Misplaced Pages

Talk:Séralini affair

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 13:16, 16 December 2015 (→Petition: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:16, 16 December 2015 by JzG (talk | contribs) (→Petition: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Séralini affair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the safety of genetically modified food. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the safety of genetically modified food at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject Genetics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAgriculture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

ENSSER study and Seralini support

Besides removal of recent edits by me and David Tornheim Jytdog also removed the following:

  • In this edit editor Jytdog removes a study which has been part of the article for a long time.
  • In this edit he removes recent editor edits, and an article by testbiotech, which has been part of the article for a long time. It appears that Jytdog removes anything which doesn't comes from corporate related sources, and all mentions of science in those regards. Hence, why his edits likely show none neutral editing. prokaryotes (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Prokaryotes I am having trouble following. For your first point, it seems like the user removed information about some study unrelated to the Seralini affair. What objection do you have to that? Are you able to explain the connection between that study and the subject of this article?
For the second point the phrase "The paper also received support from the scientific community." was removed, but that statement did not have a citation. Do you object to that removal? Do you have a citation for the statement?
Say something more about what you want to see. Jytdog - could I ask you to make fewer changes per edit (if you edit more, while this is discussed) because if someone questions your actions then I would like to make it easy for them to point out what the problem is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry, point 1 is a direct response to Séralini's feeding study - by scientists from the scientific community. The second point in the header area is to summarize the content. There have been various responses from the scientific community in support of Séralini (See for instance Point 1). What Jytdog is doing here is censoring information, when he removes withotu mention, without discussion content. Ironically above section tries to bring NPOV to the attention of editors, entirely ignored by Jytdog. prokaryotes (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. Jytdog, how do you feel about that source being used to back the statement "A study funded by and conducted in consultation with ENSSER also concluded that EFSA applied double standards." Does the paper say that? Is it a reliable source for saying this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record Bluerasberry (talk · contribs), Jytdog's single edit was a return to the article as it was before Prryokate edited. Phyr took 4 edits, Jytdog one. Same thing, so no need for Jytdog to worry about his editing in this case, a simple glance at the edit history would have told you this. Phyr now holds the WP:BURDEN for that content I believe? I see Phyrokates appears to be following and hounding Jytdog nowadays. Is this just more DramaH -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I was confused because Jytdog's edit did not say "undone". Thanks.
I think it is best to keep tension low without calling anything drama. Everyone can give comment. Prokaryotes - any response? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The editor removed long standing content from the page, ignoring above discussion about NPOV as well. Roxy the dog's comment is wrong. Jytdog's edits removed content from the page, without notice in the edit summary, without any discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Prokaryotes I am confused. Here is the before and after, with your edits inbetween. It looks like Jytdog only reverted what you did. Am I looking in the wrong place? Can you show more specifically what is removed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
As i linked above, Jytdog removes the study from enveurope.com, which has been added 30 January 2014.prokaryotes (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
... The enveurope citation was removed, quite rightly, by Jytdog with the edit summary "remove another popup claire robinson website as source - not reliable" - at 11:32 on the 30th Jan 2014, eight minutes later. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
No it was not removed 11:32 30th Jan 2014 ... Roxy dog, i am not sure what your want but if you comment you should take care that the information is accurate, especially when you comment during an edit dispute. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, the link you linked to shows that it was removed on 30 January 2014 at 6:32. Other than the time (which may vary depending on time zone), Roxy's comment above appears to be correct. Everymorning (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that it was removed in a different edit then given above by Roxy, however a few edits later it was readd by Jytdog (Summary: added content as per Talk) - The point is this study was part of the article from Jan 2014 until 2 days ago.prokaryotes (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • about this dif; What we are not doing in this article, is re-litigating the Seralini affair. Whatever ENSSER publishes later, changes nothing about the quality of Seralini's 2012 paper or its conclusions. Adding a much later publication by someone else, about something else, is not relevant to the Seralini affair. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
