« The Seralini Rule | Main | Why Religion Really Doesn’t Have the Upper Hand over Science »

December 01, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The tall, black-robed wizard/scientist entered the chamber.
Others, also cloaked in black circled the giant stone alter.
The tall wizard joined the circle around the alter and the chanting of ancient, demonic words rose from the group.
Some windows broke the monotony of stone high on each wall, but even the starlight seemed unwilling to enter this chamber.
The scientist rose a hand, sparkling with sorcerous energy high as the chanting increased in volume and speed.
Outside, sheet-lightning lit up half the sky and thunder boomed deafening as the tall wizard lowered his hand to the stone.

And as the light faded, a gaunt, misshapen figure now shifted upon the alter.

At my last job I noticed a lot of this type of view of genetic modification.
Someone even mentioned the Seralini study at one point, mentioned it as proof of the evil of genetic modification. I spun around on the woman with eyes ablaze. She wilted somewhat before me then with an extra breathe and a calming of anger I smiled and shot her a wink. "I'll send you a link", I offered.
The Bronze Blog recently gave a post on this subject so I sent her a link to it. Without missing a beat I remembered that Skeptico had also posted about this so I included a link to the previous post on this blog.
I am frustrated with the acceptance of this kind of dodgy test as well. It seems that the best I can do is make information available to those with beliefs that actually have no basis in evidence.
I hope to influence people sometimes and maybe they will learn, as I have, how to assess a scientific test. I'm no scientist, but I've learned to appreciate the method and the vital importance of test design.
Thanks Skeptico.

"Seralini 2012" may be gone, but sadly the damage has already been done, and the retraction will unfortunately fuel the conspiracy theorists.

The biggest downside of the retraction is that people won't get a chance to see how dismal the paper was to begin with. I vividly remember first reading it through—twice—and was incredulous that a known journal would have accepted this kind of propaganda. This paper would have been a great training tool for first-year college undergraduate biology or statistics students.

Personally, I would have preferred that the publisher left the paper up, but just superimposed a big scarlet letter R on each page, so that the shame could persist indefinitely.

Come to think of it, there are a couple of other similar papers that should also be in the hall of shame. Perhaps it's time for someone to gather the top ten GMO "smoking gun" papers in one place, so that they could be debunked together? This would have the added benefit that the common themes of bad experimental design and interpretation could be highlighted. (I'm curious what would be on other people's top-10 lists).

While there will always be activists trying to co-opt the peer-review system to create a veneer of legitimacy, the larger scandal was that the journal agreed to publish to begin with. As far as I know, the editor still has his job.

Like a bad penny:


Yes, and already some of my friends with a liberal slant and little science background are saying "see, I told you so." These are, by the way, the same folks who believe the "global warming is a hoax" crowd are deluded science deniers. What a strange world we live in.

would it be too impudent to ask where all the Monsanto studies are demonstrating the safety of GMO foods across generations, and across natural Eco-systems?

People have a reason to be suspect, unless you think somehow aspartame was legitimately scientifically tested before being approved for the human food chain.

Yes it would be impudent since I have already written on this site about the the 600 studies (and counting) in the GENERA database, that show the safety of GM foods. Or if you prefer, 126 with independent funding (although lack of independent funding doesn’t invalidate a study).

Ask an honest question: if anti-GMO experimenters are so sure of their conclusion, why would they not design a study that was based on sound scientific practices? Why would they not, in a study with 200 rats, have 100 controls and 100 experiment rats: 100 just fed on GMO food and 100 fed on non-GMO? Why do anti-GMO organizations only have discredited rigged studies? Come back when you have an answer to that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Search site