Nature wrong to backtrack on GM maize study

By: Andrew V. Suarez et al

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>Nature wrong to backtrack on GM maize study</h1>
<h4>By: Andrew V. Suarez <i>et al</i></h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><TABLE align=right></p>
<p><TR><br />
<TD class=tabletext><IMG height=95 src="http://c96265.r65.cf3.rackcdn.com/2002june_maize2.gif" width=131></TD></TR></TABLE><em>Nature</em> published a paper last year claiming that transgenic DNA had become genetically incorporated into wild varieties of maize in Mexico (see <a href="/frame3.asp?id=3011200117394924&t=N&c=1&r=1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">GM maize found ‘contaminating wild strains in Mexico</A>)<BR><BR>But doubts about the scientific validity of the research led the journal to withdraw its support for the study in April, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to justify its original publication of the paper (see <a href="/frame3.asp?id=050420021802230&t=N&c=1&r=1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Nature</em> backtracks over GM maize controversy </A>).<BR><BR>In a letter published in this week’s issue of <em>Nature</em>, Andrew V. Suarez of the University of California argues that “by taking sides in such an unambiguous manner, <em>Nature</em> risks losing its impartial and professional status”.<BR><BR>And in another letter, Kenneth Worthy and colleagues from the University of California say that <NATURE'S< I>editorial note disavowing the research was “unorthodox and unnecessary”<BR><BR>Reference: <em>Nature</em> 417, 897 (2002)<BR><BR><a href="http://www.nature.com/login/scidev_login.taf?ref=/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/417897a_fs.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to letter in <em>Nature</em> by Andrew V. Suarez</A><BR><a href="http://www.nature.com/login/scidev_login.taf?ref=/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/417897b_fs.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to letter in <em>Nature</em> by Kenneth Worthy, Richard C. Strohman and Paul R. Billings</A><BR><a href="http://www.nature.com/login/scidev_login.taf?ref=/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/417897c_fs.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reply in <em>Nature</em> by Matthew Metz and Johannes Fütterer</A><BR><a href="http://www.nature.com/login/scidev_login.taf?ref=/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/417898a_fs.html " target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reply in <em>Nature</em> by Nick Kaplinsky</A><BR><BR><STRONG>Photo credit</STRONG>: CGIAR/CIMMYT</p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/inaturei-wrong-to-backtrack-on-gm-maize-study/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/inaturei-wrong-to-backtrack-on-gm-maize-study/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

Nature published a paper last year claiming that transgenic DNA had become genetically incorporated into wild varieties of maize in Mexico (see GM maize found ‘contaminating wild strains in Mexico)

But doubts about the scientific validity of the research led the journal to withdraw its support for the study in April, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to justify its original publication of the paper (see Nature backtracks over GM maize controversy ).

In a letter published in this week’s issue of Nature, Andrew V. Suarez of the University of California argues that “by taking sides in such an unambiguous manner, Nature risks losing its impartial and professional status”.

And in another letter, Kenneth Worthy and colleagues from the University of California say that editorial note disavowing the research was “unorthodox and unnecessary”

Reference: Nature 417, 897 (2002)

Link to letter in Nature by Andrew V. Suarez
Link to letter in Nature by Kenneth Worthy, Richard C. Strohman and Paul R. Billings
Reply in Nature by Matthew Metz and Johannes Fütterer
Reply in Nature by Nick Kaplinsky

Photo credit: CGIAR/CIMMYT