Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) m Alter: template type, title, pages, issue. Add: doi, year, pmc, pmid, pages, issue, volume, journal. Removed parameters. Formatted dashes. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | User-activated. |
SashiRolls (talk | contribs) + |
||
Line 6:
The publicity surrounding publication of the article also attracted criticism, with science writer Declan Butler calling it "a tightly orchestrated media offensive".<ref name="ButlerNatureNews10Oct2012">{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/490158a |title=Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny |date=10 October 2012 |last1=Butler |first1=Declan |journal=Nature |volume=490 |issue=7419 |pages=158 |pmid=23060167}}</ref> As part of a [[news embargo]], Séralini required journalists to sign an unusual [[confidentiality agreement]] in exchange for advance access to the article, prohibiting them from conferring with other scientists before the [[Science by press conference|press conference]] announcing publication.{{refn|group=n|[[Agence France-Presse]], 20 September 2012: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication."<ref name=AFP20Sept2012/>}} At the press conference, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications, and photographs from the article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated by the media.<ref name=AFP20Sept2012>{{cite web|title=France orders probe after rat study links genetically modified corn to cancer|url=http://www.dawn.com/news/750751/france-orders-probe-after-rat-study-links-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer|publisher=Agence France-Presse|date=20 September 2012}}</ref> The French Society of Toxicologic Pathology pointed out that, because such tumors are commonly found in older rats, the inclusion in the article of those images from treated rats, without also showing control rats, was misleading.<ref name=Barale-ThomasMarch2013/> Séralini also released a book and documentary film about the study in conjunction with the press conference.<ref name="ButlerNatureNews25Sept2012">{{cite journal|author=Butler, Declan|url=http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471|title=Rat study sparks GM furore|journal=Nature News|volume=489|issue=7417|pages=484|date=25 September 2012|doi=10.1038/489484a|pmid=23018942}}</ref>
Following widespread criticism by scientists, ''Food and Chemical Toxicology'' retracted the paper in November 2013 after the authors refused to withdraw it.<ref name=Elsevier2013>{{cite web|title=Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology|url=http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology|publisher=Elsevier|date=28 November 2013}}</ref> The editor-in-chief said that the article was retracted because its data were inconclusive and its conclusions unreliable.<ref name=Hayes2014/> In June 2014 an amended version of the article was republished in ''[[Environmental Sciences Europe]]'', and the raw data were made public. According to writer Nathanael Johnson, not all of the raw data was, in fact, released.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Nathanael|title=Retracted Roundup-fed rat research republished|url=https://grist.org/food/retracted-roundup-fed-rat-research-republished/|accessdate=4 April 2018|publisher=Grist|date=1 July 2014}}</ref> The journal did not conduct any further [[Scholarly peer review|peer review]]; reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed.<ref name=CassasusNatureNews25June2014>{{cite journal|doi=10.1038/nature.2014.15463|last1=Cassasus|first1=Barbara|title=Paper claiming GM link with tumours republished|journal=Nature|date=25 June 2014}}</ref>
==Background==
Line 95:
Séralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction,<ref name="Casassus" /><ref>Michael Hiltzik for the Los Angeles Times. 29 November 2013 [http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/29/business/la-fi-mh-gmo-20131129 Notorious anti-GMO study is retracted – creating more controversy]</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Portier|first=Christopher J.|author2=Goldman, Lynn R. |author3=Goldstein, Bernard D. |title=Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don't!|journal=Environmental Health Perspectives|date=1 February 2014|volume=122|issue=2|pages=A36|doi=10.1289/ehp.1408106|pmid=24486734|pmc=3915254}}</ref> and Séralini himself threatened to sue FCT.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/29/notorious-seralini-gmo-cancer-rat-study-retracted-ugly-legal-battle-looms/ | title=Séralini Threatens Lawsuit In Wake Of Retraction Of Infamous GMO Cancer Rat Study | work=[[Forbes]] | date=29 November 2013 | accessdate=19 February 2014 | author=Entine, Jon}}</ref> A [[Bioethics|bioethicist]] with the [[NIH]] examined the case and wrote in the ''[[Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics ]]'' that articles should not be retracted for inconclusiveness, but that retraction due to flaws in study design or due to ethical violations may be appropriate, and that republication of retracted papers should occur only after additional peer review.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Resnik|first1=David B.|title=Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study|journal=Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics|date=25 April 2015|volume=28|issue=4|pages=621–633|doi=10.1007/s10806-015-9546-y|pmid=26251636|pmc=4524344}}</ref>
On 1 August 2017, as part of a lawsuit against Monsanto, documents were released showing, among other things, that the Editor-in-Chief, Wallace Hayes, had once had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. Hayes said in an interview that he did not have a contract with Monsanto when he retracted Seralini's paper, and that his decision to retract it was not influenced by Monsanto at all.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html|title=Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer|last=Hakim|first=Danny|date=2017-08-01|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-10-18|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
== Republication ==
| |||