30 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM T he scientific method is under attack today on at least five fronts, damaging the reputation and trust in scientific evidence and scientists them- selves. The strength of the “method” has been its self-correcting approach (contin- uous advancement through tools like peer review, critical analyses of methodologies, falsification attempts and paradigm val- idation through problem solving). Today we are seeing threats undermining not just the achievements of science and technology, but also the very worth of science to society. How (and should) the scientific method be protected? Science received a body-blow in October 2017 following the scandal involv- ing Christopher Portier, an American statistician caught trying to influence the EU glyphosate regulatory debate while secretly receiving lucrative payments from two law firms leading class-action suits against Monsanto. His involvement as a litigation consultant, his ability to join an IARC panel without having ever been involved in glyphosate research, his barefaced lies, his non-transparency and the manipulative practices of the class-action law firms (looking to fabri- cate science and public outrage for larger personal damage jury pay-outs) reminds us how vulnerable science is to human weakness, greed, public pressure and the dominant anti-industry narrative. Two decades on, Christopher Portier is the Andrew Wakefield of pesticides. What would have happened if Wakefield had published his corrupted MMR-autism findings today? Would the scientific method have survived the political and community onslaught on the pro-vaccine advocates? How have Portier’s transgres- sions affected science today? What follows are the five threats to the scientific method that were not issues when Wakefield’s actions last challenged science. 1. Litigation science Wakefield, like Portier, succumbed to the money and motivation of class action law firms seeking to create science that would enable large corporate litigation settle- ments (where legal fees in the US can be significant percentages of the pay-outs). THE RISK CORNER FROM WAKEFIELD TO PORTIER: PROTECTING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BY: DAVID ZARUK Portier’s deposition in the preparation of the Monsanto litigation demonstrated the secrecy of the law firms’ strategies with the contractual non-disclosure of his affiliation and work scope. How many other scientists have been drawn into such non-transparent agreements? How much research has been funded with litigation motivations at its core? How many scientists sitting on international panels and working groups like IARC are involved in such litigation groups and have a personal interest in these agen- cies’ decisions? These are questions that need to be discussed among scientists given how their actions are putting the reputation of the scientific method at risk. Transparency and freedom of research need to be core to any funding agreement, but unfortu- nately the pedigree of the class action lawyers seems to prevent this. Law firms like Weitz & Luxenberg or Baum Hedlund are running slick anti-glyphosate cam- paigns, marching cancer victims from the US to Brussels and, simply put, throwing whatever they can to ensure the optimal outraged jury result. Regulatory science in Brussels is not equipped to handle their compromising practices. Nor are some sci- entists evidently. 2. Social media tribal echo-chambers In the tribal echo-chambers of social media, scientific evidence gets lost in the political bias and then adulterated with every activist’s share, like or comment. These communities are bound together in trust, sharing information that con- firms their preconceptions and while blocking those who may disagree or threaten the objectives of the anti-GMO, anti-pesticides tribe. Without dialogue, without engagement, these social media encampments limit themselves to subjec- tive interpretations of pre-defined conclu- sions (confirmation bias). Social media campaigners, gurus and vested interests welcome fringe scientists with chips on their shoulders who might confirm their bias and attack anyone who would dispute the results of their research. The debate and outrage online is not about the research, but about the CV of the researcher (argu- mentum ad hominem). The activist tribe is more politically charged than sci- entifically literate, injecting a poison into the agri-tech debate, building up simple solutions (ban all pesticides and GMOs) and happy to degrade the public trust in science if it helps them win a campaign. 3. Activist science As NGOs and social media groups are becoming wealthier, they are attracting scientists who have fallen through the tra- ditional occupational tracks, who may feel bitter about their lack of career opportu- nities and vulnerable to exploitation. I have coined the term “activist scientist” to describe an individual who has aban- doned scientific endeavours to work on campaign-related research. A traditional scientist starts by gath- ering evidence and then draws a conclu- sion. An activist scientist starts with the conclusion and then looks for evidence. We find examples of such practices pro- moted by NGOs related to questionable research on neonicotinoids and polli- nators, glyphosate, GMOs and endo- crine disrupting chemicals. These few activist scientists (like Portier, Séralini, Kortenkamp, Goulson …) are feted by the NGOs, become PR advocates and frequently lobby on policy issues. This creates added animosity within scien- tific communities with amplified online disputes that further undermine public trust in science while creating fear of a “divided” scientific community. 4. Peer review Peer review had always been a means to present a more objective evaluation of research findings, further confirmed by replication exercises. With the rise, however, of predatory, fake and “pay-to- play” journals, the peer review process has been denigrated often to merely a financial transaction with articles buried in low-impact-factor online journals. The phrase “peer review” has almost become meaningless, research quality diminished with “publish or perish” professors treat- ing the publication process as a career investment activity. Activist scientists capitalise on public ignorance of the publishing process to get