Talk:Séralini affair/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Retraction and Richard Goodman

Elsevier's potential conflict of interest in naming Richard Goodman to the Board of Editors should also be mentioned. Retraction seems like the best place to mention this. Conflict of interest is a powerful issue. See this, first page hit on Google Search: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/ Viridium (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article you cite is not reliable. btw Claire Robinson maintains that site, and GMO seralini. That site is an WP:SPS propogating an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on goodman and some "science" that is considered to be WP:FRINGE - like the idea that there are "electron microscope organisms" in GMOs.. Jytdog (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Also that source was discussed in the past and rejected by the community of editors - see here. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The two links presented below, one by Kingofaces43 and one by me, both mention Goodman. Kingofaces43's link involves Goodman in the early stages of the review. The one mentioned by me decries a possible conflict of interest, identifying Goodman. These are the core sources of information surrounding the retraction. Viridium (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

you need to actually respond to the arguments already made, if you want to change the consensus to not use the source. please stop repeating yourself. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that just as is true with anything we say in the article about seralini himself, anything that would be said about Goodman himself in the article needs to comply with WP:BLP, and claiming that he is a stooge of Monsanto, as the article you site does, violates that policy. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Goodman wasn't involved in the retraction so there isn't any conflict on interest to mention here:http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology-editor-in-chief,-a.-wallace-hayes,-publishes-response-to-letters-to-the-editorsKingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to get myself to buy that. If Elsevier puts someone with ties to agribusiness and biotech on its Editorial Board, that can be regarded as a conflict of interest. Furthermore, Hayes's public letter itself acknowledges Goodman's early involvement in the review.Viridium (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there some specific edit you're suggesting here? It sounds like you're speculating on larger topics at this point to me, so I'm not too sure where you're trying to go with this. Hayes indicated that Goodman was not a deciding factor in the retraction (that was Hayes' final decision alone). It doesn't seem there's anything to add as far as a supposed conflict of interest that doesn't stretch into WP:NOR territory. On a side note, focusing on conflict of interest can be a major red herring in scientific conversation. If something was done incorrectly (which is insinuated in a COI) then someone should be pointing out that actual error instead of beating around the bush.Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I also just realized that this source wasn't included in the article at all yet, but it clarifies the journal's reasoning for the retraction much better than previous letters. This was a good reminder to add it as a source.Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, Kingofaces43 that is a helpful source.Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this being linked to as an important source at the very core of the controversy. This will also alert those interested enough of the fact that Goodman's name was mentioned in this controversy, incidentally providing some measure of resolution to the issue starring in the talk section at hand. Viridium (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a response, from Séralini himself, to the retraction, including the aforementioned press release by Hayes. The two should go together, to allow readers to see the range of communication surrounding the retraction. Arguably, these two are at the core of the "where are we with the retraction?" question. http://www.criigen.org/user/site/lettertocope_seralinial_en_3101214.pdf Viridium (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

we are not playing tit for tat endlessly. retraction was done, response was made. done. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Information in Lead

"During the press conference, Séralini also announced that he was releasing a book and a documentary film on the research." This can be found in the second paragraph of the lead section. Could we discuss a bit how this is relevant to the Séralini affair? Is it intended to point out bias in Séralini? Viridium (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Jytdog perhaps? I'd rather not make an edit only to have it reverted.

"Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues." This sentence, present in the lead, is currently annotated with reference #4, which seems to be an opinion, more like a blog post or an e-mail than an official communication by the owning website. Does this qualify as a valid reference for "long-term studies"? It lacks references, so I can't really find those long term studies. A similar concern applies to reference #5. Is it customary to reference studies that must be paid for in order to access their contents? Again, I find it hard to ascertain what long term studies one might be talking about. Viridium (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, providing references to long term studies would be an elegant approach to discrediting a core inflammatory claim surrounding Séralini's long term study, chiefly that there are few or no long term studies around GM maize. Viridium (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts here? Viridium (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

On your first comment above, one of the most inflammatory things about all of this was indeed his using a press conference about a scientific publication to hype his conclusions, which he did even further by releasing the book and movie at the same event. This is wildly, wildly beyond the pale for scientific publishing and discourse. I actually want to have a lot more about how completely schlocky that move was with respect to science (and I am not even touching on the financial gain issues), but have restrained myself. No way is that content coming out. The guy made a circus of science. That is the Seralini Affair. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Heavily biased items to be removed again

This page uses weasel words in various contexts, like "widely criticized", "members of the scientific community [...] had concluded", and it furthermore fails to present the other side of the debate. This article is heavily biased against Séralini's paper, making one wonder who is behind its editing.

Furthermore, in the lead, there exists a paragraph claiming that Séralini enacted unusual embargo practices. We find a later reference to an article by Nature, which claims: "Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, and standard practice is to solicit independent assessments before the paper is published. The agreement for this paper, however, did not allow any disclosure and threatened a severe penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”" Unfortunately, there is nothing in this statement to support the claim that the embargo is unusual. Embargos by nature are meant to restrict disclosure. The paragraph is confusing and it provides no indication. It further lacks a trail to the named document or a corroboration from a third party.

As such, the aforementioned paragraph shall be once again removed. The justification that "long established consensus" exists is superseded by the rule regarding removal of content lacking references or content having questionable references. This latter rule applies regardless of prior consensus.

I have futhermore added a link to GMOSERALINI.ORG, the most important source of information for the other side of the argument. Please DO NOT remove this reference further. Without it, the article virtually lacks links to the evidence that the scientific consensus claimed against Séralini does not in fact exist.Viridium (talk 17:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that requiring journalist to sign confidentiality agreements is standard practice in scientific publishing, you are incorrect. This is different from embargoing. Please read the sources provided in the article on this issue, of which there are several. Additionally, GMOseralini is a self-published source (see WP:SPS) and is not independent of the issues, so is not reliable. I am not going to quibble about the "widely criticized." That is factual and the article makes it clear in plenty of other ways that there has been little to no acceptance of the original research in the mainstream scientific community.Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with reliably sourced, NPOV information as defined in Wikipedia. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a platform for WP:ADVOCACY. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the NDA, I have reached out to Professor Séralini to give him an opportunity to clarify this claim. I have asked that he provide supporting evidence to the contrary if he disagrees with the fact. I shall not touch that item pending response.

