Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t!

Portier, Christopher J.; Goldman, Lynn R.; Goldstein, Bernard D.

doi:10.1289/ehp.1408106

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mezzomo et al [45] was retracted by the editors without explanation, but was quickly republished in another peer-reviewed journal [46]. This trend raises larger scientific questions, two of which were expressed aptly by Portier et al [23]: The republication of Séralini et al [2] as Séralini et al [3] firmly establishes the data presented therein as peerreviewed science that must be considered by scientists and regulators alike. However, as events in the time subsequent to republication attest, efforts to discredit these results continue.…”

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Regarding this, Portier et al [23] state, "To our knowledge, there is no precedent for 'inconclusive data' being a reason for retraction for Elsevier or other publishers, or elsewhere in the scientific literature. To single out this one study for retraction is almost certainly due to the controversy following its publication".…”

Section: Imposed Retractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Portier et al [23] raise another question bringing into sharp focus society's loss if such a precedent were to be established: "Does this retraction strengthen the scientific process, or does it confuse scientific discourse with public relations? "…”

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet when research results are not in line with short-term business priorities, there seems to be no hesitation to attempt to interfere with and manipulate the scientific process [23,44].…”

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"Scientific discourse" whose priority is anything other than progressively unfolding more complete understanding is not scientific discourse, but, as Portier et al [23] say, "public relations". Taking this path risks killing the goose, and this threatens the greater public good, as well as industry's own best interests.…”

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A paper reporting findings relevant to safety of the genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and the herbicide Roundup (Séralini et al., Food Chem Toxicol. 50:4221-4231, 2012) was retracted against the wishes of the authors, and subsequently republished in another peer-reviewed journal (Séralini et al. Environ Sci Europe, doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5, 2014. These events exemplify a trend in which disputes, between interest groups vying for retraction and republication of papers that report controversial results, overshadow the normal scientific process in which peer-reviewed publication stimulates new research, generating new empirical evidence that drives the evolution of scientific understanding. This paper reviews the current status of research on safety of NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide for human and livestock health, and attempts to glean from recent developments insights relevant to risk assessment policy for GM crops and pesticides, as well as relevant to the scientific process in general. Our analysis of currently published evidence confirms NK603 and Roundup are kidney and liver toxicants at levels below current regulatory thresholds. Consequently, the regulatory status of NK603, glyphosate and Roundup requires reevaluation. Additionally, preliminary evidence indicates Roundup and NK603, individually and in combination, may increase tumor incidence and mortality. Follow-up long-term carcinogenicity studies, using test animal strains and numbers of animals that assure robust conclusions, are required to confirm/refute this preliminary evidence. The inherent tension between the scientific process and commercial interests of product developers necessitates implementation of safeguards that protect the scientific process and prevent degeneration of Science to Re-Science (typified by retraction and republication disputes).

show abstract

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Imposed Retractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet when research results are not in line with short-term business priorities, there seems to be no hesitation to attempt to interfere with and manipulate the scientific process [23,44].…”

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientific Knowledge and The Process Of Peer Review: Re-publmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Need for a Closer Look at Pesticide Toxicity during GMO Assessment

Mesnage

Séralini

2014

Practical Food Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public policy is regularly shaken by health crises or unexpected discoveries; future directions in toxicology assessment are therefore urgently needed. This chapter focuses on agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because they are essentially pesticide-plants, designed to tolerate and/or produce new pesticide residues in food and feed. Moreover, the usual concepts of regulatory toxicology become erroneous or insufficient with regards to endocrine or nervous disruption, or epigenetic effects. Most pollutants affect cell-cell communication systems in the same way as unsolicited spam emails, and may promote chronic and environmental pathologies. We also describe how formulated pes ticides are mixtures which have not been investigated for their long-term toxicities. They contain adjuvants that are even more toxic than the sup posedly active principle. Finally, long-term and multigenerational testing in vivo often appears essential. This can be accomplished within two years on rats, independently of the biotechnology industry, with raw data being transparent to the scientific community to allow healthy debate before the next health crisis.

show abstract