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

• Published in: Research policy 2021-09, Vol.50 (7), p.104290, Article 104290
• Main Authors: Glenna, Leland, Bruce, Analena
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0048-7333; 1873-7625
• DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104290

•Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting and other types of research misconduct to disrupt regulatory oversight of one of its most profitable products.•Although public-science organizations have sanctions in place to punish research misconduct, private-science organizations do not. At least one Monsanto employee boasted about research misconduct in promotion materials.•Journal editors who oversaw decisions in which Monsanto manipulated the peer review process did not disclose their conflicts of interest.•Scientific misconduct by private firms threatens the integrity of public science and the public's trust in science. 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.