You link to WP:SPS to support your vote not to link to GMOseralini. Interestingly, WP:SPS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Acknowledged, one should exercise caution in so doing. GMOSeralini is such an expert source, and therefore is fair game for inclusion. Since it is a trove of counter-arguments in the debate, including public letters from various scientists, it is that much more relevant. Can you provide different reasons for why this reference should not be included, or otherwise provide additional clarifications? Barring that, I see no reason to support your vote. Viridium (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let this here paragraph confuse the remainder of our debate. You state that "there has been little to no acceptance of the original research in the mainstream scientific community." Again, this uses weasel words. What constitutes "the mainstream" scientific community? Do these folks qualify as "mainstream"? http://www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/ Has the article been peer-reviewed? Yes. Was the article published in a journal of toxicology? Yes. Has the article remained published for over a year? Yes. Does publicity of this article risk cutting into the revenues of Biotech companies? Has the article been retracted coinciding with the creation of a position for Editor on Biotech issues at that journal? Yes. These facts must be mentioned in the article *as prominently as the detractions*, otherwise we're only telling one side of the story. Viridium (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Seralini says. Confidentiality agreements are not common practice in scientific publishing and there are sufficient sources in the article that support this. GMOseralini is an SPS and is not independent; it is not reliable for anything other than reporting what seralini's supporters say - not for statements about reality. If you disagree then please bring that source to RSN and please provide notice that you have done that on this Talk page. With regard to what is "mainstream", the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe as food from conventional crops - the statement and its overwhelming sources appears in the genetically modified food controversies article and went through an RfC, which you can read here. Please leave statements like "Does publicity of this article risk cutting into the revenues of Biotech companies? " out of the conversation as they are not relevant to improving the article. With regard to correlation in time between Goodman joining the editorial board and the retraction of the paper; I am well aware that Seralini and his supporters make the claim that this correlation should be interpreted as causation; they have not brought any evidence that there is actually causation and any scientist (or other reasoning person) should know better than to fall for and propagate the fallacy that correlation means causation. There is no "story" there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Séralini is an expert in the subject matter, and consequently what he says in support of his published, peer-reviewed paper matters quite a bit. Please refer to Tendentious editing rules, as you are in breach of rules 2.10, 2.11, 2.14. Should my reference to Professor Séralini's website be removed again, we shall have to seek external arbitration. In its current form, this article is biased. Viridium (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Viridium. Look you are pretty inexperienced in editing and you are not addressing what I am saying. If editors disagree about a source, the next step is to take it to the 'reliable sources noticeboard' - arbitration only happens here after you have exhausted all efforts to really resolve the issue, and we are far from that. In any case, the text you added can stand as it statement of fact that seralini has responded, and gmoseralini can be used to support just that. Also you wrote that "seralini maintains" that site, but as far as i understand this is not true. Will you please show me where on gmoseralini it says that seralini per se maintains the site? Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reinstating the GMOSERALINI.ORG link, albeit in a different form than offered by me. Apparently, this site is not maintained by Séralini, which works in favor of this being linked, as it removes any objections by way of WP:SPS. Thank you for checking. Please be sure not to confuse inexperience with the process with inexperience in adding a reference or in adjusting a statement. Viridium (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the confusion as to whether GMOSERALINI.ORG is maintained by Séralini, please refer to your earlier statement in this thread, as it is you who first claimed that this is a self-published website, just as you were first invoking WP:SPS. Interesting that you should now prompt me to support my claim that Séralini maintains this website. :) Viridium (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GMOseralini is an WP:SPS. Sorry to ask, but did you read that link? I asked you to support your claim, since you added to the article was not accurate. I did go ahead and fix it. Jytdog (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Section on Reaction Missing

There is no section on the reaction to the retraction of the paper. This is another indication of bias in the maintainers of this page. We shall have such a section added in the following days, because where there is an ongoing debate Wikipedia must indicate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The retraction section mentions that Seralini and his supporters objected. Not sure what you are looking for. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If the Retraction event deserves a heading, then so does the Reaction event. If you think that Reaction does not deserve its own heading, I will be happy to hide Reaction under a different heading, giving it only a once over in a sentence. Viridium (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't agree; the reaction to the retraction belongs in the retraction section as it just simple action/reaction, not 2 separate events. You are making a preference/style argument, not one based on any policy or guideline, and need to persuade other editors to agree in order to obtain consensus for the change. I don't agree with your preference. Let's see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The retraction section covers the reaction adequately, and a new separate section on the reaction isn't needed. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can keep everything in one section, so long as we provide adequate coverage to the reaction. The GMOSERALINI.ORG website fits snuggly in that coverage. Currently, the reaction is not adequately covered. It is not mentioned anywhere that there exist scientists who disagree with the retraction and consider it a dangerous to the freedom of science. Jytdog, I believe your affiliation with biotechnology makes you a less than ideal editor for this page, due to an inherent bias. You should consider stepping down from editing this page further. You are presenting a clear bias here in rejecting a valid link. Editing undisputed facts about biotechnology is a better use of your time. Allow users who don't read only the pro-biotech literature to chime in here. Viridium (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Viridium Please use the Talk page to discuss content, not contributors. I invite you to discuss your concerns about me, on my Talk page. Thanks. Turning to content, please also read WP:NPOV (really, please do) - you keep asserting that both sides should get equal space, (or weight as we call it on Wikipedia) but that is not true. The mainstream view is clearly represented as such and gets the most weight, and minority views get less. That is carried out well in the Retraction section, which nonetheless already references both seralini's reaction and that of his supporters.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the absence of a section on Reaction is that the story told by the table of contents is incomplete. When readers learn of Séralini being challenged with a retraction, it is natural for them to ask "what was the person's response?". Without equal representation of the information that a strong reaction exists from Séralini and that he does have supporters with a similar reaction, the story remains incomplete. There exists a Responses section in the document. Why is this out of flow? Why does it not come after Retraction and at the same logical level? Viridium (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I will rename the section Retraction and response. Jytdog (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't link to gmoseralini.org. We're here to inform readers, not to mislead them or to promote WP:FRINGE sites. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We also can't be giving undue weight to Seralini's responses by giving equal him time per NPOV. The consensus is that his study was flawed, was retracted for those flaws, and until the study is republished and found to have been done correctly through peer-review (which would challenge consensus and bring it out of fringe territory to a degree), allowing open and unchecked responses like Seralini's would constitute WP:UNDUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, about linking to gmoseralini.org, it seems to me that it depends upon how we do it. I agree with some of the editors above that we should not cite it in support of statements of scientific fact, because it fails WP:RS for that purpose. But I think that it is a reliable source for what Séralini and his supporters think. Please take a look at this edit I made a few days ago: [1] (not worded there as well as it ought to be). That sentence subsequently was removed and replaced by using the website as an inline citation for a reply to criticism of the study, and then the cite was, correctly, removed for the reasons above. If, hypothetically, this page were a WP:BLP about Séralini, we would almost certainly link to "his" website as a matter of course. Wikipedia normally links to websites of the subjects of pages, even when the subjects say non-mainstream things. I tend to think that WP:NPOV actually points to having a link to that website, but saying in Wikipedia's voice only that it is the website for Séralini's positions. Would that be OK with other editors? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto. my preference is shown in this dif. I moved the content and refs from where they were (where Trypto's dif was) in the "Criticisms" section, to the "response to criticism" section where I think it belongs. The site is just there to say that S & supporters have responded to the criticism and that is all. Bobrayner you deleted it and Kingofaces43 you concurred... can we live with that? (V. I know you want to include the source, and then some, but we are just talking about citing the gmoseralini source at all right now) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If we can stick to what Tryptofish mentioned in only using the site a source for what Seralini has said, but not the validity of those statements, I think it's worth a shot. Another option could be to find another site that hosts Seralini's responses that is more neutral in the matter. That way we get out of the gray zone of calling a source legitimate in one area even though it's unreliable in others. I haven't found a more appropriate source as of yet, so just a thought in case anyone is looking through sources in the future and finds something better. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that approach, if possible - we should avoid sending readers to deceptive sites. However, if there's really no alternative... bobrayner (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

