Letter to the editor

Sanders, Dale; Kamoun, Sophien; Williams, Bella; Festing, Michael F. W.

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.10.049

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several critics pointed out flaws with the statistical analysis used in the study, such as lack of power analysis to justify the sample size (Arjo et al 2013), and no formulation of statistical hypotheses to be tested (Arjo et al 2013) or statistical analysis of the main endpoints of the study (Arjo et al 2013; Ollivier 2013; Sanders et al 2013). Several critics analyzed the data for the main endpoints (morality, tumors, organ and tissue damage) and found no statistically significant differences between groups (Ollivier 2013; Panchin 2013; Sanders et al 2013).…”

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several critics analyzed the data for the main endpoints (morality, tumors, organ and tissue damage) and found no statistically significant differences between groups (Ollivier 2013; Panchin 2013; Sanders et al 2013). …”

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several critics pointed out that the published paper omitted key experimental details, including information concerning how much food and water the rats consumed, how the food was prepared, and how the pathological analysis was done (Arjo et al 2013; Barale-Thomas 2013; Robert et al 2013; Sanders et al 2013). …”

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several critics pointed out that the article mentioned supporting data for the study but that access was not provided (Arjo et al 2013; Robert et al 2013; Sanders et al 2013). …”

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several critics argued that the authors of the study caused unjustified pain and suffering to the rats by allowing the tumors to grow beyond the point when the standard of animal care would require euthanasia (Arjo et al 2013; Barale-Thomas 2013; Robert et al 2013; Sanders et al 2013). …”

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study

Resnik

2015

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors’ consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair.

show abstract

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several critics pointed out that the article mentioned supporting data for the study but that access was not provided (Arjo et al 2013; Robert et al 2013; Sanders et al 2013). …”

Section: Criticism Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%