The debate over the retraction of a highly controversial paper by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini on the effects of GMOs on rats continues unabated. Adriane Fugh-Berman and Thomas Sherman wrote on the Hastings Center website that “the process by which his paper was retracted reeks of industry pressure.”
But in an editorial published online, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) editor-in-chief A. Wallace Hayes defends the retraction, and responds to criticisms of how the paper was handled. Retraction Watch’s Ivan Oransky walks through Hayes’s piece, and outlines what we’ve learned from the authors of the now-retracted study and whether Hayes handled the retraction decision appropriately.
Now, we’re all for editors doing what they think is best for a given paper. If Hayes had come out and said, “look, we made a mistake accepting this one, it’s just an awful study, we have to retract it,” that would have been unusual, too, and have prompted vigorous debate. But claiming COPE guidelines somehow support the decision doesn’t seem valid.
Read the full, original article: Journal editor defends retraction of GMO-rats study while authors reveal some of paper’s history
- GMO ‘He Said/She Said’? Ethics debate intensifies over retraction of flawed Séralini rat study, Genetic Literacy Project
- Lessons learned from the Séralini affair, Vancouver Sun
- Analysis of Séralini data shows why the botched GMO rat study was retracted, Pharyngula