About the diff that Jytdog cites, I would be concerned about using the website as an inline citation to support any kind of statement of fact, other than the fact that the website represents the opinions of Séralini and his supporters. That diff uses the inline citation instead to support the fact that Séralini and his supporters make such-and-such an argument, and there's a difference, because the argument is a claim of scientific "fact", when that claim is rejected by the majority of sources. It's too subtle to imply that the citation only supports the existence of the claim, because it is likely to mislead readers into thinking that it supports the validity of the claim itself. But I have no strong opinion about what section of the page it should be in. Bobrayner raises a point that I take seriously, about sending readers to deceptive sites. But that argument can lead to problematic places: do we avoid linking to the official website of a political group, on the page about that group, because the group takes positions that are disputed by others? That's why what we say in Wikipedia's voice where the link is placed becomes so important. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I leave it in your able hands. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but you overrate me. I'm really not sure where within the page it should go, and I'd like to hear from other editors about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [2]. I suppose that's as good a place as any, and I tried to word it as discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

that's good! Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, on your note of political groups, etc. I think we're still in plenty fine ground because we're in a scientific topic. We would avoid linking to a specific political group in the topic if their position is disputed not by others, but specifically the scientific consensus. We could still say that, "Group X claims Y" if we want to document what they actually claim, but that statement would have to tempered with a contradictory statement that shows it is a fringe opinion. Now if you're on a political page I don't even want to think about how things should be handled since I'm a scientist and not a politician (and why I stick to science topics for simplicity).Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm a scientist by background, too. Early in my editing time, I got into pages about animals in research, including the groups that oppose that research. Therefore, I started seeing pages that linked to the websites of people who are in jail for attacking labs, and that alarmed me at first, for just those reasons. Anyway, here, I'm pretty confident that the edit I made about the gmo website is a good one, but feel free to improve upon or correct it. (By the way, the way to make that link to me blue is to put User: at the beginning.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been doing little edits for awhile, but I'm still picking up on the different formatting tags. As for your edit, I'd say it looks good. I was just commenting on the broader context of dealing with fringe opinions in science topics. It's good to have more folks with scientific backgrounds in these topics.Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the valid concerns raised by Tryptofish, but find the outcome a little suboptimal. We were concerned with not presenting supporter reactions as if constituting scientific opinion. But in the process we went to the other extreme: we bundled Séralini's response to the retraction with the reaction of its critics, and one must admit that they are in no way the same thing. So when we say that "Séralini and supporters defended the study design" and link to Séralini's response, we are diminishing the value of the response. Everyone can be a supporter, whereas the response linked to is an official response delivered to the retracting journal. (As an ancillary problem, the link itself is buried under a cryptic code. Why is the title itself not anchored? Typically, when a title is not anchored, it is because a link is not available. This arrangement can throw off users and cause them not to follow the link.) Yet another problem is that the statement "they maintain a website" presents the website as an all encompassing resource for the opinion of Séralini's support. GMOSeralini is but one of the resources for supporters, and should not be presented as some form of official response from Séralini. In light of the above, then, how about this diff: [3], which resolves Tryptofish's concern without bundling up Séralini's opinion and that of supporters. Viridium (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This too is an official response from Séralini, and I feel it should be mentioned alongside the response in the Journal of Toxicology. It's from the horse's mouth, so to speak: http://www.criigen.org/user/site/lettertocope_seralinial_en_3101214.pdf Viridium (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and I'm inclined to agree with you on both points. On the first point, I see that Jytdog reverted your edit. If my understanding is correct, your edit made a distinction: that some responses have come from Séralini and his supporters, whereas others have come from, more narrowly, Séralini and his research team. That makes sense to me. Jytdog, are there arguments to the contrary?

And, per WP:NPOV, I'm all in favor of citing that second response from Séralini. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

darn it i had put my response in the wrong place. Here it is again and at more length. Viridium is making this article about Seralini and it is not about him. It is about what Seralini did in releasing his paper the way he did (big press conference, huge pictures of rat tumors, confidentiality agreements, simultaneous announcement of book and movie) - all of it very ax-grindy and outside scientific norms. It is also ~somewhat~ about the validity of the conclusions he drew. He published what he published; the scientific community reacted. What Seralini himself has to say afterwards is not that important, nor are what people are going to inevitably say back to him, nor what he in turn says back to them, etc etc ad nauseum But there is zero reason to valorize or emphasize Seralini's subsequent responses - this is not about him. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, although in the future you would do well to think more carefully before using the edit summary that you used in reverting me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish I am very sorry for my edit note. Would that those were editable, I would strike it. I didn't leave my comment here and you were right that there was no response here. I'm sorry. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Republication

It would appear that the Séralini paper on GMO maize has been republished here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14 It seems like this next natural development in the controversy deserves its own section, probably aptly named "Republication". Viridium (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it went into a low impact factor journal (one I haven't heard of in the field yet either). Should be interesting to see how this one pans out. Either way, I'd probably hold off a little while on adding a new section until more information and response can be documented since the paper was just published today. I also took the courtesy of moving this section to the bottom of the talk page (see WP:TP). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the courtesy. The top placement was intentional, but based on a flawed assumption (that the other talk section had somehow been moved to the top rather than become the top one due to archival of older talks).Viridium (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"This study has now successfully passed three two rounds of rigorous peer review. First the paper was peer reviewed for its initial publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology, and according to the authors it passed with only minor revisions. The second review involved a non-transparent examination of Séralini’s raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing incorrect about the results, but argued that the tumour and mortality observations in the paper were inconclusive, and this justified his decision to retract the study." "Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by Environmental Sciences Europe."

