GEO Watch | Gilles-Eric Séralini | Ignacio Chapela Redux
A
CALL TO SCIENTISTS TO
BOYCOTT ELSEVIER JOURNALS
Moderator’s Note: Over the
holiday break we had a repeat of the notoriously unethical case of the journal Nature and its retraction of a rigorous,
well-designed and subsequently replicated study. I am, of course, referring to
the retraction of the study by Ignacio
Chapela and Jonathan Quist verifying introgression of GMO transgenes in
Oaxacan native heirloom maize. This time it is the Elsevier, Inc. journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracting
a study viewed as “unbiased but inconclusive”. The new retraction involves a widely cited study by a French
toxicology team led by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al (2012), which found that rats
fed Monsanto GMO corn and glyphosate-contaminated water developed tumors and
other abnormalities leading to earlier morbidity compared to a control group
fed non-GMO corn and clean water.
 |
| Rats fed GMO corn in the Séralini study. |
We reported on
the Séralini
research project because his research team had just completed the first-ever
two-year feeding trial and many scientists were now calling for this to become
a new standard for the conduct of feeding trials. In stark and damning
contrast, the industry-run feeding trials typically range between as little as
10 days to as many as 3 to 6 weeks. A growing number of risk, toxicology, and
food safety scientists view short duration trials as a decisively flawed
methodology, so it is fascinating to read a retraction based not on the basis
of flawed methods and research design but a vague and absurd unease with “inconclusive”
findings.
If that is the
case, then the scientific journals would do well to also retract all the
industry-sponsored studies based on short-term feeding trials since these are
based on inadequate methods, particularly since the goal is to determine long-term and cumulative effects. This is why biotechnology industry executives,
lobbyists, and on-call scientists have gone after Séralini and his team; just
like they did Ignacio Chapela in 1999. And like the case of Nature’s retraction of the transgenic
maize article, I suspect further evidence will emerge to support and even
replicate the retracted Séralini study. Redux:
A retraction of the retraction will not be forthcoming.
Séralini’s
developed a pioneering method for the conduct of GMO
risk research that first came to general public view in 2012 after
publication of the two long-duration
rat-feeding studies focused on toxicity (Spiroux de Vendômois et al 2009; Séralini
et al. 2012).
Now the
European Network of Sciences for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)
has issued a statement on the retraction that I am posting here for the
convenience of my readers and followers. Among other damning observations about
this retraction, the ENSSER scientists note that: “Inconclusiveness of research
results is not one of the grounds for retraction contained in [the journal’s
own] guidelines” for publication of peer-reviewed studies.
I am calling on all
scientists, who care about the integrity of the peer-review system, to boycott
publishing in any and all Elsevier journals until the retraction is retracted.
Sources cited in moderator’s note:
Spiroux de Vendômois, J., F. Roullie,
D. Cellier, and G.-E. Séralini
2009. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on
mammalian health. International Journal of Biological Sciences
5:7:706-26.
Séralini, Gilles-Eric, et al.
2012. Long term toxicity of a
Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:11:4221-4231.
NOTE: All the images used in this post were added by the site moderator.
ENSSER Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al.
2012 Study
RETRACTION OF
RAT FEEDING PAPER A TRAVESTY
OF SCIENCE AND
A BOW TO INDUSTRY
Elsevier’s
journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof.
Gilles-Eric Séralini’s group which found severe toxic effects (including liver
congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and
higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or
the associated herbicide Roundup[1].
The arguments of the journal’s editor for the retraction, however, violate not
only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but
any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to
the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published.
Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry,
the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. ENSSER points
out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and
independence of science, indeed a travesty of science.
 |
-->
Image courtesy of David Icke
Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal
Elsevier, the
publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology,
has published a statement[2]
saying that the journal’s editor-in-chief, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, “found no
evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”. The statement
mentions only a single reason for the retraction, namely that “the results
presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive”.
According to Hayes, the low
number of rats and the tumour susceptibility of the rat strain used do not
allow definitive conclusions. Now there are guidelines for retractions in
scientific publishing, set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE)[3]. Inconclusiveness of research results is not one of the grounds for
retraction contained in these guidelines. The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology is a member of COPE[4]. ‘Conclusive’
results are rare in science, and certainly not to be decided by one editor and
a secret team of persons using undisclosed criteria and methods. Independent
science would cease to exist if this were to be an accepted mode of procedure.
-->
Séralini paper a chronic toxicity
study, not a full-scale carcinogenicity study
Most notably,
Séralini and his co-authors did not draw any definitive conclusions in the
paper in the first place; they simply reported their observations and phrased
their conclusions carefully, cognizant of their uncertainties. This is because
the paper is a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity
study, which would require a higher number of rats. The authors did not intend
to look specifically for tumours, but still found increased tumour rates.
Secondly, both
of Hayes’s arguments (the number of rats and their tumour susceptibility) were
considered by the peer reviewers of the journal, who decided they formed no
objection to publication.
Thirdly, these
two arguments have been discussed at length in the journal following the
publication of the paper and have been refuted by the authors of the paper and
other experts. Higher numbers of animals are only required in this type of
safety studies to avoid missing toxic effects (a ‘false negative’ result), but
the study found pronounced toxic effects and a first indication of possible
carcinogenic effects.
The
Sprague-Dawley strain of rat which was used, is the commonly used standard for
this type of research. For these reasons, the statistical significance of the
biochemical data was endorsed by statistics experts. The biochemical data
confirm the toxic effects such as those on liver and kidney, which are serious
enough by themselves.
The tumours
and mortality rates are observations which need to be confirmed by a specific
carcinogenicity study with higher numbers of rats; in view of public food
safety, it is not wise to simply ignore them. Unpleasant results should be
checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality
are well-founded.
Who did the reevaluation?
Even more
worrying than the lack of good grounds for the retraction is the fact that the
journal’s editor-in-chief has not revealed who the reviewers were who helped
him to come to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted; nor has he
revealed the criteria and methodology of their reevaluation, which overruled
the earlier conclusion of the original peer-review which supported publication.
In a case like
this, where many of those who denounced the study have long-standing,
well-documented links to the GM industry and, therefore, a clear interest in
having the results of the study discredited, such lack of transparency about
how this potential decision was reached is inexcusable, unscientific and
unacceptable. It raises the suspicion that the retraction is a favour to the
interested industry, notably Monsanto.
ENSSER promotes independent
critical discourse
It is part of
ENSSER’s mission to promote the critical discourse, particularly in Europe, on
new technologies and their impacts. As scientific and technological advances
are increasingly driven by private interest, disinterested independent health
and environmental safety information often lags behind. Uncertainty is inherent
to science, as is the debate between conflicting explanations of findings.
Openness of
this debate and independent research to find the truth are crucial
prerequisites for the survival of independent science. This holds true in
particular for the technology of genetically modified crops, where the safety
studies done by the producers for authorisation of the crops are all too often
not published at all because of business confidentiality of the data and may
not hold up to an independent peer-review. These studies, not only the
independent ones like Séralini’s, should be subject to debate. The public have
a right to be informed of anything related to the safety of their food.
In short, the
decision to retract Séralini’s paper is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow
to its credibility and independence. It is damaging for the reputation of both
the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and its publisher Elsevier. It will
decrease public trust in science. And it will not succeed in eliminating
critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. Such days and times
are definitively over.
Prof. Séralini’s
findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that
there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of
the data – the foundations on which independent science rests. The
conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not
by a secret circle of people.
[1] Séralini,
G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M.,
Hennequin, D., de Vendômois, J.S.: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide
and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology
50 (11), pp. 4221-4231 (2012)
Documents
Comments
Post a Comment