The Ghost in the Machine

by

Uncovering the Monsanto ‘Ghostwriting’ Scandal and the Retraction of a Scientific Landmark

I generated an audio overview, using AI tools, from my research. You might like to listen to that if you like audio like a podcast, want to listen while you drive to work or want a quicker way to inform yourself of this research. The audio overview is about 14 minutes long.

For decades, the safety of glyphosate—the active ingredient in the world’s most famous weedkiller, Roundup—has been a focal point of intense legal and scientific debate. However, recent developments have shed light on what many describe as a coordinated effort by Monsanto to shape scientific discourse through "ghostwriting" and the strategic discrediting of independent research.

There is of particular relevance to Nyari Residents Welfare Society (NRWS) where I live and where I often see gardeners spraying Roundup and organophosphates like Malathion willy nilly on their gardens. Sometimes I even smell malathion or durzban on the air. Needless to say - I head indoors in a rush when I smell this stuff.

With the rise of cancers of all kinds in our world I'm sure anyone reading this blog post can recall this or that friend or relative that died of or currently has a cancer of some kind. Additionally most of us can point to someone or themselves that are reacting badly (allergies?) to certain foods. Ask yourself - what could the farmer have sprayed onto this food item?

The Retraction of a ‘Hallmark’ Paper

In late 2025, a major turning point occurred when the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (RTP) officially retracted a seminal 25-year-old safety report on glyphosate. This paper, originally published in 2000 by Williams, Kroes, and Munro, had served as a "hallmark" for the chemical's safety and was cited by organisations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for years.
The retraction followed investigations into the "Monsanto Papers," which suggested that Monsanto employees had likely ghostwritten significant portions of the study without proper acknowledgement. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief cited "serious ethical concerns" regarding the lack of transparency, authorial independence, and potential misrepresentation of contributions. While Bayer (which now owns Monsanto) maintains that Monsanto’s involvement was appropriately acknowledged, the retraction highlights a massive gap in the accountability of research that has influenced global policy for decades.

Pressure on Independent Researchers

The "Monsanto cover-up" extended beyond writing its own favourable reports; it also involved challenging independent scientists who found potential risks. In 2005, Monsanto scientists (Farmer et al.) aggressively critiqued a study by De Roos et al. that suggested an association between glyphosate and multiple myeloma.
Monsanto’s tactics included:

* Questioning Laboratory Standards: Monsanto critics argued that independent studies were less reliable because they did not follow "Good Laboratory Practices" (GLP). Independent researchers countered that GLP is a system for regulatory record-keeping, not a measure of scientific quality, and is not required for academic research.

* Narrowing the Scope: Monsanto often focused on the safety of the pure active ingredient, glyphosate, while researchers like De Roos pointed out that formulated products like Roundup might have different, potentially more toxic effects due to other added ingredients.

* Discrediting Findings: Despite Monsanto's attempts to dismiss the multiple myeloma link as a result of "selection bias" or "small sample bias," the original researchers maintained that the association warranted further follow-up as more data became available.

Scientific Forensics and the Battle for Glyphosate Transparency: Beyond the Retraction

While the retraction of the Williams et al. (2000) safety report has made headlines, the depth of the Monsanto "cover-up" involves a decades-long strategy of shaping regulatory data and discrediting independent findings. The controversy is not just about one "ghostwritten" paper, but a systematic effort to influence the weight-of-evidence approach used by global regulators like the EPA.

The Active Ingredient vs. The Formulated Product

A critical pillar of the cover-up involves the distinction between pure glyphosate and commercial products like Roundup. Independent researchers, such as De Roos et al., have highlighted that Monsanto-funded studies often focused strictly on the pure active ingredient, glyphosate, while ignoring the potentially greater toxicity of formulated products which include additives that may disrupt cell-cycle control mechanisms. Studies by Marc et al. (2002, 2004) specifically found that Roundup products could provoke cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation—data that Monsanto attempted to minimise by focusing on pure glyphosate feeding studies in animal models.

Tactics of Discreditation

When independent research suggested a link between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma, Monsanto scientists (Farmer et al.) responded by questioning the "Good Laboratory Practices" (GLP) of academic labs. However, researchers pointed out that GLP is essentially a regulatory record-keeping system for pesticide licensing, not a metric for scientific quality or academic integrity. By framing academic research as "bad" practice for not following industry-specific filing protocols, Monsanto sought to isolate and dismiss findings that threatened their market position.

AI and the ‘Afterlife’ of Ghostwritten Science

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this cover-up is the "afterlife" of ghostwritten research. Even after ethical concerns were raised, the Williams et al. report continued to be cited by major agencies for years. Researchers Alexander A. Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes have recently pioneered the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to sift through massive datasets, including Wikipedia edit histories and policy documents, to trace how this corporate-authored science infiltrated public understanding. This "renaissance" in scientific investigation suggests that many more "relics" of industry-shaped science may soon be uncovered. I use this method in finding my information sources and digging into those things that can harm us here in Kenya if we use products without doing adequate research on them.

A New Era of Investigation

The recent retraction of the Williams et al. paper was not the result of a toxicological breakthrough, but rather a forensic investigation into corporate ghostwriting by researchers Alexander A. Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes. Interestingly, these investigators used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to process the massive amounts of data, policy documents, and Wikipedia edits required to uncover the influence of corporate authorship.

As the EPA continues its registration review of glyphosate and thousands of lawsuits proceed, this "scientific reckoning" serves as a reminder of the fragility of academic integrity when corporate interests are involved.

A New Era of Investigation

The recent retraction of the Williams et al. paper was not the result of a toxicological breakthrough, but rather a forensic investigation into corporate ghostwriting by researchers Alexander A. Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes. Interestingly, these investigators used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to process the massive amounts of data, policy documents, and Wikipedia edits required to uncover the influence of corporate authorship.

As the EPA continues its registration review of glyphosate and thousands of lawsuits proceed, this "scientific reckoning" serves as a reminder of the fragility of academic integrity when corporate interests are involved.

References

Analogy for Understanding: Think of a major football match where the referee is secretly being paid by one of the teams to help write the league’s rulebook. Even if the rules on the page look standard, the fact that one team held the pen in secret ruins the integrity of the game. The recent retraction is like the league finally discovering those secret payments and stripping the team of their titles years later.

Leave a Comment