|
|
Пишет Misha Verbitsky (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} tiphareth) |
Re: ГМО
The method by which the Séralini team publicized their 2012 paper was widely criticized. The original Agence France-Presse story noted: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication."[68] The confidentiality agreement contained a severe penalty for breaching the agreement: "A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study."[32] An editorial at the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, noted: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn’t happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember."[69][70][71] National Public Radio's program, On the Media, discussed the way the paper was released to the media on 28 September 2012, with Carl Zimmer, a science journalist, who was especially critical of science journalists who allowed themselves to be manipulated, as well as criticizing the Séralini lab.[72] Zimmer had earlier posted on his blog at Discover magazine, "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science."[73] Cosmos Magazine's Elizabeth Finkel, wrote, "...a clause barring the gathering of independent opinions is extraordinary. What it meant was that Séralini’s story, when it broke, got to prance unfettered in the media limelight before second opinions could dull its shine. By the time the storm of criticism blew in, the media limelight had moved on."[74] The ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) also criticized the public-relations offensive as "inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public."[50]
The method by which the Séralini team publicized their 2012 paper was widely criticized. The original Agence France-Presse story noted: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication."[68] The confidentiality agreement contained a severe penalty for breaching the agreement: "A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study."[32] An editorial at the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, noted: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn’t happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember."[69][70][71] National Public Radio's program, On the Media, discussed the way the paper was released to the media on 28 September 2012, with Carl Zimmer, a science journalist, who was especially critical of science journalists who allowed themselves to be manipulated, as well as criticizing the Séralini lab.[72] Zimmer had earlier posted on his blog at Discover magazine, "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science."[73] Cosmos Magazine's Elizabeth Finkel, wrote, "...a clause barring the gathering of independent opinions is extraordinary. What it meant was that Séralini’s story, when it broke, got to prance unfettered in the media limelight before second opinions could dull its shine. By the time the storm of criticism blew in, the media limelight had moved on."[74] The ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) also criticized the public-relations offensive as "inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public."[50]
Добавить комментарий:
