"One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC."
This seems a lot stronger than just editing. Although not perfectly clear, it sounds to me like the report was a composite of multiple distinct studies, and they excised some studies that differed from their desired outcome. That's basically the same thing as dropping experimental evidence that doesn't agree with a study's goals.
If you're not fully acknowledging anything that might contradict your conclusion, then you're sciencing wrong.
Presumably those "opinions" were based on the data the scientists collected. All of the following cannot be proven to be 100% objectively facts, so we better just throw them out out science:
- Theory of Evolution
- Big Bang Theory
- General Relativity
- Global Warming/Climate Change
- Cell Theory
- Germ Theory
- etc etc (Just look up "scientific theories" or similar if you want more)
There is a huge difference between ’the author believes’ and ‘this evidence supports’. The important bits of scientific research is the evidence not the scientists conclusions.
If an existing test was not sensitive enough to detect some effect, any conclusions from that data are effectively worthless. However, the test still provides an upper bound for the magnitude of an effect.
Authors rarely limit themselves to only the evidence gathered from a single study when making these conclusions. I have even seen many conclusions not particularly supported by the evidence presented.
Not taking a position on this case/article, it seems a complex situation which I can't fully evaluate.
However, research reports are written for their results, not their conclusion. The conclusions are often less formal and somewhat prone to bias. The scientific method is to consider results in aggregate to successively form a better understanding of an issue, and as such the individual conclusions in an individual report is really the least important part in a meta study or review report.
"One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC."
This seems a lot stronger than just editing. Although not perfectly clear, it sounds to me like the report was a composite of multiple distinct studies, and they excised some studies that differed from their desired outcome. That's basically the same thing as dropping experimental evidence that doesn't agree with a study's goals.
If you're not fully acknowledging anything that might contradict your conclusion, then you're sciencing wrong.