Talk:Elaine Ingham

Controversy?
Are statements like "recognised around the world as a leader" not a little strong, considering that the subject of this article has been required to withdraw sensationalistic claims and most of this page is about a commercial company? Vashti (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not at all too strong. Dr. Ingham was Chief Research Scientist at the Rodale Institute. To say it is too strong is to implicate yourself as one of her political enemies. When I look at the talk page for Dr. Ingram, it stinks of ag-tech trolling. Wikipedia editors please beware, this is a politically hot page, and there are powerful forces actively working to discredit this scientist. Please be very judicious in allowing edits to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.172.22 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.biotech-info.net/ingham_rebuttal.pdf Elaine was forced to apologize for inaccurate information and quoting non existent research.

The New Zealand Green Party made the mistake of relying on Ingham's evidence to try to establish their argument that there should be no field trials involving GMOs. Because Ingham's assertions were scientifically rebutted before the Royal Commission by three senior New Zealand and Australian scientists the Green Party was left with the humiliating responsibility of apologizing in writing for misleading the Royal Commission. I attach links to the relevant documentation. Evidence from three senior scientists rebutting Ingham's assertions http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/media_releases/0215_ingham_rebuttal.pdf Dr Ingham apologizes to Royal Commission http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/media_releases/ingham_apology.pdf Green Party amends evidence and apologizes http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/media_releases/green_apology.pdf Dr Ingham has subsequently been subjected to professional review by Oregon State University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjasz (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Life Science NZ links listed above do not work. Please provide some alternative copies of this evidence so that it can be subjected to peer review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.162.53 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment by Tomjasz, including the Lifesciencenz links, looks to be extracted from a letter from Francis Wevers, also of Lifesciencenz. The letter, and the rebuttal by Elain Ingham can be read here: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/8951-full-story-of-the-dr-elaine-ingham-controversy-over-klebsiella-p

Sounds to me like Ingham made a mistake in the citation of a paper, which is not the same as citing non existent research. Perhaps this thesis paper is whatshe should have cited? http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/34510

The professional review is reportedly a routine yearly event, and was not critical of Ingham's work. I haven't found the text of the Green Party apology, but I wouldn't want to take the Life Science Network's characterisation of that on face value without seeing exactly what it was they apologised for.

New Zealand press releases are systematically published and archived by scoop.co.nz, including those from Lifesciencenz. I haven't hunted these ones down, but if there's one that you don't find there, then it's more likely that it has been retracted and removed than that it was never there. AndrewMcN 09:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What about Klebsiella planticola?
Shouldn't there something about Dr. Ingham's research on this? Some websites are claiming that she literally saved the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramod.s (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty controversial actually, but it should be added. This article seems more like spam than anything else.


 * This article could be a start for research - it's not a suitable reference, but it shows different viewpoints. In brief - anti-GMO activists say that Ingham (and one of her students) narrowly averted the destruction of life on earth by a GMO. A counter-accusation is that she fabricated her evidence. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the attack on her in that article is not backed up - the links given are dead, and the website they link to looks very dubious.
 * This is a more interesting rebuttal. It does seem to highlight some serious problems with the research and the conclusions drawn (However,that's a very preliminary personal judgement which would not be appropriate for the article.) --Chriswaterguy talk 01:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)