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The above is copied from gmoseralini.com. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog's comment above notwithsatnding, the issue here is the quality of three two lots of peer review! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, could you elaborate on the quality of the peer reviews?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 13:49, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Roxy, please don't. Roxy's comment was forum-y and we shouldn't go down that road further. You guys can pursue this on your Talk pages or on a blog somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It caught my attention that most of IjonTichy's post is encased in quotation marks, and so it appears to come from somewhere off-wiki. I don't find the exact wording anywhere in the links within the post, so I tried Googling passages from it. It appears to come from the gmoseralini website, with some mirroring (dated later) in other sources, mostly blogs. That said, I think the past consensus at this page is that this material, presented on face value, fails WP:RS. What we are left with is the fact that the most recent journal, whatever its review processes, decided to republish the paper, and the page already reports that. If independent secondary sources comment further on the quality of the review processes, then that might be worth reporting, but I don't see anything we need to add now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Good work. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument that, before mentioning republication, we require additional blessing of the peer reviews. If the narrative of the article (as per its outline) saw it fit to call out the retraction event, rather than ignoring it in favor of a discussion on the quality of the peer reviews themselves, then why should its republication suffer a different treatment? To ignore republication now is to say a blunted story. This is the Séralini affair, where everything pertinent to it, including the publication and republication of the article, is relevant. Absent additional information about the quality of the peer reviews, this is not a reason to conceal the information on the republication. On the contrary, readers should be alerted to this event and allowed to do their own research. We are stating the relevant facts, not a subset thereof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 13:49, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

What is your point about content, Viridium? Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please restate your question? I'm not following it in its current form. Also, if you wish to support Roxy's claim that we must further validate the peer reviews prior to mentioning the republication, can you please provide arguments in support of this claim?Viridium (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

you are not reading. I said that Roxy's comment was off point - this is not a forum and your follow up question leads us even further off point. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My point was an aside and not pertinent to improving the article. Jytdog is correct re WP:NOTFORUM and I will not discuss it further. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My reading of Viridium's comments is that we need to include the republication on this page. But we do include it. I don't understand what, specifically, Viridium feels we are leaving out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog deleted the post on the basis of WP:COPYVIO, and I returned it but collapsed it, so I want to explain why. I think there are reasons in this discussion, where other editors have commented on it, that may place it within fair use, and I believe that the original website wants their content to be publicized, particularly because I saw that it was mirrored at numerous other websites. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Trypto. I hear you, but 1) It is copy/pasted from http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-science-speaks/ 2) That website says at the bottom "Copyright 2013 GMO Seralini | All Rights Reserved" . so... 3) There is zero question that it is copyrighted material (your note on the collapse says "may be copyrighted") 3) It is way too long for fair use 4) as for it being mirrored on other websites... in the course of my research into GMOs I found that anti-GMO blogs etc have no respect for copyright - they copy/paste things from each other all the time without attribution. WP is not like that as per the WP:COPYVIO policy, which says that we remove it. So would you please redelete this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I was just about to do as you requested, when it became a moot point. Thanks all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy for pete's sake would you please make a note on your post that you are quoting the gmoseralini website, with the citation? it is bad enough that you make no suggestion about content for the article but at least have the decency to attribute when you copy/paste. More importantly, please limit your contributions here to discussions of the content of the Seralini Affair article and the sources we are using. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I put the note there. There's no need for anyone to be annoyed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

it is great that you added the small note. but people need to be responsible for themselves.Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was doing a little reading and noticed the editor of the journal specifically said the study was published without peer-review, but rather that it was accepted based on it being the same as the original retracted study: http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463. I tried to add in to the article that the study was published without peer-review (while forgetting to actually type without), so thanks Tryptofish for catching that and expanding a bit more on it. My question is that publishing an article without peer-review and simply saying another journal's peer-review is a huge red flag. I originally didn't expand on the things Tryptofish added because it seems like statements like that from the editor need to be weighted in some fashion. I honestly wasn't sure how to tackle that part of the content because it's a very strange action by the editor and just by my gut reaction seems to be approaching WP:FRINGE in nature or other issues of that nature I can't specifically pin down at the moment within Wikipedia's standards. I'm not vehemently opposed to the text as is, but I'm just getting alarm bells that we need to be careful on how this is presented. There will probably be additional sources commenting on the lack of peer-review in the future, but are there Wikipedia standards we need to be wary of here at this current point? I can't quite put my finger on it, and maybe it's just the scientist part of my brain firing off more than the Wikipedia editor part, but does anyone else see issues with needing weight here (i.e. that this is not normal for a journal publication)? Probably nothing to be overly concerned about at this point in time, but I thought I'd toss it out there and see. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and also for noticing the information in the source, as it is certainly quite interesting. Speaking personally (as opposed to speaking as a Wikipedia editor), my reaction as someone trained in science was very much like yours. As far as "alarm bells", I guess the question is whether there are any problems with either WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. I don't think that there are. It would be a different story if we were to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that the lack of peer review was bad (or was anything else), but all I did was quote the journal editor. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions, but the journal editor surely has no problem with what he, himself, said. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it, WP:FRINGE probably came to mind because this is very non-typical behavior for a journal. From the guideline: "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation." With that in mind, is the editor's reasoning as written something that would require contextualization in order for us to present the editor's stance as written? If the answer is yes, we shouldn't be allowing readers to make open ended decisions there. However, I don't have a strong yes response to that question, but enough uncertainty to make me want to ask here. Again, probably something that's better to leave as is until we get new sources addressing the editor's choices, but I figured it was worth a check. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the quote as being misleading, and the controversy is much broader than the quote itself. I'd be uncomfortable contextualizing it in Wikipedia's voice, for the reasons I already said. In the source, the journal editor also says stuff about making the paper available for the future, as a reason to republish. I suppose we could add that as further context, but I'd have low enthusiasm for doing that, because it would tend towards "endorsement". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My thought was that simply having a quote without context can be a form of endorsement, so I wouldn't be comfortable with adding additional reasoning as well either. I think the best and simplest thing we can do for the time being is to leave the quote as you wrote it and wait for more information to come in. It'd be too easy to really muddy the waters otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes being proposed by 205.178.101.170

So 205.178.101.170 has been adding content to the article claiming that the affair is known as "Seralini vs Monsanto", claiming that the study was done "by the French government" and that the study "proved" that roundup and "artificial" corn are "toxic". None of these things are true or are documentable. Please stop edit warring and please discuss. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these edits, and I agree entirely with Jytdog with respect to the content. The edits made by 205 seem to me to be without substantiation in any reliable source material. By chance, the times that I have been logged in have meant that the edits by 205 have always been reverted by the time that I got here (reverted mostly by Jytdog, and once by Roxy). Jytdog, please let me point out in a friendly way that you, like 205, have been edit warring over it, and WP:There is no deadline. Lest you fall afoul of WP:3RR, please let me suggest that you stop reverting, and rest assured that I, Roxy, or someone else, will shortly take care of the revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Trytpo. I am aware that I am at the limit. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Come on 205.178.101.170 You just reverted again and have still not left a single edit note, nor responded here nor on your user Talk page. Please talk. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that a ping to an IP does not work. But talk page messages do, and I just added a formal warning about WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

tag re confidentiality agreements being normal

In this dif, Sminthopsis84 added a "clarification needed" tag with a note "had the paper been published before the press conference? If not, then confidentiality would be a normal requirement of both the authors and the publisher." I reverted. Sminthopsis, please actually read the sources provided in the article - especially the one from Nature and Carl Zimmer's comments. making journalists sign confidentiality agreements is absolutely not normal and science journalists who signed them were utterly irresponsible. If you don't know that coming into this, I suggest you slow down a lot. I understand you feel intensely about this but you need to read and respond to what the article and sources actually say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the most important aspect of this article?

I didn't think to add this in the section above when asking for others' opinions, and that discussion has now proceeded beyond where it would make sense to insert this. I think it is important to ask what is the most intriguing aspect of this affair, considered as an incident in the history of science. In my view, that is the allegation that the paper was retracted although there was no problem with the data. In science, data is gathered at huge cost, and is precious. If there is a problem with the analysis of the data, the article that presents the data isn't retracted, it is reanalyzed, usually by subsequent workers, who may or may not add more data. Science is about reaching consensus by testing and re-testing. If one study produces a result that others doubt, then more studies are done. Retracting papers is for cases of fraud. For that reason, I think that the authors' tale of what happened to their paper after it was published is an important part of the story. Unless what they say is proven to be untrue, then it is the most important part of the story. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:INDY. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd point out that the paper was retracted for an extremely poor study design and drawing improper conclusions from that data among other issues. Inconclusive findings are a reason to retract a study in some cases. There is a difference between having a study that has doubtful results that needs further research, and having a paper that should not have passed peer-review. This source outlined why the study was actually retracted pretty well. [4] Hopefully that gives a little background as to how things developed. To answer your question, the most important aspect of this article is documenting the controversy from a neutral point of view with reliable sources. That requires careful crafting of content and knowledge about WP:NPOV for a topic like this. The article is sitting pretty well in terms of NPOV at the moment as it does a pretty good job of properly weighting ideas from the Seralini side of things. Folks who are convinced his ideas were correct may not like that, but WP:VALID addresses that pretty well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Balance needed

The article currently says:

"The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, without further peer-review."

That version results from a revert with the edit summary "Appears as undue weight for Seralini; need to be mindful of WP:PROFRINGE. Could be worth discussing at talk to see what others think." The article previously said:

"The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, without further peer-review, accompanied by a commentary from the authors."

My opinion is that suppressing mention of the authors' response is not in line with WP:BALANCE. What do others think? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct in that balance is needed. We should remove the sentence mentioning republication from the lead, as it is undue, and properly covered in the body text. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the lead section is too long; about half that length would be good for readability, I think. The republication is a major component of the story, though, so I'd suggest that the sentence should be trimmed to "The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd point out that WP:BALANCE does not mean two opposing ideas, people, organizations, etc. get equal WP:WEIGHT. This is a problem a lot of editors have if they haven't edited in controversial subjects, especially dealing with science and with a viewpoint they are passionate about. Since we're dealing with a fringe view in terms of the scientific consensus, we need to be especially careful about giving a false balance (i.e., undue weight) to some statements by Seralini. WP:PROFRINGE covers my concerns pretty well, but the lede of WP:FRINGE covers a bit more, "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." At this point we have a commentary by Seralini, but we don't have an independent reliable secondary source stating whether those claims are valid or not (i.e., not way to assign weight). As has been mentioned before, try reviewing the archives of this talk page and reviewing the fringe guideline for how we handle issues like this. It's very common for proponents of fringe views to result to things like red herrings, conspiracy theories, etc., so we need to be especially careful assigning any weight if any when dealing with the fringe viewpoint. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between giving something equal weight, and completely omitting it as has been done here several times. So while you are correct that there is no need to present both sides as equally valid. completely omitting all accusations of censorship and conflict of interest accusations is in fact ironically enough the same type of censorship and conflict of interest activity !!!! Ironic in the extreme. In some ways by censoring the very accusation of censorship, it is censorship and proves the accusation correct right here at wiki.Redddbaron (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

again, please stop commenting on contributors. I'm not going to respond further with that going on. make your arguments about content, based on policies and guidelines, and i will be happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I could care less about contributors. I haven't even paid attention who did it. Content that should be on the page was removed. That's all that matters.Redddbaron (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

missing the point?

This page is about the Seralini affair. In other words the controversy and bad dealings, improper actions, conflict of interests etc... from both sides surrounding the Seralini et al study. Yet you guys removed this? Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO from the page? Seriously? I think you guys are missing the whole point and topic of the page and actually engaged in the "Conflicts of interests, and censorship" that is part of the Seralini affair. This page clearly has become part of that scandal. Everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and realise this is wikipedia, an online reference guide. Not a platform for POV pushing, and certainly not supposed to be engaging in the very same unscrupulous and unethical actions of a scandal that it references. This link needs put back..and actually probably needs discussed more in the article. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13Redddbaron (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

please comment on content, not contributor. the source you mention is from one of the participants and it is not reliable for anything other than for he-said-she-said-like content. Per the policy, WP:NPOV, particularly the section of NPOV on controversial subjects - Wikipedia stands with the scientific consensus and discusses things from that perspective. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of what I mean. A scientist who doesn't agree with the conclusions of Seralini et al the study, but has commentary on The Seralini affair which is not the same thing.

The republication of the Séralini study raises a number of important issues to do with the scientific process. It must be noted that the paper being published is identical to the first one, which was initially attacked on methodological bases.

The paper is being republished because the authors feel it was unfairly retracted from Food and Chemical Toxicology. I think that the problem here is the controversial nature of the original paper.

This was a publication that gave some interesting results, but that needed to be replicated with larger numbers of rats in the experiment and, perhaps, a more statistically robust analysis. The paper was, in my mind, inconclusive, but pointed a direction in which future research could go.

After much public discussion the paper was withdrawn by the journal against the wishes of the authors. This is unusual. Even more unusual is the notice of retraction that states that the study was inconclusive, but there was no flaw or fraud in the original paper. Inconclusive data is no reason to retract a peer-reviewed and published paper.

The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion. I am not convinced that the original paper indicates any danger of genetically modified food. I do think, however, that this research needs to be continued.

I am also convinced that retracting the original paper in this unusual way has not served the scientific process well. All good science is a debate, and one that should be held publicly in published journals. Only through open publication, replication and exchange of scientific data can we use science effectively.

Controversial studies should not be buried because of public argument. They should be investigated, repeated, and new data published to either disprove or support the original findings. Only then do we get a clear and robust argument.

