The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

mexico: seizing control of biodiversity 251arguments and is prepared to do anything to impose its products everywherein the world, including destroying the reputation of anyone who might standin its way.”An Absolute PowerMeanwhile, the “conspiracy,” as The Ecologist called it, had borne fruit. 22On April 4, 2002, after failing to persuade Quist and Chapela to retract theirarticle, Nature published an “unusual editorial note,” 23 constituting an “unprecedenteddisavowal” in the 133-year history of the celebrated journal. 24“The evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the originalpaper,” the journal wrote. “A unique event in the history of technicalpublishing,” this rebuff created a stir in the international scientific microcosm.25 In a letter to the journal, Andrew Suarez of Berkeley expressed hissurprise, commenting that the statement “reflects poorly on Nature’s editorialpolicy and review process . . . Why has Nature refrained from releasingsimilar editorial retractions of earlier publications later found to be incorrector open to alternative interpretations?” 26 The answer to this question wassuggested by Miguel Altieri, another Berkeley researcher: “Nature dependson its funding from big corporations. Look at the last page of the journal andsee who funds the ads for jobs. Eighty percent are technology corporations,paying anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 per ad.” 27Nature’s “backpedal[ing]” 28 was particularly surprising because a monthearlier Science had reported that “two teams of Mexican researchers hadconfirmed biologist Ignacio Chapela’s explosive findings.” 29 Directed by ExequielEzcurra, the highly respected director of the Mexican National Instituteof Ecology, one of the studies had analyzed samples of corn taken fromtwenty-two communities in Puebla and Oaxaca. Genetic contaminationranging from 3 to 13 percent had been found in eleven of them, and withcontamination levels of 20 to 60 percent in four others. Ezcurra submittedan article to Nature, which rejected it in October 2002. “This rejection isdue to ideological reasons,” he stated, pointing to the “contradictory explanations”of the reviewers, one of whom said that the results were “obvious,”and the other that they were “incredible.” 30Meanwhile, Chapela had paid a heavy price: in December 2003, theBerkeley administration informed him that it had denied him tenure despite