Last week, a reader posted a critical comment on an article I wrote that explained why, in my opinion, we as consumers should be concerned about genetically modified organisms GMOs entering our food supply.
Under a Creative Commons license open access This article has been retracted: This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article.
The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public Gmo paper regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings.
Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper.
The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process. Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.
However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.
The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence.
Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague—Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups. Ultimately, the results presented while not incorrect are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.
The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work.
The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers.
Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog. The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog.
The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper. The editorial board will continue to use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer review process. Previous article in issue.Mark Lynas – Speech to the Oxford Farming Conference ; Oxitec expands production of GMO mosquito; Experts find climate-skeptic and anti-GMO studies are scientifically flawed.
We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) became a hot topic in when the people of California had the chance to vote on Proposition 37 in November.
Essay about animals endangered in the last peer review descriptive essay. word essay page count parkside dissertation chaos research paper umhs st kitts admissions essay flash of genius essay essay on kite runner dissertation thomas glotzbach and company. Sep 26, · I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters.
Then I started paying attention to how anti. Last week, a reader posted a critical comment on an article I wrote that explained why, in my opinion, we as consumers should be concerned about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entering our food supply.. Here’s some of what he had to say: “Despite all the assertions and hype, the author cites not a single reference to a .