Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies
Open accessAbstract
Public confidence in genetically modified (GM) crop studies is tenuous at best in many countries, including those of the European Union in particular. A lack of information about the effects of ties between academic research and industry might stretch this confidence to the breaking point. We therefore performed an analysis on a large set of research articles (n = 672) focusing on the efficacy or durability of GM Bt crops and ties between the researchers carrying out these studies and the GM crop industry. We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40% of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest (COI). In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI, the presence of a COI was associated with a 50% higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company. Using our large dataset, we were able to propose possible direct and indirect mechanisms behind this statistical association. They might notably include changes of authorship or funding statements after the results of a study have been obtained and a choice in the topics studied driven by industrial priorities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Conflicts of interest in GM crop research have been suggested for studies on Bt crop efficacy and durability and for studies on health risks and nutritional value of GM crops.
“Such conflicts of interest have been suggested, for example, for studies on Bt crop efficacy and durability [59] and for studies on health risks and nutritional value of GM crops [60].”
From Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [59]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle
Akaike, H. (1973) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,357 · see citing works
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147 · see citing works
Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454 · Cited by 1,816 · see citing works
The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-5297 · Cited by 878 · see citing works
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
Institute of Medicine (2009) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/12598 · Cited by 824 · see citing works
Bes-Rastrollo, M., Schulze, M. B., Ruiz-Canela, M., & Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
The Unintended Consequences of Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Loewenstein, G. F., Sah, S., & Cain, D. M. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.154 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Financial Relationships between Institutional Review Board Members and Industry
Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Vogeli, C., Clarridge, B. R., Abraham, M. E., Marder, J. E., & Koski, G. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa061457 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research?
Krimsky, S. (2012) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243912456271 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Barnes, D. E. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530030068036 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Diels, J., Cunha, M., Manaia, C., Sabugosa-Madeira, B., & Silva, M. (2011) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Making Sense of Non-Financial Competing Interests
Editors, T. P. M. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050199 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Shrader‐Frechette, K. (2009) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Conflict of interests and evidence base for GM crops food/feed safety research
Sánchez, M. (2015) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3133 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Biomedical Research and Industry Influence: Some Jasmine Thoughts
Bouzidi, R., & Kooli, M. (2011) · Orthopedics · doi:10.3928/01477447-20111021-01 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system
Clapp, J. (2021) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00297-7 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Environmental and Ecological Aspects in the Overall Assessment of Bioeconomy
Székács, A. (2017) · Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9651-1 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Fooks, G., Williams, S. N., Box, G., & Sacks, G. (2019) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/s12992-019-0495-5 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Gascuel, Q., Diretto, G., Monforte, A. J., Fortes, A. M., & Granell, A. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.00652 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., & Romeis, J. (2022) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-022-00272-0 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“Such conflicts of interest have been suggested, for example, for studies on Bt crop efficacy and durability [59] and for studies on health risks and nutritional value of GM crops [60].”
Krimsky, S., & Schwab, T. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172317 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Agricultural GMOs and their associated pesticides: misinformation, science, and evidence
Antoniou, M. N., Robinson, C., Castro, I., & Hilbeck, A. (2023) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-023-00787-4 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Arthropod food webs associated with cotton: Does Bt cotton mediate community stress?
Luz, C. E. A., Zuim, V., Oliveira, A. A. S., dos Santos, P. D. J., Campos, K. L., Haro, M. M., Vivan, L. M., Bastos, C. S., & Guedes, R. N. C. (2021) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/jen.12928 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Future challenges feeding transgenic plants
Flachowsky, G., & Reuter, T. (2017) · Animal Frontiers · doi:10.2527/af.2017.0114 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Conflict of interests and evidence base for GM crops food/feed safety research
Sánchez, M. (2015) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3133 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Tessier, C., & Bonnemains, V. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811926-6.00011-7 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Resnik, D. B. (2021) · The International Library of Bioethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-70791-0_7
Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., & Romeis, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20004740
Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., & Romeis, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20004737
Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., & Romeis, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20004743
Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., & Romeis, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20004734
Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., & Romeis, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20004752
Barbin, A. (2017) · doi:10.70675/5144aea7zefd2z45b7z9b45zfe7a2e64c53b
- Authors
- Guillemaud, T., Lombaert, E., & Bourguet, D.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Guillemaud, Thomas
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-12-15
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e0167777
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5157974
- OpenAlex
- W2566229573
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Keywords
- conflicts of interest, genetically modified crops, Bt crops, research funding, publication bias, authorship changes, research agenda setting, public trust in science, European Union
- MeSH terms
- Authorship, Research Personnel, Conflict of Interest, Crops, Agricultural, Plants, Genetically Modified
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
