I am appalled by efforts to force withdrawal of the recent report by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. in Food and Chemical Toxicology. Critics of the report should present their case in the normal way of science, by published argument and debate, not by trying to exercise censorship or the moral equivalent of book burning.
Donald R. Davis, PhD, retired research scientist, Biochemical Institute, University of Texas, USA
I wholeheartedly agree. As my Ph.D. advisor once said, “Things stay in press a long time”. This paper has tremendous flaws and biases. In my basic classes I show Figure 3, the rat tumor figure. It is a perfect example of missing controls and trying to steer the non-critical reader. The work should stand firmly as a testament to the potential failure of the peer-review process and a reminder that scientific claims should always be viewed skeptically. It also provides a benchmark for when experiments are not ever independently reproduced and we can cite the ancient dead-end studies in lower-impact journals. This is also an important function of the scientific literature.
Kevin M. Folta, Interim Chair and Associate Professor, Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida USA