The "Monsanto papers" and the nature of ghostwriting and related practices in contemporary peer review scientific literature

The Monsanto company - now acquired by Bayer - has been accused of ghostwriting articles within peer review literature, with the goal of using influential names to front its content in defence of the herbicide Roundup. Here, I conduct a detailed analysis of three Monsanto review articles and a five-article journal supplement for which detailed information from company emails is publicly available following litigation over Roundup. All the articles had external, but not Monsanto authors, and ghostly practices including ghost authorship, corporate ghost authorship and ghost management were evident in their development. There was clear evidence of ghostwriting - that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors - in only two cases. I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. The articles complied with the disclosure requirements of their journals, save for the journal supplement. While crude ghostwriting did occur, much of the literature involved subtler practices through which Monsanto exercised control over content, while the attribution of the articles downplayed the company's role - and correspondingly aggrandized that of the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations. I discuss these cultural problems and consider remedies.

Poisoning Regulation, Research, Health, and the Environment: The Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Case in Canada

Despite discourse advocating pesticide reduction, there has been an exponential increase in pesticide use worldwide in the agricultural sector over the last 30 years. Glyphosate-Based Herbicides (GBHs) are the most widely used pesticides on the planet as well as in Canada, where a total of almost 470 million kilograms of declared "active" ingredient glyphosate was sold between 2007 and 2018. GBHs accounted for 58% of pesticides used in the agriculture sector in Canada in 2017. While the independent scientific literature on the harmful health and environmental impacts of pesticides such as GBHs is overwhelming, Canada has only banned 32 "active" pesticide ingredients out of 531 banned in 168 countries, and reapproved GBHs in 2017 until 2032. This article, based on interdisciplinary and intersectoral research, will analyze how as a result of the scientific and regulatory captures of relevant Canadian agencies by the pesticide industry, the Canadian regulation and scientific assessment of pesticides are deficient and lagging behind other countries, using the GBH case as a basis for analysis. It will show how, by embracing industry narratives and biased evidence, by being receptive to industry demands, and by opaque decision making and lack of transparency, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) promotes commercial interests over the imperatives of public health and environmental protection.

Glyphosate: How do ongoing controversies, market characteristics, and funding influence the global research landscape?

Glyphosate is a systemic broad-spectrum herbicide that is by now the most extensively used herbicide in the world and has been the source for a still heated controversy about its harmful effects on human health and the environment. The different weighting of scientific studies has led to different attitudes in most countries towards appropriate handling and their regulatory authorities. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of the global research landscape on glyphosate is needed to provide the background for further decisions regarding appropriate and careful use, taking into account the different regional conditions. The present study is based on established bibliometric methodological tools and is extended by glyphosate-specific parameters. Chronological and geographical patterns are revealed to determine the incentives and intentions of international scientific efforts. Research output grew in line with the exponential growth in consumption, with the field of research becoming increasingly multidisciplinary and shifting towards environmental and medical disciplines. The countries with the highest herbicide use are also the leading countries in glyphosate research: USA, Brazil, Canada, China and Argentina. The link between publication output and market parameters is as evident as the association with national grants. The research interest of the manufacturing company Monsanto could be shown as the second largest publishing institution behind the US Department of Agriculture, which interest is underscored by its position among the otherwise government-funded organizations. Developing countries are generally underrepresented in glyphosate research, although the use of glyphosate is increasing dramatically. In conclusion, the incentives are strongly linked to market and agricultural interests, with the scientific infrastructure of the countries forming the basis for financing and conducting research. The existing international network is important and needs to be expanded and strengthened by including the lower economies in order to take into account all regional and social needs and aspects of glyphosate use.

Roundup litigation discovery documents: implications for public health and journal ethics

This paper reviews the court-released discovery documents obtained from litigation against Monsanto over its herbicide Roundup and through Freedom of Information Act requests (requests to regulatory agencies and public universities in the United States). We sought evidence of corporate malfeasance and undisclosed conflicts of interest with respect to issues of scientific integrity. The findings include evidence of ghostwriting, interference in journal publication, and undue influence of a federal regulatory agency.

Commentary: IARC Monographs Program and public health under siege by corporate interests

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates causes of cancer with help from independent international experts in an open and transparent manner. Countries, research and regulatory agencies, and other organizations adopt IARC evaluations for communication of human cancer hazards, and for strategies to prevent cancer. Scientists worldwide endorse IARC cancer evaluations and process. Those with economic interests, however, challenge IARC's cancer evaluations, most recently for glyphosate and red and processed meats, and are conducting a campaign including intervention from US Congressional Representatives to discredit IARC's review process and to undermine financial support-a campaign intimidating to IARC and Working Group members. Challenges to scientific interpretations serve to advance science and should be resolved by scientific experts who do not have conflicts of interest. Such interference does not bode well for the free flow of scientific information that informs and protects the public from risks of cancer.

The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well

OBJECTIVE

Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company's efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate.

METHODS

A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined.

RESULTS

The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products.

CONCLUSION

The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.

Farmer-suicide in India: debating the role of biotechnology

Indian Biotech opponents have attributed the increase of suicides to the monopolization of GM seeds, centering on patent control, application of terminator technology, marketing strategy, and increased production costs. The contentions of the biotech opponents, however, have been criticized for a lack of transparency in their modus operandi i.e. the use of methodology in their argumentation. The fact is, however, that with the intention of getting the attention of those capable of determining the future of GM cotton in India, opponents resorted to generating controversies. Therefore, this article will review and evaluate the multifaceted contentions of both opponents and defenders. Although the association between seed monopolization and farmer-suicide is debatable, we will show that there is a link between the economic factors associated with Bt. cultivation and farmer suicide. The underlying thesis of biotech opponents becomes all the more significant when analysed vis-à-vis the contention of the globalization critics that there has been a political and economic marginalization of the Indian farmers. Their accusation assumes significance in the context of a fragile democracy like India where market forces are accorded precedence over farmers' needs until election time.