IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v50y2021i7s0048733321000925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct

Author

Listed:
  • Glenna, Leland
  • Bruce, Analena

Abstract

Using documents from a lawsuit filed against the agricultural chemical and biotechnology firm Monsanto (now Bayer), we document a private firm's efforts to distort the scientific peer-review process through ghostwriting, to orchestrate campaigns to retract journal articles, and to influence editorial decisions. The firm's apparent goal was to manipulate the regulatory process so that it could continue selling a product that the firm's own research indicated might be dangerous. The long-term impact has been to threaten the integrity of scientific peer review and public trust in science. The findings have implications for public-private research collaborations, the validity of private-science research, scientific journal policies on conflict-of-interest disclosures, and policies governing the role of private science in regulatory oversight.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenna, Leland & Bruce, Analena, 2021. "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:7:s0048733321000925
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321000925
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104290?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Hall, Jeremy & Martin, Ben R., 2019. "Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 414-427.
    3. John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
    5. Declan Butler, 2012. "Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7419), pages 158-158, October.
    6. Peter T. Gianiodis & William R. Meek, 2020. "Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1167-1195, August.
    7. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    8. Silbergeld, E.K., 1995. "Annotation: protection of the public interest, allegations of scientific misconduct, and the Needleman case," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(2), pages 165-166.
    9. Brett Aho, 2017. "Disrupting regulation: understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 698-706.
    10. Berggren, Christian & Karabag, Solmaz Filiz, 2019. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 428-443.
    11. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    12. Brian C. Martinson & Melissa S. Anderson & Raymond de Vries, 2005. "Scientists behaving badly," Nature, Nature, vol. 435(7043), pages 737-738, June.
    13. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Benson Honig & Joseph Lampel & Donald Siegel & Paul Drnevich, 2014. "Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 118-142, January.
    15. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    16. Glenna, Leland L. & Welsh, Rick & Ervin, David & Lacy, William B. & Biscotti, Dina, 2011. "Commercial science, scientists' values, and university biotechnology research agendas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 957-968, September.
    17. Jain, Sanjay & George, Gerard & Maltarich, Mark, 2009. "Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 922-935, July.
    18. Dirk Czarnitzki & Christoph Grimpe & Maikel Pellens, 2015. "Access to research inputs: open science versus the entrepreneurial university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1050-1063, December.
    19. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cathleen McCluskey & William F. Tracy, 2021. "Engaging Farmer Stakeholders: Maize Producers’ Perceptions of and Strategies for Managing On-Farm Genetic Diversity in the Upper Midwest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    3. Analena B. Bruce & Yetkin Borlu & Leland L. Glenna, 2023. "Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Lacy, William & Merilus, Jean-Yves & Liu , Xiaoguang & Lacy , Laura R., 2022. "Role of University International Partnerships for Research & Education: Leaders’ Critical Insights & Recommendations," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt8vx8p3nv, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Analena B. Bruce & Yetkin Borlu & Leland L. Glenna, 2023. "Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Leland L. Glenna, 2017. "AFHVS 2017 presidential address," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 1021-1031, December.
    3. Choi, Haneul & Yoon, Hyunjung & Siegel, Donald & Waldman, David A. & Mitchell, Marie S., 2022. "Assessing differences between university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scientists in technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    4. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    5. Belitski, Maksim & Aginskaja, Anna & Marozau, Radzivon, 2019. "Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 601-615.
    6. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    7. Wu, Jinxi & Ye, Ran (Michelle) & Ding, Ling & Lu, Chao & Euwema, Martin, 2018. "From “transplant with the soil” toward the establishment of the innovation ecosystem: A case study of a leading high-tech company in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 222-234.
    8. Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    9. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    10. Huegel, Matthias, 2024. "University scientists’ multiple goals achievement: Social capital and its impact on research performance and research commercialization," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Olmos Peñuela,Julia & Benneworth,Paul & Castro-Martínez,Elena, 2014. "Explaining researchersâ readiness to incorporate external stimuli in their research agendas," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201408, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    12. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    13. Meissner, Dirk & Zhou, Yuan & Fischer, Bruno & Vonortas, Nicholas, 2022. "A multilayered perspective on entrepreneurial universities: looking into the dynamics of joint university-industry labs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Borah, Dhruba & Massini, Silvia & Malik, Khaleel, 2023. "Teaching benefits of multi-helix university-industry research collaborations: Towards a holistic framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    15. Bhullar, Supreet S. & Nangia, Vinay K. & Batish, Ajay, 2019. "Research article: The impact of academia-industry collaboration on core academic activities: Assessing the latent dimensions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Schaeffer, Véronique, 2019. "The use of material transfer agreements in academia: A threat to open science or a cooperation tool?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    17. Claudia Werker & Christian Hopp, 2020. "Balancing act between research and application: how research orientation and networks affect scholars’ academic and commercial output," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(8), pages 1171-1197, September.
    18. José Bestier Padilla Bejarano & Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa & Carlos Ocampo-López & Margarita Ramírez-Carmona, 2023. "University Technology Transfer from a Knowledge-Flow Approach—Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    19. Baglieri, Daniela & Baldi, Francesco & Tucci, Christopher L., 2018. "University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 51-63.
    20. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:7:s0048733321000925. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.