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

Abstract

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.

Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?

“…Recent years have, however, witnessed a number of controversies among which was the highly publicized study by Séralini et al (2014) reporting that herbicide resistant GM corn and associated herbicide can lead to long-term toxic effects in rats including tumour formations. The study was first retracted by the Editor-in-Chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology, then republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, and eventually divided the scientific environment into critics and those demanding further studies (Loening 2015;Resnik 2015). It also received heavy media coverage which may, at least partially, be responsible for the public fear that GM foods can cause cancer notwithstanding the results of previous shorttem toxicity studies (DeRosier 2015).…”

The Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science?

“…Fourth, FCT does not adhere consistently to the "policy" upon which Hayes based his retraction of Séralini et al [2], as Séralini et al [24] state: "FCT's retraction of our paper, while not retracting studies-Zhang et al [25] and Hammond et al [4]is an example of unscientific double standards. The decision to retract our paper appears to be resultdriven, in that findings of safety in Zhang et al [25] and Hammond et al [4] have not been subjected to critical analysis and have been allowed to stand, whereas our findings of risk have been viewed with suspicion and forcibly retracted.…”

“…The decision to retract our paper appears to be resultdriven, in that findings of safety in Zhang et al [25] and Hammond et al [4] have not been subjected to critical analysis and have been allowed to stand, whereas our findings of risk have been viewed with suspicion and forcibly retracted. As a result, economic interests have been given precedence over public health".…”

Retraction by corruption: the 2012 Séralini paper

“…Much has been written about the "Séralini affair": including a discussion of the experiment and its repercussions in a book by Fagan, Antoniou and Robinson [8]; in a paper by Fagan, Traavik and Bøhn [9] describing the experiment and placing it in the context of the growing practice of retraction followed by republication; in a paper by Resnick [10] with the purpose of drawing lessons for journal editors; and in articles summarizing the Séralini paper and its aftermath by Engdahl [11] and Novotny [12]. The present paper brings together the evidence of widespread corruption among individuals, organizations and regulators, resulting from interests associated with the GM industry, and which led to the retraction, together with new developments that corroborate the validity of the Séralini et al study.…”