Seems to me that they edited out opinions, not findings, which is exactly how it should be done.
Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.
Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.
"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.
- 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)
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.
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.