Assessment Topic: Current Perspective in Bioscience Student

Assessment
Topic: Current Perspective in Bioscience
Student Name:
Student ID:
Scientific Background

Current Perspective in Bioscience 2
The toxicity and adverse health effects of round up tolerant genetically modified maize over
the rats was studied for two years. The impact was that in all the female rats and 3 male
groups of rats, all the treated groups had died 2-3 times greater and faster than the control
groups. The results were all sex and hormone dependent. Females developed tumors,
pituitary gland was diabled, the balance of seex hormones was disturbed and liver
congestionas and necrosis was common in these groups. There were significant endocrine
disrupting effect of the round up herbicide. Also the chronic diet intoxication and
overexpression of transgene in GMO resulted in adverse metabolic consequences on the rats
possibly due to pesticide residues in GM feed.
In 2012, this article was published in Journal “Food and Chemical Toxicology” and had
claimed that the rats used in the research were fed over roundup resistant genetically
modified maize, GM maize having round up for a period of two years (Resnik, 2015). The
rats got high number of tumors, liver and kidney damage than the controls. This study was
severly criticised by several scientists and researchers for flaws and unethical practice. In
2014, January month the jurnal retracted the article without getting author’s consent giving
the erason that the study was non conclusive. In 2014, June month the Environmental
Sciences Europe republished the article in modified form (Resnik, 2015). This incident of
publication, retraction and republication of Seralini Study initiated many ethical and scientific
concerns about the editors of the journals.
The decisions about retraction of any article need to be taken on the grounds of authentic
policies. Retraction should be done only for the serious issues which diminish the reliability
of results or data or for unethical practices like mistreatment of subjects, animals or human
beings and misconduct in research. Just indecisiveness and inconclusiveness does not provide
sufficient grounds for the article for retraction. A defective study design can ofcourse be one
reason for that. There should be appropriate standards for each published article to qualify for
republication. They should undergo scientific review to ensure that. The republished articles
need to be associetd to the retracted original publications. The journals reviewing the
published articles for their social and scientific implications must ensure a fair and rigrous
peer review.
The article was dismissed by the scientific community and a more intense peer review
process was demanded in scientific journals. The conclusions of teh article were unjustifiable.
The rats used in the study had the lifespan of just two years and the strain had high risk of
developing tumors or cancer. It is natural for this tsrain that with increasing age, they were

Current Perspective in Bioscience 3
more vulnerable to get cancerous tumors. The study just involved the normal lifespan of these
rats depicting them as treated rats. The study had only 10 rats in each group under
experimental observation. According to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the chemotoxicity studies should include 20 rats at a minimum. In
cases where the survival rate is lower than 50% in 104 weeks, the groups must include 65 rats
atleast. The inclusion of only 10 rats was against these recommendations. There was
considerable lack of data about the food provided to the rats and their growth pattern.
Public Science Communication
Since the article was first published in the original journal, it was evaluated by the researchers
, scientists and the regulatory authorities as having unsubstantial findings and flawed design.
The primary citicism was identified that thestudy involved very few number of rats in each of
its part which is not adequate to provide statistically appropriate data. The rat strain used in
the study was Sprague Dawley. This strain is known to develop high number of tumors
during the lifespan. The publication of the article attracted lot of criticism about the validity
of data interpretations and results thereafter. Seralini conducted a press conference for the
publication of the article. During the conference, Seralini circulated the photographs of the
rats having big tumors and associated the results of the study to have analytical implications
on cancer research. The content was greatly circulated worldwide through the media.
According to French Society of Toxicologic Pathology, these large tumors are naturally
found in rats of older age. So, the images of the older rats shown in the study as treated rats
without any photographs of control rats, was questioned by the society. It was termed as
misleading. A book and documentary about this study was also released at the press
conference by Seralini. In 2013, the article was retracted and later on republished by another
journal. This process communicated and publicized the article to the general people.
Generally, there are interdisciplinary and international science journals like ‘Science
Communication’ and ‘Communication Research’ which evaluate and examine the content for
the expertise of articles and communicate them to the public and among other professionals
(Nguyen, 2017). They facilitate communication within the research community, provides
technical and scientific knowledge about the article to the public, and ensure that the content
is in compliance with the Policy for Science Communication. They allow publication and
release of peer reviewed articles for the researchers and the science community.