Scientists who allow their names to be used as cover for corruption should be barred from ever publishing again, and all their other papers should have an asterisk.
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
169 points (100.0% liked)
News
33412 readers
2229 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
All but one of the authors of this paper are dead. I agree with you though, and I would hope a retraction of a paper as serious as this would trigger a review of all the papers connected to the authors.
They ceased to be scientists at that point.This is a problem generally in science. Research is often funded by business and their objectives only ever align with the pursuit of scientific truth by accident. The Open Science initiative has some good mitigations for this problem.
The disavowal comes . . . after thousands of internal Monsanto documents were made public . . . revealing that the actual authors of the article were . . . Monsanto employees.
Those employees and the managers who created the fraud are not named.
They should be more than named
Anyone that has been near an open barrel of glyphosate will tell you it’s obviously poison
Yeah a barrel of concentrated anything is probably poison
It's important to understand that glyphosate has been the subject of a lot of studies. Naturally those studies require increased scrutiny now, in case the same dishonest tactics have been used on others, but the likelihood is that the overall conclusion that glyphosate is safe is still true.
Unfortunately the retraction of a paper by a journal only really harms the scientists who were involved, not the company that instigated the fraud. When there's a financial incentive to subvert scientific transparency, that seems insufficient. But I dunno how you could resolve this legally (or legislatively).
No scientists were harmed in this retraction. The PIs are already retired.
Yeah good point. I mean arguably they are still reputationally damaged, but that's also not enough.
Institutions are doing this worldwide, they kick the ball on retractions down the road with >15 year invesigations. By the time they report back to the journal, authors have retired. These clowns got famous and held funding for decades.
Safe for 20+ years of daily chronic exposure?
I hope your bit Ag masters are paying you well. Because parroting that Glyphosate is safe in 2025 is kinda crazy NGL
I'm a committed Wikipedia reader, so if you've got a better source to read (or "parrot") then go ahead. If you don't reply I'll know you're on the pocket of big dandelion.
Maybe read the whole article then, because it would have told you it is still classified as a probably carcinogenic for humans.
You just decided to ignore the part you didn't like.
Are you referring to this paragraph?
The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR),[109] the European Commission , the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency , the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [110] and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment [111] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."[112][113] One international scientific organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate in Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015.[15][13]
Because I count that as 6 saying "no evidence of a cancer link" and 1 saying "probably carcinogenic."
At the very least, that suggests to me that if it is carcinogenic, it's at such a low level that the effect is hard to measure, and so not worth worrying about.
I thought glycol phosphate pesticides were derivative of Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam.