Journal Retraction of Sralini GMO-Cancer Study Is Illicit, Unscientific, and UnethicalGMWatch Reporter GMWatch believes FCTs retraction of Prof Sralinis paper to be illicit, unscientific, and unethical. It violates the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),[2] of which FCT is a member.[3] COPE guidelines state that the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are: Prof Sralinis paper does not meet any of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter informing Prof Sralini of his decision [link here], Hayes concedes that an examination of Prof Sralinis raw data showed no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data and nothing incorrect about the data. Hayes states that the retraction is solely based on the inconclusive nature of the findings on tumours and mortality, given the relatively low number of rats used and the choice of rat strain, which Hayes says naturally has a high incidence of tumours. Crucially, however, inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction. Numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any uncertainties. The criticisms of the low number of rats and choice of rat strain have been addressed by Prof Sralinis team in a comprehensive response to critics that was published in FCT,[5] as well as by independent scientists writing in support of the study.[6] Experts in statistics writing in support of the study have pointed out that large numbers of animals are only required in safety studies to avoid false negative error, where a toxic effect exists but is missed because too few animals are used. In the case of Sralinis study, this was not an issue. The toxic effects of the test substances were so pronounced (there was a large effect size) that smaller numbers of animals were sufficient for statistical significance.[7,8,9] Regarding the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat that was used, all strains of rodents develop spontaneous tumours with age, as do humans. The fact that there is a low level of spontaneous tumour occurrence in the control group in Sralinis study mimics the human condition. For this and other reasons, most toxicology studies use this strain of rat. Hayes fails to address these responses and arguments in support of the study, raising questions about the expertise, balance, and objectivity of his anonymous review panel. In addition, the legitimate peer reviewers had previously considered these aspects of Sralinis study and nevertheless decided that the work still had merit and should be published. In a highly irregular process, Hayes now contradicts the outcome of the peer review and editorial process and decides to retract the paper over a year after it was published. His decision is not made on the basis of new data, but on a secret and non-transparent review by unnamed persons, who evidently do not feel able to stand behind their decision publicly or disclose any conflicts of interest they may have. Hayes decision will tarnish the reputation of FCT and will increase public mistrust of science in general and genetically modified foods inparticular. The Goodman factor Hayes decision to retract the paper follows FCTs appointment of Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto scientist and an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute, to the specially created post of associate editor for biotechnology at the journal, early this year.[10] Goodmans appointment in turn followed an orchestrated campaign by GMO supporters to persuade FCT to retract the study. Some critics even accused Prof Sralini of fraud, without presenting any evidence. Many of the critics had undeclared conflicts of interest with the GMO industry.[11] After Goodman was installed, FCT withdrew a separate study by Brazilian researchers that also raised questions about GM crop safety. The study showed that Bt insecticidal toxins similar to those engineered into GM Bt crops were not broken down in digestion, as is claimed by the industry and regulators, but had toxic effects on the blood of mice. The Brazilian paper, like Prof Sralinis, had been peer-reviewed and published by FCT prior to Goodmans arrival. After Goodmans arrival, the paper was withdrawn without explanation from FCT[12] only to be immediately published in another journal.[13] There is no proof that Goodman was responsible for the retraction of Prof Sralinis study. But his appointment, coming so soon after the Sralini affair, along with FCTs failure to list the interests of its editors, raises questions about corporate influence on the editorial board at the journal. Contact: Claire Robinson,claire@clairejr.com; +44 (0)752 753 6923 This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health. 