1) Jytdog added the study himself (dif), per talk page 2) Yes the study is about the Seralini paper. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ping Vindheim prokaryotes (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
offtopic Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You just broke 4RR Prokaryotes. I will give you a chance to selfrevert. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you are very disruptive and aggressive. Why do you ignore your obvious error that the study is on topic, you yourself added it. And no explanation whatsoever why you removed it without discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
As you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
why are you pinging this "Vindheim", P? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
He will possibly not respond, after interacting with you he stopped using Misplaced Pages and left.prokaryotes (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody talking here understands the issue you are raising, Prokaryotes. Not me, not Bluerasperry, not Roxy. I suggest you respond to Blueraspberry's question above, and we can take it from there. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
What part did you not understand? I suggest you stay away from playing dumb. prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't follow what you are writing above. Yes other people have to tried to add that source. It is the same journal that republished Seralini's study and the authors are from an advocacy group that supported Seralini from day 1; this is not independent of the controversy. We reach for independent sources as much as we can. Also the content you added calls this a study, and it is not a study as they did not do any actual experiments. All this source does is try to amplify the argument that Seralini has been making all along that the studies required by regulators are not long enough. It is also FRINGE in comparing the experiments that Seralini did to the studies that Monsanto did. The experimental design is completely different. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It is clear that Prokaryotes wants to add a poor source, although the reason appears to have nothing to do with the Seralini affair. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Roxy are you sure that the ENSSER rat feeding study has nothing to do with the Seralini affair? Because the ENSSER study mentions the Seralini study 53 times. Jytdog added the study himself in 2014, until he suddenly removed the study 3 days ago. prokaryotes (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, what do you mean with a poor source? This is a peer reviewed journal and the study is in support of the Seralini study, hence why it belongs in the support section. prokaryotes (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you carry the WP:BURDEN for this poor source, could you explain why you feel that analysis of the Seralini data by advocates for Seralini, as has been explained multiple times here, and directly to you in this section, is reliable? thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Could we start over with a rewording? The text in dispute is needlessly accusative and ambiguous anyway. We have some organization, ENSSER, saying something about the Seralini study. The proposed text says "the study found double standards", but does not clarify what that means. Can someone who wants the text say something like "ENSSER did a study to examine the Seralini study, and found that..." Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that editors who support the inclusion of this study are pretty busy on other things right now. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Recent edits seem to me to involve a fair bit of polemic. For example, the commentary of the Science Media Centre is qualified by an accusation of "substantial funding" by the biotech industry and is not sourced to SMC's statement but to an article in, unless I am misreading things, the same journal that republished Séralini, which makes the claim of substantial finding and cites a source (Nature) which is (a) an opinion piece and (b) does not actually say that SMC receives substantial funding from the industry (it lists a number of sponsors, some of whom are biotech companies). So a source with a dog in the fight is quoted despite its claims not matching its own primary source, and this is done in order to poison the well in respect of SMC. There are plenty of valid criticisms of SMC - it is a science apologist organisation more than a neutral science communications source - but the funding issue is one thing on which they are actually pretty clean, they have a lot of sources of income, no sponsor is allowed to contribute more than 5% of the budget, and the separation between income and activities is pretty sound. It is reminiscent of the homeopaths trying to discount Sense About Science because of nebulous claims of "pharma funding" which actually track back to a couple of small donations which are insignificant overall. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases

A request for an Arbcom case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminder - DS and 1RR

Reminder to those who are engaging in a revert tug-of-war the last day or so -- this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and has a strict 1RR per editor per page per 24 hour period, pursuant to the temporary injunction at the Arb case. Please keep in mind the spirit as well as the letter of the injunction. Minor4th 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Award

This addition mentioned an award from a German group that I removed due to weight concerns largely because we don't include awards glorifying a fringe subject and also because the underlying source paints a substantially different picture than the current mainstream description of the controversy. We already have quite a few notes under the support section with WP:FRINGE and WP:BALANCE in mind. That would have been the time to come to this page if anyone felt strongly about including it as there wasn't consensus for it, but it looks like Minor4th has readded the content. We do need to be wary about including more information like this with weight in mind. Is there any reasoning for including this piece of content and the source? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The award appears to be given by a small German pressure group of anti newklear scientists (less than 400 members) and anti newkular lawyers who I've never heard of. I think this is way WP:UNDUE and intend to revert. Neither organisation are prominent enough. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Minor4th 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, republished under peer-review

To say the article 'was not peer-reviewed' when republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, is an absurdity, and shows the writer does not understand science. Those scientists at the Environmental Sciences Europe, are independent peer-reviewers of the peer-reviewed research. They checked it, it was properly conducted. That's peer-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated the Séralini paper as republished in June 2014 and concluded, that the study “was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.”IARC monograph on glyphosate, p. 35, right column The study is only suitable to present an example of "junk science".--Shisha-Tom (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is Shisha Tom not pointing out who sponsored the study? Also notice that his link does not work. Re Monsanto sponsoring fantasy http://www.techtimes.com/articles/114226/20151208/scientists-hired-by-monsanto-say-weed-killer-glyphosate-does-not-cause-cancer.htm and here http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0T61QL20151117 prokaryotes (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The headline from Reuters says more about this than all the bluster in the entire history of this talk page: "Mixed message on weed-killer reflects reality of scientific uncertainty". Science can't prove a negative. The evidence is not definitive either way, and it is unlikely it will be in the near term. The only thing we do know with absolute certainty is that the Séralini paper is worthless. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Next time before you make bold statements about the scientific process i suggest you google for "science absolute certainty" and such. GL. prokaryotes (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Monsanto did not sponsor the IARC monograph; see pg 35. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Did this paper, the republished one, magically get peer reviewed since publication, somehow. That would be clever. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Science cannot prove a negative, in cases like this. It can prove beyond any rational doubt that there is no credible evidence of something, but as the cranks are forever reminding us, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regardless, the Séralini study is worthless, and that is the only relevance here. Even if a link is one day proved between glyphosate and cancer in humans, which it absolutely has not been at this stage, it would not validate Séralini, because his work is, as we describe in the article, well below acceptable scientific standards. If you want to argue the toss about the evils of glyphosate (what am I saying? if? of course you do!) then this is not the correct venue. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
We go by the reliable sources, here as linked above. Hence your comment resemble poor opinion, because it is in stark contrast to what the science actually states. If you want to preach that the study of S is worthless you should find a forum for that. prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@prokaryotes:Actually, why should I discuss with a person, who is not able to distinguish between an scientific organisation of the World Health Organization such as IARC, which classified glyphosate as probably carcinogen, and the company Monsanto, who opossed the IARC classification since spring 2015. Interestingly, IARC was able to classify glyphosate as possible carcinogen without the scientific rubbish of Seralini.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct. And the devil is, as always, in the detail. Extensive evaluation of people working with the product contradicts earlier findings suggesting a modest increase in risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but there is evidence from animal studies (other than those by Séralini) to suggest a plausible link. What that almost certainly means is that it is carcinogenic only at levels unlikely to be experienced by anybody. It also indicates that monitoring and further epidemiological studies are prudent. I will continue to use RoundUp in my garden, because it works, but I will be sure to follow the PPE and other safety instructions. Anybody who panics about RoundUp but still drinks alcohol or uses TCM products, is not behaving rationally. All agriculture uses herbicides and pesticides. All pesticides and I think most if not all herbicides are toxic at some level. Caffeine is a neurotoxin. It's a big, bad, scary world out there and we're evolved to survive it so for all the alarmism and the "Daily Mail oncological ontology project", the soundest advice is probably: don't be an idiot and you'll be fine :-) Guy (Help!) 20:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG (also known as Guy) removes study links from Seralini

  • Ironically admin JzG (Guy) removes peer reviewed study papers from Seralini, on the article about Seralini. DIF
  • Additional he removes the mention that Seralini's paper are peer reviewed. DIF
  • Removes key information, long part of the article that the study has been peer-reviewed. DIF
  • JzG removes the republication as well. DIF prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No irony involved.
  • Study by Séralni was cited directly to the study. That violates WP:PRIMARY. The article only exists because the original paper by Séralini is highly problematic, so it is very important to ensure that any other work by the same author is covered only with reference to reliable independent sources that establish its significance and validity. This is an absolutely standard application of policy and guidelines.
  • I removed the redundant term "peer-reviewed" (any scientific paper that is not peer-reviewed is unlikely to make much impact), I also asked for clarification re the weasel words "some members of the scientific community and food safety authorities", which is hardly controversial.
  • I changed "Reviewers instead checked that the content of the paper matched the previously peer-reviewed version" to "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" because the former plainly sought to imply that the original peer-review was valid despite subsequent retraction, which is a problematic claim with any scientific publication. As it turns out, the correct statement of affairs was different again, as I later clarified here, and that in turn was later edited by I am One of Many her, an edit I reverted as implying the opposite POV, i.e. that the second journal was guilty of some malfeasance (rather than, say, simple incompetence) in republishing.
  • I removed the citation to the republished paper as a source for the statement "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" - because it doesn't support that statement in any of its forms, yours, mine, my revised version, or IaOoM's version, because the paper does not address the question of the journal's review process at all, nor should it, so it can't possibly be a source for a statement about that process.
Feel free to ask for clarification of any other edits, I am always happy to explain any edit I make. 22:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Recently admin JzG (also known under the name Guy) removed systematical all the mentions that Seralini's studies have been published in peer reviewed literature, and removed at least 2 related study papers (See DiF's in above section). Since the admin appears unwilling to discuss his edits (see above section), I ask for other opinions.

