Nature Biotechnology replies:

This journal is in favor of transparency concerning disclosure of financial interests of researchers. In terms of federally mandated disclosure, since 2012, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act has required academic investigators to report travel and expenses reimbursed by a for-profit entity that is not part of a sponsored grant or contract. This applies to any researcher receiving funding from the US National Institutes of Health. Plant researchers, such as Kevin Folta, working outside of the US Public Health Service, do not fall under those rules. The question is, do the harms arising from ties between agrochemical companies and academic researchers warrant the additional burden, expense and inconvenience of implementing reimbursement tracking systems in every institution, as USRTK would like to see mandated by federal law? In the case of pharmaceuticals, the link between industry ties, bias of the literature and exposure of patients to unnecessary harms was clear. Can the same be said of the ties between agricultural researchers and companies? On the other hand, as mentioned in our Editorial, in the GM 'debate', Monsanto (St. Louis) and the rest of industry has already “been blamed for everything from farmer suicides to lacing milk with growth hormone and pesticides.” Perhaps the implementation of a system of transparency concerning industry interactions at institutions undertaking agricultural research would go some way to restoring public trust in scientists working with the seed and agrochemical industry.