Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):621-633 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors’ consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks.Charisse R. Madlock-Brown & David Eichmann - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):127-137.
Responsible conduct in research.P. J. D. Drenth - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):13-21.
Empirical developments in retraction.B. K. Redman, H. N. Yarandi & J. F. Merz - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):807-809.
Science and the consequences of mistruct: Lessons from recent GM controversies. [REVIEW]Dane Scott - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (6):569-582.
How to judge scientific research articles.Hennie Lotter - 2000 - South African Journal for Language Teaching 34.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-25

Downloads
19 (#682,951)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem.David B. Resnik & Kevin C. Elliott - 2023 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 54 (2):259-286.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Environmental Health Ethics.David B. Resnik - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.

Add more references