  • 1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
  • 2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
  • 3. Should Arbcom enforce discretionary sanctions for admin JzG (See recent decision in regards to GMO's), since it seems to me that his edits are disruptive, and he shows no signs of willingness to work in a community environment, and to support neutral articles. prokaryotes (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Most published studies should be peer reviewed so there is generally no need to say this if we say it is published in a scientific journal. The problem here seems to stem from the fact that a Seralini paper was later retracted by the journal and then re-published without any further peer review. Retraction itself is extremely rare as is publishing without further peer review. I am not we should use this rare occurrence to highlight the norm for a particular article. The second point seems to relate to the removal of a study published by Seralini supporting his other claims. Personally I think this can be included as long as responses to it are also included. Most published material gets responses and I am sure Seralini gets his fair share. I addressed the third point above and feel it should be removed as it will distract from the rfc. AIRcorn (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the above, in response to the three questions you pose above. Exactly as Aircorn says above, I removed redundant use of the term "peer reviewed" because virtually all scientific research is published that way, and including it amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority unless it's specifically relevant due to issues with the peer review itself (as for example the extremely unusual review prior to the republication of the retracted 2012 paper). The quesitons you include above are a prime example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Especially since I actually also toned down what seemed to me to be a very problematic description of the process adopted by ESE, a characterisation of the process which I think went well beyond what Nature says in the cited source and looks to be trying to accuse ESE of deliberately publishing fraudulent research. Feel free to report my edits at the noticeboards if you think they fall short of NPOV, but demands for ArbCom sanctions against named editors against whom you have a grudge do have a habit of backfiring. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You ignore the fact that the paper has been peer-reviewed before, and now you claim "extremely unusual review prior to the republication". Also read what Aircorn wrote again, its not exactly what you want, but you pretend it is. prokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Now you're starting to sound like Dana Ullman demanding that no interpretation of any study is valid other than his own. This is a retracted paper, republished without any modification from the original. That's pretty unusual. In fact I can't think of a single other example (though no doubt they exist). And the only previous example I that springs to mind where a paper has been launched by press release in advance of its formal publication is Fleischmann & Pons' cold fusion paper. The source draws attention to the fact that there was no further peer review, and all I am doing is following the source. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you now Wikihounding me? Notice that Alexbrn is claiming i edit war here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ayurveda#Recent_edits and immediately looks up my other edits, and posts not in support. prokaryotes (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What!? As you know I was on your Talk page, and so I noticed there mention of an RfC. Being an eager member of the community, when I see an RfC that I can participate in, I do it! (That's the whole point of RfC's ain't it?) Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You intimidate me, you threaten me, you follow my other edits, over basic article improvements - whats next? prokaryotes (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't think you're right. If you have problems with my behaviour take it to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the above in fact, this RfC demonstrates a certain lack of the HT in IDHT. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the above. It goes to WP:RS, WP:DUE, and common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • tentative Include I've looked at the four diffs above and I think the removal of the fact that Seralini has published other papers which come to the same, albeit dubious, or similar conclusions that HAVE undergone peer review or at least are in peer reviewed journals is relevant to the article. However, I can't find sources which state this. If PK has such sources Id appreciate them being provided before this RFC closes. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
All his studies have been published in peer reviewed journals, which is not explicit mentioned, but normally foudn on journal websites under about or similar links. The study from 2011 which i refer above has 91 cites which is also an indicator which merits mentioning, and since we have a section for previous papers, which are related to the 2012 publication. The study from the first DIF above was published in Environmental Sciences Europe, 2011. It also is noteworthy that the retracted paper from 2012 by Food and Chemical Toxicology was retracted because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors - they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. Later publications by S were again published in FCT. prokaryotes (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You do not appear to be making any observations here that are new, or worthy of inclusion in our article. So my response to you is "so what?" -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is not a magic talisman conferring immunity form criticism. There are many factors that are taken into account when assessing published work, which include things like journal impact factor, reputations of journals for uncritical publication of certain subjects (Chinese journals publishing studies on acupuncture, for example), responses within the literature and more widely, subsequent replication and so on. The Séralini affair specifically refers to a journal article that was retracted - that's a big black mark even if someone else subsequently republishes it. You appear to be trying to use Misplaced Pages to "fix" a real-world issue, which is that this study is currently considered to be worthless and its republication questionable. I understand that you wish it were not so, but that is what the sources say. It's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hired referees

