62 / SEEDWORLD.COM DECEMBER 2017 THERISKCORNER From Wakefield to Portier: Protecting the scientific method THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is under attack today on at least five fronts, damaging the reputation and trust in scientific evidence and scientists themselves. The strength of the “method” has been its self-correcting approach (continuous advancement through tools like peer review, critical analyses of methodologies, falsification attempts and paradigm validation through problem solving). Today we are seeing threats under- mining not just the achievements of science and tech- nology, but also the very worth of science to society. How (and should) the scientific method be pro- tected? Science received a body-blow in October 2017 following the scandal involving Christopher Portier, an American statistician caught trying to influence the EU glyphosate regulatory debate while secretly receiv- ing 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 fabricate 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 settlements (where legal fees in the US can be signifi- cant percentages of the pay-outs). Portier’s deposition in the preparation of the Monsanto litigation demon- strated 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 agencies’ decisions? These are questions that need to be discussed among scientists given how their actions are put- ting the reputation of the scientific method at risk. Transparency and freedom of research need to be core to any funding agreement, but unfortunately the pedi- gree of the class action lawyers seems to prevent this. Law firms like Weitz & Luxenberg or Baum Hedlund are running slick anti-glyphosate campaigns, march- ing 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 scientists evidently. 2. Social media tribal echo-chambers In the tribal echo-chambers of social media, scien- tific evidence gets lost in the political bias and then adulterated with every activist’s share, like or com- ment. These communities are bound together in trust, sharing information that confirms their preconcep- tions and while blocking those who may disagree or threaten the objectives of the anti-GMO, anti-pesti- cides tribe. Without dialogue, without engagement, these social media encampments limit themselves to subjective interpretations of pre-defined conclusions (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 (argumentum ad hominem). The activist tribe is more politically charged than scientifically literate, injecting a poison into the agri-tech debate, building up simple DAVID ZARUK is a professor based in Brussels writing on environmental-health risk policy within the EU Bubble. He writes a blog under the name: The Risk-Monger. The comments in the Risk Corner are his own and does not necessarily represent the views of Seed World.