Talk:Elaine Ingham

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Soil Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Elaine Ingham is within the scope of WikiProject Soil, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.SoilWikipedia:WikiProject SoilTemplate:WikiProject SoilSoil
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^{[citation needed]} 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. ^{[citation needed]} 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 ^{[dead link‍]} Dr Ingham apologizes to Royal Commission http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/media_releases/ingham_apology.pdf ^{[dead link‍]} Green Party amends evidence and apologizes http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/media_releases/green_apology.pdf ^{[dead link‍]} Dr Ingham has subsequently been subjected to professional review by Oregon State University. ^{[citation needed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjasz (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]