Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Calling Dr. Ho, Dr. Huber, Mr. Vlieger...

I'm so excited about the comments coming in on a potential replicate of the "Stunning Corn Comparison" originally posted on Moms Across America. I've asked for a large, transparent and independent series of tests and I'm willing to cover the costs, personally.  It will not be cheap. 

The plant science community has stepped up and offered many excellent comments about experimental design in the comments section of previous posts.  I have not heard anything from those promoting the data as real.  This morning I sent the following email to those named in the salutation:

Dr. Ho, Mr. Vlieger and Dr. Huber, 

I hope that we can move forward with a series of independent, transparent and replicated tests on GM corn grown in glyphosate-treated fields versus non-GM corn.  The data presented in the original data set certainly raised eyebrows and drew criticism.  I was one of the biggest critics.  I don't understand much about the data, such as how corn can have 1% brix and why cation exchange capacity was used. 

The way to really clear this up is to have promoters and critics join together to design a transparent test.  It is a win-win for me because it either clears up that there was something wrong with the original data, or they replicate and we get to share authorship on a paper showing 1% Brix corn full of formaldehyde.  That's a huge story and I'd be glad to put my name on that. It would likely go to Science or Nature. 

I've encouraged both promoters of the original data and the wider plant science community to participate in the design and execution of the experiments.  We can do replicated plots with sufficient numbers to generate powerful statistics.  So far, I have heard nothing from the people that voraciously defend these data as legitimate, except for the kind response by Dr. Ho. 

Most of all, I've PERSONALLY agreed to cover the cost of the re-analysis.  For this to be legitimate, we all need to participate and need to decide on analytical methods and multiple independent analytical facilities. 

Please, let's agree to do this.  If the technology is as bad as you claim, and the data your promote are legitimate, we'll need hard numbers from well-designed experiments to replicate and make a very strong case.  A perfect replicate is a very good outcome for me, if we do it together. 

Best wishes, and let's please drive the science forward together, 


I provide this note here in the spirit of transparency and working together to resolve an important scientific issue. I'm standing by for their response, which at first, was kind and enthusiastic from Dr. Ho.   If you are against the technology and/or stand by these data, please encourage these anti-GMO luminaries to participate in a larger, more comprehensive evaluation. 

A Response to Carey Gillam