“In a time of universal deceit -
telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell, author of 'Nineteen
Eighty-Four'
The frantic damage-limitation exercise launched
in response to the publication of Professor Séralini's evidence of long-term
harm from a GM maize and its associated herbicide [1] has stepped up an
interesting notch.
After spending over a year listening to the
sounds of pro-biotech panic, the editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) journal have
decided to retract the paper. An unnamed
FCT panel has recommended that, because “no definitive conclusion” could be
reached from the data on mortality or tumour incidence due to the number of animals
in each group and the strain of rat used, the science should be written out of
scientific history.
Professor
Séralini followed the OECD chronic toxicity protocol as was
entirely appropriate for his study. This
requires that any observed “lesions” (including tumours) are recorded. In line with the protocol, Séralini simply reported his observations
without statistical analysis and without drawing definite conclusions.
The rats were a standard laboratory strain
commonly used in this type of study, and were the same as those used by
Monsanto in its own, short-term, feeding study.
Similarly, the number of animals per group conformed to the protocol.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
sets out clear guidelines for retraction in scientific publishing. These are:
- misconduct (data fabrication) or honest error
- plagiarism or redundant publication
- unethical research
As GM Watch points out
“Numerous published
scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with
findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the
findings and refine scientific undersqanding of any uncertainties”.
GM-free Scotland has previously reported on
the 'life or death' power of journal editors, and how industry is exploiting
this for its own, commercial, ends [2].
Séralini was well aware of this and kept his long-term experiment quiet
until the day of publication, knowing that otherwise it would never see the
light of day.
Cardiologist, Peter Wilmshurst, who has
made a special study of misconduct in his own field of medical research (see
box) points out the significant financial incentives for journal editors to
publish industry-friendly papers as these will attract industry advertising and
reprints. Add to this, the fear of
lawsuits brought by industry keeps a quiet stranglehold on the publication of
negative evidence about its products.
Interestingly, Wilmshurst notes that in his
experience “It is a long, hard, and thankless task to get concerns about
research published”. This does not, it
seems, apply to GM-unfriendly findings.
Wilmshurst ends, chillingly, that better
and more honest scrutiny of medical papers would be costly for the journals,
“but it would be cheaper than the cost to society of allowing patients to
suffer from ineffective or dangerous treatments and of diverting other
researchers up blind alleys”. A novel
food, inadequately tested for safety will cause more widespread suffering than
any medical treatment, and will perpetuate that harm through the further
mis-guided science it promotes.
Peter Wilmshurst
Cardiologist, Peter Wilmshurst,
describes how early in his career
“I was threatened with litigation if I revealed that a new drug for heart failure was ineffective and caused life-threatening side-effects.”
After three major journals had refused to publish the details of the study because of fear they might be sued for libel by the company, Wilmshurst exposed it to the newspapers.
“I was threatened with litigation if I revealed that a new drug for heart failure was ineffective and caused life-threatening side-effects.”
After three major journals had refused to publish the details of the study because of fear they might be sued for libel by the company, Wilmshurst exposed it to the newspapers.
When publishing his own research (which
had implications for the health and survival of patients) no editor of a
medical journal has ever asked for evidence for any claim made. When writing about research misconduct, the
journal's editors require that every statement can be confirmed by supporting
documents to the satisfaction of the journals' lawyers to avoid the risk of a
libel claim. Clearly, for the editors of
many medical journals, the finances of the journal are more important than the
lives of patients who might be harmed by publication of research that cannot be
substantiated.
OUR COMMENT
FCT's editorial board also ended their
letter to Séralini regarding their
decision to retract his paper on a chilling note. Apparently the board intend to “continue to
use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer review
process”. Does this mean their original
chosen(unnamed) peer reviewers who recognised the study had merit despite its
limitations, will be replaced by more carefully selected (unnamed) reviewers to
ensure GM-unfriendly evidence is suppressed?
Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is
arriving four decades late in the world of science publishing. FCT editors are happy, it seems, to re-write
the COPE guidelines, rewrite OECD protocols, rewrite the established
peer-review process, and rewrite history.
It is, indeed, a “time of universal deceit”.
This must be an unfortunate precedent for a
science journal to set, and is unlikely to be the end of the matter.
Background reading
[1]
GM MAIZE IS NOT SAFE TO EAT - October 2012
[2]
EDITED SCIENCE - June 2013
SOURCES:
Letter to Professor Séralini from Food and Chemical Toxicology, 19.11.13
Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical, Statement by GM Watch, 28.11.13
Letter to Professor Séralini from Food and Chemical Toxicology, 19.11.13
Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical, Statement by GM Watch, 28.11.13
Peter Wilmshurst, Obstacles to honesty in science: the case of medical research, Scientists for Global Responsibility Newsletter, Autumn 2013, Issue 42
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.