Peter Dearden, associate professor and director of Genetics Otago, Laboratory for Evolution and Development at the University of Otago

This quote any many like it can be found in many secondary sources. Just pick one.Redddbaron (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

please cite specific sources so we can discuss them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/06/25/controversial-gm-study-republished-experts-respond/Redddbaron (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

blogs are generally not reliable sources. And believe me, zillions of blog sites commented on this controversy while it was going on and afterwards. There is no end to the tit for tat back and forth. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "blog", it is a media resource that does not take sides on the issue. It is both accurate and bias free.Redddbaron (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you are right on that. it is a useful roundup of opinion. i just read through that whole thing - it is basically a rehash of the 1st controversy. nobody changed their mind, but now there is more discussion of the controversy over the retraction. there is no need to rehash everyhing. i changed the last section accordingly. i think the quote that was stuck in there was a bit of piling on so i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Much better. See what you think of the change I just made.Redddbaron (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

massive copyvio. hell no. again there is no point in rehashing everything. there is nothing new in that site except criticism of the journals from every side imaginable. no new issues there. nothing new to write. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah..I actually agree. After I posted it I saw myself too much. What about this? I started where the quote refers to the republication..which is the topic of that section. Significantly shorter and more to the topicRedddbaron (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ok, let's step back. you are still pushing to get the original idea that you stated in your first post into the article. please stop. the seralini affair is primarily about a) the scandalous way the publication of the study was publicized and b) the unsupportable nature of its conclusions. the article focuses on those issues. everything else - his defense, the retraction by the journal and the criticism for that, and the republication and the criticism that followed that, is all a side show. do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely I see that part. How could I miss it. A whole page of it. But very little to no mention at all of the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest. One fairly level headed quote at the very bottom of the page that explains how this is harmful to the whole scientific process surely is warranted. I even started at "The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion." so it couldn't be taken out of context.Redddbaron (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

see that is where we have a problem. "the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest." is your POV, I get that. That is not the mainstream scientific perspective. Seralini acted scandalously and over-reached in his conclusions in the paper. The circus of a press conference where he publicized his irresponsible conclusions - where no journalist had the chance to review the work with other scientists and prepare questions, where he had huge pictures of rat tumors (although it was "not a cancer study"), and where he announced a book and a movie about his work, and all timed for the Calfornia referendum, was just a perversion of the scientific process. And yes he got a firestorm of criticism for that. Yes some of that was perhaps too harsh. Sure, some of the critics had financial interests. But it is the studies flaws that is the mainstream story. The focus of this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a referenced fact, not a POV, important people that were named had undisclosed conflicts of interest and were commenting or acting in this whole affair critical to Seralini. It is an ethical violation. The POV pushing for this article comes into play when all mention of it is excluded. I picked the absolute mildest citation about it I could possibly find. It barely mentions it and in the gentlest of manner and without any weighted language at all. Something very difficult to find in this highly charged issue. This is about content or lack there of. Cherry picking only one side and excluding anything that doesn't fit ones personal views is just as bad a way to POV push as piling on. The quote I gave comments on both the republishing and the commentary published at the same time. It is a fair assessment. It needs to be included. And if not the quote in a block quote, then what Dr.Peter Dearden said, but summarised and cited to him and others who also have that opinion. There are plenty more.Redddbaron (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

please provide a very reliable source that the mainstream response was primarily driven by COI. strong claims need strong evidence. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do I need a VERY reliable source when it is not an opinion but something anyone can easily check? For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430588?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn There is the criticism...... Here is the disclosure: Author information

1Departament de Medicina, Universitat de Lleida-Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain. Nothing about a COI mentioned. and here is one of the the COIs:http://www.google.com/patents/US6096523 Wayne Parrott is both a Co author and a patent holder with a fiscal COI. He has other COIs as well. and other coauthors have similar undisclosed COIs but this was easy enough to find by anyone fact checking Seralini commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 22:40, October 4, 2014‎

• This discussion has become a wall of text, but if I understand correctly, the main issue being discussed is the lengthy block quote from Dr. Dearden. It seems to me that he is discussing both sides of the coin, as it were, and as such, he isn't really expressing a clear position on the controversy so much as saying there were a lot of problems with the paper but it is good to have a discussion of those problems. I'm having trouble seeing what it would really add to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The context is, censorship. Seeing as how the original study was retracted and any unethical behavior by people with undisclosed COI's covered up. Of course Dearden takes the high road and instead of saying it is unethical to have been retracted...he states it is good the study was republished. It is more tactful than Seralini's commentary. Seeing as how it is more tactful, it is also more appropriate here.Redddbaron (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

i said this before but let me try again. redbaron you are making an extraordinary claim, that the scientific establishment came down on Seralini due to COI. You need a strong source to back that up. A very reliable source. Not some guy on his blog. Please put one up or drop this argument. (for instance, it is mainstream knowledge today that smoking is bad. But that was not true in say 1950. Real evidence began to build, and organization and after organization joined in, with the tide really turning with the Surgeon General's report in 1964, so that by the late 1960s the scientific consensus was very clear that the smoking was bad. (see [http://ash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/full-report.pdf this report, esp 19-22). The Surgeon General's report of 1964 was an extraordinary claim, made by very strong source, that the scientific consensus was changing. Very strong.. appropriate for an extraordiary claim. And people took it seriously. ) So - you are saying that the scientific community has just buried a valid study with valid conclusions. Please bring your very strong source. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not making that claim. Nor does the content I added make that claim. Not even does Seralini make that claim. Only an extremist would claim that COI problems from a couple dozen key people = scientific establishment. Even Seralini is careful to make specific well referenced claims about specific people. And Deardon doesn't even go that far, calling it "unusual" which is VERY diplomatic and tactful.Redddbaron (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

i am sorry but that makes no sense. the key thing here, as trypto wrote above, is that there is nothing new after the republication. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where Dearden uses the word "censorship". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states conclusions of the Study. Correction is needed.

I had replaced this line that has no citation to back it up:

In the paper and in the press conference, Séralini claimed that the results showed that Roundup-resistant maize and RoundUp are toxic.

with:

Séralini concluded that "long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations."

I included citation to he republished article for easy verfication. Jytdog reverted it here with the comment "quote from Seralini is UNDUE. please discuss on Talk. Thankss." I see no problem reducing the length of the Séralini quote or accurately paraphrasing it. The study clearly did not conclude as stated above that "Roundup-resistant maize and RoundUp are toxic," a claim that is often made that is both misleading and untrue. David Tornheim (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs of the conclusion:

"In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures (EPA). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural glyphosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to comparable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acids metabolites, or related compounds. Other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenerational studies will also provide novel insights into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of longterm deleterious effects arising from the consumption of a GM tolerant maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide.

Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and formulated pesticides must be evaluated very carefully by long term studies to measure their potential toxic effects."

The conclusion of the scientific paper is that GMOs Roundup-resistant maize and roundup are toxic. Based on that conclusion, Seralini proposed that longer studies must be done for all GMOs and pesticides. The first are scientific conclusions; the second is a policy recommendation he is repeating for the Nth time - he's been saying since before he started to his own studies; here he is leveraging his scientific conclusions to gain support for his proposal. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (amend to match article content and better match what I just quotedJytdog (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Looking at this again, I disagree. This portion quoted above did not say GMOs and Roundup are "toxic" in any general sense. That is an overstatement. The paper was very specific about what was observed: At the levels given to the specific rats (which, yes are known to develop tumors, just as the Monsanto study used), set "at concentrations well below officially set safety limits" that "longterm deleterious effects" were observed. The study acknowledged that this was the "first" study to show this for these levels and indicated that further long term study was required. To make the bold assertion that "Séralini claimed that the results showed that Roundup-resistant maize and RoundUp are toxic" is far too strong. Clearly the study says that further study is required to measure "potential toxic effects" (emphasis added), and hence this is not a FINAL or CONCLUSIVE claim that toxicity is certain. And that is exactly what other countries are doing in response to this study. So again, the language overstates Seralini's conclusions and this should be corrected in the Wiki article to reflect what the study actually says, not some exaggerated claim which possibly was reported in the sensationalist media. David Tornheim (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

David if you look at our article, every major regulatory agency said that this study did not change a thing for them. sorry i was a bit sloppy in my summary above, which i've amended. The content in article does reflect the conclusion of paper that Roundup-resistant maize and roundup are toxic and that seralini proposes/recommends that all GMOs and all pesticides be tested for longer terms..Jytdog (talk)

cn tag

Lfstevens as usual it is interesting to watch you comb over an article like this. took a lot of care in building it, and glad most of it has survived. About your cn tag after the first sentence serving as a WP:LEAD for the "Previous Séralini papers" subsection.... (namely "Prior to 2012, Séralini had published other peer-reviewed papers that found health risks to GM foods. However, some members of the scientific community and food safety authorities questioned whether Séralini's data were sufficient to support his conclusions.{{Cn|date = March 2015}}")

... that sentence summarizes well-sourced content in that subsection. Per WP:LEAD it doesn't need a citation, in my view. Alternatively, we do a refpile, pulling from what is already there. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reread and I think the tag can go. Done. Lfstevens (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

great. nice work, article is better now. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No evidence for "publicly opposed" to GM Food

The article incorrectly states here that CRIIGEN is "publicly opposed" to GM Food:

Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is publicly opposed to genetically modified food (GM food).

However, this statement is likely correct:

Séralini founded CRIIGEN because he judged that studies on GM food safety were inadequate, and questioned their acceptance.

The first sentence should be corrected to remove the text ", which is publicly opposed to genetically modified food (GM food)" because it is not accurate and none of three references provided support the conclusion. Please let me know if you are comfortable with my removal of that portion of the sentence. If not, please propose an alternative that is accurate.

References

CRIIGEN website: " Its role is at the same time to expose the inadequacies of our current assessment system – mainly in relation to public health – which makes it possible for dangerous products to continue to remain unjustifiably on the market. (emphases added) It doesn't get blacker/whiter than that - they publicly oppose GM food. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So then should the FDA be labelled as "opposed to food" and "opposed to drugs"? I would at least hope that the FDA would ask for further study of potentially "dangerous" food or drugs so they do not remain "unjustifiably on the market" (or be introduced to the market) before adequate testing was performed. So, no that statement does not show that the organization is opposed to GMO but instead supports further study (especially long-term study) before allowing certain products on the market.David Tornheim (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't follow you. CRIIGEN says currently marketed GM food is dangerous and unjustifiably on the market. Both the FDA and EFSA allow GM food on the market; they don't view it as dangerous and unjustifiably still on the market (if they saw it like CRIIGEN they would remove it; that's their job). Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

more importantly, their opposition to GM food is both clear and public. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, David. The second ref has this:

"The two-year, peer-reviewed study, allegedly the first to look at the long-term effects of genetically engineered corn on animals, was published today in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal. It was backed by the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRII-GEN), a French nonprofit known for its opposition to GM foods."[Emphasis added.] Lfstevens (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

but the third source should go. so ok, that's an improvement that came out of this. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

??? Lfstevens (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

here is the third source listed above - it doesn't even mention CRIIGEN; not sure how it got there. Does that answer your question about why I said it should go? Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I wish you had said so in the first place. Lfstevens (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens: I don't see how a reporter's claim that a group or individual is opposed to GMO's makes it true. That description is an opinion without any evidence, not a fact that is supported by evidence. If the reporter quoted Seralini saying he was opposed to GMO's, that would be different. But I have never seen a quote from Seralini saying anything like that. Everything I have seen written by him or about him says that he thinks that GMO's are insufficiently tested.

@David Tornheim: We don't assess truth as editors. We report what reliable sources say on the subject. Reporters are (generally) considered reliable. You need to find some other reliable source that says that CRIIGEN is not opposed to GMOs. I'd say it would be fine if they said "not opposed to those that have been sufficiently tested" or something like that. Lfstevens (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lfstevens: I just reviewed the essay WP:TRUTH, which is neither Policy nor Guideline. It says, "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth." Additionally, the essay says:

"but reliable sources are not infallible...."

• "Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: 'The hypno-toad is supreme' is more likely to be found than 'our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us.' It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral...."
• "It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately."
• "Reliable sources may express speculation, or a source for a significant view may include in it views that are not significant. In these cases, criteria other than those described in our policy on sources are necessary."
• "Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time..."

The problem is that the statement that Seralini is "opposed to GMO's" is just speculation and an opinion with no facts to support it, cherry-picked from an article about the study and response to it in relation to other studies regarding GMO safety (nothing about any opposition to GMO's in general), and that speculation appears to be wrong, and I have seen no facts to support that view as being more correct than that Seralini (and CRIIGEN) want more long-term testing before GMO's are put on the market. If you wanted to quote the reporter--who I do not believe is even an expert about GMO's or science--that might be a reasonable alternative, because it is an opinion, not a fact.

David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you don't knowingly write something that is false. But if it is reasonable and sourced, then I'd say it's not OR to put it in. If a better, countering source comes along, then that should rule. Given that Seralini is not a pol, it wouldn't be surprising that he hasn't expressed any balancing-style caveats. Lfstevens (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"CRIIGEN says currently marketed GM food is dangerous and unjustifiably on the market." I have not seen evidence for that claim--that does not sound right. They do say "potentially" dangerous food is on the market--a big difference. "Both the FDA and EFSA allow GM food on the market; they don't view it as dangerous and unjustifiably still on the market (if they saw it like CRIIGEN they would remove it; that's their job)." That's probably true. However, CRIIGEN and Seralini do not believe the the FDA and EFSA are doing their jobs. Jeffrey Smith and I imagine many other GM critics would agree. There's a big difference between having concerns about the testing and safety of a product and being opposed to the product. David Tornheim (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I only brought up the FDA because you did. CRIIGEN says that GM food is dangerous and unjustifiably on the market. That is safely paraphrased as "opposed to GM Food"... as the 2nd reliable source does, and as our article does. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not "safely" paraphrased, it is incorrectly paraphrased to come to a conclusion that is not in the original. If the Wiki article were to quote the CRIIGEN site about their concern about dangerous food being unjustifiably on the market, I would be okay with that. That is accurate and consistent with everything Seralini has said. David Tornheim (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

it is fully supported by source #2, which is reliable. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens's 07:49, 18 March 2015‎ Revision -- IMPROVEMENT but still lacks NPOV