Hi Guy, I do think that the sourced fact that the three reviewers were hired is extraordinary in science. When I review proposals for NIH I get paid, but never for reviewing scientific articles nor do I know of anyone who has. I think because the hiring is sourced and unusual, it should be included. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Related source "ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds." http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463 Ofc, the fact that it had been conducted earlier is missing from this article, causing now confusion. prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Either it's perfectly normal (and thus not worth mentioning) or it's unusual, in which case we'd need some kind of context telling us how unusual. I have no opinion either way, other than that saying they were hired for the job gives the appearance, to me, of accusing the journal of something. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It is unusual to hire reviewers for a journal article, so I think it would be misleading to leave it out. On the other hand, it is not good to have implied wrong-doing by including it. Perhaps the best way to go is to simply quote in context. Such as:
According to Nature, the editor-in-chief of ESEU, Henner Hollert, stated that "The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper."
--I am One of Many (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with that. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

More background

This article From Watchdogs to Lapdogs: How Corporate Media Mislead Us on GMOs, highlights some of the issues discussed in the article. Maybe a good source to improve content. prokaryotes (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe a good source" ! Really? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I hope you're joking. Please say this was not seriously being proposed as a source? Guy (Help!) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this trolling ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If you don't like Truth Out take this recent article (Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Pro-GMO Propaganda Using Taxpayer Dollars) which links to other major media NYT Bloomberg etc., considered reliable - which you can lookup, though not mentioning Seralini Affair directly. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to propose a specific edit based on specific reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Another Truth Out article ... Did you link the wrong thing or is it really true (!) you're proposing that Truth Out can be a reliable source for us? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think and may be relevant, since the article is an uncritical report of USRTK's attempts to "do a climategate". USRTK is, of course, a spectacularly unreliable source with a vested interest in anti-GMO activism so any uncritical reporting of their position needs very careful handling. Oh, is also interesting in context. On the other hand we have , which has truthiness - I would not trust Monsanto further than I could throw Séralini. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Also , (not RS but interesting context), and Keith Kloor's commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not realize that there was so much similarity between climate denial and extreme ant-GMO groups. These articles about academics bolstering propaganda favoring GMOs are extremely misleading.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's one of the really weird things: the two groups are diametrically opposed, philosophically (gaia versus libertarian capitalism, basically) and yet they both use exactly the same tactics and recognise them for what they are when the other side uses them. It's fascinating. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Admin JzG/Guy removed the reason for the retraction of the study which is the scope of this article. A rather on point info, but some think otherwise.

  • Suggested edit: "In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), retracted Séralini's paper after the authors refused to withdraw it, because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
While the bit after the dash is correct, yes, the use of "not for any scientific errors" is completely unfounded. The choice of rats and small sampling size were what caused the journal to deem the results "inconclusive." They simply ruled out INTENTIONAL deception, not poor science. Parabolist (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Changed that part. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And to be pedantic, they did not rule out, they just said they found no evidence of intentional dodginess. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So you do agree to include this key info? prokaryotes (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC is on your (incidentally ungrammatical) wording, which is not a really neutral expansion of the reasons for withdrawal. We can include the "no fraud" stuff but need to accompany it with an accurate account of why the article has retraction imposed: the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No change needed, as stated by Alexbrn above, so oppose this proposal. The reason for withdrawal was: "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology." In other words, the conclusions were not supported by the data. I have no objection to including a qualifier along the lines of "while the editors found fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data", but the reason for withdrawal was that the data did not support the conclusions and we don't water that down. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The journal makes it very clear, quote: "A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached", and quote: "Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." What you and Alexbrn are concluded does not match up. prokaryotes (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes: Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. We are not going to say otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Petition

I removed this text:

In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.

References

  1. "Statement - Journal retraction of Séralini GMO study is invalid and an attack on scientific integrity". endsciencecensorship.org.

I think the reasons for removal should be obvious: the existence of the petition is cited to the petition itself (which invites suspicion of solicitation, and is the reason why petition sites are blacklisted); the petition is on a website "set up by concerned citizens and scientists in response to the retraction from the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology of the study by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues", with no other petitions at all. This is an abject failure of WP:RS. Obviously if anyone wants to restore mention of the petition by reference to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishing significance and context. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories: