Roundup was Cardamine hirsuta

Christian Lachaud
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:06:11 PDT
Lou : I understand. I was not mentionning consistency as a test. For you to
better understand my point of view, here is little information on my
background. I worked for more than a decade as a scientist in very good
labs, on various projects, and in different countries : I'm aware of
experimental design, scientific methodology, and statistics - as well as
their limits and limitations. Scientific result is all about experimental

Collecting consistent reports from various sources gives clues for
theoretical hypothesis formulation. I am not engaged in a scientific
research about Cardamine, therefore not doing more than trying to
understand what is going on at the level of hypotheses - contacting your
group for more observations and eventually any hard science tracks.
Bringing answers through science would require a serious planning of a
complete study, and this is a lot of work I can't do myself - not to be
achieved just with "one experiment to see". If you or a group of people is
interested in starting some serious testing, I will gladly help and provide
seeds, but I cannot do the work myself for various reasons including

Nhu's design is the very start in an investigation. It will only answer
what it tests. If it shows that Cardamine seeds treated with roundup do not
germinate better than the control lot, it will mean that (1) glyphosate is
probably not the direct cause of what is observed in situ and (2) that
something else might be going on in situ in relation to glyphosate. If it
shows that Cardamine seeds treated with roundup germinate better than the
control lot, it will mean that glyphosate triggers the germination of
Cardamine seeds. It will not allow to know for sure that glyphosate is the
direct cause (although reasonably, it may be, the cause could still be
genetics, soil interaction, effect of a component in roundup or of a
byproduct of glyphosate degradation, etc.), nor what mechanism is involved.
As you see, it is not very helpful alone and needs to be considered as a
first step in a more ellaborated plan.

I agree with you : there can be many things we have not thought of, more
than one factor can be involved, factors can interact or play a role in a
sequence, etc. The effect can result from a very dynamic situation, and
good documentation about the effect is always a requirement. Consistency of
observation is important to understand that a phenomenon is not just a one
shot due to chance. I had it before coming forward.

*Dr. Christian M. Lachaud, PhD*

More information about the pbs mailing list