Lfstevens: Thank you for the above revision. It is definitely an improvement to the article. However, it lacks NPOV, because it overemphasizes the criticism of the study by neglecting to mention that the Seralini study was specifically designed to be a long term version of the shorter 90-day study performed by Monsanto to justify the safety of the maize, and that the Monsanto study used the same number of rats and same kind of rats--clearly a double-standard. Both Seralini and the ENSSER make this very clear. This should both be in the lead and in the article body, rather than buried near the bottom of the article in a short phrase the ENSSER claimed double standards. David Tornheim (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please offer concrete changes with their sources so we can consider them per policy and guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

David, thanks for noticing. I'm just copyediting at the moment. Feel free to supply a reliable source with notable info. After I finish the ce, I'll look at it.

OK, done for now. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Lots of link work
• Removed lots of dup matl.
• I'd like to see more treatment of the specific criticisms of sample size and rat species. E.g., do other safety studies follow the 65-rat sample size rule and use other species?
• Entine refers to multi-generational studies. Discuss that in more detail here. The mentioned review is doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048
• Word count reduced from 3866 to 3381 (13%).

Lfstevens (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are already found in the article:

1. Statement opposing Retraction (Currently Footnote 93)

• First long-term study
• Found negative effects
• Retraction a backroom deal with undisclosed people
• Retraction violates scientific Norms
• Inconclusive findings is an unacceptable reason to retract a paper
• Misrepresentations that the study said the GM products/herbicide caused CANCER.

...This is temp version. I will continuing adding shortly.David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the stmt and at the letter that I think it was referring to. It isn't presenting science that validates the study. It does reject the retraction and gives reasons. It would be appropriate to review it to possibly expand the r&r section. Are you saying that you want to expand the material directly above that ref? Lfstevens (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

After I prepare a more thorough list, let's see where we stand, okay?David Tornheim (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

we have had plenty of fans of seralini come by and want to add more content defending the paper - please see the archives. the consensus has been that this is WP:UNDUE - the paper was resoundingly rejected by authorities worldwide and we do not do "fair and balanced" here. The couple of lines there, with its five sources, has been judged to be plenty. consensus may change, of course, but that is what it has been, and why. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we wait for David's reply before jumping on him as a "fan"? This article is the drill down on the controversy. I see no problem in adding detail on supporters' claims. They can be addressed. The sources are already refed in the piece. By your standard, why even acknowledge that Seralini has support beyond his group? It's all the same degree of invalid. Lfstevens (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

^Thank you. David Tornheim (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not UNDUE to acknowledge the objections exist; it is UNDUE and violates WP:GEVAL to go into detail on them. This article is not a vehicle for defense of Seralini nor to attack him (which is how his supporters view it). We give the the most weight to the mainstream view, and we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to the FRINGE view that the conclusions were valid. Please do review the archives. We have had this conversation many, many times. People who believe Jeffery Smith also think that Seralini's paper was valid and seek to redeem the paper by including exactly this content; the two POVs go hand in hand. and they get all outraged and write in all caps that the article fails NPOV. The content they want and the behavior is not new. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Checked out geval. Given that this article is about the controversy, rather than NK603 per se, I don't see how including details is undue, especially given that I was planning to include FCT's counters. I am not a Smith or Seralini supporter (although I note that Smith is already cited as a ref in the article for some reason.) I'm not trying to resurrect the paper, merely to describe what happened in full. Lfstevens (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

although some people think otherwise, nothing in this article suppresses the anti-GMO voice. The Smith reference is there and is reliable only for what Smith said; not for a claim about reality. This article is about the scandal seralini caused with his paper, and especially the PR campaign when he released it (which in my view, should be much higher in the article - it is the heart of the affair). we provide the background to that event, and the reaction of the world to it. We give a couple of lines to the reaction to the reaction, but that is (in my view) all it the WEIGHT we should give it - he made the first move - a big bold one - and set up what followed. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The truth finally seems to have got its boots on...

A series of commentaries on the Séralini affair [5]. Seems the study is every bit as shoddy as it always appeared. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Jon Entine and his Genetic Literacy Project is WP:RS and WP:NPOV with regard to GMO issues? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a different study. The conflict of interest allegation is notable, but this is at the least a different chapter in the drama. Also, Entine is not a scientist. He can report on science, like any journalist, but that's different. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Objection -- article lacks NPOV

I object to this revert. I was attempting to include the recently published review journal article, organize the article to make sense and to have the content of the body reflected in the lede. The lede focuses almost entirely on discrediting the author despite the support for the author found in the article and in the recent review study. Please work towards consensus rather than simply reverting my efforts to improve and balance the article to make in WP:NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to adjust for WP:WEIGHT; we have high quality sources such as EFSA which says the study is not adequate or good. One review, published in the same low quality, low impact, non-MEDLINE indexed journal that republished the original study does not significantly shift the overall weight of the high quality sources' conclusions. Review WP:GEVAL. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim I agree with you that this Wikipedia article has developed with an odd focus that makes it difficult to understand the basics of the "affair". If you propose changes in smaller steps then I would comment on them. It is more difficult to judge sets of changes than individual ones. Some of the changes you might like to make might not be questioned at all, then others might give pause. Thanks for giving attention to this. I would like to see the article improved.

Yobol I agree with what you are saying but in the changes that David presented, the source cited seems to be covering the issue from a social perspective and not a scientific one, so high quality scientific sources are less relevant for what is being proposed. I am ready to discuss more if this user wants to propose something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree regarding the specific source in question, though the other changes including addition to the lead are not improvements in my opinion. I have reintroduced that material with specific in text attribution (rather than "scientists") and hopefully better summary. Yobol (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobol is apparently edit warring over his POV. I warned the user on his talk page. The user removed long standing content from the page. prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You do not understand WP:NPOV. We do not do "fair and balanced" here - "fair and balanced" violates WP:NPOV. See WP:GEVAL. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog this is not your article, you keep behaving like WP:OWN, and WP:HOUND, also strangely you begin deleting content which has been part of the article for month, and the addition discussed here.prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral view points The Steps Centre has a good article, which highlights some of the issues regarding this article - FOR OR AGAINST GM CROPS? OTHER POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE prokaryotes (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutrality is obtained by review all high quality sources and appropriately WP:WEIGHTing them according to prominence and quality of the sources, not by declaring a source neutral ahead of time and insisting that everyone agree to that source's conclusion. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases

A request for an Arbcom [6] case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions [7] have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)