“转基因致癌”论文重新发表
2014/06/25
去年,被《食品和化学毒物学》杂志撤稿的一篇认为转基因玉米与大鼠患癌存在关联的论文今日重新发表。该研究的主要作者、法国卡昂大学生物学家Gilles-Eric Séralini将该论文发表在Springer旗下的一个开放杂志Environmental Sciences Europe上。


正当生物农业技术公司、转基因种子生产商孟山都在瑞士向另一巨头公司先正达抛出橄榄枝时,去年,被《食品和化学毒物学》杂志撤稿的一篇认为转基因玉米与大鼠患癌存在关联的论文今日重新发表。该研究的主要作者、法国卡昂大学生物学家Gilles-Eric Séralini将该论文发表在Springer旗下的一个开放杂志Environmental Sciences Europe上。

在今天的新闻发布会上,论文的第一作者Seralini称,有4本杂志向该论文投来橄榄枝,但是他最后还是选择了开放杂志Environmental Sciences Europe,因为它可向所有的科研群体展示其研究结果。

这是一篇经过同行评审的研究论文,相比较2012年发表的论文,作者对原论文稍作修改。

与本研究一同发表的还有一篇评论文章,论文的4个作者(包括Seralini)称,他们是论文审查制度的受害者,并称此前论文的撤稿“存在严重的,尚未披露的利益”。


发表在开放杂志Environmental Sciences Europe上的论文

论文作者还把这篇论文的原始数据发表出来,并称这样做是为转基因公司树立一个良好的典范。

Séralini称,这项研究符合国际毒理研究标准,而孟山都和其他的转基因公司在这方面并未公开相关的毒理数据。

“并非只有一项研究显示杀虫剂Roundup对小鼠的血液有长期的作用,” Séralini说,“从科学意义上来说,这太不正常了”。

事实上,2012年这篇“转基因致癌”的论文,一经发表,立即引起了强烈的舆论风暴。去年,爱思唯尔顶着巨大压力,将该论文撤稿。2013年11月28日,爱思唯尔公司在一份声明中宣布,该研究“呈现的结果(虽然不是错误的)是不确定的,因此达不到《食品和化学毒物学》杂志发表的门槛”,论文数据不足以支持其结论,因此决定撤除这篇论文。

尽管该研究结果令很多人质疑,但是爱思维尔在撤稿时,尚未给予充分的理由也饱受批评。

相关阅读

Nature: 转基因玉米致癌论文被撤稿

“转基因致癌”论文作者猛烈抨击撤稿决定

查看更多
  • Paper claiming GM link with tumours re-published

    A controversial paper linking genetically modified maize to the development of tumours in rats, which was published in 2012 and retracted in 2013, has now been published again, by a different journal. Four other journals offered to publish the paper, lead author Gilles-Eric Séralini told a press conference in Paris today. But, he said, he and his team chose SpringerOpen’s journal Environmental Sciences Europe because it is open-access and would make the study’s findings available to the whole scientific community. The paper that went online today1 after peer review, was slightly amended from the original. Four of the authors, including Séralini himself, also wrote an accompanying comment piece2 in which they allege that they had been the victims of censorship and that that their critics had “serious yet undisclosed conflicts of interests”.

    展开 收起
  • Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

    The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.

    展开 收起
  • Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO

    We have studied the long-term toxicity of a Roundup-tolerant GM maize (NK603) and a whole Roundup pesticide formulation at environmentally relevant levels from 0.1 ppb. Our study was first published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) on 19 September, 2012. The first wave of criticisms arrived within a week, mostly from plant biologists without experience in toxicology. We answered all these criticisms. The debate then encompassed scientific arguments and a wave of ad hominem and potentially libellous comments appeared in different journals by authors having serious yet undisclosed conflicts of interests. At the same time, FCT acquired as its new assistant editor for biotechnology a former employee of Monsanto after he sent a letter to FCT to complain about our study. This is in particular why FCT asked for a post-hoc analysis of our raw data. On 19 November, 2013, the editor-in-chief requested the retraction of our study while recognizing that the data were not incorrect and that there was no misconduct and no fraud or intentional misinterpretation in our complete raw data - an unusual or even unprecedented action in scientific publishing. The editor argued that no conclusions could be drawn because we studied 10 rats per group over 2 years, because they were Sprague Dawley rats, and because the data were inconclusive on cancer. Yet this was known at the time of submission of our study. Our study was however never attended to be a carcinogenicity study. We never used the word ‘cancer’ in our paper. The present opinion is a summary of the debate resulting in this retraction, as it is a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide. We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science; thus, we republish our paper.

    展开 收起
发表评论 我在frontend\modules\comment\widgets\views\文件夹下面 test