I made public my reasons (along with that of other colleagues) for believing Dr Pusztai's conclusions were not substantiated by the data.'
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :The intestinal lesions caused in the GM-fed rats could be explained by higher levels of glycoalkaloids in the potatoes, rather than GM. (There is no data linking glycoalkaloids with this type of gut abnormality. In any case, the GM potatoes actually contained less glycoalkaloids than the non-GM ones);
-:That the experiment was not valid because Pusztai didn&#39;t allow for the fact that the inserted gene could express differently in a potato from the way it would express in the snowdrop from which it was derived. (This is an extraordinary claim because Pusztai&#39;s team was the first group of researchers (and possibly the only group) to isolate the gene product from the actual food crop being tested, the potato).
+:That the experiment was not valid because Pusztai didn&#39;t allow for the fact that the inserted gene could express differently in a potato from the way it would express in the snowdrop from which it was derived. (This is an extraordinary claim because Pusztai's team was the first group of researchers (and possibly the only group) to isolate the gene product from the actual food crop being tested, the potato).
 In the newspaper article Prof Pickett said he was acting in the interests of truth and science. In point of fact he seems to have misled the paper which in turn misled its readers.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
-In the run up to the Lancet's publication of the Pusztai and Ewen's paper indicating ill effects of GM foods on rats, The Independentâ€™s science editor Steve Connor ran a spoiler piece based on an attack by Prof Pickett, the only reviewer of the paper to publicly argue against publication.
+In the run up to the Lancet's publication of the Pusztai and Ewen's paper indicating ill effects of GM foods on rats, The Independent&#39;s science editor Steve Connor ran a spoiler piece based on an attack by Prof Pickett, the only reviewer of the paper to publicly argue against publication.
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
-But it hadn't. Out of the 6 reviewers only Prof Pickett opposed publication and although one other reviewer (widely reported to be Prof [[Anthony Trewavas]], a well-known GM proponent) thought the paper should only be published in the public interest, the other 4 reviewers had all been sufficiently satisfied at the end of the peer review process to recommend publication on the grounds of scientific merit. 'A clear majority of The Lancetâ€™s reviewers were in favour,' [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Rowell_Hot-Potato.htm confirms Richard Horton], the editor of The Lancet.
+But it hadn't. Out of the 6 reviewers only Prof Pickett opposed publication and although one other reviewer (widely reported to be Prof [[Anthony Trewavas]], a well-known GM proponent) thought the paper should only be published in the public interest, the other 4 reviewers had all been sufficiently satisfied at the end of the peer review process to recommend publication on the grounds of scientific merit. 'A clear majority of The Lancet&#39;s reviewers were in favour,' [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Rowell_Hot-Potato.htm confirms Richard Horton], the editor of The Lancet.
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Pickett claimed:
-:Pusztai "changed horses midstream" by changing the ratsâ€™ diet from raw potatoes to boiled. (This can easily be seen to be untrue from the paper. The rats were consistently fed on diets either containing raw potatoes or boiled potatoes, but never both. No change of diet took place part way through the experiment) ;
+:Pusztai "changed horses midstream" by changing the rats&#39; diet from raw potatoes to boiled. (This can easily be seen to be untrue from the paper. The rats were consistently fed on diets either containing raw potatoes or boiled potatoes, but never both. No change of diet took place part way through the experiment) ;
 :The intestinal lesions caused in the GM-fed rats could be explained by higher levels of glycoalkaloids in the potatoes, rather than GM. (There is no data linking glycoalkaloids with this type of gut abnormality. In any case, the GM potatoes actually contained less glycoalkaloids than the non-GM ones);
-:That the experiment was not valid because Pusztai didnâ€™t allow for the fact that the inserted gene could express differently in a potato from the way it would express in the snowdrop from which it was derived. (This is an extraordinary claim because Pusztaiâ€™s team was the first group of researchers (and possibly the only group) to isolate the gene product from the actual food crop being tested, the potato).
 In the newspaper article Prof Pickett said he was acting in the interests of truth and science. In point of fact he seems to have misled the paper which in turn misled its readers.